Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nearly Three-Quarters Of Americans Are Sick Of Modern Architecture
The Federalist ^ | October 17, 2020 | Evita Duffy

Posted on 10/17/2020 11:25:29 AM PDT by Kaslin

Since the overwhelming majority of Americans have proven time and time again that they prefer traditional architecture, why do government agencies force ugly buildings on the American people?


A new study finds 72 percent of Americans prefer traditional architecture for U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings, including majorities across political, racial, sex, and socioeconomic categories. The survey was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of National Civic Art Society and polled more than 2,000 U.S. adults.

These findings come in light of the possibility of a Trump administration executive order, appropriately named Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again, that would require that new office buildings in Washington, D.C. be classical in design. Among other things, the order would revise the 1962 “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” which forced modernism to be the official government building style. In response to the leak of the potential order, a bill entitled the “Democracy in Design Act” was proposed by House Democrats to overturn it.

However, based on the study, it appears Trump’s potential executive order would be happily received by a majority of Americans, with traditional architecture the clear winner for all demographic groups, including sex, age, geographic region, household income, education, race/ethnicity, and political party affiliations.

The study showed participants seven pairs of images depicting U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings. Each pair presented one building in a traditional style and one building in a modern style. For each pair, the survey question was: “Which of these two buildings would you prefer for a U.S. courthouse or federal office building?”

The selected images were edited to ensure fair comparisons. Factors such as sky color, angle of photo, light conditions, distance from building, weather conditions, and the like were all controlled either perfectly (e.g., sky color) or as perfect as possible via “careful photo selection and editing.”

Below is an example of one of the survey’s image pairings:

The resounding preference for traditional design was soundly bipartisan, being favored by 73 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of independents.

Preference for traditional architecture is shared across generations, being the top choice of 77 percent of those aged 65 or older, and 68 percent of those aged 18-34.

Both men and women prefer traditional architecture, but women are more likely than men to want U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings to be traditional, at 77 percent versus 67 percent, respectively.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aia; architecture; brutaliststyle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last
To: Kaslin

My favorite scene from Hannah and her sisters is Woody Allen’s comment on the architecture in New York with an obvious statement regarding modern architecture:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPzGI26Sivw#searching


41 posted on 10/17/2020 12:14:05 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
The photos are mostly of buildings in the concrete "brutalist" style.

Modern is being used in a broader sense, just as many composers are called classical who are technically calssical composers, but are easily distinguished from rock, hip-hop, blue grass and jazz.
42 posted on 10/17/2020 12:14:17 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
why do government agencies force ugly buildings on the American people?

Because it is a Communist goal to replace all aesthetic beauty with ugliness. It is all part of a plan to demoralize the American people.

43 posted on 10/17/2020 12:14:20 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (But what do I know? I'm just a backwoods engineer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
When graduate school a professor said: “Institutions need buildings, but architects want monuments “. There is the crux of the problem.

Sort of. But in comparison to what today's post-modernist "starchitects" are doing, the brutalism of the 1960s and 1970s seems drab and functional. Architects then may have thought that they were being daring and path-breaking, but their stuff doesn't impress at all now.

44 posted on 10/17/2020 12:15:13 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

I think so as well. I saw a documentary on FLW which said he thought his building was better than anything hung on it’s walls.


45 posted on 10/17/2020 12:16:38 PM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Brutalist concrete structures from the Sixties/Seventies are not modern architecture.
46 posted on 10/17/2020 12:18:11 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ([CTRL]-[GALT]-[DELETE])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda

It wouldn’t take much.


47 posted on 10/17/2020 12:19:07 PM PDT by mewzilla (Break out the mustard seeds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Boston City Hall






The brutalest of the Brutalists.

48 posted on 10/17/2020 12:20:09 PM PDT by left that other site (If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all. (Isaiah 7:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

On the other hand London is still full of those awful 60s buildings, no imagination at all, just square blocks.


49 posted on 10/17/2020 12:20:28 PM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

I think “Modern” is just a style that succeeded more classic architecture. I’ve noticed the segmenting of modern into sub periods and styles (ie. mid-century modern).


50 posted on 10/17/2020 12:20:52 PM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I see it most obviously on college campuses.

Some time between the early 1930s and the late 1940s, Americans went from building strong, beautiful buildings of stone and slate on the exterior, with wood finishings and interiors, to ugly cement / steel boxes with nondescript and ugly interiors.

It is like a switch was flipped. No doubt the ideology and morality of the country began to flip at that time as well.


51 posted on 10/17/2020 12:22:23 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Construction quality went down when slavery ended.


