5 ms·

Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture

56 points by oftenwrong 8y ago

gamblor956 8y ago
Brutalism, the focus of the piece, is not contemporary architecture. It was big decades ago after WWII but fell out of favor rather quickly. Of special note: the opinion piece compares two hospitals. The nicer looking hospital is now a museum and has been for years. The interior pictures of the former hospital's rooms show massive rooms without AC, plumbing, or privacy. The article asks which hospital I would rather convalesce in? The ugly squat one with private rooms and plumbing, obviously. I don't care what the outside of the hospital looks like when I'm in side it.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  About that... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutalist-architecture-revival.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutali...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You need to actually read the NYT article. It's not about a revival of Brutalism in buildings currently being built or planned for construction, it's about modern efforts to prevent the destruction of existing Brutalist buildings from decades ago.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  That point is addressed in the piece in one of the photo captions: > Architects often get mad when non-architects conflate the terms “modernism,” “postmodernism,” “Brutalism,” etc. They love telling people that, say, “Frank Gehry is actually REACTING to postmodernism.” These terminological disputes can obscure the fact that everything under discussion is actually just a minor variation on the same garbage. I for one agree with that. > The article asks which hospital I would rather convalesce in? The ugly squat one with private rooms and plumbing, obviously. You know this isn't either-or, right? The old building might lack amenities just because of when it was constructed, but you can build new beautiful buildings that have them. There is no reason why modern requirements necessitate godawful buildings.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I actually agree with the bit about term conflation as well, but not the rest of the article. They're comparing literally hundreds of years of architecture to a short 2-3 decade period following one of the most calamitous wars in history, when Europe was struggling to rebuild itself and function was more important than pretty exteriors. You know this isn't either-or, right? The old building might lack amenities just because of when it was constructed, but you can build new beautiful buildings that have them. There is no reason why modern requirements necessitate godawful buildings. Modern requirements don't necessitate godawful buildings, budgets do. In those rare situations where the budget is unlimited (i.e., see any building being built around Mecca), you end up with both beautiful exteriors and functional interiors. But otherwise, every dollar spent on a fancier exterior is a dollar that can't be spent on interior features. And occupants (residents or companies) care more about the interior than the exterior.
wodenokoto 8y ago
I was hoping for an explanation of why architects makes the choice they do in contemporary buildings, but instead its just a bunch of "architects are idiots" and "I hate this and you should too". Absolutely no substance here.
- lainga 8y ago
  I thought that's exactly what the "Overcoming Fears" section of TFA did, to wit: the fear of (1) beauty [which is for "sentimental traditionalists"], (2) ornament, (3) tradition [because tradition requires effort, or you get 'McMansion'], (4) symmetry, and (5) [and most pertinent in my mind] looking foolish in the eyes of other architects.
  - wodenokoto 8y ago
    > Postwar architecture has been characterized by fear and taboo. Architects are terrified of producing so much as a fluted column, because they believe their peers will think they are stupid, nostalgic, and unsophisticated. Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. Or this gold nugget: >It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. After all, they embody nearly every bad tendency in contemporary architecture: they are not part of nature, they are monolithic, they are boring, they have no intricacy, and they have no democracy. Besides, there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. That got me too. Even if they were boring and monotone, at least the skyscrapers are all confined to one area. The author's proposed solution seems to be "let's take all this ugly and spread it around over a few dozen more square kilometers".
    - Analemma_ 8y ago
      > Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. This is getting it backwards: why should we have to understand or level with contemporary architects? Buildings are for the enjoyment of everyone. The whole complaint here, which is supported by sources, is that architects won't understand or level with us, and assume that our wants are kitschy plebian sentimentalism which can be handwaved away. > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. You say this sarcastically, but I think it's actually true. The only reason walking around Manhattan isn't boring is because it still has enough pre-war architecture that hasn't been torn down. Walking around the downtowns of e.g. Vancouver or Seattle, is quite boring, and I'm saying this as an overall-happy Seattle resident.
lainga 8y ago
Before anyone dismisses this as a one-sided attack on socialism through the language of architecture, "[W]hy so many on the left are wedded to defending unpopular schools of architectural and urban design is less immediately obvious." yet further down, "Capitalism eats culture, and it makes ugly places. Money has no taste." and, "There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that “beauty” is just a euphemism for European imperialist art." It has strong words for both sides of the debate.
pluto9 8y ago
> It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. [...] there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally; the only reasons to spread vertically are phallic and Freudian. Because endless miles and miles of urban sprawl is so much more attractive than a skyline and a lot of surrounding countryside. I wonder how much more real estate the average metropolis would take up if downtown was flattened to a few stories?
- lainga 8y ago
  This isn't a fair comparison in the US, where the majority of cities' downtowns are skyscrapers standing alone in a vast sea of parking lots and freeways. Compare Dallas to something like Paris, especially on population density.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    I've never been to either city, but from looking at pictures, both seem to fit your description. If anything Paris looks "flatter", but maybe that's just the composition of these photos. In any case, my point is that if we decide to always build out instead of up, whatever urban sprawl already exists in any city will only be made worse. City planners actively try to avoid sprawl for a number of reasons, including that it makes public transportation less effective, increases smog, and reduces access to green spaces.
