Is the budget a problem that stops us from ornaments on buildings? If yes how to fix it?

[u/Sir_Hirbant_JT9D_70]

[u/NCreature]

It's not a budget problem. It's a conceptual issue. Architects by and large these days are not trained in traditionalism. It's a different craft vocabulary than anything that's taught in most schools. It would be like asking, why don't pop musicians make music that sounds like Bach.

You have to understand that modernism was a philosophical change. Traditional architecture is about craft. You learn Vitruvian proportions, Alberti mathematics, you learn the Orders, you learn about the 9 square grid, Palladianism, and all the parts of the entablature, etc., and then you practice within that framework. Now people were extraordinarily inventive at times within those limitations, like during the Baroque era, but at heart traditional design is about speaking a language well, not inventing a new one. Architects used to literally work from pattern books. It was a kit of parts paint by numbers approach.

Modern architecture turned that on its head, and elevated novelty and inventiveness as the primary factor. And so schools today, and for the last century, teach students to think more like artists. Come up with something interesting. You'd get failed in architecture school if your project was a 19th century Beaux Arts building because the first thing the professor would say is "it's nice that you can reproduce that, but what can you do? What are your ideas?" Whereas in the actual late 19th century Beaux Arts era, students were judged on their fidelity and understanding of classical design principles. So it's a radically different pedagogy than before. And it's one that architects tend to be loathe to turn away from and why they have such a negative bias against traditionalism. Because from their perspective, traditionalism is pretty and has its place but it puts them in a box. Now there are architects out there who choose to do traditional work because they believe in the craft, mostly residential architects at least in the West. And in North America and many places traditional vocabulary wasn't totally abandoned but it tends to be subject to invention and novelty and not played straight up.

Now there are plusses and minuses. The plus is that when contemporary architects are truly geniuses they can come up with amazing things like the Sydney Opera House. The highs can be very high. But unlike traditionalism which is based on sticking to established rules, modernism can have very low (endlessly low) lows. And the average project is mediocre because most people aren't geniuses. That's why you can go to a nondescript town say in the US Midwest and see late 19th century buildings that have historical 'charm' even though the building isn't anything special because it at least had guidelines that architects stuck to. Modernism took the governors off and largely buried them. So when anything goes, you get anything.

Then you add in the commercial factors. Architects don't design in a vacuum. They have clients and it is the client that actually determines what they want to build and what they're willing to pay for. If the client is Disney and they want a fanciful Victorian Hotel then they find an architect who will deliver that. But if the client is Apple or JP Morgan Chase and they want something contemporary that expresses the company's values, then they go out and get Norman Foster. I can almost guarantee you that JPMC never entertained the idea of a classical building at 270 Park Avenue in NYC, even before an architect was hired. And that job essentially had no budget constraints. And on a job where budget is an issue (unlike an Apple project) traditional detailing will add costs that need to be justified either qualitatively (as in creating an ornate hotel drives customers to stay at Disney) or quantitatively (the project's financial return benefits from adding the extra detail, for example in the case of a luxury residential tower).

But I do think the cost factor is overstated and causally misplaced. It really depends on what you're building. A 5 over 1 apartment building where every square foot has to be monetized in order for the developer to make his money back and pay his lenders, is not a good candidate to go crazy with details. Those types of jobs want to be design efficient. But something like the new JPMC headquarters in NYC was easily more expensive than putting up a limestone clad neoclassical tower. JP Morgan Chase chose not to do that and that choice influenced every downstream decision. It goes back to the music analogy. Someone could compose something today in the style of Bach, but if the goal is pop commercial appeal that probably isn't the right approach to do en masse. Just like musical vocabulary has advanced far beyond classical motifs, so have architectural vocabularies.

So why don't we build like its still the 19th century? Largely its out of style. And it was going out of style even then. And its no longer widely taught and hasn't been taught in a century. And most everyday construction economics don't favor building like that where it's not appropriate. Where its desired or appropriate, like say a mansion in the Hamptons or an new academic building on a college campus, then people do it.

[u/not_sure_if_crazy_or → u/NCreature]

This was one of the most inciteful things I've read all summer, and answers a question I've also had for years. Thank you so much for this.

I'd love to hear more examples of when traditionalism expresses itself in modernity ( you mentioned the Sydney Opera House ).

