3 ms·

This is very subjective. There is no reason a traditional architectural style fits the landscape more than modern other than that's what you are used to seeing.

• OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Frankly, using FLW as an example is a bit uncharitable to the opposing argument. Dude was one of the, if not the single, greatest architects in history. I don't think anybody would complain about living in a world of his design. The problem is without a keen eye for aesthetics, it's really easy to use the post(-post?)-modern style in really, really lazy ways, to create absolutely hideous structures. Brutalism runs into the same problem: there are some Brutalist buildings, especially those that pioneered the style, that are absolutely breathtaking. The problem is that Brutalism was also pretty cheap to pull off, so you ended up with a bunch of hacky office buildings that pulled a couple pages out of the design, and built every college campus in North America. Is there a solution to this? I dunno. Chicago's "it's illegal to build ugly buildings in downtown" seems to have worked alright. But there's always going to be a market pressure to build the cheapest building possible while tipping your hat to whatever architectural style you can get away with, for minimal extra cost. Not really sure where I was going with all that, but bring back Art Deco.
• nullindividual 3y ago
  Modern/Post-modern in a rural area is a real stand out, not in a good way.