
The Rise of the Architectural Cult - tintinnabula
https://inference-review.com/article/the-rise-of-the-architectural-cult
======
SiempreViernes
When someone seriously describes architectural styles with words like "an
aberration, something alien to the history of humanity, something destructive
aesthetically and spiritually, something ugly and unpleasant, something that
was inhumane and abnormal", every one should have enough sense to treat the
text with caution.

To complement the unreservedly approving review posted by OP, here is a more
level headed one, by someone that does not happily accept "secret cult" as the
full explanation for shifts in culture:
[https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/modernism-and-
the-m...](https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/modernism-and-the-making-
of-dystopia_o)

Finally, for balance, here is a review by someone that clearly thinks "mental
manipulation" is such a failure of explanation of a historical process that
some liberty can be when reviewing the book:
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-
architecture-i...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/modernist-architecture-
isnt-barbarous-but-the-blinkered-rejection-of-it-is/)

~~~
pharke
The first article seems a rather long winded way of saying:

"He's not entirely wrong, there are lots of extremely ugly modernist
buildings, especially those which are done on a budget or are uninspired. The
earlier style buildings are usually of consistently good quality or at least
non-offensive even when cheaply or formulaically done since they incorporate
many elements are are inherently pleasing to human nature. But I disagree with
the author's premise that Modernism was forced on society by its creators and
believe it is simply an unconventional style originating from a war stricken
period that became wildly popular with people seeking a novel architecture."

I still think Curl's point stands that Modernist architecture is founded on
rather unnatural patterns and images. I mean unnatural in its most literal
sense, not of nature or not incorporating naturally occurring patterns. The
pre-modern style gravitates towards the natural and takes inspiration from it.
It's no surprise that applying those rules instantly humanizes a structure.

It's the difference between a parking lot and a park. The former is a blank,
utilitarian space optimized for storing cars, the latter a landscaped
environment optimized for human occupation. Sure you can make a beautifully
executed parking lot but it will never be as comfortable a place to be on a
sunny day as even the most lack lustre park with a few shade trees and a
carpet of grass.

~~~
SiempreViernes
I can't find anything in the text to support the unchecked praise for all pre-
modern buildings you claim to be there.

The best the text provides is the assertion that "the pre-modern architectural
language could be easily learned" and so even those of modest talents could
make good buildings. Hardly the claim of inherent pleasure in the pre-modern
form you say is there!

The idea that there is anything straightforwardly natural about any building
endowed with architecture is not very well thought throught.

That or the sympthom of astonishingly poor comprehension of geology and
ecology.

------
joeblubaugh
The trappings of this cult have trickled all the way down to ugly
“intersecting cubes” single family homes. They’re ugly, badly colored, and
lack a “home” feeling.

The opposite form of bad home architecture (McMansiondom) suffers many similar
problems - no actual consideration of real livability and usefulness.

We repainted our house a pale pink with an aqua door and I feel happy every
time I come down the street to see it. Bring some fun and whimsy to your home!

~~~
nradov
McMansions are actually quite livable for the primary target market: upper
middle class suburbanites with small children who like to entertain
occasionally. The major home builders literally employ sociologists who
research how families actually live in their homes and use that to help their
architects design new floorplans.

~~~
joeblubaugh
I grew up in one, my parents currently live in a different one.

Both had major livability issues: \- No privacy (too much open plan space) \-
very expensive to heat and cool due to poor insulation \- poor construction
(this is both a design issue and a quality issue) \- ugly (as the article
contends, this is a quality-of-life issue)

------
rchase
James Kunstler (despite being a bit of a kook), has been making this argument
compellingly and entertainingly for like, 20 years.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7oJjWg8_Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz7oJjWg8_Y)

~~~
NeuNeurosis
He doesn't seem kooky besides how passionate he is about how bad the
architectural landscape is and how powerful a remedy it would be for
reinvigorating civic life. He has some good things to say and he really is
articulate about how things are and their consequences.

------
praptak
Christopher Alexander original pattern book was motivated by this sad state of
contemporary architecture. Unfortunately architecture now is possibly even
crappier than it was then but at least we got some new ideas in software
development (the GoF book).

~~~
motohagiography
Came here to reference Alexander as a reaction against modernist tyranny and
say how it was his work that influenced software architects and designers
today moreso than any of the modernists. Given buildings are necessarily
expressions of economy, it is very difficult to discuss architecture without
including moral and political questions.

The post-modernist discussions of architecture go far in one direction, barely
even bothing to discuss building, (see Robert Venturi's "Leaving Las Vegas,"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi))

When you look at the time and values of the Bauhaus, the architecture was also
an expression of values, a rejection of craft, religion, nobility, hierarchy.
It was the imposition of form on the landscape, and with it, society. It was
without awe, reverence, respect, or recognition of anything greater than
material human needs.