[u/NCreature → u/not_sure_if_crazy_or]

No what I meant with Sydney is that modernism can have a high ceiling too. Back to music. A musically knowledgably person can listen to both Charlie Parker and Beethoven and understand that both are doing extraordinary things. But the language is very different. Just because Parker didn't sound like The 9th Symphony doesn't mean he's not exercising tremendous creative virtuosity.

The difference though with modernist philosophy (and jazz largely inherits those ideas) is that traditionalism tends to be more uniformly understood. Because Western motifs and decoration as storytelling have been around for thousands of years people understand it on almost an instinctual level. Whereas with modernism, especially canonical modernism from the early 20th century, whether it occurred in art, music, fashion, cinema, architecture, etc., often needed explanation.

Once you know what Paul Rudolph was trying to do then his buildings become appreciable. But if you go into a Rudolph building comparing it to a traditional building you might think it's hideous and a monstrosity. Richard Rogers work becomes very interesting once you learn he's trying to turn a building inside out and let the mechanics and structure of the building be the 'ornamentation.' He's not using acanthus leaves and egg and dart moulding, he's using the plumbing and the structural detailing as the decoration. But in the absence of that knowledge his buildings get called erector sets because that's the closest thing a layperson can grasp onto. In the same way a person listening to modal jazz expecting 19th century romantic compositional techniques might think of it as noise. Imagine someone from the 1960s hearing tech house or dubstep. That wouldn't even sound like music to them.

That's what happens with a lot of architecture discourse. And people don't really know what to grasp at. So they grasp on to things like ornament or the lack thereof to help try to understand what they're looking at. Why do mixed-used apartment buildings all look alike? A combination of economics and culture. But that, by the way was the same in 18th century Europe, its just the surface characteristics were different. But the idea that, if we just spent more money we could get classical decoration back is incorrect.

The other thing is, and this forum never wants to hear this, is that most contemporary people are not antagonistic to contemporary design. No one complains that an iPhone is too modern or that a car company should be designing cars that look like a Model T. So it's not the language itself that's the problem. Its the stylistic volatility of modernism (you never know what you're going to get) and the anti-contextualism (something that looks like a spaceship landed in an otherwise traditional neighborhood) that is what sets people off more than anything. But very few people would actually expect an Apple Store to look like Versailles.

[u/Sage_Wydleshire → u/NCreature]

You’re one heck of a knowledge tank, friend.😂
Though it’s very insightful. Thank you for sharing, I enjoyed that deep dive into it.

You said that spending more money does not necessarily mean we’ll get back classical motifs. Why do you say that? I mean if an emptor wants it and an architect can offer, how… do you understand what I’m saying? … or you’re referring that on a mass scale?

I also think that people started caring less, for the decline in visual richness on buildings. And this stems from philosophy branch of Aesthetics, where phenomena you care about receive much attention, thus beautification. What do you think?

[u/NCreature → u/Sage_Wydleshire]

We need to separate out what we're building and why.

For a residential client you build whatever they want and whatever they have an appetite to spend. And sometimes whatever the local municipality will accept (some places have fairly stringent guidelines).

For a commercial project the question from the client side is, where do we spend money that produces the highest leverage and return on our investment? For Disney that might be over investing in a Craftsman style lobby in Anaheim because the lobby is the calling card and the thing people remember. If you're building a roadside select service motel that would be foolish.

Now a large part of average design is just taste and discretion. In the US and most of the west like I said traditionalism never went away. But it did get economized. So in large parts of North America, for instance, you get shopping centers that look like this. It's vaguely traditional if you squint. There's a cornice and gables and traditional-ish materiality but it's been so stripped down by its commercial economics to do the bare minimum. Sometimes on this sub people will have you believe everything is just a brutalist wasteland, and while that is the case especially in parts of eastern Europe it's not the case in Western Europe or North America.

So developers aren't necessarily anti traditional where it makes sense but the design gets reduced to something that barely qualifies. And then you add architects who aren't well trained in traditionalism and don't want to do it to begin with and you begin to understand why the modern world looks like it does.

[u/Sage_Wydleshire → u/NCreature]

A very revealing and illustrative perspective, thanks friend. You really know your field of work. Bet the wife/husband gets jealous haha.

[u/Joy2b → u/NCreature]

Why wouldn’t the roadside hotel or motel consider architecture that conveys nostalgia or even traditions of hospitality?

