In times when the rest of the city is rapidly becoming extremely expensive, Amsterdam’s ugly light gray and pink-yellow housing blocks are staying affordable, with rents contingent on income. Their continued presence in the city is becoming a memorial for a once-existing Amsterdam, in which almost all space in the city was equally distributed. — failedarchitecture.com
131 Comments
"Deemed most ‘authentic’ and ‘Amsterdam-style’, apartments in historic buildings (anything pre-war) are being sold first, leaving the ‘ugly’ 70s and 80s urban renewal flats largely untouched."
Yet we still refuse to learn from empirical data...
So, just to be clear... modern bad, traditional good.
It's clear what you're trying to do, Thayer over simplistic and therefore bad, citizen not.
It's a common debating tactic to frame an opposing view and distract from the actual content. To clarify once again, my issue with good urban architecture is that it should engage the passerby, speak to them if you will. This is a stylistically agnostic proposition as this article attests to. See the popularity of early modernist styles like the Amsterdam school of the 1930's. But the minimalism of this work they attribute to budget is no different than the minimalism of contemporary modernist work. That's not to say (for the hundredth) time that some won't be drawn to this minimalism, but it should be clear that in every human culture, this is generally not the case. When one points this out or worse, tries to learn from it, you're called a simpleton, a troll, or a conservative reactionary.
I don't understand where this cognitive dissonance comes from. One that chooses to live in traditional cities like New York or Amsterdam, yet refuses to learn from them. One where you're immediately black listed or ostracized for not parroting the party line. But like our political world, as soon as you deviate from a strict ideological frame work, you are branded an apostate. Well, I'm a liberal, modern, humanist who prefers empirical data more than ideology, so where does that put me?
Another reason Thayer bad is I won't relinquish the word "modern" to signify only modernist work, but then again, if one still relies on simplistic rhetorical devices to prop up their position, the reasons for this cognitive dissonance begin to take shape.
btw, cheers to archinect for posting this kind of information.
I don't know what's worse, Thayer-d commenting, the architecture, or the fucking angles of all those damn photographs; they remind me of Battlefield Earth, I've got vertigo now.
The one thing I am sure of; Thayer-d - which now that I think of it, does sound like a pill for insomnia - would argue with me why brown is better than blue. Worthless discussions, simply worthless.
Classical architecture has no value anymore. Zero. Nada.
modernist is a very narrow style from quite a long time ago. Nobody thinks you are limiting yourself to that.
Its an interesting short article. I was in Amsterdam last week for a 3 day research visit and made sure to stay close to Sporenborg. The hotel was awesome (Lloyd's Hotel, renovated by MVRDV), and the planning of Sporenborg was clearly well thought out and effective. If I had come from USA I would have found it very charming, maybe even lively. But I live in Tokyo and was coming from London, both places with extreme mixed land-use baked into the urban fabric. The area felt a bit to quiet for me, with just one or two bars and restaurants within walking distance. The city centre worked much better although was a bit too Disney in places for me. That said, Sporenborg is just 10 minutes from the center by train and the buildings were basically not ugly so i guess it works.
I felt the lessons of the present are possibly more interesting than the lessons of the past. That seems to jibe with the short article, although I think the suggestion that it is about style and not more intangible things is perhaps a wee bit too easy...
How on earth can you design a modern building in Amsterdam with less glass area than the neighboring buildings a couple of hundred years old? In this case an all glass facade would have been preferable; it would have reflected its neighbors' images and been largely invisible itself.
The author is heavy on architecture and light on the driving force of economics. There are also considerable social and cultural differences between The Netherlands and the US that supports false assumptions if not clearly addressed.
Easy there, Thayer. My wisecrack targeted the article, not your post.
To address Will's point, I've started using the term "anti-traditional" instead of "modernist". Much more accurate in identifying the key differentiator.
funny. I've recently started to use "pro-human potential" instead of "modernist". Much more accurate in identifying the key differentiator.
funny. I've recently started to use "comfort-tecture" instead of "anti-modernist". Much more accurate in identifying the key differentiator.
Funny.
I actually like "comfort-tecture".
Instead of "pro human potential", I much prefer "alien architecture of nihilism and death".
I vote for alien architecture of nihilism and death. Let's get a specific objective definition that doesn't depend on "stuff I like," and see if we can get it added to the archinect lexicon.
Maybe the 'death' part becomes misleading. We could do traditionalism and potentialism.
I vote for CADilism as a period that includes styles such as Wavy Gravy and Parametricism.
"To address Will's point, I've started using the term "anti-traditional" instead of "modernist".
related.
The End of the Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of the End
"alien architecture of nihilism and death"
good name for a death metal band.
in 200 years wont modernism be considered "traditional"? the kids will be like " add more ornament you old bastards"
Exodus...wait are these the same dudes
Jla-x....good point....good point.
