This article was originally published on Common Edge.
"O beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, has there ever been another place on earth where so many people of wealth and power have paid for and put up with so much architecture they detested as within thy blessed borders today?"
Tom Wolfe wrote this in his 1981 book From Bauhaus to Our House. The conflict between modern and traditional design has barely abated since, as is evident in this recent article. In the U.S., modern buildings are often met with community aversion, for familiar reasons: their perceived coldness and lack of contextual sensitivity, the impact on local character, and the loss of historical continuity. But on another level, the critique against modern design finds even more purchase on the larger scale: the city. Modern U.S. cities reek of traffic congestion and pollution, social inequality and gentrification, a loss of community and cultural spaces, and a lack of usable open space.
Related Article
The Revival of Terracotta in New York's Architecture: 4 Contemporary Projects in the City's Skyline
In the U.S., modern buildings and modern cities are often conflated—and objected to. But this is not the case internationally. There, modern architecture has been separated from modern cities. Modern design is broadly appreciated for new buildings, but the “modern” city has been largely rejected. Overseas we can observe a culture that is looking forward to better urban lives with modern buildings, modern construction methods and lower carbon footprints, while here in the U.S. we reminisce about building designs that are several decades old, and cities where cars could just move around more freely.
How did we get to this point?
For most of human history, architectural design has progressed in evolutionary steps, with formal innovation carefully balanced against tried and proven prototypes and established building techniques. But just before World War I, technological advancements, a response to industrialization, and changing social values brought about a style revolution. Suddenly, architects were not just designing buildings; they believed that architecture could improve society. By linking the style movement to broader social and political changes, a rise of democratic ideals created a desire for more equitable and functional spaces for all people. Modern architecture was both a response to and an active participant in the larger social transformations of its time.
And cities really did need renewal. Before the war, living in a major metropolis was, for most people of average and below means, a challenging proposition. In London—at the time the world’s major metropolis, with about 6 million people—the effects of the Industrial Revolution led to a stark divide between the wealthy and the poor, the latter living in cramped, poorly maintained tenements, particularly in the East End. In Vienna, a severe lack of housing meant that people would rent beds in eight-hour intervals at a time. Public health was a major concern. Many areas had inadequate sanitation, leading to outbreaks of diseases like cholera and tuberculosis.
Key elements of a “modern” city emerged in Paris in 1930. Le Corbusier’s famous urban plan envisioned a city strictly separated by functions: residential areas, business districts, and recreational spaces connected by broad, open boulevards to facilitate efficient traffic flow and prevent congestion. Housing was to be in high-rise apartment blocks set within vast green spaces. The idea was to provide ample light, air, and greenery for all residents.
After World War II, much of the world embraced this idea of a “modern city” as a guide to transforming their urban landscapes. Urban renewal was to provide new housing, commercial spaces, and modern infrastructure—frequently meaning more and more space for cars. In the U.S., modern architecture was displaying new economic and cultural power through the International Style. Combined with sprawling suburbs, this generated a prominent expression in American cities: largely flat and sprawling, with a tall central business district.
Similar “modern” design and urban planning concepts resulted in cities that began to lose their unique identities, while car-dependent mobility started to show its downsides. Many cities struggled with traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise stemming from rapid population growth and reliance on automobiles. By prioritizing space for automobiles, modern cities neglected the inclusion of sufficient green spaces and recreational areas. This affected residents’ well-being and reduced opportunities for outdoor activities, contributing to a sense of confinement and stress.
Counter to the original equitable intentions of the modern movement, the rise of modern cities often lead to the displacement of long-time residents and the erosion of affordable housing options. This process created stark divides between affluent newcomers and existing communities, exacerbated social inequality, and contributed to a sense of injustice and alienation among displaced populations.
Finally, while the International Style was an ideal vehicle for America’s new economic strength, developing cities mostly in financial terms led to a shift toward more commercial and corporate spaces at the expense of community-oriented and culturally significant areas. Traditional markets, local businesses, and communal gathering spots gave way to chain stores and luxury developments, diminishing the vibrancy and diversity that characterize thriving urban communities.
Several counter-reactions emerged against modern design ideas.
In 1972, the Club of Rome published a report called The Limits to Growth. Using computer modeling, it explored the dire consequences of continued economic and population growth on the Earth’s finite resources. This publication is often hailed as the start of the sustainability movement.
