I'd point out that one reason the brutalist Boston City Hall is the most hated building in America is because of the lack of any greenery around it. Brutalism looks okay in Brazil surmounted by jungle, but in Boston it's only available for half the year. Still, the architects didn't try to plant any plants around the City Hall.
The Seaport heights are capped at 20 stories due to FAA regs for airport flight paths. Incidentally, this is why the downtown towers are shorter than the ones in Back Bay, too. Given full freedom, the Seaport would definitely have more and varied heights.
Interesting. There's quite a difference between the downtown towers, which cap out at almost 700 feet, and the Seaport towers. I guess the latter are closer to the flight paths.
I do not know the language of art or architecture, let alone their meaning.
However, a few observations. Morristown NJ has beautiful old homes built in the 1920s. They have stood the test of time.
I really do like the Boston Seaport. I think glass has its own independent style—-pretty is pretty, many styles have a long shelf life.
Central Nassau County Long Island used to be potato farms before WWll. Then Arthur Levitt built 10s of thousands of 60 by 100 foot lots with 1200 square foot houses. I grew up right in the middle. No one could ever declare them attractive. Now people are buying double lots and building 4000-5000 square foot houses. Maybe in 40 years they will be attractive.
Driving to Yankee Stadium over the GW bridge last week (what a gorgeous stadium—-traditional and modern) and looked south down the Hudson River.
What a shock. They have maybe a dozen or more 100 story apartment “pencil” style buildings from the river to CPW. Ugly does not describe it. The skyline is ridiculous. You cannot even notice the Chrysler or Empire State Building.
If you took a drone picture starting in Central Park and gradually move east west and south, it still looks classic. (I still love the Dakota and San Remo.) Until you hit pencil land. And it’s all you see. The new WTC is nice as are all the buildings on the land fill waterfront.
But these Pencils are absurd. Coming in from the west, it’s all you see.
I was driving to Yankee Stadium last week—-what a beautiful stadium—-when I looked south down the Hudson River. I saw what appeared to be a dozen ultra skinny 100 story buildings around the 40s to the 60s. Holy cow, what a mess. It has ruined the whole skyline.
I was in the Boston Seaport district the other day. "International style modernism" you called it? I liked it. I don't have much vocabulary for describing architecture but I had a pleasant experience walking around and looking at everything. By the way, I was there to see a Megadeth concert (who were exceptional) and along the way my friend was complaining about a supremely boring classical music performance he was dragged out to. That's the general public for you!
When people are inside buildings looking out, they love windows. In a tall building, it is like standing on a hill or a mountain looking out. Very primally satisfying. Compare to the twin towers. Not ornate but more architecturally rich facade than a curtain wall of glass. Yet it was not considered a great office space due to how dark it was inside.
Modernism is liked because it delivers big windows: bright interiors, views.
"Most new homes will reflect the taste of buyers. The richer the society, the worse the average taste of decision-makers. "
But most new apartments are hardly built in accordance of the average man's taste? Mostly they are build in some trite modernist bland style nobody really cares about. It is anyone's guess who really are the aesthetic decision-makers here.
"But most new apartments are hardly built in accordance of the average man's taste?"
That's hard to say. Obviously if money were no object we'd get better designs. But if renters want a cheap place, perhaps this is the sort of design they prefer. (Personally, I don't like the prevalent style, so I'm not disagreeing with you.)
I'm not accusing Scott of this, but it feels like a lot of the architecture discourse fails to draw the distinction between Modern and Brutalist. And more specifically I rarely see International Style even mentioned in this debate.
Most of the negative discourse around "Modern Architecture" tends to reference brutalist buildings, and most laypeople agree these are very ugly and generally corrosive to the human spirit.
International Style tends to generate at worst, indifference, and at best reverence for the pristine order of mountains of glass in the sky (e.g. the Seaport).
It would be most useful to do away with the category of "Modern" altogether, and just refer to each individual style (Brutalist, International, Post-Modern, etc.)
I agree that the public often hates Brutalist buildings, but not always. It seems to me that Louis Kahn is a transitional figure--for instance the Salk Institute is sort of Brutalist in style. Also his Indian buildings. Brutalist buildings that are more similar to Kahn's work tend to be more popular.
