Architects Design Mainly for Themselves

This was an interesting read. There is definitely a gulf between architects and the general public, which goes largely unaddressed by the design world. The fact is that once you start to appreciate modern architecture, there really is no going back. At that moment you see the world differently that most people, who have never seen the whole spectrum of architecture in the past century.

The matter is complicated further when you consider that architects are building for developers, and not the general public. Developers act as middlemen giving people what they believe they can sell, so I don't think you can change the system without changing or altering the role/mindset of the developer.
 
Ultimately the discussion should be on the plane of:

2000 years ago architects designed buildings such as the Parthenon and the Pantheon -- people in the 21st century still find them pleasant

1000 years ago architects designed buildings such as Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres (Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres) and Tower of Pisa (Torre di Pisa) -- people still find them pleasant

600 - 400 years ago architect designed buildings such as St. paul's cathedral (London) or St. Mary's Basilica (Kościół Mariacki) Krakow Poland -- 21st century people still enjoy them

300 to 150 years ago architects designed buildings such as Old North (Christ Church) , Old and New State Houses, US Capitol Building -- same result

150 - 100 years ago architects designed buildings such as Quincy Market, Trinity Church, BPL, South Station -- same result

Now we see the superstart architects designing for themselves and their peers -- question in 100, 500, 1000, 2000 years will any of these modern creations (post WWII) be appreciated or even still be standing?

Note -- I'm not denying that there are buildings which have been designed since WWII which have some popular acceptance (e.g. Hancock, Rowe's wharf) -- but the time frame is too short to guage long term popular acceptance
 
^ I like it. I'm not up on my history here - were there pre-war periods in which new architectural styles were roundly derided at the time of their introduction? That could be an interesting angle to explore as well.
 
Shepard said:
^ I like it. I'm not up on my history here - were there pre-war periods in which new architectural styles were roundly derided at the time of their introduction? That could be an interesting angle to explore as well.
Click to expand...

Not really. It was all Palladio/Quattro Libri dell'Architettura and Neoclassicism (most notably in the USA) until the wars when modernism came about.

There was a riff in the Baroque period:
Borromini did shake up the ideals with his undulating wall (a brilliant solution to adding wall space on a tight footprint), essentially planting the seed for modern architecture (deviating from the social norm) in 1634. Without Borromini daring to create the undulating wall, Gehry, Zaha, etc would most likely be on a different path. Bernini and his followers criticized Borromini's architecture and the reverse was true as well.

"The greatest building ever designed is Borromini's San Carlino... It's got all the moves in it that I've made... I've done nothing new since then." - Frank Gehry
 
Last edited:
whighlander brings up another great point about how the architectural establishment is of the impression that great architecture only exists in the western world
 
chowder said:
whighlander brings up another great point about how the architectural establishment is of the impression that great architecture only exists in the western world
Click to expand...

I think if a person from the East were to make that same point, they would use the examples of traditional Japanese and Islamic architecture as being "great architecture." I guess I would agree that the view is biased seeing as how we're from the western world, but if you were to truly incorporate all of the history of architecture on the full spectrum, Eastern architecture would be prominent on the list.

The boundaries of architectural styles didn't start to get blurred until the wars when modernism rose and eventually (I apologize in advance to everyone on the forum who understands why I'm apologizing) Ahmadabad, India ended up with Le Corbusier's architecture.
 
Shepard said:
^ I like it. I'm not up on my history here - were there pre-war periods in which new architectural styles were roundly derided at the time of their introduction? That could be an interesting angle to explore as well.
Click to expand...

Mannerism is a perfect example of a Renaissance style that was thought to be way over the top and disapproved of by many.
 
There was an interesting podcast on this topic, recently.

http://invisible99.podbean.com/2011/10/28/99-invisible-39-darth-vader-family-courthouse/

99% invisible-39- darth vader family courthouse

It’s hard to imagine a place where more desperate and depressing drama unfolds on a daily basis than a family courthouse- custody battles, abuse, divorce- and if you were to design a place to reflect and amplify that misery, not mitigate it, it’d probably take the form of the old New York County Family Courthouse in Lower Manhattan.

The original shiny black cube, built in 1975, was referred to as the “Darth Vader building” by court employees (presumably after 1977). The foreboding and intimidating structure is primarily criticized in relation to its function as a family courthouse, which should strive to inspire a feeling of trust, authority, and (one hopes) inclusion.
Click to expand...

Before:
XlXpu.jpg


After:
UUZfX.jpg


photos from architectureweek
 
It's interesting how the original building is clearly brutalist, but without the beton brut... beautiful structural expressionism at the base.

Tbh, I'm not sure if I like the new or old better. I think the most successful part of the reno is the base where they've added that great angled canopy, but kept the massive columns, which are signature brutalism. The result is quite beautiful. The pic posted on here doesn't show the beauty too well but M&G's website portfolio does. It breaks up the hulking masses, while maintaining their grandeur.

By the way, those tiny square windows instantly reminded me of Hotel de Lafayette/Swissotel/Hyatt...

hyatt-regency.jpg


(This is the best pic I could find. It's not showing exactly what I want it to, but w/e)
 
Beton Brut said:
I thought that as I typed it. It's a Brutalist form, but with a slick surface, informed by Miesian materially that goes all the way back to the Barcelona Pavilion. A local example is the (former) Bank of Boston tower. Koolhaas achieves a similar vibe in his glass-faceted Seattle Library.



Also by Giurgola.
Click to expand...
BAHAHAHA. Damn, I'm good! That was a clear shot in the dark.

Can we just take a moment to discuss the fantastic internal spacial planning of the Hyatt? The 4-story atria every 4 floors are simply brilliant. That is designing for people.
 
Yes, what a gift to the people. I take it you've never seen the Chauncy St side?

datadyne007 said:
...
By the way, those tiny square windows instantly reminded me of Hotel de Lafayette/Swissotel/Hyatt...
Click to expand...

Me too. They also remind me of the Nashua St, Middlesex County and South Bay Detention Facilities.
 
briv said:
Yes, what a gift to the people. I take it you've never seen the Chauncy St side?
Click to expand...

I said internal space planning. The street level is really bad. I've seen all sides of this building. I'm not going to commend it for that. The internal "hotels" within a "hotel" is really great.

It would be nice if they were able to retrofit some storefronts in the base along Chauncy now that LP is gone and the main entry plaza has been infilled by the garage entrance and LCC.
 
I have to admit that I've never been in there. What's so great about it?
 
briv said:
I have to admit that I've never been in there. What's so great about it?
Click to expand...

hyatt-regency-boston.jpg


Every set of 4 floors (those giant "windows" on the facade)

If Hyatt was the launch tenant (especially in the 80s), there certainly would have been a 16-floor atrium and not separate atria. The elevators probably would have been glass too. For some reason, Boston never really got many buildings with tall atria.
 
How novel. There are no hotels that look like that.

Totally worth destroying Chauncy St.
chauncy_st.jpg
 
briv said:
How novel. There are no hotels that look like that.
Click to expand...

It's useful for business/convention travel as well as families, because they can all book rooms in the same block and then have a great central meeting space without straying too far from their room. It would be great if dorms were built this way as well. MassArt's Artists Residence uses this approach.

The finishes are typical, yes, spatial arrangement for a hotel tower, not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top