After a few hours I finally figured out what bothered me about this critique. The author seems to state a premise of what designer think. His premise of the sta

After a few hours I finally figured out what bothered me about this critique. The author seems to state a premise of what designer think. His premise of the state of Architecture seems outdated from even the early 90's when I was in design school. What he states as a give was rejected by my generation at the beginning of my education. He also seems to have fallen into the trap of believing what he learned to say in Art History class about modernism. This common description of modernism is pretty far from the original ideals. From my point of view post modernism was created by the students of the original modernist to claim their own spot in history. There is noting about the definition of post modernism that is not encompassed in modernism. I see the post modernist as almost an oedipal complex of a movement instead actually intellectual progress. The international style which is what most people consider modernism is actually only a modernist study in glass, steel, concrete, stone. These materials were chosen because the modernist were focused on developing as much housing as quickly as possible. The materials they choose were perfect for this goal. Modernism does not dictate only these materials are acceptable. People often describe the coldness of modernism but that coldness only reflects the materials used at it's inception. This is all just my opinion but this writing seems to lack the actual experience of design and it's roots.