Modernism got a bad name in many Western countries, because it was used as an architectural and philosophical justification for cheap and shoddy system-built housing to fill the post-war housing gap. That doesn't make rectilinear forms and bare concrete inherently bad; we don't blame vernacular architecture for characterless mock-Tudor estate houses and vulgar McMansions, we blame bad architects, profit-hungry developers and philistine houses.
I admit I wouldn't be asking if it agreed with my biases, but how do we know this? Seems hard to control for all the other variables.
Is that because they are good, or because they serve to signal class status?
Only it's really not that neat. When the brutalist monstrosities (you may correctly infer I don't like most of them one bit, though I do like much modernism) were being designed and built post-war, brutalism particularly was embraced as enthusiastically on all parts of the political spectrum. The mood was to build a "better world" and to borrow a cliche, embrace the "white heat of technology". Futurism, science, nuclear and modernism - including brutalism - was good. End of. Many fine examples of classic architecture were levelled, like the oft mourned Penn station, to put in an awesome, imposing brutalist slab that was looking tired and shabby within a decade. I'm sure the comparative cheapness and quickness of build won more fans in one part of the political map though.
As people started to live in them, use them, and live around them, it very rapidly became clear that brutalism - like much post-war architecture - didn't give a toss about humans. That was the real exciting new development in post-war architecture. The vision was inspiring, the reality was counter-productive in so many cases, as the scale or the amount of extra walking required wrecked the reality. They may have been impressive to look at, but so frequently fail to work as a building, or for people.
There are a few brutalist that work, and far more considered modernist, but in the main I call the brutalist experiment failed for those who have to use, inhabit or visit them. The ones that really work, seem to have one common feature - they remember the humans - you know, those things that use buildings? :)
This was also a time of far heavier air pollution than we today ever experience, at least in "the west". The typical multi-family building were therefore built not right at the sidewalk, but about 15m further back. Adjacent buildings no longer connected, but had similar spacing. The fraction of open space vs that used by buildings easily tripled, and the free space was planted with grass or brushes.
This was also the time when mixed zoning was mostly abolished in favour of homogenous residential or commercial areas.
As it turned out, this style isn't necessarily what people want. It tends to be too quiet, distances increase linear with lowered density, cars became somewhat required, etc. But the motives were mostly pure.
Bear in mind I'm in the UK, where Europe's post-war rebuilding was also large part of the motive. The American experience was necessarily a little different - no bomb damage, and a large profit from WW2, thank-you-very-much.
The huge areas of bomb damage, and decades of soot and other pollutants meant many of those fine classic buildings were looking old, tired and in need of sand-blasting, or at least a good wash. The 50s brought coal restrictions and clean air legislation, so pollution and smog had passed. Cars weren't yet common. Looking to the future concrete was "clean", and very much of the Jetson's future, and you got so much more of it for every pound spent. Steam trains, and Victorian gothic fussiness were of the mucky past. Yet unlike marble, granite and even sandstone and brick it so often weathers and ages horribly.
There was, as you note far more space - and in architect or promotional artistry before they were built this usually had trees, planting, and very often a view through trees. The other style was of people and cars as cells in the futuristic city organism - that Jetson future once again. The 95% reality had a few feature trees set in concrete or flagstones, some feature planters for flowers - horse trough or hot tub sized that in the sea of concrete looked comical afterthought. By the 70s the trees most especially were dying, horribly sad or missing. Turns out mature trees need more than 2 sq m of water capture. I remember very little grass in the brutalist bits of the city I grew up in or those I visited in the 70s and 80s. The sweeping walkways in the sky meant walking a mile to cross a road, or endless steps - horrible if mother with pram, and lastly plenty of dark gloomy spots to get mugged or lost in.
The pre-war modernist, or the garden city movements, and even pre-war social housing had, in the UK, far more of the natural world, grass, large grass verges with mature trees and play spaces or parks. They hadn't yet discovered separating shopping centre from housing, so they were still working communities.
So yeah, it's easy to see why they tried and the motives that brought them, but it's as easy to see why it so often turned out dystopian nightmare to be demolished as soon as affordable. We'll be stuck with those car-first choices for a century though. Today's alternative of finding lowest possible bid unless it's a feature tower block isn't that much better.
But I wouldn't idolise pre-war architecture. There are some shockingly awful 1930s estates around London, and they're almost as dispiriting in their own way as archetypal brutalist tower blocks.
The garden cities are much more pleasant, but then you're not comparing like with like. Tower blocks were built to replace Victorian slums, with relatively high population density in both.
Some of the original designs were terrible, but sometimes they can be salvaged.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/12/grand-p...
You're completely right about the brutalist campuses, btw.
Maybe egalitarianism isn’t as humane as it seems. Maybe if you bring everyone down to the same level, you find that you’ve reduced everything worth striving for to rubble.
And maybe all those artisans and decorators the modernists drove out of business deserved to make a living too.
Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Favorite_Architect... - modernist buildings barely show up in that list. Of course you're right - beauty is subjective. So when a simple popularity poll fails to show support for their chosen style, architects resort to pseudo-intellectual justifications of why the people are wrong to dislike the featureless blocks of glass, steel and concrete built in their cities.
