Home Architecture Talk

Is architecture, as an art of dream and imagination, dead in the public sphere and beyond?

Standing in the concourse of grand central makes me proud to be human, it reminds me of the ingenuity, imagination and perseverance of the human spirit. But, It seems every new public building (and private ones to a certain extent as well, ie strip malls, department stores) is utilitarian, soulless, and bland. Lit by row after row of cold fluorescent lighting. Is architecture dead in the public sphere? If not, what are some examples of contemporary public architecture that matches the imagination and scale of Grand Central? What about private architecture. It seems the most "scenic" towns and cities are always ones with a past, with old architecture that has been well preserved. What the heck happened to imagination and excess, for no other reason than as a physical manifestation fo the human spirit, in architecture?

Public Comments

1. I try to take notice in architectural form, function and creativity where ever I go. I want to be the type of person that can enjoy an architects work just like one enjoys the work of a certain artist. Eventhough I am only a laboring type of man, I appreciate quality design and craftmanship. I think a lot of the problem today is that we are designing things that are cost effective. The end result is that buildings end up trashy instead of classy, but they are cheap and they work. I once went to school and wanted to be an architect, but I just was'nt cut out for academia and I quit. I will always try to pay attention to architecture though.
2. I have exactly the same feelings - modern architecture is usefull but ugly as night. It took us 2 thousands years to realize excessive decorations are redundant? 2 thousands years to realize the barn is a perfect architecture. sorry, a tall barn made of glass or some other cheap, shinning stuff. I cant understand how that poor society could afford those beautiful houses, with decorations, sculptures and we, so ... developed and rich, build such the temporary shit. Architects? They're seeking only fame, doing every building different, only to get printed is some trendy magazine. It's not possible a new style is born and followed. Not any more.
3. I fully agree with you -- Grand Central is indeed a grand space in the city. Everyday I go out of my way just to experience that magnificent structure. Do you know that a few years ago that building was almost demolished? Thanks to the efforts of Jackie Onassis the building is still there. A single dark patch remains above Michael Jordan's Steak House, left untouched by renovators to remind visitors how dirty it was. Unfortunately, today "real architecture", or buildings that in one way or another can "touch" our souls, are in the hand of a few chosen designers -- they are called 'star architects.' Most of the architecture built -- strip malls, subdivisions, etc -- is in the hands of developers. And they are essentially interested in a quick return in their investment. That means -- build fast, cheap and in an efficient manner = time is money. So there is not much time to spend on trying to figure out how many trees we should save on the site -- just get rid of them all. The key word today is standardization. Let's make them (houses, strip malls, etc) all alike so they will be cheaper to build. So it is indeed a bleak picture -- on the other hand, we still have a hand full of very conscious architects that are committed to designing structures that will be 'a physical manifestation of the human spirit' as you mentioned. We also have some key theorists that are great thinkers in this profession of many followers and few leaders. So if you live or visit NYC there are a few new jewels here: the Austrian Cultural Foundation Center and the American Folk Art Museum. Now for urban spaces I still can't find any contemporary examples -- I don't think we can include Beijing or Shanghai as reminders of the human spirit!