# The Quest to “Liberate” Architecture from Modernism’s Evils



## william of waco (Jul 13, 2008)

From *archdaily*



> Nikos Salingaros is unafraid of a controversial statement. A professor of Mathematics and Urban theory, he has been using his scientific approach to study architecture and urban environments for years, and has come to a conclusion: Modernism is just about the worst thing that happened to architecture.
> 
> As Salingaros explains, not only is it impossible to have any “Green” architecture within a modernist framework, but, moreover, Modernism encourages us to deny our biologically-evolved senses and embrace an unnatural, inhuman built world – and why? Because there’s a whole lot of money and power behind those “modernist boxes.” As Salingaros puts it:
> 
> _“Architectural Education ever since the Bauhaus, and continuing to the present day without interruption, teaches students to interpret built forms according to very peculiar abstract criteria, and not through their own biologically-evolved senses and cognitive intelligence. This is radical training in sensory denial: desensitizing people so that their interpretation of the world can be defined by others with an agenda.”_


The rest of the article is here:

http://www.archdaily.com/397653/meet-the-man-liberating-architecture-from-modernism-s-evils/


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Stupid article and stupid thread title. Modernism is not evil nor has it ever been. Sounds like something a classicist hermit living mentally in the 1890s would have written. 

Modernism is about the appreciation of clean lines and forms, with repetitive forms that emphasize 'pattern.' It was extremely mind-blowing for those who lived in the 1940s with the same old brick structures everywhere to see clean steel and glass towers rising without setbacks above them. They could truly appreciate its _entire_ form and height, as opposed to classicist buildings which rely solely on superficial detailing to attract attention and created an unimpressive impact from the base, due to the setbacks. 

These days, you can sell any design by just warping the glass here and there. Not much thought is put into unity of form or pattern. But the real modernists, like Mies Van Der Rohe, put not only functionality (the only aspect classicist/postmodernists focus on, to build up to support their anti-modernist agenda, alongside calling them 'boxes' to distract from any appealing aspects of modernism) but also verticality, cleanliness, space, and lighting. 

Lastly, the only reason I would guess modernist architecture had _anything_ to do with 'control' (as anti-modernist propaganda claims) is the social housing blocks that everyone hates. These are _NOT_ the epitomes of modernism. They were not built with the modernist philosophies in mind, instead they were built to allow for easy housing. Although some were built in the modernist style, they were left to deteriorate so badly due to the criminals and the insane that lived in them, that they ended up scary places and looking like dumps. These apartments are NOT what modernism is about. 

Modernism is, once again, about the appreciation of clean forms, ines and use of space and lighting to create an effect, not 'control.'

Verticality/Horizonticality

























Clean forms 









Pattern and space


----------



## fountainkopf (Aug 18, 2013)

william of waco said:


> From *archdaily*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with Salignaros about the concern he has..but he he is totally wrong about the possibilities of making green with modern architecture.

Modern architecture is almost always displayed without green plants nowadays that functionality had 60 years ago. It was also the very idea for Le Corbusiers Plan Voisin etc. to have maximum green environment.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013230900198X

Vertcal greenery systems are becoming very popular.


----------



## socrates#1fan (Jul 1, 2008)

Excellent article.

There is a reason humans decorate things. We are lovers of ornamentation. Nature is ornate and intricate, and being creatures of nature we will, if left to our own organic flow, create buildings that follow suit.


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

Thalassophoneus said:


> The only buildings humans have been decorating for the past millennia have been religious buildings. Vernacular architecture has always been rather simple, cause humans never really sought to live and sleep in godly environments and spaces mimicking nature. There is a reason why today people collecting too many antiques and ornamental objects in their house are seen as a little crazy.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Hed_Kandi said:


> ​


All of these buildings are from the modern times, mimicking ancient and medieval religious architecture. And some of them are public buildings like churches and concert halls whereas the rest belong to a minority of Art Nouveau apartment buildings. There is usually little ornament in vernacular architecture.

Greece









https://www.booking.com/hotel/gr/paradosiako-spiti-koursarakou.el.html

England









https://mapio.net/pic/p-39225915/

Arabia

https://web.500px.com/photo/23712383/Rawasheen-by-Hani-Abuljadayel/

China









https://www.archdaily.com/804034/4-...s-you-should-know-about-before-they-disappear

Indonesia









https://inhabitat.com/pole-houses/pole-houses-indonesia/

Even Neo-Classical houses are minimal. The only Classical thing on this one is the columns and the pediment, and the columns are unflutted Doric while the pediment is blank.









https://www.thoughtco.com/neoclassical-houses-gallery-of-photos-4065256


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

Me, after reading the Title of the thread:










Why does Modern Architecture get labeled as Evil? What about Gothic? Doesn't the Gothic architecture look equally as terrifying? 
^^ This ridiculous question is aimed only to those of you getting gravely scared from architecture.

