It‘s just completely dysfunctional. Architecture professors have focused on “innovation” for 100 years and have achieved little. We still flock to the old, 19th century (or older) city centers and love it. We spend thousands to spend a week or two there on holidays.
Very few modern places exist where this is the case.
In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs.
So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus.
Modern designs are affected by supply and demand, while modernist designs have been supplanted by many other school.
Innovation has ranged from tiny homes, to livable homes, to new materials, to shipping containers, building heights, concrete types, designs and more.
I’ve seen architectural styles emerge and evolve from different countries, so it’s hard to read this and find the source of your opinion.
The creation of public spaces is highly dependent on the governance of those localities.
I was bemoaning the growth of self sufficient enclaves as a real estate solution in Mumbai, but I acknowledge that this is the market providing for its consumers what the government is yet to provide.
Is this primarily an attack on academia, under the assumption that everyone hates the combination of “innovation” “modernism” and “professors”?
For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses.
It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would.
Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it.
Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative.
The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional.
This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example).
There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials.
Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.
Heck I know about classical building methods, styles and the economics behind them and I’m not even an architect.
And I was not even born in the west.
Like, I don’t expect a neophyte architect to use methods that can build houses only up to 3 stories based on stonework.
They need to use drywall and construction methods unique to their locality.
But there’s thousands of other and file architects, and thousands more who make insane and wonderful things, along with professors who …
Dear heavens, What happened on your journey?
Besides - there’s always place for new and interesting, if rebellion is your go to motif - have at it.
Modern itself was a rebellion against older forms and thinking.
If you don’t follow this stream, more often than not you will get bad grades or fail tests.
Some people said “architecture is not about education, it is about entering a cult”.
Some more details here: https://youtu.be/syQMTZyzqcg?si=NTz362TrktrIEBhr
And yet so many claim all we need is moooore housing.
I would love to see quality of life become more of a ubiquitous focus and feature of what is built.
We have a new, modern, but as cheap as possible building with the smallest legal unit sizes that went in around the corner from us less than 10 years ago. It's now nearly empty because every unit leaks, the appliances and cabinetry already need to be replaced, and it'll have to be half rebuilt to fix several structural problems.
The developer, fortunately, failed in getting a second building started because of community pushback. In response, the community has been attacked at the local, and recently international, level for being NIMBYs and "stopping necessary progress".
The same folks who promote more sustainable and people focused city design are fighting for these worthless buildings. Their intentions are right in the bigger picture sense, but they leave no nuance for what's actually happening on the ground.
Medieval castles can be very pretty to visit too, I wouldn't want to live in one if given modern choice regardless of wealth, even if ignoring all the red tape for any sort of change or even repair.
The issue is that architecture is not a science. It has nothing to do with the past 100 years. There is simply, to date, no solid theoretical foundation that can inform design. Corbu made a lame attempt in his early phase to establish a set of axioms, and that didn't work out.
So the search in the past 100 years wasn't entirely based on "innovation". The field is searching for something resembling a theoretical framework.
> So the whole profession has failed, since about the introduction of the Bauhaus.
This is a reactionary statement. There are numerous amazing works of architecture from the 20th. And your dragging in Bauhaus indicates you actually are not well read in the history of modern architecture. (This negative fascination with bauhaus carries a strong whiff of the National Socialist Germany, btw ..)
> In survey after survey, 80% of the people prefer traditional over modern(ist) designs.
Well, Architecture (contra building design) is high art. It is not for the unwashed. 80% of the people also prefer drivel for their cultural fare.
No, architecture is not high art. It is the most public of arts and hence needs to serve the people. And people know very well which environments they like and which ones they don‘t. Where they find emotional well-being. That is not a political question at all. The studies are consistent.
We also don‘t need a theory. Architecture is a bunch of patterns and insights into human nature that has been known for thousands of years.
The people should get what the people like, not what the elite likes. Nobody cares what you consider "high art". The term in itself is pretentious.
Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.
Materials change. Scale requirements have changed. Techniques have evolved. The forms are reflecting that. It is entirely correct to note that many of such efforts (mostly copycat rehashing of masterpieces of modernist architects by lesser talent) have proven ineffective, but that it is just the nature of the field. Architecture is not software. It takes generations to iterate through the possible solutions.
> Your "high art" is too desperately trying to make a name by standing out through being weird instead of better.
You have zero idea of what I consider high art in architecture. You are tilting at your own windmills buddy.
+There is nothing pretensious about distinguishing high and low cultural efforts. Let's consider our own field: should we all be forced to code in JavaScript and disavow more powerful constructs such as e.g. Haskell since the "common man" is incapable of groking it??
https://www.historyandheadlines.com/east-st-louis-and-the-ol...
So why "nation-state"?
Even the smallest country can and does make architectural and city-planning efforts. The american (not a nation-state) planned cities, usually built by average companies.