The crisis of modern architecture

Often the concept of “architecture” is mentioned in connection with the external appearance of a building or, in general, in relation to the landscape of a settlement, for example, “the architecture of the city of N. left much to be desired,” but initially the word “architecture” meant only the process of designing and constructing buildings, and implied the presence of an aesthetic component.

Stuart Davis. Composition 1863 (Factory by the Sea). 1932

The influence of architecture on the formation of the appearance of cities and towns on the planet, as well as the cultivation of taste and even the spiritual development of mankind should not be underestimated in any case, since it is the creations of our own hands – residential buildings, industrial buildings – that surround us always and everywhere.

Coming to an unfamiliar city, we first of all pay attention to its architecture and by it we judge the cultural level of the country as a whole, get acquainted with the customs, traditions and customs of local residents. And, you must agree, it is much more pleasant to admire slender columns and original facades than standard, gray panels of a typical microdistrict!

Architecture is real Art, the art of creating buildings according to the laws of beauty, the formation of an attractive environment.

A beautiful house can cheer you up and even improve your well-being, and many buildings become real symbols of their era and the main, often the only decoration of the city..

Meanwhile, modern architecture raises many complaints not only from specialists, but primarily from ordinary citizens, complaining about the monotony of buildings, inconvenient planning, the desire to simplify as much as possible, or, on the contrary, “exaggerate” the nonexistent advantages of any ultramodern building.

What is the reason for the emergence of the phenomenon called the “crisis of modern architecture”?

Architectural Styles – From Ancient Greece to the 20th Century

Before trying to find out what is happening at the present stage of the development of architecture, it is worth touching on the development of the main, most famous styles of the past centuries, because it is on their basis, under their influence, the formation of today’s urban landscape takes place (or at least should take place).

Antique architecture– originated in the 1st millennium BC, was distinguished by precise, clear, symmetrical forms, the most common techniques are order and columns. ?

Parthenon, Acropolis, Athens

Roman style– laconic, tied to the environment, became widespread in Europe of the X-XII centuries.

Chapel of Penitent Sinners in Beaulieu-sur-Dordogne

Gothic style– developed from the 13th to the 16th century, characterized as “Frighteningly majestic”.

Chartres Cathedral or Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres

Renaissance architecture– the period from the 15th to the 17th century, there were “personalized” styles of famous masters, took a lot from antiquity.

St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome

Baroque– “whimsical, strange”, distinguished by a large number of details, decorativeness and play of forms and contrasts.

Royal Palace of Madrid

Speaking of the Baroque style, one cannot fail to mention its influence on the appearance of Moscow and St. Petersburg, highlight such directions as “Russian ornamental pattern” – the European pretentiousness of facades somewhat adapted to the traditions of Russian architecture, “Peter’s Baroque” – the style of construction of the Northern capital approved by Peter the Great, as well as the “mature Russian baroque” during the reign of Elizabeth.

Kunstkamera, St. Petersburg

Rococo– its main characteristics: flirty capitals, balustrades and balusters, almost complete absence of straight lines, was called “artsy baroque”.

Amalienburg near Munich

Classicism– a return to the origins – ancient, austere and restrained architecture, which arose as an alternative to the too extravagant baroque and rococo. The founder of this style was the Venetian master Palladio, classicism became popular all over the world and remained the dominant trend in architecture until the beginning of the 19th century.

Bolshoi Theater, Moscow

Classicism was developed in such directions as the Empire – imperial style, experienced a rebirth in the 30s in the Soviet Union, where it was named “Stalinist classicism”. It was in this style that the “Stalinist skyscrapers” were built that adorn the Moscow landscape to this day.

In principle, Stalinist classicism can be called the last style of architecture that appeared in Russia. After that our cities will “survive” the invasion of “Khrushchev”, “Brezhnev” and modern borrowings from Western architectural trends.

House on Kudrinskaya Square, construction began in 1948

Eclecticism– a mixture of styles, popular in the middle and late 19th century.

The Sevastyanov House or the House of Trade Unions in Yekaterinburg, a mixture of classicism and Italian neo-Gothic

Modern– in this style, materials that were not previously used in architecture – metal and glass – found their application, builders began to use concrete. This style, often called Art Nouveau, is characterized by a rejection of straight lines, a return to natural, natural forms. The influence of modernity is noticeable in the formation of the appearance of both St. Petersburg and Moscow. For example, the Yaroslavsky railway station and the Metropol hotel in Moscow were built in this style..

House of the Singer company in St. Petersburg, 1904

Modern architectural trends

Already in Art Nouveau, the name of which is translated as “new”, “modern”, the features that have become typical of the present time appeared – simplification of forms, rational, functional approach to the internal planning of the building, the use of only modern materials, the so-called “fight against excesses “.