If I was to be scared from Evil looking architecture, Gothic architecture would've scared the shit out of me, just as much as Brutalist. 
Luckily for me, both architectural styles only inspire awe and a miraculous feeling in me when I see them.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Architecture lover said:


> Me, after reading the Title of the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no "evil looking" architecture because none would like it. Gothic is awe-inspiring and otherwordly and one of its greatest achievements as it kept evolving was to diminish the thickness of walls, buttresses and all structural elements to let light flood the interior of European cathedrals.

The Amiens cathedral








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiens_Cathedral

Degrading Gothic cathedrals may look disturbing, but with some good restoration they can be truly beautiful. The best proof to this is the most astonishing of all Gothic interiors, the Sainte-Chapelle.








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Chapelle

Brutalism can also be pretty nice when used correctly, like on the Barbican Estate or Habitat 67.

As far as Nikos Salingaros's anti-modern campaign is concerned, I think it should just be ignored by the architectural community. Salingaros is just a mathematician with a big opinion about everything. He might be right about some things, like early and middle 20th century modernism being paternalistic and inefficient, but he loses his right for preaching about a Modernist conspiracy against humanity, trying to tell people what they "should" like, making claims without providing evidence, being aggressive towards the entire architectural community and using the opinion of "physicists and biologists" and any scientist besides architects themselves.


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

I agree, the sense of light bathing interiors is exceptionally captured in English Gothic examples.
The Gloucester Cathedral has one side fully covered with glass, it is a set of the best preserved medieval glass, painted only in blue and red.













However I don't think a single worker in the 3rd WTC will ever complain about their view. Infact I truly don't understand how all these historic loving people dislike contemporary architecture so much, it doesn't even follow the strict form follows function XXth century rule, it's largely postmodern in a way.
I mean which strict function does the Oculus shape follow? 
It is obviously done for the sake to look pretty and interesting, and that's wonderful. 

I am so glad I choose architecture lover as my username, I don't get to divide architecture just because I happen to have a certain affinity towards a single style (we all have one). I love it all.
Would never understand people who label the FallingWater House as evil. Nor do I wish to understand those who'd like to see the Dallas City Hall down only because they like Classical more. 











Source


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

I haven't seen the WTC Transportation Hub up close but judging from the photos, it doesn't really fit in Manhattan's environment. The surrounding skyscrapers don't let you enjoy it. It's like an alien thing threatening to poke the surrounding buildings and I don't even understand what does it need these "wings" for.

Modern architecture is capable of a lot but, like many styles of architecture, it needs caution on how it is used.


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

Now that it's finished with the square around it, it has Carrara marble benches lined up all over its shape and a lot of people gather in the area, it's almost like they're enjoying a public sculpture. I really like the fact that the structure encourages human gatherings, it makes the place rather lively. 

Then again, it's true, it's not for everyone. As for me, he always was and will stay my favorite architect, the reason why I prize him so much. I adore the fact that in his work, form follows fiction as opposed to strict function.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Architecture lover said:


> Now that it's finished with the square around it, it has Carrara marble benches lined up all over its shape and a lot of people gather in the area, it's almost like they're enjoying a public sculpture. I really like the fact that the structure encourages human gatherings, it makes the place rather lively.
> 
> Then again, it's true, it's not for everyone. As for me, he always was and will stay my favorite architect, the reason why I prize him so much. I adore the fact that in his work, form follows fiction as opposed to strict function.


To me function is slightly more important and how much you should concentrate on form depends on the occasion. Richard Rogers's approach on the Lloyd's Building and the Centre Pompidou, where he turns the building's guts inside out, is not very attractive but it is quite interesting and it was probably necessary in these occasions in order to leave lots of free space on the inside.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Here is how a real architect analyzes archtiecture. No pseudoscientific rantings about what aesthetics humans are "supposed to like".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIsIKv1lFZw


----------



## Notgnirracen (May 21, 2016)

What, in your opinion, makes it pseudoscientific?


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Notgnirracen said:


> What, in your opinion, makes it pseudoscientific?


He just makes arbitrary claims and the only evidence he has to provide is "experts say so". The guy knows nothing about architecture or evolutionary biology. He seriously thinks that neoclassicism can be more environmentaly friendly than contemporary architecture, even though energy efficiency did not even exist as a term in the neoclassical times. He claims that vernacular architecture is "heavily ornamented", which is a lie cause historically heavy ornament existed only on large civic buildings, temples and palaces, and he says that "humans evolved to like living in an environment reminiscent of nature", even though humans actually started building homes to protect themselves from nature. And he is seriously trying to convince me that the austere, geometric form of a neoclassical building is more "natural" than the National Museum of Qatar, by Jean Nouvel, which is directly inspired from a desert stone formation. What a joke.