Brutalism doesn't seem all that common in the US. So when people like Ross Douthat complain about modern architecture, I have to think they are including the International Style and Post-Modernism
Another factor not captured by the traditional vs modernist and easy vs hard dichotomies is authenticity. Traditional period homes are often regarded as beautiful, and as a result are often popular and expensive. But even if someone can make a very good replica of a period home, it will seldom be as admired or valuable because it is not authentic. I would guess the same would apply to a contemporary replica of any non-modernist building (eg the Chrysler Building). Just like the French provincial style common in my area, they would appear to many as tacky and kitsch.
I don't mind that this post ran long--it's a difficult and complicated subject to unpack. For the record, I classify myself as a "mediocre architect" and have no qualms about producing designs that are adapted from better architects. I also favor "easy" architecture in both the residential and commercial sphere. I won't burn up too much computer memory criticizing Douthat---you did a fine job of that---but I wonder if he would be happier living in some different era, perhaps the 1890's?
Incidentally, Newton now has a mandatory Historic Commission review for demolitions proposed for houses older than 50 years. This means that some of the sad, ugly boxes of the post-war era now have some degree of protection from developers and homeowners who wish to make significant improvements to their property. This is but one of the many impediments to change in that community. You were wise to leave when you did, except that the value of your property has only continued to increase because of the scarcity induced by Zoning regulations.
BTW, I replaced my Newton home with an equal value home in Orange County. According to Zillow, in the subsequent period my OC home has appreciated twice as fast as my old Newton home.
That's interesting. Son lives in Cambridge. He says the standing joke at MIT is that after graduation people move to Silicon Valley because housing is cheaper there.
Anybody have any recommendations for books (or other sources) to learn more about architecture? It's something I've wanted to do for awhile but never gotten around to.
Another factor is the "context" around a skyscraper. In visits to Melbourne, I hated the Marina Tower (https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/marina-tower/16889) which looked, to my eye, like someone had crashed into a lamp post as it sat alone on the west side of Docklands. But in the intervening years, the city has had many more towers of glass erected around it, and the distinctive "bends" have been obscured enough that I no longer mind seeing it as I catch the train in. On the other hand, some of the other distinctive buildings (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Tower) now no longer stand out in the sea of glass, and I find the overall skyline has become a lot more generic.
I'd actually count context as a point in favor of downtown Boston. While the skyscrapers themselves are nothing special and the skyline is just OK (it being next to the water can create nice vantage points despite the mediocre architecture) there are a lot of smaller, older buildings mixed in that are visible at street level and make for a pleasing mix of old and new when you're walking around.
As a Melburnian, I had not noticed that building before. But it looks a lot more interesting to me than the Eureka Tower, which looked underwhelming on day 1, and now seems badly dated less than two decades after completion. I think Sydney has done a lot better with its skyscrapers, perhaps because they're not enamoured of the 'indie/alternative' 'RMIT/Fed Square-style', which our planners seem to be.
I especially liked this paragraph: "Now think about art. Abstract expressionism seems radically different from the painting styles of the nineteenth century. But it also represented the end of a road, the end of visual experimentation. Art had been moving toward abstraction for a long time, and once it arrived there was no place to go in a visual sense. After the 1950s, the important innovations in painting were ideas, not visual styles. And since there are an infinite number of possible ideas, there is no dominant style after abstract expressionism...So both engineers and artists ran out of ideas at about the same time. More specifically, engineers ran out of macro ideas, and artists ran out of ideas for visual experimentation."
Thanks, I like that old post much better than this one. In a sense, the quality of that post illustrates the point I was making in the post---artists run out of new ideas. Bloggers also run out of new ideas.
Superstar bloggers such as yourself are allowed to revisit your old ideas. If you merely decline to "star" blogger, you are still adding tremendous value. No one else out there thinks like you, Scott. You are the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
A lot of good ideas here.
I'd point out that one reason the brutalist Boston City Hall is the most hated building in America is because of the lack of any greenery around it. Brutalism looks okay in Brazil surmounted by jungle, but in Boston it's only available for half the year. Still, the architects didn't try to plant any plants around the City Hall.
Good point. And check out the link in VaidasUrba's comment below.
The Seaport heights are capped at 20 stories due to FAA regs for airport flight paths. Incidentally, this is why the downtown towers are shorter than the ones in Back Bay, too. Given full freedom, the Seaport would definitely have more and varied heights.
Interesting. There's quite a difference between the downtown towers, which cap out at almost 700 feet, and the Seaport towers. I guess the latter are closer to the flight paths.