52 posted on 10/17/2020 12:22:26 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
it's not architecture, it has no esthetic value, it is simply construction
53 posted on 10/17/2020 12:25:39 PM PDT by Chode (Send bachelors and come heavily armed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda

Frank wanted his buildings to be part of it’s surroundings, and make use of the native, local materials as much as possible.

Falling Water is a good example of that philosophy.


54 posted on 10/17/2020 12:27:26 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wildcard_redneck
Speaking of brutalism,

This architectural "gem", the Orange County Gov't Center in Goshen, NY. One of Paul Rudolph's, ahem, masterpieces. It was plagued with leaks and mold from the day it was completed in 1971, 87 roofs, what could possibly go wrong? It was finally demolished 8 yrs ago over the objections of the World Monument Fund and artsy fartsy types who thought the building was beautiful.
The town of Goshen is for all intents and purposes an historical site, many houses built before the Civil War and it's home to the oldest horse race track in N America. To say this monstrousity was out of place is an understatement.
55 posted on 10/17/2020 12:28:09 PM PDT by Impala64ssa (Virtue signalling is no virtue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

We did the tour there a few years back, it’s...different.


56 posted on 10/17/2020 12:29:04 PM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
I would guess the driving force for “ugly” architecture is cost. Straight unadorned walls are faster and cheaper than moldings, carvings and columns.

I have nothing against Canada, but I find this to an extreme there. I was in Montreal recently. Anything outside the city center is cheap box architecture, with a few cheesy “modern" adornments. Its soviet architecture softened slightly for a mass-marketing and commercial purpose. America has the same, but they are further down the soul-destroying path of post-modernism and phony collectivist- materialism than we are.

57 posted on 10/17/2020 12:30:49 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

One of my colonial ancestors built a house in New England that is still standing, in great shape, and sadly not for sale. It’s beautiful. I’d live in that in a heartbeat.


58 posted on 10/17/2020 12:30:54 PM PDT by mewzilla (Break out the mustard seeds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
A disclaimer: I am not a fan of modernist architecture. It is ok in some settings; if you have an Architectural Digest-worthy house cantilevered off a cliff overlooking the ocean, or perched on a bluff with miles of mountain or desert vistas stretching in all directions, a modernist structure might work: simplicity of line; expanses of glass to admit the out-of-doors; a structure that depends on its setting for effect. But modernism usually seems barren in more ordinary settings, and it tends not to play well with other styles. Most of us have neighbors next door and across the street, and I would be embarrassed to trash their view with a sterile modernist structure.

That said, I will still put in a plug for my favorite movie discovery of recent years: Columbus (Kogonada, 2017). The film is not "about" architecture, exactly, but it uses the modernist architecture of Columbus, Indiana to great effect. An architectural exploration becomes an important narrative prop in an unlikely emergent friendship (John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson, both excellent), and modernism becomes a metaphor. It is very well done. The film itself is an exploration of family, loss, loneliness, relationships and moving on. It is contemplative; there are no zombies, aliens, explosions, terrorists, sex scenes or car chases, and nobody dies. It is brilliantly acted and beautifully shot. It starts very quietly and builds; give it 15 minutes for the story to come to you, and you will be hooked.

The Columbus architecture story is worth knowing. J. Irwin Miller was for many years president and then chairman of Cummins, a big company that stayed home in Columbus, Indiana. Somewhere along the line, Miller got interested in modernist architecture. Under his guidance, the Cummins Foundation offered to pay the architectural fees for any Columbus institution willing to invest in a prestige building designed by an architect drawn from an approved list. As a result, Columbus has an astonishing collection of buildings designed by the top modernist architects of the mid-20th century. I had the opportunity to drive through Columbus earlier this year. The modernist buildings there are moderately scaled, in a way that is appropriate for a smaller, low-density midwestern city. At this scale, good landscaping makes a big difference and they blend very nicely with their more traditionist neighbors. (The biggest and ugliest modernist building, not surprisingly, is a school, which the film mocks as "brutal.") Anyone who wants to hate on modernist architecture should visit Columbus and see what can be achieved if done right. At larger scales, however, massive concrete, steel and glass buildings that can't be balanced by landscaping turn me off.

59 posted on 10/17/2020 12:32:10 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda

That building, the Guggenheim, is not only hideous, its interior is vertigo-inducing as you walk the tilted corridors, and the curves were made without benefit of modern computer imaging and have gross imperfections. It is a blot on the landscape outside as well.


60 posted on 10/17/2020 12:32:56 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice." --Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson