A Vision for Architecture as More Than the Sum of Its Parts

[marmar]

from OnTheCommons.org:


A Vision for Architecture as More Than the Sum of Its Parts
How Modernist Fundamentalism degrades the human and natural environment

By Michael W. Mehaffy & Nikos A. Salingaros


[font size="1"]Historic Paris and other beloved neighborhoods around the world teach us that streets are the river of life. (Photo by Dirk Haun under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com)[/font]


Many research studies show a remarkable divergence between the way architects see their work and the way non-architects do — to such a degree that it is not uncommon to hear ordinary people wondering aloud how it is that architects, and architecture students, seem to want to make such strange and unpleasant buildings today.

A second, related perception is that, for many, the architecture of most human environments today is far uglier than what even ordinary people were able to make a century or more ago — and moreover, the latter places are often among the most beloved and enduring that the world has to offer. Why is this, many wonder? Is it just the price of progress? Does it even matter, really? (Especially since architects are responsible for a diminishing part of the built environment?) And is this issue connected to our daunting challenges of sustainability and resilience for the future?

We answer, in a word, yes.

In 2001 we wrote a short essay that introduced the term “geometrical fundamentalism” — a pervasive architectural habit of thought that, we suggested, helps to explain the historically unique patterns of much of modern practice of planning, design, and construction. These patterns in turn have carried with them profound and negative consequences.

“Geometrical fundamentalism” is, we argued, a fervent ideological belief in the urgent necessity to denude the human environment of all but abstract, putatively “rational” forms, composed into one-off works of art — lines, planes, cubes, and the like — in the misguided belief that these are actually more advanced and “modern” — hence “Modernism”. (But as we will discuss, they are not more advanced, but in fact are dangerously primitive.) In that essay we only briefly referred to the origins of this peculiar but pervasive kind of fundamentalism, and its profound impact on today’s human and natural environment. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/vision-architecture-more-sum-its-parts#sthash.iDE6eERJ.dpuf