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

@Thalassophoneus

I'd like to know what is your opinion on Architectural Revivals? Are they allowed?
For instance as much as I like contemporary architectural trends (excluding Bjarke, too boxy, almost pixeled architecture for my taste), I strongly approve of historic revivals. 
How so? I'd use my beloved Byzantine architecture as a reference, after the fall of Byzantium much of the original Byzantine architecture was left in the hands of the following Empire, and the most important examples today are still Turkish, thereby they were heavily changed, damaged, unrecognizable compared to how they were supposed to look. It got us to the point where the only reliable Byzantine buildings are left in just a couple of Balkan countries, and those are were few examples which aren't exactly as remarkable. 

Don't you think if one style is left out to the mercilessness of times, it might as well become extinct? - a huge possibility of what would've happened to our knowledge about Classical architecture, if we didn't have the Neo-Classical movement in the Renaissance that was so keen to explore this ancient European style a little more.

Should certain styles have a Revival every once in a while? For the purpose of us not becoming architecturally illiterate.

I'd love for young architects to study the original Byzantine architecture a little more, and reproduce the work in Secular buildings, could fit Universities or Administrative buildings just fine.

Also I strongly opposed the glass roof proposals for the Notre Dame, because if we damage our prime testament of Gothic architecture in such way, regardless if we like it to admit or not, we do become architecturally illiterate.

(PS: I believe most "common folk" should be allowed to have an opinion on architecture too, even if they aren't architectural masterminds, because after all, it's common folk that gets to live, or work, in those spaces).


----------



## Notgnirracen (May 21, 2016)

Also @Thalassophoneus

I'm certainly no evolutionary biologist, nor am I an expert on architecture, but for what it's worth, here's a little ramble.

Considering that humans are naturally repelled by certain smells and sounds, and on the other hand attracted by others, it seems reasonable to me that this would be true for forms as well. Even when it comes to our perception through sight it's common knowledge that certain colours have certain psychological effects on us - some tend to make us calm while others are associated with energy or warmth for example. Why, then, would it be such a strech to say that certain proportions, levels of scale, degrees of repetitiveness or ornamentation wouldn't also have measurable effects on us? 

With this in mind, I think it's great that people like Nikos Salingaros, or Christopher Alexander are trying to put the finger on just what in the built environment have positive effects on us, as well as why. That is not to say that I think we should use this information to go around telling people what to like, they are quite capable of doing that themselves, and many do enjoy modernist architecture along with its successor styles. That being said, studies tend to show that the majority of people prefer classical or traditional architecture, and although I'm sure a considerable degree of that is because of a sort of nostalgia, I think its reasonable to suspect that there might be some underlying principles behind those older buildings that play a part in this, especially considering how different they often are to what's built today. 

Shouldn't architects then eagerly adapt these principles to make more comfortable buildings for their clients? I've heard people complain that doing so would be far too limiting to the creative aspect of architecture, but on the other hand architects have been able to express their genius for thousands of years using the far more strict system of the classical language. These rules shouldn't be seen as a straitjacket, but as a valuable shortcut to making better buildings, just like (to put it on a very basic level) the practice of making roofs are known to have numerous positive effects to a building's inhabitants, and is therefore rightfully widespread.

To take things back to my first point, it seems to me that many of the buildings that are made today are a bit like having 24/7 death metal concerts in public spaces. I have nothing against death metal, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of people would get annoyed after a while and maybe develop a headache or something. :lol: It's an exaggeration but I think you get what I mean. What I'm proposing then, is that you can build whatever you want, but when it comes to spaces where large amounts of people pass by every day, it would be very reasonable to use these properties or rules that we know humans tend to like by default.

So yeah, that's basically the ramble. Looking forwards to people punching holes in my arguments! :banana:


----------



## Architecture lover (Sep 11, 2013)

I agree with almost everything.
I'd like to point out that if some young architects would like to study principles of historic styles they should do it faithfully, otherwise no Revival is needed as far as I'm concerned. Bad examples, or failed attempts of historic revivals make me feel awful. No harmony in proportion can be found in many of the examples in the "new buildings in traditional styles" thread we have on the forums, and just a couple of good ones. In my opinion, it's much bigger disrespect to historic architecture (whether that will be Classical, or Byzantine, or Romanesque, or Gothic, or Renaissance, or Baroque, or Neoclassical, or Jugendstil, or Art Deco, or Streamline Moderne, or Bauhaus, or Mid-Century Modern), when one builds it unfaithfully, (with little to no knowledge in terms of materials, proportions) than to just keep building square clean buildings. 
Also as someone who so loudly adores the work of almost all of the contemporary starchitects (not just Santiago, but Zaha, Daniel, Alberto, Frank....and so on, they are numerous), I wouldn't describe many of the modern buildings as death metal concerts at all. Of course the work of the starchitects is limited, literally there is just a single Calatrava building in New York, so one could argue the work of the starchitects is limited and cannot represent most of modern architecture, but then again due to resources and other factors we can't expect for all modern architecture to be as memorable.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Architecture lover said:


> @Thalassophoneus
> 
> I'd like to know what is your opinion on Architectural Revivals? Are they allowed?
> For instance as much as I like contemporary architectural trends (excluding Bjarke, too boxy, almost pixeled architecture for my taste), I strongly approve of historic revivals.
> ...


