After getting the introduction from my inaugural column out of the way, perhaps the first problem to tackle is a critical examination of today’s architectural trends. What is the state of contemporary architecture? How did we get here? What should we fear or hope for in the future?
Is there anything truly “new” in architecture, or is the physical architectural output stuck in a rut similar to the early 20th century that resulted in the modernist revolution. The narrative goes that just over 100 years ago Western architecture was in a crisis: what got built was yet another superficial iteration on ancient and medieval styles with diminishing returns to the extent that there was no longer any originality. A self-awareness of this dilemma, along with a rejection of bourgeois tastes and developments in industrial technology, resulted in the new paradigm of Modernism. Are we at the cusp of a similar revolution? Does contemporary architecture have a discernible “style”? Should there be? Why have the promises of emerging technologies and techniques such as 3D printing and mass timber been so slow in coming? What are the implications of already pervasive technologies such as computer-aided design, algorithms (Parametricism), and the coming threat/promise of AI? Are we on a trajectory toward a state of post-architecture? As I recently promised (or warned), I tend to offer more questions than answers. In this second iteration of my column, I will attempt to give the aforementioned questions due consideration so that you will have the means to formulate your own conclusions.
What is Contemporary Architecture?
The deceptively simple question of what is meant by “today” and “contemporary” relative to the world of architecture has no definite answer. Surely, everything built or designed in the small window of this post-Covid era counts as contemporary, yet most of the trends we see today are little changed from those at the turn of the century. The umbrella of contemporaneity can go back much further when considering that the trajectories of Parametricism, Postmodernism, and even Modernism have not yet run their course; the scope of contemporaneity can go back 40, 60, or 100 years. So, when I am discussing contemporary architecture its bounds are flexible and context-dependent, depending on the given topic or trend in question. This temporal ambiguity is a result of the inevitable paradox when attempting to assess contemporary architecture (or really any art) through the lens of history. It’s nearly impossible to fully analyze and understand the architecture of today until we are decades into the future, after the nebulous trends have fully crystalized. But it does not mean I will not try.
Modernism, Postmodernism, or both?
Almost paradoxically, by beginning our exploration of contemporary architecture with Modernism in general, we find that there is no definite end. What began over a hundred years ago is still going strong today, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future; unless some drastic paradigm shift causes a sudden end to Modernism’s influence. But what comes after Modernism? This is of course impossible to answer and is truly unfathomable. The “post” era is misleading, for example: Postmodernism is not really what came after Modernism, but rather falls under the greater umbrella of Modernism. I won’t dwell too long on Postmodernism as I will have much to say on it in a future column, but it will suffice to say for now that PoMo was a distinct style with its own beginning (1965), middle (1985), and end (~2000, if it every did really end). Thus, our current architectural environment is paradoxically both Modern and Postmodern. Whatever comes after Modernism (if/when Modernism ends) will certainly be perceived as alien to us and may very well be considered “Post-architecture.” Not that I am taking the hyperbolical stance that architecture may someday come to an end, but it is impossible to ignore the looming specter of artificial intelligence, which will indubitably infiltrate every facet of the design world. (if it hasn’t already)
Artificial Intelligence – The end of architecture, or the means to transcend its limitations?
AI’s ever-increasing pervasiveness warrants a discussion of the implications. Besides the obvious question of whether AI will replace human architects, the proliferation of AI renderings on social media raises some thought-provoking questions. Can AI-designed buildings have more “soul” than human-designed buildings? In the world of contemporary architecture populated with endless variations on the minimalist glass box, it is easy for those disenchanted with the status quo to look to the AI-generated dreamscapes as a better alternative to our current built environment. Perhaps AI will result in the true democratization of architecture, in which anyone can simply provide the prompts for designs varying from conservative replications of any historical style to anything beyond our wildest dreams. Most of these AI buildings are likely impossible to build or are at the very least prohibitively expensive. Even so, perhaps the only buildings that will matter in the future are the infinitely imaginative virtual buildings that will live in the ether of the “Metaverse”, while we dissociate ourselves from physical reality. A more hopeful outlook may simply be a future in which humans work with AI to streamline tedious processes and give architects more time to dedicate to thoughtful design.
