Modern Architecture at Its Worst


Recommended Posts

There is no such extant as "bad" weather.

Weather is.

Some folks love ice and snow.

Others love pouring rain.

Some folks love oceans of sand and 130 degree heat.

That's what feet, cars, trains and planes type stuff exists.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In case you haven't noticed, "modern" architecture since the days of Frank Lloyd Wright and his fictional counterpart Howard Roark, has entered a long decline of sterile, fabricated sameness.

Personally, I think Wright created some works that were uglier:

Ennis_House_front_view_2005.jpg

ennis2.jpg

German-IMG_10014-1200.jpg

Hollyhock_House.JPG

There was far more innovation and diffentiation in the traditionalism that Roark was rebelling against than there is in the average city skyline today.

panama-city-skylines-2.jpg

I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.

J

Then never mind the picture. I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures. The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.

The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.

The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.

Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.

I disagree, and on many levels.

Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.

Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid

Gehry

lght-img02_0.jpg?itok=aqRcJpts

Calatrava

Santiago-Calatrava-The-GROUND-Ciudad-de-

Hadid

1347634768-1055-hb-set2-32-1000x791.jpg

No useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what?

Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid

Gehry

lght-img02_0.jpg?itok=aqRcJpts

Calatrava

Santiago-Calatrava-The-GROUND-Ciudad-de-

Hadid

1347634768-1055-hb-set2-32-1000x791.jpg

No useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what?

Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation.

Are you pretending to be an expert on architecture now, Pup?

You've never visited the buildings of the architects that I listed, nor have you studied them or the usefulness of their spaces. You're talking out of your ass. As usual, you're posing.

Btw, if you'd like to see architecture that isn't "scaled to man's size or needs," you should visit Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings. There's a reason that photos of Wright's work are usually shots with wide lenses and from heights much lower than eye level: his buildings are under-scaled; they're very pretty when photographed properly, but they're known for not being easy to live in in reality.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about Wright, or me, or anything else except flamboyant waste of space that's unfit for any practical purpose.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're making shit up, or believing nonsense that you read online.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.

The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.

That has not stopped me from loving 70 Pine St. (1932), 40 Wall St. (1930), the GE Building (1933), or the Woolworth Building, among many others in New York.

The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.

I guess it's a matter of taste. Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.

ATT.jpg

Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:

dezeen_Ocean-Avenue-Project-by-Frank-Geh

Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.

I disagree, and on many levels.

Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.

Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.

J

I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.

San_Francisco-6138And8more.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've visited most of America's 20 largest cities in the past ten years, and I don't see much individuality or originality among the largest structures.

The largest structures -- towers -- have never been very conducive to artistic expression.

That has not stopped me from loving 70 Pine St. (1932), 40 Wall St. (1930), the GE Building (1933), or the Woolworth Building, among many others in New York.

The early 20th century gave us an exciting and necessary design revolution. But since World War II we've been in a holding pattern. I realize there are some important exceptions, as shown by contributors above, but the look of the average residence and workplace has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

Exciting new designs happen all the time, but, as has always been true, most residences and workplaces will not be much different from all other residences and workplaces. And contrary to what you say, postmodern architecture has been very innovative. Today's architects are creating structures that Wright would not have thought possible.

I guess it's a matter of taste. Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.

ATT.jpg

Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:

dezeen_Ocean-Avenue-Project-by-Frank-Geh

Not everything in Wright's portfolio was a work of art. But he offered a boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose that is for the most part gone today.

I disagree, and on many levels.

Wright talked a lot about respect for place and purpose, but the talk didn't always translate into reality. The Guggenheim being one glaring example. He was easily talked out of his original "low, crawling vision" by his client, and then he arbitrarily resurrected a Tower of Babel concept that had nothing to do with anything. The building isn't well suited to its purpose or site, but it's nevertheless a great work of art to a hell of a lot of people.

Contrary to your opinion, boldness, freshness and respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid, etc.

J

I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.

