Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture
(www.currentaffairs.org)
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Also that following bit "no building should ever be more than four stories [...] This seems a completely sensible idea." That's not even near a skyscraper at that point.
Building out means you have less nature, because you have buildings where it'd be. Building out also means traveling that much further to get anywhere. If that includes your workplace, that's a lot of wasted time. A lot of places are also inhospitable. There's also the matter of delays in planning, like for approvals. If it might take years anyway, might as well make it big, along with the other cost savings (per unit).
It's also interesting that they mention "this is Art Deco, the last truly impressive movement in architecture," when you take the skyscraper statement into account, since there's plenty of Art Deco skyscrapers, including the Guardian Building they mention
I think the argument the article's making is that support structures (logistical support, rather than structural support, I presume) for the gigantic structure invariably occupies about as much ground as if you'd placed the same capacity in low-rise buildings.
I'm not sure if I agree with it, but that's the point the article is making.
They aren't wrong on that, though. Skyscrapers spend a large portion of their time empty, and require massive resources to maintain which means large areas of land on the edge of the city or further are dedicated to the resources necessary to maintain such an edifice. Lower buildings have a much lower maintanence cost and footprint, and high density planning allows for the fitting of extremely vibrant and productive city scapes without breaking 5 stories. See pre-war Dresden, Prague or Paris as an example. The Skyscraper doesn't actually accomplish much more than urban-sponge designs do. Some of them are very impressive though.
But which is the most capitalist of styles?
The McMansion?
Or the split level?
Not an idle question here. There were two decades in America where quite literally 90% of the new houses were either split ranch or split foyer. You can drive around cities and identify the midcentury developments by when the house start looking samey.
Why doesn't she want a split level? if she doesn't want the 70s wood paneling or drop ceilings, plenty of them have been renovated.
And are there really no other types of suburban house where you live?
From what I understand, the reason for this was WWII. When the soldiers came home, they had four years worth of young men ready to marry their sweethearts and start families. Part of that was buying their first house. However, since the number of potential homebuyers outnumbered the number of houses, there was a housing shortage.
The solution they came up with was the prefabricated house. The prefab house could be built much quicker since they could mechanize the process of making the components and the construction workers got quicker, as they were building the same few houses over and over.
So, people were able to get a house quickly and affordably. The drawback was that you got, in the words of Malvina Reynolds, "little boxes that all look the same".
Eh....
Prefabs are a bit different.
What we call a prefab today is an outgrowth of a parallel development. See, during the 60's and 70's while builders were making split levels and ranches, mobile homes also emerged as a thing. Trailer parks.
By the 80's, the trailer park was dying out and the mobile home manufacturers decided they needed to innovate in order to survive. So they figured out how to build houses in halves, deliver them by truck, and then lift them onto poured foundations.
The houses of that 80's era are very easy to identify, they always look single story, ranch profile but not as wide as a 60's ranch, with a low sloped roof. These were really common where I grew up. They all had to be arranged in the same basic setup because they needed enough internal walls to keep them from collapsing while being driven to the foundation.
Prefabs never died out, you can still buy them today. But 90's developments started to move into McMansion territory.
Creating similar structures makes it easier and faster to expand. I live in a area where the houses age start around 1850 and they all look similar with near identical layouts.
Yes that was the Sears influence.
Back in the day you could order whole houses. The height of that era was about 1890 to the 1920's (and then briefly again after the war). You could order a precut house, shipped via boxcar. The whole concept died out when portable power tools and delivery trucks with cranes became practical after the war, at which point it was easier to just buy whole stacks of dimensional and sheetrock and build on site.
I am impressed that a far-left writer like Nathan Robinson joined in on the criticism of contemporary architecture, rather than branding people who rightly find it ugly as 'fascist' - which, believe it or not, is a thing.
Reminds me of when I entered a level editing contest. People told me it was dull and gray. They commented how much of a beginner I was.
I didn't have the heart to tell them it was based on a parking garage in Seattle. I had to add color and cool designs that the real life building never had.
Actually, of all contemporary architecture, I happen to think airports are the least bad, at least when they're done right.
Maybe I'm just still a futurist but Washington National and O'Hare Terminal 1 are immediately what I think of when I think airport. Big, glass and steel, like the front half of EPCOT.
Wow. We finally found each other. The two people on Earth who think O'Hare isn't that bad.
O'Hare Terminal 1.
Terminal 2 & 3 are cancer.
Art Deco or go home, bitches!
I don't hate it. Modern homes are fine. "McMansions" are fine. But I do prefer older more elaborate styles of business and apartment buildings. But it's often more a matter of not being beautiful than being actively ugly.