I am not sure, searching for "modern" reveals 27 hits and postmodern 14. Also, landmarks dominate the top 10 so i am not sure whether the poll more accuratly tracks the most liked building and not style. A style with more distributed votes would suffer (and, for example, there are more hits for postmodern than for art-deco).
Edit: By 'suffocate all others', I mean in an academic sense. Look at the designs produced by major architectural schools. They have been purged of older styles, just like the art world was purged of 'traditionally beautiful', confining it to art history.
This is a poll about americas favourite architecture and not in which style to build. I think the poll is largely a function of fame. Buildings are being build in all sorts of style, but I think the sobering result is that a style in itself is not really saving anyone. I also don't think style can only suffocate? A lot of cities are mixed in style.
He's incapable of not being political. Publishing conspiracy theory garbage about Soros at the time of a major hunt for antisemitism in public life was what got him fired.
(The author of the original article, Dalrymple, is also a full time culture warrior)
Building at the low end is apolitical. With razor thin margins that crap doesnt make the cut. No matter how many millions of square feet of warehouse and pole barn you build there is no room for opinions, style and politics when your margin is pennies on the dollar.
>Building at the low end is apolitical.
You have an decidedly odd view of what people are interested in and what makes something political.
Yes, but only because the heart of the modernist movement has been an attempt to deny, belittle and mock the idea that the instinctive aesthetic reaction of the majority to their creations is important or valid. If you think their constructions are ugly, that's not their problem, it's your problem. Firstly, you're too stupid, conservative and narrow-minded to perceive its genius, and secondly, in fact, you actually do like it, or eventually you will, if you just shut up and wait long enough.
It's as if avant-garde jazz advocates were put in charge every radio station and music streaming service on Earth, and given free rein to remorselessly enforce their taste on the whole population, with any dissenter being shouted down and told that, when they eventually forget what all other music sounded like, they'll come to love atonal jazz noise.
In such a situation, the fightback would have to begin with people being told it's OK to trust their own instinct and hate the music that's been forced upon them. Likewise, the fightback against overweening modernism has to begin by bursting the elitist bubble of faux-intellectual obfuscation that modernists have created around architecture. It has to begin by telling people that they have as much right to judge the aesthetics of huge changes to the places they live and work as anybody else, and that if they think the changes are ugly, then that's valid, without any "but..." unfolding into a lecture about how daring and original the latest edifice being foisted upon them actually is.
- Modernism isn't a collection a movements across different countries/mediums in the early 20th century, but a "movement" whose "heart" is making intellectuals feel better than regular folks.
- No space for differing aesthetic opinions, the only real art is what you feel in your gut.
- Modernists are actively trying to change the places you live in work, despite the fact that the height of the movement happening decades ago.
- Specifically call out Jazz/Atonal music, apropos nothing.
Look, I'm all for differing opinions, but yours are more political than aesthetic (proving the parent's point). Plenty of modern architecture is aesthetically pleasing to the untrained eye. Some of it is not, and some of it is just objectively bad. However, your particular point of view, which presupposes some elite cabal, pushing there modernist agenda/degenerate art on an unknowing and unwilling populace, deserves some more scrutiny.
And the Modernists very much were trying to change the landscape.
Here's a video about the Smithsons who designed one of the UK's largest housing projects. They're clearly serious and well-intentioned, but also... "eccentric" is probably a diplomatic description.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk
But... it's worth remembering that these projects were replacements for slum housing, not showcase palaces and cathedrals. While they weren't ideal, they did usually manage to be warmer, healthier, cleaner, and more sanitary than the hovels they typically replaced.
Over time some of the harder egdes of modernism have been filed off, and modern projects seem to be trying to learn from the past, while still keeping the functionalism of the original modernists.
There are plenty of blocks on the European mainland which are very liveable, built in that style. And unless Mr Dalrymple wants to propose a new archiectural style that he thinks can improve on them, it's not worth taking him seriously - except as a self-indulgent grumbler.
But you look at what young travellers
and photographers actually spend time
appreciating and sharing images of
Abandoned, rusting power plants make great subjects for photography [1] - IMHO "striking photographs" is a poor proxy for beauty, popularity or good public architecture.I think the animus towards Brutalism is far more prevalent and justified than animus towards modernism.
(in french but it you don't really need to read the text to appreciate the pictures)
Crimes in concrete really irked me in the way the author just assumes that they hold the truth about architectural beauty.
Well, in the case of such buildings, most of the subjective opinion is a resounding "nah".
>But you look at what young travellers and photographers actually spend time appreciating and sharing images of, the modernist parts of Chicago, London and New York seem be appreciated at least as much as other cities and districts with well-regarded pre-20thC building
What tourists take pictures of (and even for that, old buildings are unmatched in popularity) is hardly the criterion to judge buildings other unfortunate people have to live in, and with.
It's nice and edgy to photograph a brutalist monstrosity with some filters (oh, apocalyptic dystopian chic). It's another thing to live there.