All subsequent styles of architecture, which spread in the 20th century, continued the traditions of this bias towards rationalism, the most efficient use of space and the rejection of decorativeness and ornaments in favor of expediency. Moreover, often even the safety of buildings was considered an excess – why build something reliable, if you can save money and make the walls thinner, and the ceiling lower?

Probably, only our descendants will be able to objectively assess the advantages and disadvantages of modern styles, who will have to get acquainted with the heritage, like us, studying architectural monuments. We can only try to highlight some, good or ugly, modern trends in architecture.

Modernism. From the beginning of the 20th century to the 80s of the last century, the most common style was precisely modernism, it is also rationalism and constructivism. This direction of design and construction of buildings is characterized by the use of modern materials – steel, durable glass, concrete, plastic – in combination with traditional stone and wood.

Interestingly, this style is international in nature – the emerging multi-storey buildings in Paris, London and New York are very similar. Modernism is best characterized by the expression “prisms of glass and concrete”, ultra-modern buildings, devoid of such attributes of the architecture of yesteryear as columns, orders and other elements of external design.

Bauhaus building in Dessau, Germany, 1926, after renovation completed in 2006

Constructivism. In the USSR, the most widespread trend of modernism is constructivism. It was in this style that most public buildings were erected in the 30s and 40s of the last century: Palaces of Pioneers, Houses of Culture, workers’ clubs. This is the so-called “proletarian” direction of architecture, designed to serve not to decorate the city, but for the rational planning of space.

The basis of constructivism is a reinforced concrete frame, clear, strict forms, rational planning.

Late or mature constructivism, which does not possess the monolithic forms of its predecessor, is usually called functionalism, which spread in Europe, while constructivism remained the prerogative of Soviet Russia.

Derzhprom, Kharkov, 1928

Minimalism.In the 40s of the 20th century, an even more restrained direction in architecture was developed – minimalism, the motto of which was – “nothing more”.

Simple shapes and geometry of clear lines, avoidance of embellishment and the slightest hint of decor – all this is minimalism. It is believed that the roots of this style go back to the tradition of the Japanese interior – a minimum of details, an abundance of light, huge windows on the entire wall and a rational layout. Minimalist houses are generally neutral, often built from natural materials, but steel and glass remain favorites..

Minimalism gave many examples of successful design, if the architects follow the principle of the American-German architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe – “less is more”, that is, they refuse unnecessary details in favor of high-quality materials and thoughtful forms, the buildings are unusual, functional and at the same time quite inexpensive.

A good example of minimalism is the Japanese interior, there are original projects of private buildings in this style that fit perfectly into the surrounding landscape, thoughtful, strict and at the same time beautiful.

Private house in minimalist style, Kiev

However, when minimalism becomes especially austere, when a building simply turns into a box without any individuality, it looks at least strange, and more often it is just awful..

House in the style of strict minimalism, Tokyo

If we try to define the style of our “Khrushchevs”, then minimalism clearly had its influence on the design of such maximally simplified buildings. Although experts refer “Khrushchevs” to a typical functional architecture, but a complete rejection of decoration and “the fight against excesses”, so pronounced in the layout and appearance of buildings built in the middle of the 20th century, clearly resonate with minimalism.

Indeed, when the constructivism of the 30s and the Stalinist monumental buildings were replaced, the so-called “Stalinist classicism” was replaced by the most simplified, faceless form of five-story buildings of the late 50s, otherwise than the desire to bring a residential building to the state – four walls and a roof – call it it was impossible. Isn’t this minimalism in action? However, the second slogan of the minimalists – “less is better” – still does not allow us to confidently call the “Khrushchevs” representatives of this trend.

High tech. The motto of this style of high technology was the principle – “home is a car for living”. Metal and glass, ascetic design, ultra-modern, industrial structures, large monolithic forms – these are the main characteristics of the high-tech style..

High-tech is also characterized by the idealization of technology, the desire to turn the house into the most rational, and in the future – an autonomous, energy-saving structure. Industrial high-tech stands out – “whatnots”, buildings in which elements usually hidden inside, such as stairs or elevators, are brought out to the facade. Geometric hi-tech is a complex frame system using state-of-the-art structural elements, for example, it is linked to a complex frame system using the latest structural elements, for example, air-supported or air-supported pneumatic structures. As well as bionic high-tech – the use of forms of living nature, such as membranes, flexible steel strands, suspended structures in architecture.

Fuji TV headquarters, Japan

Bio-tech or bionic high-tech– the most modern trend in this style, a technology that tries to “live in harmony” with nature. It was in this direction that the most successful (from my point of view) buildings were created, for example, the Milwaukee Art Museum, architect Santiago Calatrava.

Milwaukee Art Museum, 2001

Deconstructivism. Broken forms, aggressiveness, the desire to oppose oneself to the surrounding landscape are typical features of deconstructivism, which appeared in opposition to Soviet constructivism.