Take a look: https://www.massport.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/bostonairspacemap_9-8.pdf
Flight paths are designed to avoid downtown, too, which had tall buildings by the time Logan got big...
Thanks.
I do not know the language of art or architecture, let alone their meaning.
However, a few observations. Morristown NJ has beautiful old homes built in the 1920s. They have stood the test of time.
I really do like the Boston Seaport. I think glass has its own independent style—-pretty is pretty, many styles have a long shelf life.
Central Nassau County Long Island used to be potato farms before WWll. Then Arthur Levitt built 10s of thousands of 60 by 100 foot lots with 1200 square foot houses. I grew up right in the middle. No one could ever declare them attractive. Now people are buying double lots and building 4000-5000 square foot houses. Maybe in 40 years they will be attractive.
Driving to Yankee Stadium over the GW bridge last week (what a gorgeous stadium—-traditional and modern) and looked south down the Hudson River.
What a shock. They have maybe a dozen or more 100 story apartment “pencil” style buildings from the river to CPW. Ugly does not describe it. The skyline is ridiculous. You cannot even notice the Chrysler or Empire State Building.
If you took a drone picture starting in Central Park and gradually move east west and south, it still looks classic. (I still love the Dakota and San Remo.) Until you hit pencil land. And it’s all you see. The new WTC is nice as are all the buildings on the land fill waterfront.
But these Pencils are absurd. Coming in from the west, it’s all you see.
PS. I like both the Renoir and Van Gogh
I was driving to Yankee Stadium last week—-what a beautiful stadium—-when I looked south down the Hudson River. I saw what appeared to be a dozen ultra skinny 100 story buildings around the 40s to the 60s. Holy cow, what a mess. It has ruined the whole skyline.
I was in the Boston Seaport district the other day. "International style modernism" you called it? I liked it. I don't have much vocabulary for describing architecture but I had a pleasant experience walking around and looking at everything. By the way, I was there to see a Megadeth concert (who were exceptional) and along the way my friend was complaining about a supremely boring classical music performance he was dragged out to. That's the general public for you!
When people are inside buildings looking out, they love windows. In a tall building, it is like standing on a hill or a mountain looking out. Very primally satisfying. Compare to the twin towers. Not ornate but more architecturally rich facade than a curtain wall of glass. Yet it was not considered a great office space due to how dark it was inside.
Modernism is liked because it delivers big windows: bright interiors, views.
this is a great post, I learned a lot! Please more on architecture!
"Most new homes will reflect the taste of buyers. The richer the society, the worse the average taste of decision-makers. "
But most new apartments are hardly built in accordance of the average man's taste? Mostly they are build in some trite modernist bland style nobody really cares about. It is anyone's guess who really are the aesthetic decision-makers here.
"But most new apartments are hardly built in accordance of the average man's taste?"
That's hard to say. Obviously if money were no object we'd get better designs. But if renters want a cheap place, perhaps this is the sort of design they prefer. (Personally, I don't like the prevalent style, so I'm not disagreeing with you.)
Great post! Thanks.
I'm not accusing Scott of this, but it feels like a lot of the architecture discourse fails to draw the distinction between Modern and Brutalist. And more specifically I rarely see International Style even mentioned in this debate.
Most of the negative discourse around "Modern Architecture" tends to reference brutalist buildings, and most laypeople agree these are very ugly and generally corrosive to the human spirit.
International Style tends to generate at worst, indifference, and at best reverence for the pristine order of mountains of glass in the sky (e.g. the Seaport).
It would be most useful to do away with the category of "Modern" altogether, and just refer to each individual style (Brutalist, International, Post-Modern, etc.)
I agree that the public often hates Brutalist buildings, but not always. It seems to me that Louis Kahn is a transitional figure--for instance the Salk Institute is sort of Brutalist in style. Also his Indian buildings. Brutalist buildings that are more similar to Kahn's work tend to be more popular.
Brutalism doesn't seem all that common in the US. So when people like Ross Douthat complain about modern architecture, I have to think they are including the International Style and Post-Modernism
Another factor not captured by the traditional vs modernist and easy vs hard dichotomies is authenticity. Traditional period homes are often regarded as beautiful, and as a result are often popular and expensive. But even if someone can make a very good replica of a period home, it will seldom be as admired or valuable because it is not authentic. I would guess the same would apply to a contemporary replica of any non-modernist building (eg the Chrysler Building). Just like the French provincial style common in my area, they would appear to many as tacky and kitsch.
