4 ms·

Hi, architect here. I'll completely sidestep specific arguments or a criticism of the critic, except one thing. The idea that there's some kind of competition o

Hi, architect here. I'll completely sidestep specific arguments or a criticism of the critic, except one thing. The idea that there's some kind of competition of ideologies inside the entire discipline of architecture is dated. It would be impossible to summarize the entire "architectural dialog" as one thing, but let's be general. Inside these discussions, a lot of us laugh a people like Patrik Schumacher for constantly trying to make some battle of the -isms happen. Rybczynski has had a long and prolific career, and can be forgiven for being of an older generation who were taught that there was some ideological battle for what was "right" or good or beautiful in "architecture." But today your typical architect is going to have their own design "style" or method, but also a pluralistic view that it's the diversity of approaches that makes architecture richer. Most architects I know could expound on their love for say Olson Kundig, David Chipperfield, Freddie Mamani, and Kengo Kuma in a single sitting. I couldn't tell you a single architect who doesn't actively want to make beautiful buildings that elevate the human spirit. Rybczynski only uses the word "developer" once in the entire piece (even then it's just to mention that Wagner was one). In reality, it's the economic logic of modern development that has driven the enshittification of architecture hated by everyone - architects most of all.

anon291 3y ago
Let's suppose this is true. If it were true, I'd expect there to be at least some architects producing renderings of the sort of architecture they would like to build, if even just for design exploration. However, when I do see these sorts of experimental architecture designs online (granted, I'm not really 'in on' the right spaces), they typically are all the same style of 'modern bland'. Where're the architects showing us what they would like to build that's actually interesting, and pretty? I've seen a few architects reviving classical styles, but they seem to be the minority. And interestingly enough, those architects seem to be finding some success getting projects funded. So I guess, can you point me to some examples of modern architects showcasing the sorts of things they'd rather build?
- Duanemclemore 3y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I'd start by googling the four architects with extremely diverse aesthetic sensibilities I mentioned.
  - anon291 3y ago
    Well I did. Of the four, only Freddie Mamani with his Neo Andean stuff seemed to be doing anything truly different and culturally influenced. The rest are just doing 'Global modern bland'. I'm honestly not sure how you would classify something like this: https://www.sensesatlas.com/freddy-mamani-neo-andean-architecture/ https://www.sensesatlas.com/freddy-mamani-neo-andean-archite... With anything from https://olsonkundig.com/ https://olsonkundig.com/ The former looks like something new, where culturally relevant ornamentation truly is given extra weight. The latter looks like any generic fancy building you could find anywhere in the world. Which I think goes with what I said... there are a handful doing something interesting and they seem to have enough projects. It seems there would be demand. I notice that Mamani in particular is self-taught, which probably explains a lot of this.
CollinEMac 3y ago
Thanks for sharing this. The picture that's being painted online over the last few years has ultra-modern super-minimalist architects on one side and hyper-traditional maximum-maximalist architects on the other side. I haven't seen many actual architects giving their take on it (they're probably out building stuff).
4bpp 3y ago
> expound on their love for say Olson Kundig, David Chipperfield, Freddie Mamani, and Kengo Kuma in a single sitting. I was familiar with buildings by some of them, and looked up the rest. Excepting, as a sibling post does, Freddie Mamani, the best thing I can say about the ones that are not just straight up unsightly is that they are interesting, in the way in which an essay that a verbally gifted student wrote arguing for a nonsense position randomly pulled out of a hat can be interesting. Do you think that, if you polled people who have nothing to gain socially from signalling sophistication in modern architecture (this in particular excludes all architects and politically normal upper-middle-class white-collar workers), many would report that their spirit was elevated by them?

anon291 3y ago

Let's suppose this is true. If it were true, I'd expect there to be at least some architects producing renderings of the sort of architecture they would like to build, if even just for design exploration. However, when I do see these sorts of experimental architecture designs online (granted, I'm not really 'in on' the right spaces), they typically are all the same style of 'modern bland'. Where're the architects showing us what they would like to build that's actually interesting, and pretty? I've seen a few architects reviving classical styles, but they seem to be the minority. And interestingly enough, those architects seem to be finding some success getting projects funded. So I guess, can you point me to some examples of modern architects showcasing the sorts of things they'd rather build?

Duanemclemore 3y ago
Thanks for the reply. I'd start by googling the four architects with extremely diverse aesthetic sensibilities I mentioned.
- anon291 3y ago
  Well I did. Of the four, only Freddie Mamani with his Neo Andean stuff seemed to be doing anything truly different and culturally influenced. The rest are just doing 'Global modern bland'. I'm honestly not sure how you would classify something like this: https://www.sensesatlas.com/freddy-mamani-neo-andean-architecture/ https://www.sensesatlas.com/freddy-mamani-neo-andean-archite... With anything from https://olsonkundig.com/ https://olsonkundig.com/ The former looks like something new, where culturally relevant ornamentation truly is given extra weight. The latter looks like any generic fancy building you could find anywhere in the world. Which I think goes with what I said... there are a handful doing something interesting and they seem to have enough projects. It seems there would be demand. I notice that Mamani in particular is self-taught, which probably explains a lot of this.

CollinEMac 3y ago

Thanks for sharing this. The picture that's being painted online over the last few years has ultra-modern super-minimalist architects on one side and hyper-traditional maximum-maximalist architects on the other side. I haven't seen many actual architects giving their take on it (they're probably out building stuff).

4bpp 3y ago

> expound on their love for say Olson Kundig, David Chipperfield, Freddie Mamani, and Kengo Kuma in a single sitting. I was familiar with buildings by some of them, and looked up the rest. Excepting, as a sibling post does, Freddie Mamani, the best thing I can say about the ones that are not just straight up unsightly is that they are interesting, in the way in which an essay that a verbally gifted student wrote arguing for a nonsense position randomly pulled out of a hat can be interesting. Do you think that, if you polled people who have nothing to gain socially from signalling sophistication in modern architecture (this in particular excludes all architects and politically normal upper-middle-class white-collar workers), many would report that their spirit was elevated by them?