Postmodernism, which gained prominence in the 1980s, sought to reintroduce elements of history, context, and symbolism into architectural design to counteract the alienation and perceived monotony of modern buildings with a more diverse, inclusive, and often playful approach to architectural design.
But the most impactful counter-reaction to modernism was focused on Urban Design. Interbau 1957 in Berlin had presented a model for the “modern” city of tomorrow that was the first real built demonstration of Le Corbusier’s ideals. It became an influential model much of the modern world had followed.
This new “Hansaviertel” brought with it also an embrace of the automobile; and over time it turned out that there simply was not enough space for them in historic cities. This led to rising public discontent and bizarre urban design ideas: in Amsterdam, for instance, an American planner suggested filling in the famous canals with underground garages.
In the 1970s, Berlin set out to create another event to undo the influence of its own 1957 Interbau and create a new way forward. The 1987 International Building Exhibition (IBA) in Berlin was to address and rejuvenate Berlin’s urban environment with a focus on architectural and planning innovation. The IBA’s goal was to regain the urban areas as residential locations through a return to traditional urban design, with modern architectural designs that were to fill in the urban fabric of Berlin. The impact of the 1987 IBA was prodigious. It triggered several subsequent similar events, although at first only in Germany. Today, the idea of Rapid Urban Prototyping as a method of urban innovation has spread beyond Germany’s borders. IBAs have gone international and are occurring as far away as Melbourne.
Berlin separated modern building design from modern urban design and demonstrated that cities can continue their timeless, traditional urban fabric with cutting-edge modern and sustainable buildings. Communities found that the environmental advantages of compact walkable cities with new sustainable building techniques put them at the forefront of green initiatives and sustainability efforts. They invested in renewable energy, green public transportation, and eco-friendly buildings. For example, Copenhagen aims to become carbon neutral by 2025, showcasing a commitment to a cleaner future.
People overseas are quite happy with modern architecture, as they see it adding to their quality of life. New developments bring with them a belief that the modern technology in them will help us. People understand that city living is a more sustainable choice due to a more efficient use of resources, reduced reliance on cars, and better access to public transportation.
There are whole new neighborhoods being constructed in and around existing cities that are inviting, multigenerational, mixed-use districts. They promote biodiversity while offering a solution to a city’s affordable housing crisis. By picking up threads from previous garden city movements, new projects seek to bring the urban environment into harmony with existing natural landscapes, establishing a community of ecologically responsive housing units organized according to the model of a “rural village.”
Rather than characterless boxes in the International Style, modern buildings overseas are highly individualistic and often quirky, and serve to articulate the public realm while affording inhabitants the luxuries of light-flooded spaces with open-floor plans. Modern buildings range from individualistic to highly artistic and incorporate natural features of the landscape. Sustainability is promoted throughout.
People hope that with modern buildings in well-designed cities, there is a path forward to solve our climate crisis and maintain a high-quality life people have become accustomed to.
In the U.S., laypeople conflate modern design with the modern city, to predictable results. Modern architects here are stuck because the cities they work in are stuck. Los Angeles, for instance, still celebrates the Case Study residential design program as cutting-edge “modern,” as though it were created just yesterday instead of 60 years ago. And many urban planners are still dreaming about a city of towers, although by now it is abundantly clear that they will likely be towers in giant parking lots, or on giant parking garages, surrounded by traffic clogged streets. And the promised open space is spoon-fed in tiny parklets few people will ever use.
Of course, there are those occasional U.S. architects who manage to transcend local obstacles and deliver first-class modern designs. But for modern building design to become a broadly desired solution, as many architects desperately wish for, it might be necessary to reform urban design first and start migrating the car dominated cities into timeless, walkable, multimodal, and compact cities. This will generate whole catalogs of new building types and design challenges for which architects can then create uniquely American solutions. If modern design is seen as contributing to the urban quality of life and fixes our climate problems, people will find new hope. And with that will come, eventually, a desire to express our unique way forward in contemporary ways.
Until our cities change, public objection to modern design is a major factor that affects the speed of delivery, cost, and our general ability to solve our problems, all resulting in compromised urban and building solutions inferior to those found abroad. Modern design must demonstrate that it can increase people’s quality of life and solve problems, above all by lowering society’s carbon footprint. Continuing to prioritize car mobility in our cities, with giant boxy buildings that take massive efforts to push past people’s objections, is the opposite direction we should be headed in a warming world.