"they would appear to many as tacky and kitsch"
Yes. A Vegas casino rebuilt the entire NYC skyline, including the Chrysler building. (Not to mention the entire city of Venice.)
I don't mind that this post ran long--it's a difficult and complicated subject to unpack. For the record, I classify myself as a "mediocre architect" and have no qualms about producing designs that are adapted from better architects. I also favor "easy" architecture in both the residential and commercial sphere. I won't burn up too much computer memory criticizing Douthat---you did a fine job of that---but I wonder if he would be happier living in some different era, perhaps the 1890's?
Incidentally, Newton now has a mandatory Historic Commission review for demolitions proposed for houses older than 50 years. This means that some of the sad, ugly boxes of the post-war era now have some degree of protection from developers and homeowners who wish to make significant improvements to their property. This is but one of the many impediments to change in that community. You were wise to leave when you did, except that the value of your property has only continued to increase because of the scarcity induced by Zoning regulations.
Fifty years is way too short, as you suggest.
BTW, I replaced my Newton home with an equal value home in Orange County. According to Zillow, in the subsequent period my OC home has appreciated twice as fast as my old Newton home.
That's interesting. Son lives in Cambridge. He says the standing joke at MIT is that after graduation people move to Silicon Valley because housing is cheaper there.
Steve
The parliament building in Vilnius, Lithuania, built in 1976-80, was inspired by the Boston City Hall.
(https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seimo_rūmai#/media/Vaizdas:Vilnius_Seimas.jpg)
Yet the style is easier and more classical than the original in Boston.
Yes. Very good example of a good public building.
Anybody have any recommendations for books (or other sources) to learn more about architecture? It's something I've wanted to do for awhile but never gotten around to.
For a broad survey of the Western traditions, try "From Prehistory to Post-Modernism" by Marvin Trachtenberg.
For American house styles, "A Field Guide to American Houses" by Virginia McAlester
For sarcasm on modern architecture, try from "From Bauhaus to Our House" by Tom Wolfe
Also, "How Buildings Learn" by Stewart Brand and a Ken Burns documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright
This is great, thanks!
Another factor is the "context" around a skyscraper. In visits to Melbourne, I hated the Marina Tower (https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/marina-tower/16889) which looked, to my eye, like someone had crashed into a lamp post as it sat alone on the west side of Docklands. But in the intervening years, the city has had many more towers of glass erected around it, and the distinctive "bends" have been obscured enough that I no longer mind seeing it as I catch the train in. On the other hand, some of the other distinctive buildings (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Tower) now no longer stand out in the sea of glass, and I find the overall skyline has become a lot more generic.
I'd actually count context as a point in favor of downtown Boston. While the skyscrapers themselves are nothing special and the skyline is just OK (it being next to the water can create nice vantage points despite the mediocre architecture) there are a lot of smaller, older buildings mixed in that are visible at street level and make for a pleasing mix of old and new when you're walking around.
As a Melburnian, I had not noticed that building before. But it looks a lot more interesting to me than the Eureka Tower, which looked underwhelming on day 1, and now seems badly dated less than two decades after completion. I think Sydney has done a lot better with its skyscrapers, perhaps because they're not enamoured of the 'indie/alternative' 'RMIT/Fed Square-style', which our planners seem to be.
Wonderful post. For readers, here is a Money Illusion post that covers modernism and art. https://www.themoneyillusion.com/the-eternal-modern/
I especially liked this paragraph: "Now think about art. Abstract expressionism seems radically different from the painting styles of the nineteenth century. But it also represented the end of a road, the end of visual experimentation. Art had been moving toward abstraction for a long time, and once it arrived there was no place to go in a visual sense. After the 1950s, the important innovations in painting were ideas, not visual styles. And since there are an infinite number of possible ideas, there is no dominant style after abstract expressionism...So both engineers and artists ran out of ideas at about the same time. More specifically, engineers ran out of macro ideas, and artists ran out of ideas for visual experimentation."
Thanks, I like that old post much better than this one. In a sense, the quality of that post illustrates the point I was making in the post---artists run out of new ideas. Bloggers also run out of new ideas.
Superstar bloggers such as yourself are allowed to revisit your old ideas. If you merely decline to "star" blogger, you are still adding tremendous value. No one else out there thinks like you, Scott. You are the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.
Thanks, but I'd say I'm a one-eyed man in a land of other one-eyed men and women.