Does Modern Architecture Really Suck?
Musings of a kid in a candy store that is the internet.
Let us begin with some definitions:
Traditional/classical architectural style is characterized by intricate carvings, is ornate, and exudes royalness. By “classical architecture”, note that I am not referring to the actual Classical architecture; rather, I am referring to the architectural style that predated modern architecture.
Modern architectural style is one that is characterized by the philosophies of “less is more”, “form follows function” and minimalism.
The popular consensus is that modern architecture is plain and boring while traditional architecture is truly beautiful and magnificent. This YouTube comment concisely captures the criticism against modern architecture:
I too expressed the same sentiment in my previous post:
Though I am a fan of modern architecture, I have realized that skyscrapers are lifeless compared to something like St Paul's Cathedral. When you stand in front of the Cathedral, you feel tiny. It has character, elegance, and royal magnificence which makes you want to kneel and surrender….You don’t feel shit when you stand in front of the Shard. It is basically a big slab of glass.
The National Civic Art Society conducted a survey where 72% of the people said they prefer classical architecture over modern.
But most buildings that are being built today are these modern buildings. Why? Do architects not care about public opinion? Or do architects believe that modern architecture is objectively better than traditional architecture irrespective of people's “subjective” taste?
This trend of declining beauty, as Scott points out in his blog, is not limited to buildings. He argues that our taste has degraded across the board: buildings, attire, music, art, and sculptures. This image by Scott is a striking comparison between what used to be considered good in the past versus the present.
Here are some more examples:
This same argument applies to temples too. Historically, temples were the epitome of artisanship. The towers had thousands of miniature sculptures on them, and pillars were embellished with sophisticated carvings.
Look at a modern-day temple like the ISCKON:
What in the world is that abomination? Looks more like a try-harding office building than a temple.
Traditional architecture had a grandiose to it. It took a high degree of craftsmanship to build those buildings. It had character. It was and still is, truly awe-inspiring. Buildings of modern architecture on the other hand, as this YouTuber put it, “aren’t cherished homes or dynamic places of work, they are storage containers for drones.”
It seems as if we no longer build what is beautiful, we just build.
Why?
Scott suggests that this is because of our declining taste. Perhaps that is true for art and sculpture but I disagree with him on architecture. Here is why.
Rosy Retrospection
There is a fair bit of grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side going on.
Today’s architectural landscape in many western cities is dominated by modern buildings. People have an extra fondness for classical architecture simply because they are rare and “they just don’t build buildings like these anymore”. Part of why we like them so much is because of their "lost" aesthetic.
We imagine the past to be more beautiful than today, affecting our view of the two architectural styles.
Even if we discount the fact that people romanticize the past, the fact remains: people simply like history. Something about the buildings being centuries old, and having seen generations of human establishment makes us look at them with wonder. We see an old building and imagine the stories it holds. Obviously, modern architecture does not have that historical allure to it.
All you need to do to break this bias is to do a simple thought experiment. If we took someone from the 11th century and put them in an air-conditioned, concrete-and-glass building, would they call it ugly or would they enjoy the view from the 110th floor? Would they complain that everything is so plain and lifeless or would they enjoy the ride up to the 110th floor on a super-fast elevator? Which is a good segue to my next point..
Practicality
The buildings of the past were mostly all talk and no show. They looked grand on the outside but were poorly lit on the inside, and poorly ventilated. Timber, a widely used construction material, was a huge fire hazard and offered poor insulation from outside weather. Of course, the affluent back then overcame this by having dozens of housekeeping staff who were given tasks like lighting lamps, fanning the residents, and so on.
Advances in material science gave us improved building blocks (literally, in this case). We then focused more on making the functionality of buildings better than on making the appearance better. Steel and concrete are fire retardants and provide better insulation, glass-tech of today produces huge glass panels which allow for better lighting, and we are able to build sturdier, longer-lasting taller buildings.
Modern architecture beats classical architecture when it comes to practicality.
WWII
In the 1950s, post-WWII, governments all over the world were on a reconstruction spree. They wanted to construct more buildings in lesser time and for a lower cost. The governments did not give a rat’s ass about beauty and understandably so. During this period, the philosophy of “form follows function” in architecture gained momentum. A style of architecture called Brutalism was the first to embody this philosophy.
Brutalism is characterized by ruggedness and concrete. A lot of concrete. Which makes sense because concrete was widely available and cheap. Brutalist buildings looked industrial and monotonous, and as the critics of brutalism put it, they….looked a lot like prisons. Take a look for yourself:
The above building is the National Theatre in London. If you thought it was a nuclear power plant, don’t worry. You are not alone. Even King Charles III felt the same.
One might quickly jump to the conclusion that we lost taste at this moment. I disagree. I think our priority simply shifted. We embraced brutalism not for its beauty (though it does have its own appeal), but for its efficiency and politeness. Politeness because imagine if someone built an decorative building during a wartime period. They would have to be tone-deaf beyond imagination.
Brutalism as an architectural style falls under the broad category of Modern architecture and was the first, large-scale departure from the decorative classical architecture. It was born, not out of a taste-decline but out of the need for quick post-war reconstruction.
The Rise of the Cities
Old school buildings don't scale well.
For a given size of land, you can fit a lot more people in a tall apartment building than in a big victorian house. For a given period of time, you can build more modern buildings than classical buildings. For a given amount of money, you can build a bigger modern building than a classical building.
We should not forget that we have been in a period of population boom, globalization, capitalism, and industrialization in the last few decades. This gave rise to population concentration centers aka cities. Cities were where jobs were available and people flocked to them which resulted in a space crunch. Also, as more jobs were created, more people were able to afford a house which led to an increased demand for houses. Something had to be done to meet the growing demand for houses.
What do you think the government and the city planners cared about? Building beautiful structures? Or just building something practical, quick, and big so as to accommodate the influx? No points for guessing the right answer.
Architects’ Revolt
We as inhabitants of cities do not see as much architecture as the architects see because that is what they study. It is possible that they got tired of seeing the old-school style of architecture. They wanted to break the status quo and build something different. They saw the ornate style as excessive.
Minimalism or “less is more” philosophy is the antithesis of classical architectural philosophy. So when it was introduced, it was considered to be radical and revolutionary. Combine this together with the points above and it starts to make sense why modern architecture is commonplace today.
Comfort Over Status Signalling
What the critics of modern architecture miss is also the shift in the individual’s priorities. In the past, individuals wanted to show off with gold vases, diamond studded door knobs, intricate carvings, and portrait paintings as big as their narcissism.
Over time, our priorities have shifted from signaling wealth to buying convenience and comfort. Home theatre, in-house gym, sauna, temperature-controlled swimming pool, climate control, automatic window blinds, temperature-controlled mattresses, and many such features to make you live a king-sized life.
But it is not that these people run out of money after getting fancy features. They have a whole lot more in the bank to splurge. But, the golden vases just don’t seem to be making a comeback anymore.
Why?
Perhaps because the public considers the wealthy to be uncool and lavish displays of wealth, unfashionable. I agree with Scott’s conjecture here:
Paul Fussell says that pre-Great Depression mansions were beautiful giant houses in the center of town, where everyone could see them and marvel at how rich the owner was. During the Depression, it became awkward to flaunt wealth while everyone else was starving, and the super-rich switched to a strategy of having mansions in the countryside behind lots of hedges and trees where nobody could see them. I remember somebody (not a historian) claiming that the French Revolution had a similar effect on European nobility - it stopped being quite as cool to rub how rich you were in peasants' faces, and going to court in silks and gold jewelery became less fashionable. The closer you get to the present, the more rich people start to feel like their position is precarious, and other people might resent them - and to act accordingly.
To be honest, I do like the minimalist design and the "less is more" philosophy. I think people who vehemently hate today's architecture are romanticizing the past, missing the historical context that gave rise to modern architecture, and overlooking its benefits.
I am also convinced that if we gave the public what they wanted and started building more classical buildings today, they would start finding classical buildings to be boring. If classical architecture became as commonplace as modern, a few decades later they would whine about how “we used to make futuristic buildings that were super cool and tall a few decades back but sadly, we have stopped building them now”. We, humans, have a tendency to overvalue things that are scarce and undervalue things that are in abundance.
Contemporary Architecture
Alright, let's talk about the future.
What is the future of architecture going to look like? Are we doomed to live with these boxy, bland, glass and steel buildings? With scientific advances and the world war far behind us, can we start building stuff that looks beautiful again?
Cue contemporary architecture.
The new-age, emerging class of architectural styles is making a radical departure from modern architecture. And boy do they look phenomenal.
I am going to let pictures do the talking here. Take a look at the works of some of the renowned contemporary, post-modernist architects:
Frank Gehry
Postmodern Architectural Style: Deconstructivism
Zaha Hadid (my personal favorite)
Postmodern Architectural Style: Neo-Futurism, Deconstructivism
Frank Lloyd
Postmodern Architectural Style: Prarie style
Michael Graves
Postmodern Architectural Style: New Classicism, Abstract Modernism
Misc Contemporary Architecture
Playful postmodernism and non-conformism of James Stirling:
Cyberpunk architecture of Hiroshi Hara:
Atelier Jean Nouvel’s architecture of contrasts:
The elemental architecture style of Jeanne Gang
Arata Isozaki’s Japanese postmodernism:
The key takeaway here is that Qatar has a lot of money and uses it to build lots of pretty buildings.
Wait, no.
The takeaway is that we can make pretty-looking buildings. Sure, they might not look pretty the way classical architecture was. But, as we make progress in material science and our priorities change, our taste in architecture changes.
The evolution of architecture is a reflection of our own evolution as a species. Let’s not be a purist that thinks of any departure from classical architecture to be egregious. Let’s embrace it.
Except for that ISCKON temple. That is peak egregiousness.
Sources & Further Reading
At the end of the day, the above article is just my personal take on modern architecture. These videos can help you in forming your own opinion:
Anti-modern arch/pro-classical arch:
Pro-modern arch:
Thanks to Bhavya and Bhargavi for reading drafts of this.
All views expressed by the author are personal.
Any feedback and criticism are more than welcome. Hit me up on Twitter or LinkedIn or Instagram.
Thanks for reading! If you liked it, do share it with your friends and family.
To receive this weekly newsletter in your mailbox every Sunday (kind of), subscribe below.