After three years or research, I have finally completed my analysis of United States architecture and its relationship to capitalism. Specifically examining the importance of Mid-Century Modern Architecture in the development of the United States during the Golden Age of Capitalism. The book is titled: Facadomy: A Critique on Capitalism and Its Assault on Mid-Century Modern Architecture and examines architectural events and movements as they are related to cycles in the economy.
If you are an architect looking to understand why bad things happen to good buildings or seeking to understand how to grow your business during a recession while not sacrificing design quality, then this book may be of interest to you.
Full synopsis:
Façadomy offers a comprehensive critique of architecture and its relationship to capitalism. The result of this analysis is a theory that outlines why architectural movements rise and fall, the anatomy of these movements and how dynamic market forces will affect the future of architecture in the United States. The story begins with an analysis of the Revivalist movement of the late 19th century and ends with an examination of the current global economic decline and the effect it has already had on some of the architecture being produced today.
Cornetet’s research reveals that a relatively undocumented architectural movement, known as Mid-Century Modernism, emerged as a response to many of the same problems being dealt with in the United States today, including uncontrolled population growth, limited resources and financial decline. Mid-Century Modern design was the architecture of capitalism and it has come to represent the Golden Age of Capitalism. Mid-Century Modernism embodied a philosophy that contained valuable lessons on process and design that have since been forgotten. These lessons are described in Cornetet’s comprehensive analysis of Mid-Century Modern architecture and supported by an extensive case study that examined nearly 200 structures in Orlando, Florida.
The book’s design, graphics and photography bring to life this uniquely American architecture movement as Cornetet engages in a colorful dialogue that seeks to explain why we build the way we do in the United States.
Orlando may not be the center of the architectural universe, but you could make a case that it's at least a sub-center of capitalism and urban development.
and what kind of sodomy? it covers a broad range. Is it really better to be a dick than a swallower? is this a mutually pleasurable sodomy? a help a brother out kind of sodomy? an I just met you kind of sodomy? teenagers and muscle cars kind of sodomy? leather and muscle cars kind of sodomy? regular after work kinda sodomy? I've really never done this before sodomy? or I cant wait to get home and get some sodomy kind of sodomy?
A few decades ago, a guy named Disney went to Orlando. He and his heirs bought (eventually) 30,000 acres and started developing. Over time, they hired architects like Moore, Pei, Pelli, Rossi, Isokaki, Graves, Stern, Gwathmey, Cooper-Robertson, Venturi and Scott-Brown, among others. There's even a big collection of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in the area, though not thanks to Disney.
The place had over 50 million visitors last year, contributing to a $27 billion tourism economy.
So, yeah, it doesn't seem a stretch to talk about capitalism and architecture in Orlando.
[This isn't a plug for the book. I haven't seen it, and I hate the title.]
Isn't any speculative building, intently built to generating revenue or appreciating over time, a representative of capitalist architecture? What about any building built in the United States, period? We are a capitalist, democratic republic, so does that tract house on the corner embody any less those ideas than what's in Orlando or New York?
Drew, yes, buildings are built to generate revenue, but some building designs support capitalism more than others. What I mean by this is that some designers approach a design problem trying to create as much value as possible, creating wealth through the implementation of value-driven design principles.
Let me clarify, the book presents an analysis of architecture and its relationship to capitalism at the national level, which composes more than 2/3's of the book. The analysis is not specific to Orlando. What I discovered during my critique of capitalism and its relationship to Mid-Century Modern architecture is that due to its adoption by national corporations: Phillips 66, McDonalds, Chip's Hamburgers, HoJo and Holiday Inn to name a few, there was a great deal of consistency from city to city. Combine this with the fact that Orlando experienced a period rapid economic growth due to the citrus industry and Disney during the 50s and 60s, creating an ample supply of Mid-Century Modern buildings to study and these buildings serve as examples to discuss how the principles of Mid-Century Modern architecture were applied to buildings of all budgets and types during this period.
What was unique about Mid-Century Modern architecture is that during this period, suburbia rises to dominance, due to the automobile, expansion of the highway systems and affordable loans for the rising middle class. This resulted in not only the creation of suburbia, but 71 million new homes constructed in less than 25 years, and the gas stations, restaurants and retail to support them. From this standpoint, Orlando was an obvious choice because it grew from these policies.
Miles, I will gladly send you a copy to review, if you would post your review of the book to this forum.
cornetjr, thanks for elaborating on my questions. I am intrigued by the real tangible value architecture provides, aside from the cultural, spiritual, and less objective metrics.
If anything I was trying to defend the fact that your study took place in Orlando.
I should apologize for writing that I hate the book's title. That's too strong, and it's only the first word of the title I object to.
I understand that books, as objects of capitalism themselves (!), get the creative treatment by authors and publishers in an attempt for "buzz" and sales. But the (seemingly gratuitous) sodomy reference rubs me the wrong way, so to speak.
But that's just one obscure opinion on one aspect of the project. Good luck with it.
