Across the country, during these dark and trying times, a possible light shines forth: Bernie Sanders is running for president. He certainly would be a welcome antithesis to the deceptive and cruel Trump regime and corporate Democrats. Unlike in 2016, he continues to collect endorsements and has already reached a record number of donations. Most interestingly, among his many positive and beneficial programs set forth is the plan to build lots of housing for the poor of this country as part of his Green New Deal.
What will that housing look like? I fear it could all too easily look just as ghastly as the buildings I passed after class the other day. It was with a sinking feeling of helplessness that I repented the medieval times we live in. Then it occurred to me that, perhaps, I can offer an alternative.
There are many problems with this current architecture and the trials of our age are many. However bleak the era, though, I refuse to submit to the impoverished and destitute philosophies of this age with its' soulless architecture and art. On the cusp of a new decade and according to many - poised between disaster and success - I will outline the problems I see with the current "Modernism" paradigm and its' debilitating effects on the prospects of this generation and civic pride.
First - to be clear - "Modernism" is not the same as "Modern," although some deceptive modernists do try to confuse the distinction. For example:
If I have an old house:
- MODERN means to renovate and update the house so it is conducive to modern life, with all the functional amenities like indoor plumbing, electric, heating, engineering, and the like.
- MODERNIST means to bulldoze the house and replace it with a steel, glass, and concrete cage.
Through the preceding example we arrive at our first and most important conclusion: "Modern" is purely concerned with improving the function of a building, essentially without altering its' style. Alternatively, "Modernism" is the exact opposite in that it is purely an impoverished aesthetic. The false claim "form follows function" is a laudable illusion, likely promulgated by an insidious propaganda machine.
Likewise, if climate change is indeed the threat it is posited to be, the Modernist style is the most wasteful and dangerous style of building that could be employed.
Glass buildings, at what ever scale, are essentially green houses. Back in 1851, Joseph Paxton could have gotten away with his "Crystal Palace," a temporary shelter for the Great Exposition. However, then as now, these buildings do exactly what green houses do: trap heat. During the spring, summer, and autumn months, they would be rendered entirely useless without cheap and plentiful energy to air condition and cool them. Their use of glass is inherently wasteful and ensures much more energy is lost than would otherwise be needed. In some ways this is criminal.
Idealized interior representation of Paxton's 1851 crystal palace. Paxton was a green house designer. Eye witness accounts complained of the incredible heat and the unsightliness of maintenance crews covering the glass roof with canvass sheets to deflect the sun. (Source: V&A Archives)
Next, let us examine steel. Steel is produced in large factories producing tons of fine particles and other harmful substances dangerous to human life. We need only look back at the steel mills of Pittsburgh and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania from the last century to fully understand the problem this artificial material poses. During the 19th century, these cities existed in eternal winters, practically never saw the sun, and all surfaces were covered with a film of black particles and dust. Tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases were widespread.
Photograph dated January of 1940 in the Hazelwood neighborhood of Pittsburgh, PA. (Source: Library of Congress)
When the steel was transported to places like Chicago and New York, the construction workers were unskilled and therefore disposable. Without the added expense of harnesses and other safety equipment, untold numbers of working class people plummeted to their deaths. Living under such a capitalist regime, the children and wives relying on these hard working men were left destitute and some were even forced into prostitution. If you have any lingering questions about the soulless nature of this Modernist enterprise, note that it was only after the city enforced new safety regulations that these contractors and firms begrudgingly made use of safety equipment, thereby dramatically reducing the number of work related deaths. However, in many less developed countries (such as Quatar - see my sources below) this cruel practice continues to this day.
Photograph of a man working on the empire state building. Notice that he is not wearing any protective gear or harnesses in 1941 or 1942. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
At the same time, Modernism - with its' whole-hearted rejection of decoration - rendered many skilled craftsmen unemployed. Many had to learn other skills to survive or work for less pay along side unskilled laborers on Modernist projects. There is no doubt that this dramatically reduced the quality of life for many people.
How many great buildings have been destroyed to build parking lots, garages, and wasteful towers? Modernism is essentially a predatory architecture that destroys anything old, cultural, or valuable. The pattern is undeniable, though much speculation abounds around the origins of this destructive principal.
Jeweler's Row, a historic row house street fronted with shops, is only the latest of Modernism's victims here in Philadelphia. That's right, you guessed it, the site is being cleared in order to build another glass tower that will waste more energy.