I think revivals should keep their substance while adapting to our times. Trying to mindlessly copy a style results in buildings that look kinda bland and fake, like the Washington Cathedral. Not that I hate it but it's just not interesting. It kinda looks like Disneyland.









http://www.aviewoncities.com/washington/nationalcathedral.htm?tab=photos

Instead architects should try to understand the spirit and ideology of an architectural style, like adapting their own mindset to its substance, and then apply it in their own way. This is what Viollet-Le-Duc did when he built the spire that was lost in the Notre Dame fire. He used Gothic updated to the times of the Industrial Revolution. And if he lived today he would probably rebuild it even more beautiful than he did back then.

I think architects should do the same with the Notre Dame's restoration. I wouldn't like seeing it deformed by glass roofs or curvy sculptures that may otherwise look good on other buildings, but restoring the spire and roof exactly as it was would be kinda boring, no matter how emotionaly conected the public is with it. I think the following proposal is among the best.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BwrRi0dnlrz/?utm_source=ig_embed

I think Antonio Gaudi did a pretty good job evoking a gothic impression when he designed the Sagrada Familia. This building definitely doesn't look Neo-Gothic in many ways, but it is obvious that Gaudi wanted to make a church with the same impression of height, lightness and fragmentation as Gothic cathedrals, if not even more of it considering the thinness of its 18 towers and its nature-inspired ornaments covering every single square meter of its surface. In a way it kinda looks like a further evolution of the Gothic style, beyond the Flamboyant or the Isabelline Gothic style. 

So I'm not sure about revivals. I would say that I like them, but I also like it when someone experiments with them.

Also, I disagree on what you say about Bjarke Ingels. Bjarke Ingels is one of my favorite architects because of the way he playfully and creatively experiments with architecture. One of my favorite works of his is the 8 House in Copenhagen, which is basically a cross between a city-block, a square and a hill, allowing someone to ride a bicycle all the way up to his penthouse. The guy is just a crazy genius! 









https://worldlandscapearchitect.com/8-house-copenhagen-denmark-big/#.Xc7mnFczbIU

This is what Nikos Salingaros is missing about architecture. He thinks it should be based on artistic taste (or HIS artistic taste, to be more precise), whereas to me architecture depends on how you want people to experience a building. I would never make a cathedral shaped like the 8 House just like I wouldn't make a city block that looks like Sagrada Familia or the Reims cathedral. Each one of these buildings is designed to evoke a different feeling and a different experience. To me, form is not less or more important than function. These two aren't contradicting. They DEPEND on each other.


----------



## Thalassophoneus (Oct 31, 2019)

Notgnirracen said:


> Also @Thalassophoneus
> 
> I'm certainly no evolutionary biologist, nor am I an expert on architecture, but for what it's worth, here's a little ramble.
> 
> ...


I generaly agree with what you say. Allow me to ad some things.

I'm not aware of any "studies" proving that people prefer neoclassicism over modernism, but I'm generaly aware of this trend based on what I have seen on the internet and what I have heard from relatives. The problem is, they prefer neoclassicism over what? It's not like "modernism VS the others". There are tons of different architectural styles all over the world.

What if people's dislike of modernism is mostly based on stereotypes and bad applications of the style? In Greece, where I live, people think modernism is the junta's glass box skyscrapers, like the Athens Tower.








https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/athens-tower-1/5033
Yet a few years ago the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center, designed by Renzo Piano, was completed and it seems like people have embraced it, because it is something compeltely new for Athens.








https://whyathens.com/events/events-stavros-niarchos-center-athens/
Also, isn't taste influenced by the conditions of an era? Modernism rose in a time when industry and mass production had started, people's lives were getting better, globalisation was beginning and everyone, including architects, started envisioning a new, utopian world doubting everything we had known until then. The 20th Century went pretty bad, so eventually this idea failed and today people think the solution is doubting anything modern and going back to tradition and nature.

What I'm saying is that tastes change depending on many outside influences.

Also, I agree on what you say about "death metal" buildings. Death metal, like all kinds of music, can only be enjoyed when you are in a specific mood. Like I am not a fan of rap music, but when I'm with friends or in a concert I will definitely enjoy it and sing and jump around like a beast. It's what I said before to Architecture lover. Form depends on function and the feeling you want to evoke to a building's occupants or visitors.


----------