"In 200 years wont modernism be considered "traditional"? "
No, it won't be considered traditional. Because the philosophy of Modernism is anti-traditional. Traditional doesn't mean "old".
i thought traditional just meant 'old.' this is why we need clearer definitions.
traditional is totally about the old. modernism is way old.
someone could build a clever white box like this today and no one would blink. Build a car like this and they would be considered anachronistic.
Modernism is totally about the tradition.
And its old. Like the car.
So you can have traditional modern architecture (flat roof, white walls) or modern traditional architecture ( center hall colonial with bigger, fewer rooms, and modern mechanicals).
naw, the choice is kraft mac n cheese (soporific lower-case nihilism) or Nihilism (secret scare-quotes confounding upper-case nihilism).
boy - i'd like to see an illustration!
im outta milk . . . lemme see what I can cook up . . . .
well god damn boy, use water!
I don't think Modernist architecture was any more anti-tradition than the culture at large through the 20th century. Are automobiles anti-tradition? Is my phone anti-tradition?
Ahh tradition...
I wonder what the point of this article is beyond making cool vertigo-inducing photographs of bits of buildings? So many holes in the narrative:
- the "ugly" buildings were built quickly with the very good intention of housing people healthfully. So yes, their construction quality is not high. Could that *maybe* be a reason why people with money prefer older structures, or is it only style?
- the continuation of "ugly" buildings being lived in by less-well-off people also continues an integrated social fabric of various economic classes living close to one another, which all kinds of evidence (empirical and not) points to being a better living situation for the largest number of people. Is this not desirable? Should we prefer a city that's all matchy-matchy stylistically because then the rich people don't have to look at those "ugly" buildings and the "people" who inhabit them?
- with no street-level photographs, how can one make a determination that the "ugly" buildings have a failed street presence? Perhaps a bustling grocery store with big glass windows and an open cafe on the sidewalk is exactly what a person living in an 18th Century apartment needs/wants as their next-door neighbor?
Intimate but dizzy photo essay with a bunch of shallow word salad appended. There *is* a deep dive and valuable analysis to be done about the change in scale of social housing programs and the results in historic cores of European cities but this article is totally not it.
Interesting to compare the performance of socialized housing in Amsterdam to that in New York.
EKE, modernism as an ideology has been long disregarded in academia. Never heard one single contemporary academic preaching early 20th century tabula rasa urbanism/architecture. Yes, the style of minimalism persists, but in reality, minimalism goes back as far as what you would consider "traditional" (see Giza.) In real life, we see what appears modernist manifested in vorporate america, but thats not because they have adopted a modernist philosophy in the likes of Corbu's radiant city, where the context is completely disregarded and plowed over, its just because they dont give a shit. Not giving a shit about people or place may look like early modernism but its not. In comparison, the glorious pedament that stands tall above the automatic glass door entrance to the local Frys grocery store may look traditional, but its really just trying to be quite, dishonest...like an urban camouflage that hides its true insideous foreign nature as the corporate invasive species it is. The styles of modernism and postmodernism have been reduced to nothing more than PR. They are used to either express corporation via modern aesthetics, or to hide it via traditional/post modern style.
jla-x, I love your post so much I just tweeted a quote from it with a link to this page. Well done.
you can't park cars on a natural landscape either. there are practical considerations that cause what appears to be a modern day 'tabula rasa' as well. pretending it's some kind of philosophical architectural critique with a post-rationalized theoretical base doesn't help.
if you want a better way to park cars in front of Fry's grocery store (i thought fry's was just computers. i didn't even know they sold groceries as well), then it would be more practical to find a better way to meet the client's needs, rather than living in a disneyfied fantasy of the past because you went to europe once and it was neat, though you were there long after people stopped emptying chamber pots out their second story windows; wish we could visit an actual european medieval town during the time they were built to temper the romanticism.
I, for one, think we should flatten Chartres Cathedral because it was built without modern bathrooms.
Philip Johnson famously said, “I would rather sleep in Chartres Cathedral, with the nearest toilet two blocks away, than in a Harvard house with back-to-back bathrooms.”
Jia-x, I am not quite as excited about your post as Donna. :)
Academics my not use the term "tabula rasa" anymore, but the message is clear. Alignment with any tradition which is older than a couple of generations (or last month's ARCHITECT magazine, for that matter) is to be ridiculed and shunned. When I say Modernism is anti-traditional, this is what I mean. Whatever you want to call it, the avant-garde so invested in the idea of a zeitgeist, and values uniqueness so much more that sustainable, lasting values, that it's very difficult for traditions to develop.
"Nothing ages faster than yesterday's vision of the future"
- Witold Rybczynski
^ This a a bigger problem than most realize, from the art scene to 8 month Apple product generations and so on. New is not necessarily good, it is just different, and when for the purpose of sales is guaranteed to be crap. Planned obsolesce is a really bad idea. Anything that is done just for money is shit.