San_Francisco-6138And8more.jpg

Not bad. And it has curves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid

Gehry

lght-img02_0.jpg?itok=aqRcJpts

Calatrava

Santiago-Calatrava-The-GROUND-Ciudad-de-

Hadid

1347634768-1055-hb-set2-32-1000x791.jpg

No useful interior space, not scaled to man's size or needs, no control of the sun, sky-high budgets for what?

Cartoon architecture. Joke architecture. Monumental masturbation.

The item marked Gehry looks like it has been visited by a wrecking ball

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised in snow and ice, long dark winters, wind-whipped thunderstorms, hail and tornado.

Sunshine was pickled in Mason jars and poured out once a year on the 4th of July to grow mosquitos.

After a while Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon looked pretty groovy in sunglasses, and then...

77 Sunset Strip was an epiphany. They had convertibles! :blink:

tbird196177sunsetstrip.jpg

God bless episodic television. Life without galoshes was possible.

The most beautiful Ford ever made--the 1963 Thunderbird convertible.

--Brant

The 1960s Lincolns were great lookers too--at least until 1967--mechanically better than Chrysler worse than GM, any car in the mid 1960s started falling apart before 100,000 miles, but that '63 is the only convertible I could drive with the top down, being a social metaphysician and all (and afraid of skin cancer), for only an idiot would be looking at me instead of the car

that show had a great intro theme tune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I visited Wright's Fallingwater in 1973. Great job. I suspect, since it hit the cover of Time as an architect's pre-construction rendition, it inspired the abandoned house the hero of Anthem and his mate retreated to end of story.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of taste.

Indeed, it's a matter of taste.

Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.

Generally, people don't like the new, especially in architecture. They seem to need a lot of time to adjust. Psychologically, people seem to need architecture to be their sturdy connection to the past and to the concept of endurance and stability.

Future generations will be puzzled to hear today's judgments of postmodern architecture, in the same way that critics of Wright's time now sound silly and panicked (they thought that his work was "extremely ugly...a monster of awkwardness," "stark, unmodelled...rude, incomplete, unfinished," and merely an "interesting experiment...without grace or ease...at times even bizarre." )

Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:

His designs are influencing a lot of downtown America. Other architects borrow from him. They're a bit more conservative, but they are being influenced by him.

I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.

Great! I'm glad to hear that you don't let dedication to an architectural theory stand in your way of loving architecture which doesn't fit the theory.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to judge a building is to imagine something else in its place. Another whether it is interesting. Ugly is interesting. I think more about ugly than beautiful. Maybe because if I were an architect ugly would be easier to come up with--and to get praise from Toohey. (Praise from Toohey would be intellectual fun--fun because what he says only has to do with what's in his mind, not on the ground. Rand had the most fun with that guy in that novel. Damn good that way in the movie too as a sophisticated rendition of villian mustache twirling.)

--Brant

what I hate is sameness and overbearing, intimidating, concrete bulk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you haven't noticed, "modern" architecture since the days of Frank Lloyd Wright and his fictional counterpart Howard Roark, has entered a long decline of sterile, fabricated sameness.

Personally, I think Wright created some works that were uglier:

Ennis_House_front_view_2005.jpg

ennis2.jpg

German-IMG_10014-1200.jpg

Hollyhock_House.JPG

There was far more innovation and diffentiation in the traditionalism that Roark was rebelling against than there is in the average city skyline today.

panama-city-skylines-2.jpg

I don't think that that image represents what the "average city skyline" looks like.

J

Unfortunately Wright's work took a dog-leg turn under the temporary but considerable influence of Mexico-Central America pre-historic substantial. You have to build this way for lack of modern materials. Materials were not a problem for him, so WTF?