Fortunately, this style, which appeared in the 80s, did not become widespread, but left several very bright buildings.

MIT data center

Guggenheim Museum in the center of Bilbao, 1997

Brutalism. Another style of architecture that advocates a complete rejection of decoration, revealing the form of materials and structures. It is not surprising that this direction received such a “speaking” name – from the English “brutal”, that is, “rough”.

The predominant material of buildings in the style of brutalism is reinforced concrete, and not processed, the so-called “honest material”. This trend experienced a fairly short period of popularity in the 20th century, and by the end of the century it became a symbol of an unsuccessful approach to the design of urban buildings..

Boston City Hall, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 1981

By the way, buildings in the style of brutalism can be found in the USSR, in particular, the architect Igor Vinogradsky worked in this style, who designed the building of the press center for the 1980 Olympics..

Kitsch. Translated from German, kitsch is hack, “cheap”, bad taste. Often architects deliberately go to the “protrusion” of some features of the building, creating such masterpieces as “Egg House” or “Upside Down House”. Famous designers and architects often sneer at modern culture in this way, showing how ostentatious splendor and the use of stucco or papier-mâché are far from real art..

However, often the creators of a building or interior do not even realize that their house, which was planned to be built in the style of classicism or Russian baroque, has become a real kitsch.

By the way, kitsch has already experienced several ups and downs – it is always at hand when the old, generally accepted direction is already tired, and nothing new has yet been invented. In the USSR, for example, kitsch appeared in the post-war years as a counterbalance to the Soviet monumentality and rigor..

Nowadays, buildings of the so-called “Lugansk period” are often characterized as “kitsch”, characterized by a wide range of styles and attempts (usually unsuccessful) to revive romanticism, classicism or “Russian pattern”.

In general, kitsch is a multifaceted concept that captures most of mass culture and does not refer only to architecture. As they say, style is a matter of taste, and the building, which some will call a classic and a masterpiece, will seem to others a real example of “flashy” kitsch.

As you can see, all modern architectural styles have followed the path of simplification, rejection of “unnecessary” details, and yet there is a whole science called “video ecology”, which has convincingly proved that if you see only blank facades of concrete buildings, asphalt, bare ends every day multi-storey towers or the glitter of glass skyscrapers, this negatively affects a person’s well-being.

Videoecologists called a large number of repetitive elements an aggressive environment, confirming that the expression “dazzled in the eyes” really has not only a figurative, but also a direct meaning. Among the most aggressive buildings, streets and squares of Moscow, experts attributed the buildings of the Federation Council, which evokes the feeling of a “vest” with its identical rustic patterns, Novy Arbat and Oktyabrskaya Square.

Oktyabrskaya Square in Moscow

What is the reason for such an architectural “stupor”, the lack of new, attractive ideas that could change the appearance of cities?

First, the break, the separation of two processes that were previously inextricably linked – design and construction, had a great impact. Now an architect is not a creator, but just an ordinary performer who was ordered to design a building with such and such an area, such and such a number of rooms, and so on. At the same time, creating a project for a future house, the architect is guided by rules, norms, standards that take into account anything – lighting, ventilation, safety, but not the attractiveness of the building..

Secondly, even several people can participate in the creation of the project itself. For example, an architect and constructor, an architect and a designer. A person no longer feels that this particular building is becoming his creation, does not feel responsibility for what he created.

Thirdly, now the structure of the building is often not combined with its “outfit”, does not fit any architectural style.

Fourth, and, apparently, this is one of the main reasons, a modern new building, with rare exceptions, is not a house, it is a “construction object”, “a technical design object”, a small puzzle in the overall picture of a city landscape, one of many, nothing non-prominent buildings.

Summing up, I would like to sadly admit that in many respects we are to blame for such a rather deplorable state of our cities. Ordinary home buyers simply do not have enough money to pay a talented architect who is able to offer an original solution, while others simply cannot decide exactly how an ideal house should look like, demanding only “more spacious” or “well, like here in the magazine”.

Perhaps the very pace of modern life, uncertainty about the future and instability form the concept of housing as something temporary?

Our ancestors really built for centuries, not doubting that their creations will outlive them and will serve the generations of descendants. Modern new buildings, however, initially have a set limit of use. And, although, as the saying goes, “there is nothing more permanent than temporary,” which has already been proved by the “Khrushchevs”, which were built with a maximum of 20 years in mind and confidently stood 3 times longer, but this attitude to architecture could not but affect the external the appearance of buildings. And the increasingly widespread situation when a family does not live in their own, but in a rented apartment or house does not improve the situation in any way, because – “not your own – do not mind”.

In addition, the pursuit of novelty and the focus on technology also lead to the fact that between plastic and wood, concrete and natural stone, many people choose plastic and concrete, not thinking how the facade of such a building will look in a couple of years …