You mean I don't need my 6th generation smart phone?
Thanks Donna:)
"New is not necessarily good, it is just different"
It sounds true but when I actually think about the evolution of something specific like the mobile phone, I think newer is generally better.
Buildings are not cellphones. It's important to distinguish between structures and machines.
Eke, sounds like you quoting Koolhaas ?
Nice point about the vertigo shots donna. Ive seen lots of shitty buildings that are host to the most amazing communities. It is useful to be aware of that sort of thing. Most especially because its useful for architects to be shown that we dont matter as much as people, when it comes right down to it.
Its absolutely right that mixed building quality can be a great way to ensure mixed social groups too. In Japan it's totally regular because value comes from the land - not the houses and not by who your neighbor is. Not sure if that concept carries over to other parts of the world, but I cant help but think there is some truth to it wherever it is allowed to happen. It takes a non-traditional mind-set I think though.
Tradition often means exclusionary, which is not such a nice thing to hang a hat on in my book.Still, it is telling that people buy into the old and charming and leave the newer stuff. The article was too short to get into it, but I do wonder what that means really once we stop looking only at the architecture...
"Tradition often means exclusionary, which is not such a nice thing to hang a hat on in my book. Still, it is telling that people buy into the old and charming and leave the newer stuff."
The mental gymnastics some of you subject your selves to is absolutely stunning. If I where to buy into your framing of tradition, style, history,etc, maybe I might talk about the evolution of the mobile phone as emblematic of every new thing your being sold being invariably better. Fortunately I don't look good in blinders.
"How on earth can you design a modern building in Amsterdam with less glass area than the neighboring buildings a couple of hundred years old? In this case an all glass facade would have been preferable; it would have reflected its neighbors' images and been largely invisible itself."
How can you not see where this kind of thinking would end? Everyone following this stupid modernist dictate would and has resulted in a hall of mirrors. Every all glass building reflecting each other. Disney indeed!
Hope you enjoy your genetically evolved food while I stick to my exclusionary and charming organic gnosh.
"Buildings are not cellphones. It's important to distinguish between structures and machines."
Again, that sounds correct but in reality its actually more complicated.
Machine: "1. An apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task"
All machines have structure. Some buildings/structures, not all, are machines.
"Eke, sounds like you quoting Koolhaas ?"
Demitri Porphyrios, actually. Koolhaas is a very smart man, so he may have said it too. I hope so.
"Still, it is telling that people buy into the old and charming and leave the newer stuff."
What do you think it's telling us?
Thayer, your organic gnosh is a modern reaction to The failures of Big agri. Its a reaction based on modern medical research and experimentation using modern tools. Actually, modern technology and design may offer solutions to growing that organic food locally and efficiently with hydroponic and aquaponic systems, urban agriculture designs, rooftop gardens, etc...
Now, heres a Hypothetical question Thayer...if I were to present you with 2 designs for hydroponic greenhouses that grow a substantial amount of that organic gnosh which would you choose and why? Both can produce the same amount of food, occupy the same footprint, have the same orientation to the street, but option (a) looks like something mies would design. (b) looks more like the crystal palace.
Obviously (a) would be less expensive to build but lets pretend all is equal for arguments sake.
Everyone following this stupid modernist dictate would and has resulted in a hall of mirrors. Every all glass building reflecting each other. Disney indeed!
We're referring to your trope as "alien architecture of nihilism and death" now. please do try to keep up.
jla-x, I don't think I'd care what the green house looked like since I'd be more interested in the quality of the food, but allow me to turn it back to you if I might. If you where walking down the street to buy a new cell phone, which green house would you rather walk by? A glass box with a banal gridded mullion pattern, or an intricate and geometrically rich one garnished with art deco decorations?
Either way, it wouldn't matter to me because that's you, and I trust and respect we all have our aesthetic differences. What many here refuse to acknowledge is that you wouldn't be allowed to design something with rich geometries if it had any discernible historical references. Never mind that Mies's aesthetic is as historical as Art Deco, but so goes the brainwashed that refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
By the way, I don't think Big agri has failed, far from it. It's that we've learned there is more to evolution than what corporations can concoct in their laboratories and market as new and improved. So I have no issue with advances in technology that improve the ecology I depend on, nor the production of organic food, or New Urbanist communities that re-create the physical forms that make traditional cities so humane. Yes, they can be a bit tacky, but are you going to tell me the developer brownstones built in New York by the linear mile looked any better on day one?
What I have a problem with is the arbitrary and ideologically imposed dogmatism that says I must design in non traditional styles because some ass hole in Germany 100 years ago said so. I'm sorry their world was turned up-side down because of the Kaiser's insane nationalism and further more his successors racially motivated criminality. But I'll be dammed if I'm going to let that dictate the style of music, food, literature and most importantly, architecture I'm allowed to enjoy and create.
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.