    - lainga 8y ago
      That's the point. Skyscrapers are a rarity in Paris - now go look up the density of the city proper.
      - pluto9 8y ago
        > now go look up the density of the city proper Nah, I don't accept homework assignments from condescending people on the internet, sorry. Feel free to dig up the numbers yourself and post them here, though. While you're at it, you might be interested in looking up New York City, which is far denser than Paris. What do you think would happen if all the skyscrapers in NYC were flattened out? Where should those people go? Shall we pack them into the city's existing footprint with all the other sardines?
mikevp 8y ago
Tom Wolfe's old book "From Bauhaus to Our House" took on some of these issues. In particular, modern architecture's alleged "form follows function" taking some bizarrely twisted thought processes to end up building flat-topped buildings in climates with large snowfall. Seriously? What were they thinking?
- romwell 8y ago
  Yup. Here's my brief list of the "what the heck is the function that this form follows" in modern architecture : -Light management: humans need light - so, naturally, modern concrete slabs dispense with windows. Solid wall, here we go! Enjoy your fluorescent flickers. Skylights? A thing of the past. -Air and climate: humans need air to breath, and exhibit varying preferences for temperature. So, again, no windows! Heavens forbid someone would open one. If there are windows, they should be glass panes that can't be opened. And the AC should be centrally controlled, because there's only One True AC Setting. But only use single-pane glass, lest one thinks that costs were a concern. -Rain. Rain! Humans, on some occasions, prefer not to get wet in the rain. And outside of Seattle, people have been known to carry umbrellas for that purpose. Naturally, a modern building must not allow anyone with an umbrella in. Make a door narrow and hard to open, and no overhangs! Make sure one gets wet while folding the umbrella in front of the door. Bonus points for making the ground floor subterranean, ensuring the biannual building flood. (You already covered that the roof must be flat-topped to accumulate snow and be more prone to leaks.) -On the subject of doors, make the main entrance in the back. Dispense with side entrances. Nothing should deface the monolith of the facade. You should arrive by car anyway, and walk the desolate parking lot. The building is not to be accessed from the street. Bonus points for employing electronic locks to create exit-only doorways (apparent only after you try to get back). -It is the woe of many architects that people desire to get to floors of the building other than the ground floor. Give them a dilemma: wait for a cramped elevator, or walk the staircase that looks like it's something the maintenance crew forgot to lock down. No natural light either way, even though people have invented glass millenia ago. And make the steps on the staircase as tall as possible to make the walk tiring and unpleasant. Spiral staircases - a taboo. -People might try to navigate the building by memory. So make the layout labyrinthine, but without any visually distinguishing elements. Every corner should look the same. Bonus points for room numbering schemes that seem to have taken a cue from the Mad Hatter. -Did I mention doors? The more doors, the better. Humans like figuring out which ones are unlocked by trial and error. -It is quite unfortunate that the pure architecture has to abide to such whims of human physiology as the need to use the toilet. So make them hard to find. Bonus points for having men and women toilets on different floors, just for the kicks. -Sometimes people talk to each other. Ensure there is no comfortable space for them to do that. Corridors will do just fine (remember, no natural light in the corridors, or everywhere). No semi-secluded corners - every space must be panopticon-like. Sound insulation is a non-concern. All this is just from a handful of examples I've had the pleasure of working in, and replicated endlessly. The list goes on.
maxsilver 8y ago
Is it wrong to like a lot of the examples of "bad architecture" listed in the article? Are we required to hate contemporary architecture? From the pictures in the article, London's "Alexandra Road", the Poydras building, the Tour Montparnasse, and the Caltrans District 7 HQ genuinely look really nice. I would love to live in/near any of those buildings. I don't understand why the author assumes "clean lines" and "geometric shapes" as being some depression-inducing "sickly" visual. Are things only allowed to look nice if they are wrapped in psuedo-victorian embellishments?
- Isamu 8y ago
  I agree with you, I like most of the examples shown that are supposed to horrify you. I like most of the traditional, "good" examples too, but not reflexively. The points made are reasonable, though, and not the first time they've been made.
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  Yup. I don't like the old hospital because it seems to be made of ornament, which is too much. Some of the modern buildings look nice. Also, the author seems to be saying that Walter Gropius only created jarring monsters, which isn't true. I'm not sure about him personally, but the Bauhaus, the architecture school he co-founded, produced plenty of pleasant-looking though minimally ornamented buildings. The original Bauhaus stuff looks so much better than the bland stuff that hack imitators created later.
- quelltext 8y ago
  I found all of them looked awesome. Also, I hate it when articles tell me what I should think or that my taste is wrong.
UncleMeat 8y ago
The article cites the freaking sistine chapel here as an example of good architecture. No matter what you think of contemporary styles, one shouldn't compare things that were constructed because a few people had an unimaginable amount of money to spend on as lavish of a space as possible to functional structures.
markandrewj 8y ago
It's easy to pick and choose good and bad examples from different eras of architecture. It is unfortunate the author paints all contemporary architecture as cold. I would suggest the movies 'columbus' and 'my architect' to people looking for another perspective.
satanicAdvocate 8y ago
Up next, HN decides to debate clothing and style of dress. Which is the one true outfit? Find out after the commercial break!
ummonk 8y ago
I don't know why the Alexandara Road was put in there as an example of dull contemporary architecture. It only looks that way in the heavily filtered image the author put up. If you look at other pictures, it actually loooks really nice, largely because it follows some of the principles the author himself advocates (integrating nature and aesthetic coherence).