In terms of the author's written claims, implicit and explicit, Roark was consistently great and creative. In terms of how his mind worked Roark was not creative at all; it was basically the mind of an engineer which is one big step below the mind of an innovator which is another big step below creative genius. Wright had a sometimes creative genius and was consistently, as far as I can tell, creative. Rand herself seemed to be inbetween engineer and creative genius who forced creation then pretty much gave it up after Atlas Shrugged, the writing of which must have been post-genius--the genius that conceived of the novel, its plot-structure, major characters and the idea of the hero being tortured with the demand that he be the dictator of the whole damn country. After that it was incredible focus and will power. Wright got the job of designing and building Fallingwater, visited the site and went back to Wisconsin. The client arrived in Chicago on his way to see the preliminary drawings of which none had been done. As Edgar Kaufmann drove north for two to three hours, Wright began steadily drawing, one page after another. When EK got there the drawings were ready. I think this house is the most outstandingly beautiful in the world, ever. Untoppable.

www.fallingwater.org

In the last ten years of his life Wright shook his architectural work "out of my sleeve." Even though Rand seemed to have had a very good and interesting idea for a post-Atlas novel, she never wrote it. I think it would have been great. I could see a glimmer of that here and there in her non-fictional work.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here. The post makes its point largely by selecting unflattering photos, like those no-makeup ambush shots of tv and movie stars we see in the supermarket tabs. Ennis was much altered for the worse in the building (after Wright had moved back to Wisconsin and left his son in charge). As drawn it was far more delicate and angled to fit the landscape without so many opressive right angles. The jarring contrast between natural dark-grey concrete and off-white. The Hollyhock photo dates, I suspect, from during or shortly after the 2000-2005 restoration, when the lawn was neglected (and the lawn is the really ugly part of the photo). The jarring two-tone color scheme juxtaposes the original color (grey-green, above the cornice) with the inauthentic sandstone pink of an earlier restoration. Imagine all the stucco in grey-green. More importantly, see these buildings inside if you get a chance.

Finally, German is a warehouse. It should be secure and well-insulated and should look it. By those criteria it succeeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here.

Wonderful! I'm glad that you find joy in things that don't do much for me aesthetically.

I've been a guide at two of the three Wright buildings in #27 (quoted in #46), so I have predictably more affection for them than most here. The post makes its point largely by selecting unflattering photos like those no-makeup ambush shots of tv and movie stars we see in the supermarket tabs.

The same is true of this thread's initial post. People are giving examples of what they think are ugly. It wouldn't make sense for us to post flattering photos to illustrate ugliness, would it?

The Hollyhock photo dates, I suspect, from during or shortly after the 2000-2005 restoration, when the lawn was neglected (and the lawn is the really ugly part of the photo). The jarring two-tone color scheme juxtaposes the original color (grey-green, above the cornice) with the inauthentic sandstone pink of an earlier restoration. Imagine all the stucco in grey-green.

It's not the lawn or the building's colors that I find to be especially ugly, but the forms and proportions.

More importantly, see these buildings inside if you get a chance.

Ditto all works of architecture. I think that good advice for everyone is: Don't be a Pup; don't prejudge and make shit up just because you want to pretend that there's more to your subjective tastes than subjective taste.

Finally, German is a warehouse. It should be secure and well-insulated and should look it. By those criteria it succeeds.

Yes. And anyone can instantly come up with criteria by which to claim that any and all works of architecture "succeed" in one way or another, including the modernist and brutalist examples posted on this thread: "They're government office buildings and therefore should project a feeling of security and seriousness and absolutely no frivolity. By those criteria, they succeed!"

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wright got the job of designing and building Fallingwater, visited the site and went back to Wisconsin. The client arrived in Chicago on his way to see the preliminary drawings of which none had been done. As Edgar Kaufmann drove north for two to three hours, Wright began steadily drawing, one page after another. When EK got there the drawings were ready. I think this house is the most outstandingly beautiful in the world, ever. Untoppable.

I think that Wright did quite a lot of last-second work, and improvised much more than what his theorizing and preaching would suggest. I think his genius was as much due to his following wild hunches as it was to his conscious planning.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant try this - it should have a sequence of the openings.

The episodes appear to be on YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now