Mies van Der Rohe's buildings at least have some nods to the origin of their
materials, but today they seem quaint and sentimental for their naive and
dated view of progress. Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the
expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations.

~~~
SiempreViernes
> Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals
> we look back on today as abominations.

Well, the resulting buildings are fairly or unfairly ( lots of things built
much after the styles died out get mislabelled ) criticized for their looks,
nobody really objects to their _design principles_. Hardly anyone on the
brutalism hate-train even know what brutalism was about, and just object to
any concrete facade, for example.

~~~
JohnFen
> nobody really objects to their design principles.

As a layman, I do not know, nor care, about the design principles involved.
What I care about is how a building makes me feel and most modern everyday
architecture seems to want me to feel bad.

------
voldacar
I can't but agree - Mies Van der Rohe and Le Corbusier's archetecture in
particular is just so unlovable. Where is the sense of warmth or sensuousness
or childlike wonder? A lot of those buildings really seem like they could only
be designed and seen as actually desirable and good by a very psychologically
warped kind of person. So dominating and overpowering. No play or whimsy, no
sense of the delicate or harmonious. Yuck

~~~
deltron3030
It's important to understand their context, where people like Mies are coming
from. They're coming from a time when there were still very strong
expectations regarding how things have to look or behave, independent from
their actual utility and function, and they basically took a radical stance
against that.

Then later cam people like Zaha Hadid who in turn rebelled against the mid
century modernists and their ubiquity with a radically organic approach
(avoiding sharp edges and corners).

------
jeffrallen
I live in a house from 1860 with a 2013 remodel of one wall of one room
designed by architects that were inspired by Le Corbusier. Respecting the soul
of a place, while introducing fresh and exciting lines is delicate, but worth
it.

I should also say that this remodel respects also our need to live with the
room and the adjoining garden in all seasons.

I've used the word respect in two sentences there. Perhaps there's something
to that....

------
JohnFen
I don't know architecture, but is this the explanation for the increasingly
ugly and soul-crushing building designs that have been getting built over the
past decade or so? Particularly with apartment buildings.

They try to dress them up in wood and faded pastel colors, but none of that
makes anything better. They're still huge, hideous boxes built right up to the
edge of the sidewalks.

~~~
Analemma_
No, that's a separate thing: you're thinking of "one-plus-five" apartments,
which came about because of fire code changes that allow for wood frames on
top of concrete bases, and have a limited number of styling options available
because wood and concrete have different thermal/rain expansion behavior.

Unfortunately, while they're bland, they're also much cheaper to build than
previous apartment styles, and so they're an urgently-needed part of fixing
the housing issues in dense cities. Lower housing costs take priority over
aesthetic considerations.

~~~
JohnFen
Interesting, although none of these buildings are wood-framed. They're all
concrete with a wood panel decoration hung on the outside, or with different
blocks painted different faded pastel colors.

Edit: I'm talking about stuff like this: [http://lookfordesigns.com/modern-
apartment-building-architec...](http://lookfordesigns.com/modern-apartment-
building-architecture/modern-apartment-buildings-architecture-famous/)

> Lower housing costs take priority over aesthetic considerations.

I suppose this makes a certain amount of sense, but in my (and many other
people's) view, these buildings are simply unlivable and reduce the livability
of the area they exist in. So, in a sense, they're a kind of "negative
housing" in that the more of them exist, the less areas are acceptable for at
least some people to exist in.

I try to be optimistic about the future, but the rate at which these buildings
are going up makes it hard for me, because it means that I can't actually
trust that a given area is a place I can remain in the long term. Now I have
to have an escape plan anywhere I decide to be.

I acknowledge that my whining about this may be an "old man yelling at clouds"
thing, but it does cause me real distress.

~~~
poslathian
These buildings distress me as well. I always called them panel style before I
learned of one-plus-five. I often imagine finding the developer, and looking
at the building with them saying - look at what you left here! Bad dog!

------
tsimionescu
The article keeps mentioning that modern architecture is less likely to help
with healing, which is a very odd terminology, I would have liked to see some
explanation of what it means by that. At first read, it sounds very much like
new-age mumbo-jumbo, but the rest of the article doesn't have that vibe, so I
was left confused.

~~~
hellisothers
“Recent scientific advances have also provided support for the notion that
architectural environments influence wellbeing“ Has a reference, healing here
isn’t meant as literally healing the sick (necessarily) as making one “feel
good” in its presence.

------
dirtyid
Like many things, "culture" is a second level manifestation of economic and
industrial realities. Old housing typologies and building methods are not
viable in the age of concrete, steel, glass mass production. Same
commodification + value engineering forces behind everything we manufacture as
process matures. It doesn't help that because building are still (relatively)
durable objects, changes in the building industry are extremely conservative.
Sustainability became an consideration once energy prices and operating costs
justified the pivot. Even then it takes decades to validate new methods and
processes due to regulations.

There's boutique firms and programs who can still build traditional buildings
at exorbitant prices, but they're luxury products, the kind necessarily not
viable for mass consumption. What article states about architecture design
schools is somewhat true, but building is an extremely complex process now,
architects are trained as generalists that specialize in the field. It's akin
to small indie game development studio where one person has to design, code,
do regulatory and compliance work, some light engineering, while being versed
in several software packages and have good presentation skills. It's a little
excessive for a 3-4 year masters program, but the alternative is the old
journeyman draftsmens system which degree treadmill culture has made non
viable in many sought after industries.

------
skybrian
It seems odd to blame architects when their clients (often developers) have
final say in what their buildings look like? Customers who want an old-
fashioned look can certainly find an architect to design it.