This 2016 photograph shows what jewelers row in Philadelphia looked like before demolition began for the construction of a new steel and glass residential tower in 2019. (Source: Philly Voice)
Now maybe none of these privileged Modernists architects have had to wash windows, but I have. I can tell you, based on experience, that it would be impossible to keep my house looking remotely decent if all the walls were made of glass. Modernist buildings keep crews of window washers employed. Without all this continual maintenance, these towers would be rapidly frosted over with all the grey dirt and black grime of the city. The glass would become disgustingly opaque in a matter of weeks.
Fire safety is yet another troubling factor the Modernist's underplay. Only this past summer a 16 floor apartment building in Philadelphia caught fire. 18 people died. One survived by scaling down the exterior of the building. At a certain point, a person is simply too far away from the ground to reach safety should a calamity occur on or in the building. Take for example the twin towers in New York city in 2001. Thousands of people died, trapped in the towers and unable to escape in time before the towers finally collapsed. Ironically, after these disturbing calamities have vividly demonstrated the error inherent in this kind of architecture, the Modernists continue erecting glass towers as though nothing happened. How detached must one be to miss this obvious safety problem? And, even if fire can be engineered into oblivion (although no real world system can ever be expected to perform at 100% reliability), can we really plan into oblivion planes crashing into buildings?
Twin Towers, 2001 (Source: Bob Gruen)
Another question seldom raised involves the merit of these designs. What impact do these buildings have on the residents who live in or around them? After all, office-goers can and do leave the area when the work day is done. These leaves the people in the city to cope with them. Direct sunlight may never reach the street below these glass giants. More importantly, however, I am reminded of a sociological experiment with abandoned cars left in two distinct places and observed. The car left in an area with traditional architecture was untouched. The car left in a New York slum near a poor housing tower was rapidly stripped for parts. It is obvious from this example that economics and architecture are linked. Those with money chose to live in an area with traditional architecture. Those without money were forced to live with Modernism.
Right across the street from where I live there once was a similar housing project tower. My neighbors (some have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years) tell me that crime and drugs ran rampant around the building and that it lowered the quality of life for everyone in the area. Interestingly, the city tore down the tower a few years ago and replaced it with (what had originally been torn down to build the tower) row houses made of brick. Now that those same people from the tower now live in these row house units - their environments being the only change - crime has dramatically gone down.
Does this mean the people who live in or near these Modernist monstrosities are negatively effected by them? The conclusion is rather obvious.
With so much history, innovation, and experience to draw on, Modernism is truly senseless. We have already made many of these avoidable mistakes in building - and self corrected with innovative solutions - over the previous generations. So why can't the Modernists see it?
Perhaps they do, but they are too wrapped up in the current zeitgeist dedicated to the pursuit of money and material rewards. In a word: greed. Alternatively, perhaps they want us to feel uneasy, uncomfortable, distracted, and annoyed. In a less sinister way, perhaps they simply do not care that their designs are hideous and have cruel and detrimental implications for the well-being of the people who live with them. It seems unlikely, however, that they are oblivious - for this would be a remarkable thing given the rigor with which architects must be licensed today. Regardless, I doubt any client would seriously want to rely on such an oblivious architect to design a building for them.
Thankfully, promising alternatives to this bleak scene do exist. In my next post, I will explore some of the age old traditional and vernacular architectural solutions to reduce energy consumption, costs, maintenance, and that generally improve the quality of human life and the lifespan of a building. Some of these generational improvements have once again been successfully employed in the contemporary world with such promising programs as New Urbanism. Almost forgotten, these innovations are again being used to successfully solve the dire challenges we face today.
Sources:
Harcourt, Bernard E., and Jens Ludwig. “Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment.” The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 73, no. 1, 2006, pp. 271–320. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4495553.
“File:Photograph of a Workman on the Framework of the Empire State Building - NARA - 518290.Tif.” File:Photograph of a Workman on the Framework of the Empire State Building - NARA - 518290.Tif - Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photograph_of_a_Workman_on_the_Framework_of_the_Empire_State_Building_-_NARA_-_518290.tif.
Google Maps, Google, https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9676066,-75.1661134,3a,75y,335.1h,103.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWsnq56YnhcKTvqg_ukNyRg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.
Jack. “Long Stairway in Mill District of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Home, 1 Jan. 1970, http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8c29017/.
Simpson, William. “The Foreign Department, Viewed towards the Transept: McNeven, J.” V&A Search the Collections, V&A Museum of Art and Design, 1851, http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O85649/the-foreign-department-viewed-towards-print-mcneven-j/.
Stephenson, Wesley. “Have 1,200 World Cup Workers Really Died in Qatar?” BBC News, BBC, 6 June 2015, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33019838.
“Thousands Sign Petition to Prevent Demolition on Jewelers Row.” PhillyVoice, 14 Aug. 2016, https://www.phillyvoice.com/thousands-sign-petition-prevent-demolition-jewelers-row/.