56 points by oftenwrong 8y ago

Brutalism, the focus of the piece, is not contemporary architecture. It was big decades ago after WWII but fell out of favor rather quickly. Of special note: the opinion piece compares two hospitals. The nicer looking hospital is now a museum and has been for years. The interior pictures of the former hospital's rooms show massive rooms without AC, plumbing, or privacy. The article asks which hospital I would rather convalesce in? The ugly squat one with private rooms and plumbing, obviously. I don't care what the outside of the hospital looks like when I'm in side it.

vanderZwan 8y ago
About that... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutalist-architecture-revival.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutali...
- gamblor956 8y ago
  You need to actually read the NYT article. It's not about a revival of Brutalism in buildings currently being built or planned for construction, it's about modern efforts to prevent the destruction of existing Brutalist buildings from decades ago.
Analemma_ 8y ago
That point is addressed in the piece in one of the photo captions: > Architects often get mad when non-architects conflate the terms “modernism,” “postmodernism,” “Brutalism,” etc. They love telling people that, say, “Frank Gehry is actually REACTING to postmodernism.” These terminological disputes can obscure the fact that everything under discussion is actually just a minor variation on the same garbage. I for one agree with that. > The article asks which hospital I would rather convalesce in? The ugly squat one with private rooms and plumbing, obviously. You know this isn't either-or, right? The old building might lack amenities just because of when it was constructed, but you can build new beautiful buildings that have them. There is no reason why modern requirements necessitate godawful buildings.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  I actually agree with the bit about term conflation as well, but not the rest of the article. They're comparing literally hundreds of years of architecture to a short 2-3 decade period following one of the most calamitous wars in history, when Europe was struggling to rebuild itself and function was more important than pretty exteriors. You know this isn't either-or, right? The old building might lack amenities just because of when it was constructed, but you can build new beautiful buildings that have them. There is no reason why modern requirements necessitate godawful buildings. Modern requirements don't necessitate godawful buildings, budgets do. In those rare situations where the budget is unlimited (i.e., see any building being built around Mecca), you end up with both beautiful exteriors and functional interiors. But otherwise, every dollar spent on a fancier exterior is a dollar that can't be spent on interior features. And occupants (residents or companies) care more about the interior than the exterior.