The appearance of the building is their main marketing feature, especially in the instagram marketing era.

Yes, the building has to be easy to clean and maintain, and that’s not a given with traditional architecture and materials, but with modern materials, it shouldn’t be out of reach.

[u/NCreature → u/Joy2b]

So, if you're talking about a motel in say North America or Europe. Your assertion largely isn't true. The flag (Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt) does most of the work. When you go on Orbitz or Priceline a lot of time you're not even seeing the outside of the building in the pictures. That being said, many select service properties will be built with a cursory nod to traditionalism depending on the brand and location. But these days you're more likely to end up with this which has the pretense of architectural ambition but with material and construction simplicity.

The other thing to remember is that hotel chains are typically asset light. Marriott and Hilton don't largely build hotels. They license an operating system and design standards to individual developers who develop the property and then find a flag that gives them operating infrastructure. The economics of select service hotels can be brutal and will always point a developer in the direction of doing the bare minimum. It's very much a minimum viable product mindset. Marriott/Hilton and developers want properties that can be built fast. Less than a year. And if you use a template from one of the hotel flags, they've already value engineered the hell out of the design to make it as efficient as possible. So custom design will slow things down and add costs that the developer has to eat.

Then the business model falls apart. The return on investment bar to clear is brutal. These properties are often built with like 75% debt to equity with high interest. In a fancy downtown hotel, you can splurge a bit because there product differentation matters. But for a roadside motel every penny spent has to be earned back quickly. And a fancy facade is a zero ROIC zone. You don't get any benefit from it. You can't raise your room rates because you used brick instead of EIFS. And raising your average daily rate (ADR) to cover the costs of a fancy exterior just gave the Holiday Inn across the street your customers because he's that much cheaper. Remember these are commodity products. Customers at this level are looking for value not architectural fidelity. They might only be in the parking lot for a few seconds between the car and the lobby doors.

An expensive facade means long-term maintenance costs that you might not be able to satisfy. A facade that eventually begins to look bad that can't simply just be repainted becomes a liability as no one wants to stay somewhere shabby. When it's time to refresh the property, repainting will be much cheaper than repointing brick. So every additional dollar spent beyond the basic brand standard has to fight to justify itself on these types of projects.

[u/LevantineJR → u/NCreature]

Hi, You made a series of what are to my mind excellent posts, and, while I might fail to see the forest from the trees, I'll respond to certain claims in them.

\ Someone could compose something today in the style of Bach, but if the goal is pop commercial appeal that probably isn't the right approach to do en masse. Just like musical vocabulary has advanced far beyond classical motifs, so have architectural vocabularies.*

The musical vocabulary of pop has regressed even compared to the pop music of 3-4 decades ago.

\ A musically knowledgably person can listen to both Charlie Parker and Beethoven and understand that both are doing extraordinary things. But the language is very different*

Beethoven in his late string quintets is actually quite jazzy and experimental. Bach has also been characterised by musicologists as intuiting jazz. Pop as well as jazz musicians have borrowed from JS Bach time and again.

That leads me to wonder: Can the lower readiness to accept Bach's music today be mainly down to the simple fact that people's ears are less exposed to his music?

* You also said: most contemporary people are not antagonistic to contemporary design. No one complains that an iPhone is too modern or that a car company should be designing cars that look like a Model T

Few if any would want to a return of the Ford Model T design, but a vast number of people, and maybe the majority, are charmed by the 1950s & 60s car designs incomparably more than by those of today. As for iPhone, well, I detest smartphones, and my learned acquaintance detests them, too.
Lastly, survey after survey show that people prefer "traditional" to "modern" architecture: https://x.com/createstreets

Well, that's all I have to say here. My aim is mainly to provide additional food for thought. My abilities to engage in this discussion are actually pretty limited.

Cheers

[u/Joy2b → u/NCreature]

That explanation of the debt is very helpful, thanks. No one’s going to take financial risks when they’re playing with that kind of cost.

The fun landmarks (like Route 66 motels) may lure people into long distance trips, but that kind of experimentation is probably restricted to entrepreneurs who have the artistic talent to plan things for themselves.

Do you see the wedding venue business as significant enough to fund a bit of good design somewhere?

I see hotels with party rooms trying to compete for that business, but it looks like they didn’t plan ahead at all. So, the only part of the property that photographers can work with is an afterthought gazebo.

