# Why are Modern Skyscrapers so Utilitarian and Bland?



## Opulentus (May 28, 2015)

I can't be the only one who is bored to hell with the repetitive, amateur glass boxes that are arising and subsequently destroying many world-class location's skylines? I understand they're meant to be 'unique', 'different' and 'deep', etc., but honestly, the amount of utter crap that many alleged 'renowned architects' are producing is driving me insane. You can tell me to 'embrace the future' and 'move forward' as much as you may wish - but why should we move forward when we are leaving such brilliant architectural styles behind? 
It's coming to the point where everything is the same - glass, cheap, lacks any care or effort and will probably only last a few years before it begins to decay. I honestly feel that the majority of 'modernism' and 'futurism' and other mediocre architectural types are purely there as an excuse to build cheap and monolithic looking buildings that lack any trace of soul and detail at all.
If they are your kind of thing - then fine. But truthfully, what appeals you to it?
Give me something Art Deco or Classical over any modern thing any day. Please.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm tired of hearing people whine over modern buildings like this. It's been repeated on this site so many times, usually by the very vocal classicist minority, and it's getting really annoying. There are lots of modern buildings that are beautiful and there is a reason for the phrase "less is more."


----------



## Opulentus (May 28, 2015)

Indeed there are, 53 west 53rd street in New York would be a good example. Although I just feel that the majority are not on such a level as many of the classic and traditional skyscrapers. I personally see it as a great shame.


----------



## Greedy Sheedy (May 17, 2015)

I am inclined to agree with both of you. I think the best skylines are in fact places that have mixes of numerous styles, such as New York and Chicago. 

The problem with modern scrapers isn't so much the material they use but the 'one-upmanship' mentality, creating a cluster of ostentatious towers which all fade into obscurity. The fact is the 'boxey' skyscrapers mixed with a few pinnacles and rather overt towers look far better as each compliments one another, unfortunately modern architects are more concerned about themselves and the imprint they'll leave rather than trying to create something that is in harmony with its surroundings.

All that being said, I do prefer more masonry and don't see why they can't have a nice structure at the bottom with cheaper glass above (similar to the Hearst Tower). At least then at street level it has more detail to be admired and from afar has a slightly different impact.


----------



## Faisal Shourov (Jan 6, 2013)

Modern towers are simplistic, not tacky like older towers. A clean design is more relaxing to look at


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Greedy Sheedy said:


> The problem with modern scrapers isn't so much the material they use but the 'one-upmanship' mentality, creating a cluster of ostentatious towers which all fade into obscurity. The fact is the 'boxey' skyscrapers mixed with a few pinnacles and rather overt towers look far better as each compliments one another, unfortunately modern architects are more concerned about themselves and the imprint they'll leave rather than trying to create something that is in harmony with its surroundings.


You think architects of the far past didn't do the same thing in their day?


----------