wodenokoto 8y ago

I was hoping for an explanation of why architects makes the choice they do in contemporary buildings, but instead its just a bunch of "architects are idiots" and "I hate this and you should too". Absolutely no substance here.

lainga 8y ago
I thought that's exactly what the "Overcoming Fears" section of TFA did, to wit: the fear of (1) beauty [which is for "sentimental traditionalists"], (2) ornament, (3) tradition [because tradition requires effort, or you get 'McMansion'], (4) symmetry, and (5) [and most pertinent in my mind] looking foolish in the eyes of other architects.
- wodenokoto 8y ago
  > Postwar architecture has been characterized by fear and taboo. Architects are terrified of producing so much as a fluted column, because they believe their peers will think they are stupid, nostalgic, and unsophisticated. Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. Or this gold nugget: >It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. After all, they embody nearly every bad tendency in contemporary architecture: they are not part of nature, they are monolithic, they are boring, they have no intricacy, and they have no democracy. Besides, there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. That got me too. Even if they were boring and monotone, at least the skyscrapers are all confined to one area. The author's proposed solution seems to be "let's take all this ugly and spread it around over a few dozen more square kilometers".
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    > Come on! There is absolutely no attempt to understand or level with contemporary architecture. It is pure ranting. This is getting it backwards: why should we have to understand or level with contemporary architects? Buildings are for the enjoyment of everyone. The whole complaint here, which is supported by sources, is that architects won't understand or level with us, and assume that our wants are kitschy plebian sentimentalism which can be handwaved away. > Yeah, walking around Manhattan or Hong Kong Island is boring and monotone. You say this sarcastically, but I think it's actually true. The only reason walking around Manhattan isn't boring is because it still has enough pre-war architecture that hasn't been torn down. Walking around the downtowns of e.g. Vancouver or Seattle, is quite boring, and I'm saying this as an overall-happy Seattle resident.

lainga 8y ago

Before anyone dismisses this as a one-sided attack on socialism through the language of architecture, "[W]hy so many on the left are wedded to defending unpopular schools of architectural and urban design is less immediately obvious." yet further down, "Capitalism eats culture, and it makes ugly places. Money has no taste." and, "There is a widespread conception, reinforced by conservative classicists, that “beauty” is just a euphemism for European imperialist art." It has strong words for both sides of the debate.

pluto9 8y ago

> It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. [...] there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally; the only reasons to spread vertically are phallic and Freudian. Because endless miles and miles of urban sprawl is so much more attractive than a skyline and a lot of surrounding countryside. I wonder how much more real estate the average metropolis would take up if downtown was flattened to a few stories?

lainga 8y ago
This isn't a fair comparison in the US, where the majority of cities' downtowns are skyscrapers standing alone in a vast sea of parking lots and freeways. Compare Dallas to something like Paris, especially on population density.
- pluto9 8y ago
  I've never been to either city, but from looking at pictures, both seem to fit your description. If anything Paris looks "flatter", but maybe that's just the composition of these photos. In any case, my point is that if we decide to always build out instead of up, whatever urban sprawl already exists in any city will only be made worse. City planners actively try to avoid sprawl for a number of reasons, including that it makes public transportation less effective, increases smog, and reduces access to green spaces.
  - lainga 8y ago
    That's the point. Skyscrapers are a rarity in Paris - now go look up the density of the city proper.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      > now go look up the density of the city proper Nah, I don't accept homework assignments from condescending people on the internet, sorry. Feel free to dig up the numbers yourself and post them here, though. While you're at it, you might be interested in looking up New York City, which is far denser than Paris. What do you think would happen if all the skyscrapers in NYC were flattened out? Where should those people go? Shall we pack them into the city's existing footprint with all the other sardines?

mikevp 8y ago

Tom Wolfe's old book "From Bauhaus to Our House" took on some of these issues. In particular, modern architecture's alleged "form follows function" taking some bizarrely twisted thought processes to end up building flat-topped buildings in climates with large snowfall. Seriously? What were they thinking?