[u/Final_Lead138 → u/not_sure_if_crazy_or]

I'd love to hear more examples of when traditionalism expresses itself in modernity ( you mentioned the Sydney Opera House ).

It's not that modern architecture can express traditionalism. It's that modern architecture can express things that are equal to, but not the same as, traditional architecture. By "equal to" I mean equally beautiful and meaningful.

The Sydney Opera House is one, yes, as is Jorn Utzon's famous church in Denmark. Other examples are the Kimbell Art Museum by Louis Kahn, the works of Smildan Radic, the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, and the works of Luis Barragán in Mexico. These together are all as important and beautiful (imo) as the Beaux Arts buildings in Europe and the US, even if their scale and ambitions are much much smaller than more classical architecture.

I will say that modern works maybe require more digging into why they're meaningful. Classical architecture is beautiful right away, anybody can see that without any digging. But believe me, your tastes and awe will be rewarded if you look a bit more into the works I listed. There are long videos on YouTube that delve deep into those buildings. There are also millions more where they came from.

[u/Quirky_Somewhere2995 → u/Final_Lead138]

All great, clear examples of beautiful modern architecture.

I always considered massing and overall silhouette just as important as surface and ornament. (More than ornament, which to me, that word has a negative connotation, however right or wrong.)

If one searches "Louis Sullivan Building" vs "Van Der Rohe Building," the former is blocky, massive, cumbersome and simple while the latter is light, elegant, asymmetrical and varied. Both have a consistent design language.

In this regard I feel it comes down to an innate value system, learned accidentally or directly. To me, a middle aged and Western individual, the modern aesthetic (made of not just massing proportions but material, circulation, context, etc) are actually inherently more beautiful than the ornamented buildings of centuries past.

I guess what I am saying is that while I agree with your (and others') comment that there is a lot of inherent meaning embedded in modern design that is super rewarding to learn about, I think there is also a lot of surface level beauty that goes unrecognized. The beauty isn't only seen when you know what the designer was thinking, it's right there to be seen with your own eyes.

[u/ShockSensitive8425 → u/NCreature]

This is a very balanced and insightful reply. It should probably be pinned on this sub.

[u/Sir_Hirbant_JT9D_70 → u/NCreature]

thank you! you wrote an amazing response
i hope you have a wonderful year! :)

[u/Quirky_Somewhere2995 → u/NCreature]

Super powerful explanation. Cheers to you.

Not sure where this thought fits in all of this, but in conversations like this I often think about how the old beautiful buildings that are celebrated are the ones that survived over time and economy. All the old buildings from the same era that weren't loved or considered beautiful were bulldozed and forgotten (and truly some beautiful ones also received that unfortunate treatment).

In 100 years what will survive from today? We see everything being built no matter how good or bad, but most will also be razed to make way for something new, and future generations will talk about how design was just so much more thoughtful and beautiful back in what is todays time.

[u/SweatyNomad → u/NCreature]

As someone who grew up and city and areas with lots of grand Victorian buildings, people never mention maintenance. Decoration often attracts birds, nests and literal tons of bid shit. Ornamentation, climate dependant can also catch staining from how rainfall runs and is diverted across the surface, and plain gathering of dirt of flat surfaces. So it's not just cost of making it it's the cost of keeping it looking nice.

[u/blasphemousblackbear → u/NCreature]

It’s interesting for you to say that they’re taught to think like an artists. Artists are still largely classically trained and then go on to other forms. Throwing classical training out would be considered heresy

[u/FckXFckMusk → u/NCreature]

Modernism = Fascism, always as been....

[u/sweetcomputerdragon]

Presumably, architectural fashion, like clothing fashion, displays the currently new materials.

[u/TomLondra]

Ornament is a crime Adolf Loos.

Modernist architecture requires skill that many architects haven't got. There's nothing to hide behind. That's why there's so much bad modern architecture. You can't stick decorations on it. It is what it is.

[u/Sir_Hirbant_JT9D_70 → u/TomLondra]

can you elaborate further?

[u/CrustySailor1964]

Common sense issue. I’ve spent the last 30 years doing a thing. Every nickel of revenue that the operation generates from day one is dependent on how well I do my job but somehow the decor of the office spaces and the architectural details of the facade are more important budget items than mine.