“World Trade Center and 9/11 Images.” Bob Gruen, 15 July 2014, http://www.bobgruen.com/world-trade-center-and-911-images/.
How many great buildings have been destroyed to build parking lots, garages, and wasteful towers? Modernism is essentially a predatory architecture that destroys anything old, cultural, or valuable. The pattern is undeniable, though much speculation abounds around the origins of this destructive principal.
Jeweler's Row, a historic row house street fronted with shops, is only the latest of Modernism's victims here in Philadelphia. That's right, you guessed it, the site is being cleared in order to build another glass tower that will waste more energy.
This 2016 photograph shows what jewelers row in Philadelphia looked like before demolition began for the construction of a new steel and glass residential tower in 2019. (Source: Philly Voice)
Now maybe none of these privileged Modernists architects have had to wash windows, but I have. I can tell you, based on experience, that it would be impossible to keep my house looking remotely decent if all the walls were made of glass. Modernist buildings keep crews of window washers employed. Without all this continual maintenance, these towers would be rapidly frosted over with all the grey dirt and black grime of the city. The glass would become disgustingly opaque in a matter of weeks.
Fire safety is yet another troubling factor the Modernist's underplay. Only this past summer a 16 floor apartment building in Philadelphia caught fire. 18 people died. One survived by scaling down the exterior of the building. At a certain point, a person is simply too far away from the ground to reach safety should a calamity occur on or in the building. Take for example the twin towers in New York city in 2001. Thousands of people died, trapped in the towers and unable to escape in time before the towers finally collapsed. Ironically, after these disturbing calamities have vividly demonstrated the error inherent in this kind of architecture, the Modernists continue erecting glass towers as though nothing happened. How detached must one be to miss this obvious safety problem? And, even if fire can be engineered into oblivion (although no real world system can ever be expected to perform at 100% reliability), can we really plan into oblivion planes crashing into buildings?
Twin Towers, 2001 (Source: Bob Gruen)
Another question seldom raised involves the merit of these designs. What impact do these buildings have on the residents who live in or around them? After all, office-goers can and do leave the area when the work day is done. These leaves the people in the city to cope with them. Direct sunlight may never reach the street below these glass giants. More importantly, however, I am reminded of a sociological experiment with abandoned cars left in two distinct places and observed. The car left in an area with traditional architecture was untouched. The car left in a New York slum near a poor housing tower was rapidly stripped for parts. It is obvious from this example that economics and architecture are linked. Those with money chose to live in an area with traditional architecture. Those without money were forced to live with Modernism.
Right across the street from where I live there once was a similar housing project tower. My neighbors (some have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years) tell me that crime and drugs ran rampant around the building and that it lowered the quality of life for everyone in the area. Interestingly, the city tore down the tower a few years ago and replaced it with (what had originally been torn down to build the tower) row houses made of brick. Now that those same people from the tower now live in these row house units - their environments being the only change - crime has dramatically gone down.
Does this mean the people who live in or near these Modernist monstrosities are negatively effected by them? The conclusion is rather obvious.
With so much history, innovation, and experience to draw on, Modernism is truly senseless. We have already made many of these avoidable mistakes in building - and self corrected with innovative solutions - over the previous generations. So why can't the Modernists see it?
Perhaps they do, but they are too wrapped up in the current zeitgeist dedicated to the pursuit of money and material rewards. In a word: greed. Alternatively, perhaps they want us to feel uneasy, uncomfortable, distracted, and annoyed. In a less sinister way, perhaps they simply do not care that their designs are hideous and have cruel and detrimental implications for the well-being of the people who live with them. It seems unlikely, however, that they are oblivious - for this would be a remarkable thing given the rigor with which architects must be licensed today. Regardless, I doubt any client would seriously want to rely on such an oblivious architect to design a building for them.
Thankfully, promising alternatives to this bleak scene do exist. In my next post, I will explore some of the age old traditional and vernacular architectural solutions to reduce energy consumption, costs, maintenance, and that generally improve the quality of human life and the lifespan of a building. Some of these generational improvements have once again been successfully employed in the contemporary world with such promising programs as New Urbanism. Almost forgotten, these innovations are again being used to successfully solve the dire challenges we face today.
Sources:
Harcourt, Bernard E., and Jens Ludwig. “Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment.” The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 73, no. 1, 2006, pp. 271–320. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4495553.
“File:Photograph of a Workman on the Framework of the Empire State Building - NARA - 518290.Tif.” File:Photograph of a Workman on the Framework of the Empire State Building - NARA - 518290.Tif - Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photograph_of_a_Workman_on_the_Framework_of_the_Empire_State_Building_-_NARA_-_518290.tif.