romwell 8y ago
Yup. Here's my brief list of the "what the heck is the function that this form follows" in modern architecture : -Light management: humans need light - so, naturally, modern concrete slabs dispense with windows. Solid wall, here we go! Enjoy your fluorescent flickers. Skylights? A thing of the past. -Air and climate: humans need air to breath, and exhibit varying preferences for temperature. So, again, no windows! Heavens forbid someone would open one. If there are windows, they should be glass panes that can't be opened. And the AC should be centrally controlled, because there's only One True AC Setting. But only use single-pane glass, lest one thinks that costs were a concern. -Rain. Rain! Humans, on some occasions, prefer not to get wet in the rain. And outside of Seattle, people have been known to carry umbrellas for that purpose. Naturally, a modern building must not allow anyone with an umbrella in. Make a door narrow and hard to open, and no overhangs! Make sure one gets wet while folding the umbrella in front of the door. Bonus points for making the ground floor subterranean, ensuring the biannual building flood. (You already covered that the roof must be flat-topped to accumulate snow and be more prone to leaks.) -On the subject of doors, make the main entrance in the back. Dispense with side entrances. Nothing should deface the monolith of the facade. You should arrive by car anyway, and walk the desolate parking lot. The building is not to be accessed from the street. Bonus points for employing electronic locks to create exit-only doorways (apparent only after you try to get back). -It is the woe of many architects that people desire to get to floors of the building other than the ground floor. Give them a dilemma: wait for a cramped elevator, or walk the staircase that looks like it's something the maintenance crew forgot to lock down. No natural light either way, even though people have invented glass millenia ago. And make the steps on the staircase as tall as possible to make the walk tiring and unpleasant. Spiral staircases - a taboo. -People might try to navigate the building by memory. So make the layout labyrinthine, but without any visually distinguishing elements. Every corner should look the same. Bonus points for room numbering schemes that seem to have taken a cue from the Mad Hatter. -Did I mention doors? The more doors, the better. Humans like figuring out which ones are unlocked by trial and error. -It is quite unfortunate that the pure architecture has to abide to such whims of human physiology as the need to use the toilet. So make them hard to find. Bonus points for having men and women toilets on different floors, just for the kicks. -Sometimes people talk to each other. Ensure there is no comfortable space for them to do that. Corridors will do just fine (remember, no natural light in the corridors, or everywhere). No semi-secluded corners - every space must be panopticon-like. Sound insulation is a non-concern. All this is just from a handful of examples I've had the pleasure of working in, and replicated endlessly. The list goes on.

maxsilver 8y ago

Is it wrong to like a lot of the examples of "bad architecture" listed in the article? Are we required to hate contemporary architecture? From the pictures in the article, London's "Alexandra Road", the Poydras building, the Tour Montparnasse, and the Caltrans District 7 HQ genuinely look really nice. I would love to live in/near any of those buildings. I don't understand why the author assumes "clean lines" and "geometric shapes" as being some depression-inducing "sickly" visual. Are things only allowed to look nice if they are wrapped in psuedo-victorian embellishments?

Isamu 8y ago
I agree with you, I like most of the examples shown that are supposed to horrify you. I like most of the traditional, "good" examples too, but not reflexively. The points made are reasonable, though, and not the first time they've been made.
ahartmetz 8y ago
Yup. I don't like the old hospital because it seems to be made of ornament, which is too much. Some of the modern buildings look nice. Also, the author seems to be saying that Walter Gropius only created jarring monsters, which isn't true. I'm not sure about him personally, but the Bauhaus, the architecture school he co-founded, produced plenty of pleasant-looking though minimally ornamented buildings. The original Bauhaus stuff looks so much better than the bland stuff that hack imitators created later.
quelltext 8y ago
I found all of them looked awesome. Also, I hate it when articles tell me what I should think or that my taste is wrong.

UncleMeat 8y ago

The article cites the freaking sistine chapel here as an example of good architecture. No matter what you think of contemporary styles, one shouldn't compare things that were constructed because a few people had an unimaginable amount of money to spend on as lavish of a space as possible to functional structures.

markandrewj 8y ago

It's easy to pick and choose good and bad examples from different eras of architecture. It is unfortunate the author paints all contemporary architecture as cold. I would suggest the movies 'columbus' and 'my architect' to people looking for another perspective.

satanicAdvocate 8y ago

Up next, HN decides to debate clothing and style of dress. Which is the one true outfit? Find out after the commercial break!

ummonk 8y ago

I don't know why the Alexandara Road was put in there as an example of dull contemporary architecture. It only looks that way in the heavily filtered image the author put up. If you look at other pictures, it actually loooks really nice, largely because it follows some of the principles the author himself advocates (integrating nature and aesthetic coherence).