How Did We Get Here? The Impact Architectural Postmodernism

This short was created for a class I took in the Spring of 2024 and explores architectural postmodernism, arched vents, and more importantly, why the opinions of architects and everyday people continue to diverge!
Thanks to Professor Lee Schnieder and Jodi Herfurth (my mom) for their help!

[@eryngo.urbanism]

This. I’ve seen a lot of discussions in urbanist forums about how it’s such a shame that we don’t build beautiful, ornamented buildings anymore and how architects, who supposedly only praise modernism, are fully out of touch with what average people want. The reality, as you expressed well, is a lot more nuanced and interesting. Nice video!

[@carter.hughes]

Really good video. Posted this just a day before I had read the Geography of Nowhere's chapter focusing on many of these same architectural developments and their impact on the urban landscape. Was lacking a visual representation so I found this perfect

[@mavzor]

outstanding

[@MrPlannery]

Short but interesting video. I don't know about the US but in Europe since world war two, utilitarianism, brutalism and cost saving have created huge swathes of blandness. Brutalism especially seemed designed around a planned ideology, not around people. People having to bend to the will of the architecture, not the other way around Details and architectural flourishes are expensive, and I don't think there's enough of them. People appreciate craftsmanship. There's a reason why people flock to Oxford university as tourists, and not Brunel university - less than an hour away - because one is gorgeous and the other looks like a chemical factory.

[@TheAnimatedFish]

In literature people talk about the death of the author. That is to say that the meaning of a text is not derived from the author's intent, but rather the reader's interpretation. Perhaps the same idea can be applied to architecture.

[@jeffbenton6183]

@@TheAnimatedFish That's a good idea. Reading the OP's comment, though, I think the intent and the interpretation of Brutalism (in particular) are the same. The fact that Brutalism is objectively ugly seems to be the point.

[@Bunny-ch2ul]

Brutalism and "modern" architecture gets a bad rap, and not one that it necessarily deserves. 1. Post industrial revolution, the human population has grown exponentially, which didn't used to be the case. Beyond expense, it's just not practical to spend the better part of a decade on a building anymore. 2. Historical buildings are subject to survivor bias. People generally already tore down the ugly ones. The "everything in the past was nicer" narrative is just not true. There were always buildings that were ugly, or needed to be put up cheaply. They just don't tend to stand the test of time. And when they do it's out of nostalgia. 3. Almost all architectural styles that people call "modern" (almost anything post art deco) aren't designed the way older buildings were designed. "Modern" spaces are designed from the inside out, and are designed to be more pleasant for the people inside rather than the people walking by them. For example, a lot of Mies van der Rohe's buildings are pretty unremarkable on the outside, but the interior spaces are gorgeous. A lot of brutalist buildings work the same way, where they're either bland or confusing on the outside, but you have a sensible layout and lots of open space on the inside. Judging buildings just on the experience of passing by them is pretty dumb.

[@josiahherfurth]

Love the discussion here! On these notes, I find the current flocking to Brutalism, with whole Instagram accounts dedicated to it, quite intriguing! Maybe it has fully settled into being an aesthetic mode? (Perhaps ironically, given it stems from an absence of such thinking...) In our architecturally post-postmodern world, what is striking to me is that bad design can look either mode of design-architecturally ornamented with lovely, albeit often copy-pasted details, or these sorts of massive, stark buildings that seem lifeless. Much is consistent in the underlying design technology. The design challenge then becomes finding dwellers' preferences and aesthetically designing towards them, while bringing in the designer's expertise regarding history, context, etc. This is to say, the designer should constantly be looking up to see the people their building will impact! I imagine iconic architecture may be difficult to design with this thinking, simply as there is a lack of patterns to gauge dwellers' interests when trying to make a 'splash.'

[@MrPlannery]

​@@TheAnimatedFish I like that. Near me there's a square with a paved path going around it and grass in the middle. But the quickest way from point A to point B is diagonally, so there's now a muddy path cut out into the grass. Whatever the architect wanted, however they imagined the place being used, that's not how people use it. Meanwhile Dark, counterintuitive, hard to navigate corridors in brutalist council blocks are perfect for dealing drugs, whatever the original intention was.

[@durable1988]

Don't forget the crunch on skilled craftsmen for various features from the past. It is E X P E N S I V E, and sometimes impossible, to ornament our buildings the way they were 300 years ago. Look to Notre Dame's recent refurbishment, there are only a handful of craftsmen in the world that can do the work required, that isn't always available.

[@josiahherfurth]

Such a great point. Supposedly, when the USC Village in Los Angeles was being constructed (which if you're not familiar, is a massive development similar in style to the first building shown), they had to opt for brick panels because there literally were not enough bricklayers in Los Angeles to complete it in the target timeframe!

[@johngrayson1441]

Scale figure Josiah strikes again! Great work my man

[@dklimenok]

I am 30 seconds into the video and straining my ear: the volume of the music is higher than that of the voice (plus some ambient noise). PS. Reading subtitles.

[@justanothercommercial]

Could use different audio mixing in future videos, but I’m looking forward to their career

[@dklimenok]

@@justanothercommercial but do you really need background music all the way through??

[@josiahherfurth]

Appreciate the feedback-this is helpful and didn't come up from my test viewers. On my end in my editor, vocals were about double the loudness of music, but I can look to bump that up in the future. Appreciate the feedback once again!

[@coralieleduc8251]

There is a neighbourhood in Seoul, South Korea with this type of building with red bricks, and I love it. Different sectors in Seoul have respective and recognizable architectural "vibes", which I think is interesting given the country's (and the metropolis') quick economic development and migration towards urban environments means most cities and appartment blocks feel copy pasted.

[@josiahherfurth]

A designer friend of mine is especially interested in the architectural development of South Korea, and from what he's shared with me, you're spot on. Countries that have undertaken (or are undertaking) rapid economic and built-environment development are curious, as often, design becomes subject to pragmatic needs. That, or design is used to prop up a picture of some society of the future (perhaps the case with Brasília). I don't envy the planners and architects who have to handle such rapid development while trying to design with elegance!

[@Bunny-ch2ul]

"Laypeople" tend to like things with "details," and it doesn't even really matter that much what said details are, so long as they're relatively harmonious, or they like things that are simple and unchallenging. People who are more educated in design almost universally want details used sparingly in a way that supports the main message, and they prefer tension and contrast to harmony and uniformity. The impulse to decorate air intakes with mullions is basically the same impulse as grandma adding ruffles to slipcovers that already have a bold pattern. Moreover, while there aren't a ton of taste "rules" that I would take as universal truths, the cardinal rule of good taste is "Nothing that pretends to be something else." While I think there are exceptions for irony etc., it's a solid rule to follow 95% of the time. There's no shame is putting in a linoleum floor. There is a lot of shame in choosing a marble print linoleum floor because you want marble, but it's not in the budget. Slapping some ornaments on the outside of a building to cover up the workings and sort of make it blend in just looks uncanny, Disney, and tacky.

[@josiahherfurth]

You're touching on the wonderfully difficult subject of architectural honesty! I think your point is well made, the difficulty so much these days is that materially, things just are not what they appear. I think at the extreme, some modern facades have so many layers that the exterior expression cannot be directly connected to the materiality of the interior (or should not be, for physical properties). Even when comparing the historic buildings on the USC campus, steel frames are found behind brick walls of buildings built in the 20s. Is therefore thinking it them to be brick buildings dishonest? I don't necessarily think so, but I find it more fun to pose these questions rather than look for deterministic answers! 😏