~~~
poslathian
Fashion is a key word here. Most customers - especially commercial developers
- have a shockingly neutral sense of taste. Here is the budget, build the most
fashionable thing you can. I think loads of modern buildings are essentially
the same type of creative product as corporate video music.
[https://youtu.be/AIxY_Y9TGWI](https://youtu.be/AIxY_Y9TGWI)

------
whatitdobooboo
The article seems a little sensationalist to me, but some interesting points.
(I am not an architect)

"The Bauhaus offered young people a complete and simplistic worldview with
every detail filled in, and a sacred cause that provided emotional and
spiritual fulfillment."

I would argue that rather than nefarious motives guiding cookie-cutter designs
its a lot of economics and fear of making a bad decision. This isn't really
unique to Architecture, but architecture is much more visible and permanent
than say a Dell Laptop.

Also it doesn't really offer a solution...but awareness is always good

------
smitty1e
See also Roger Scruton => [https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/319-the-
aesthetics-of...](https://www.roger-scruton.com/articles/319-the-aesthetics-
of-architecture)

The question is: how long until 3D printing allows an architectural
renaissance, as cost-prohibitive decorative bits (could) come back into cost
scope?

~~~
SiempreViernes
I think decoration was largely removed or left out because it costs much to
_maintain_ , not so much for the extra cost at the time you put up the
building.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Decoration was removed because modernism was explicitly about rationalisation
and abstraction.

You have to understand the movement in context. The preceding decades were
dominated by the faux-organic elements in Art Nouveau - which wasn't any less
stylised or artificial.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau#/media/File:The_Pe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau#/media/File:The_Peacock_Room.jpg)

Meanwhile the working poor were living in slums.

[https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article1085739...](https://i2-prod.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article10857395.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/slum.jpg)

So one of the motivations for the Bauhaus was affordable humane mass housing.
It wasn't entirely successful - a lot of blocks/projects turned into concrete
slums themselves - but it was still better in practical ways than existing
slum architecture, which didn't even have indoor bathrooms.

It's easy to point out the mistakes and get lost in nostalgia for some kind of
architectural golden age. But that age never existed.

For all its many faults, the Bauhaus succeeded in raising the quality of basic
housing, and in pioneering mass market affordable industrial furniture
manufacture.

It also had a lingering influence on industrial consumer design of other goods
- including computers.

At the corporate scale, critics tend to like this kind of thing:

[https://www.somersethouse.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/...](https://www.somersethouse.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/header_desktop/public/The%20Edmond%20J.%20Safra%20Fountain%20Court%2C%20Somerset%20House%2C%20Image%20by%20Kevin%20Meredith%20361_1.jpg)

It certainly has its charms compared to a glass wall skyscraper. But copying
an 18th century style today would be strange. And it's also a very expensive
way to build.

In fact, when modern architects try to aim for that style they get it
hopelessly wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury#/media/File:Queen_Mo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundbury#/media/File:Queen_Mother_SQUARE,_Poundbury,_Dorset.jpg)

One answer is to move on from 20th century modernism with new techniques,
including computer-assisted generative and parametric design to create new
ideas about form and decoration.

[https://media.wired.com/photos/5927176ff3e2356fd800b6f4/mast...](https://media.wired.com/photos/5927176ff3e2356fd800b6f4/master/w_2264,c_limit/01.-Heydar-
Aliyev-Center-Baku_photo-by-Hufton-Crow.jpg)

It's still recognisably rooted in the Bauhaus aesthetic, but it's not
slavishly copying the rectangles-and-glass-everywhere look.

------
MoZeus
Wrongheaded and unhelpful on so many levels

------
heisenbit
Interesting perspective.

------
lkhliutier34
Nassim Taleb also ranted regarding this:

> _The problem is architects building structures to impress other architects
> --but plumbers don 't act on impressing other plumbers._

> _2- Ancestral architecture: no Euclidian geometry, high dimensionality. Even
> pyramids when close show rich micro-patters (Met in NYC). Today 's
> architecture is "smooth", Eucledian, & of low dimensionality._

[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1073918706663768065](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1073918706663768065)

~~~
toasterlovin
I normally hate everything NNT has to say and especially the way he says it,
but on this matter we are in agreement.