Facadomy: A Critique on Capitalism and Its Assault on Mid-Century Modern Architecture
After three years or research, I have finally completed my analysis of United States architecture and its relationship to capitalism. Specifically examining the importance of Mid-Century Modern Architecture in the development of the United States during the Golden Age of Capitalism. The book is titled: Facadomy: A Critique on Capitalism and Its Assault on Mid-Century Modern Architecture and examines architectural events and movements as they are related to cycles in the economy.
If you are an architect looking to understand why bad things happen to good buildings or seeking to understand how to grow your business during a recession while not sacrificing design quality, then this book may be of interest to you.
Full synopsis:
Façadomy offers a comprehensive critique of architecture and its relationship to capitalism. The result of this analysis is a theory that outlines why architectural movements rise and fall, the anatomy of these movements and how dynamic market forces will affect the future of architecture in the United States. The story begins with an analysis of the Revivalist movement of the late 19th century and ends with an examination of the current global economic decline and the effect it has already had on some of the architecture being produced today.
Cornetet’s research reveals that a relatively undocumented architectural movement, known as Mid-Century Modernism, emerged as a response to many of the same problems being dealt with in the United States today, including uncontrolled population growth, limited resources and financial decline. Mid-Century Modern design was the architecture of capitalism and it has come to represent the Golden Age of Capitalism. Mid-Century Modernism embodied a philosophy that contained valuable lessons on process and design that have since been forgotten. These lessons are described in Cornetet’s comprehensive analysis of Mid-Century Modern architecture and supported by an extensive case study that examined nearly 200 structures in Orlando, Florida.
The book’s design, graphics and photography bring to life this uniquely American architecture movement as Cornetet engages in a colorful dialogue that seeks to explain why we build the way we do in the United States.
Orlando, Florida, center of the Architectural Universe.
be nice.
mom said he had to have the car home before 10.
I think that is what people said about Las Vegas at one time too.
Orlando may not be the center of the architectural universe, but you could make a case that it's at least a sub-center of capitalism and urban development.
As opposed to NY, LA, Vegas, Aspen, the Hamptons ... ?
sooo
is sodomy a good or bad thing in this context?
and what kind of sodomy? it covers a broad range. Is it really better to be a dick than a swallower? is this a mutually pleasurable sodomy? a help a brother out kind of sodomy? an I just met you kind of sodomy? teenagers and muscle cars kind of sodomy? leather and muscle cars kind of sodomy? regular after work kinda sodomy? I've really never done this before sodomy? or I cant wait to get home and get some sodomy kind of sodomy?
its hard to tell from the title.
A few decades ago, a guy named Disney went to Orlando. He and his heirs bought (eventually) 30,000 acres and started developing. Over time, they hired architects like Moore, Pei, Pelli, Rossi, Isokaki, Graves, Stern, Gwathmey, Cooper-Robertson, Venturi and Scott-Brown, among others. There's even a big collection of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in the area, though not thanks to Disney.
The place had over 50 million visitors last year, contributing to a $27 billion tourism economy.
So, yeah, it doesn't seem a stretch to talk about capitalism and architecture in Orlando.
[This isn't a plug for the book. I haven't seen it, and I hate the title.]
Drew, yes, buildings are built to generate revenue, but some building designs support capitalism more than others. What I mean by this is that some designers approach a design problem trying to create as much value as possible, creating wealth through the implementation of value-driven design principles.
Let me clarify, the book presents an analysis of architecture and its relationship to capitalism at the national level, which composes more than 2/3's of the book. The analysis is not specific to Orlando. What I discovered during my critique of capitalism and its relationship to Mid-Century Modern architecture is that due to its adoption by national corporations: Phillips 66, McDonalds, Chip's Hamburgers, HoJo and Holiday Inn to name a few, there was a great deal of consistency from city to city. Combine this with the fact that Orlando experienced a period rapid economic growth due to the citrus industry and Disney during the 50s and 60s, creating an ample supply of Mid-Century Modern buildings to study and these buildings serve as examples to discuss how the principles of Mid-Century Modern architecture were applied to buildings of all budgets and types during this period.
What was unique about Mid-Century Modern architecture is that during this period, suburbia rises to dominance, due to the automobile, expansion of the highway systems and affordable loans for the rising middle class. This resulted in not only the creation of suburbia, but 71 million new homes constructed in less than 25 years, and the gas stations, restaurants and retail to support them. From this standpoint, Orlando was an obvious choice because it grew from these policies.
Miles, I will gladly send you a copy to review, if you would post your review of the book to this forum.
Kindest regards,
If anything I was trying to defend the fact that your study took place in Orlando.
I think I may just have to pick this volume up.
You will definitely like this book then (referring to objective metrics).
There is a substantial 'look inside' preview on Amazon, which gives a pretty good idea of the quality and content of the book.
Thanks.
I should apologize for writing that I hate the book's title. That's too strong, and it's only the first word of the title I object to.
I understand that books, as objects of capitalism themselves (!), get the creative treatment by authors and publishers in an attempt for "buzz" and sales. But the (seemingly gratuitous) sodomy reference rubs me the wrong way, so to speak.
But that's just one obscure opinion on one aspect of the project. Good luck with it.
Thanks James but I'll pass. I've had my fill of capitalism, as you can tell from my book - The Hamptons Dictionary.
How about a trade. You send me yours, and I'll send you mine, and I bet we will both be surprised :)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.