A defence of
Modernist Architecture
As with modern art, it’s easy to describe modernist architecture, when compared to its traditional counterparts, as boring, uninspired, and soulless.
Not everyone sees it this way. Charlie Edmons of Future Architects Front says, “we're in a sinking ship and it’s like we’re arguing about the colour of the lifeboat”
I can't make the argument that we should completely disregard aesthetics. After all, it's thoughtful, subtle, and complex architecture that can improve people’s lives.
Edmons talks about how it's easy to think of classic, architecturally stunning buildings, without mentioning the slave labour, atrocious working conditions and context that built them
And by focusing heavily on ornamental buildings being as visually stimulating as possible, it simplifies and overlooks many of the socioeconomic factors that make modern buildings "boring".
We have a greater mandate than ever to think materially, and according to social outcomes. We should see humanity in the built environment though the material needs of the people.
How does this building meet those needs? What is the quality of light like? Is it accessible? Is it truly inclusive?
The past week of flooding across the country has shown us that we need to be doing far more about the oncoming climate emergency. And a curved facade isn't going to do that