21st Century Architecture – Deconstructivism, Parametricism, and Neomodernism
If architectural trends cover the span of a decade or two, constraining the classification of contemporary architecture to the start of the new millennium shall suffice. Interestingly, it was around this time that the stylistic pendulum began to swing from the perceived superficial decadence of Postmodernism toward a newfound emphasis on minimalism - inspired by early Modernism. The history books are still being written on such recent developments, but the descriptor I’ve been drawn toward for this trend is Neomodernism. Look at New York City’s One World Trade Center for an internationally renowned exemplar of this new style, which might not be so new at all. We may leniently see this as architecture taking one step back to take two steps forward, but the lack of a discernable forward trajectory in the development of architectural trends can be artistically alienating to the casual observer. Indeed, when minimalism is taken to the logical extreme, i.e. perfect glass volumes, it is difficult to plot any trajectory at all with some built examples reduced to being astylar. This narrative is a simplification of the state of 21st Century architecture, and ignores trends of Deconstructivism and related offshoot styles facilitated by increasingly sophisticated CAD software; such examples are the exception to the rule of what typically gets built. Deconstructivism as well as its spiritual successor, Parametricism are only ever used on Megaprojects that receive the lion’s share of press coverage, but do such projects truly reflect the general trajectory of architectural trends, or just the egos of the individual “Starchitects” such as Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Santiago Calatrava, and Zaha Hadid. Deconstructivist architecture, when taken to the high art extreme, never could become the new status quo of mainstream design simply because of the impracticality and expenses that go into building such projects. They can’t all be Guggenheim Museum Bilabo! For every bombastic MoPop and Seattle Downtown Public Library that gets built this century, you will find that the next 100 or so buildings are exceptionally modest in comparison with more conventionally Modernist designs.
Minimal Maximalism or Maximal Minimalism?
When taking a closer look at the current trends within Neomodernism, it quickly becomes obvious that for the most part architects are not simply repeating the past with iterations on the minimalist glass box aesthetic. My theory is that the hyper-complexity of Deconstructivism has become fused with minimalism as there is a new culmination consisting of a seemingly endless variety of geometric forms which are invariably clad in shiny glass and neutral-toned panels. Even when architects resort to the tried and true boxy forms, façade designs enveloping the boxes have become increasingly complex, especially since the 2010s. Perhaps another simplification: but you could summarize the past 10 years of architecture as a collision between minimalism and maximalism. Is a better descriptor for this current architectural trend “Maximinimalism?” (In fact, a quick Google search just after writing this reveals that I am not the first to come to the realization that the forces of minimalism and maximalism are in fact colliding.) I have previously discussed at length one of the subtends within Maximinimalism, which I have referred to as the “Barcode Style”, in which many contemporary buildings, especially in Seattle, have staggered and irregular grids that either literally or abstractly resemble barcodes. Whether or not the irony is lost on contemporary architects, whether future history books may associate this period in Late Stage Capitalism with the barcode as the dominant design motif remains to be seen.
A Return to Ornamentation?
The bizarre trend of Maximinimalism has resulted in the resurgence of façade ornamentation, usually limited to simple protruding fins: Amazon’s Denny Triangle campus, or prismatic panels: Rainier Square Tower. I like to speculate that this trend could culminate in a new era of architectural decadence. If one of the reasons for a relative lack of ornamentation in contemporary architecture is the high cost of labor to produce this craft, one of the solutions could be technological advancements. A superficial review of architectural history illustrates some instances of the trend of technology compensating for labor costs. For example: stonemasons demanded fairer wages in the 19th century and as a result, finely hand carved stone ornamentation became financially out of reach. This labor-intensive craft was subsequently replaced with the industrialization of ornamentation in the form of machine-etched stone blocks, hydraulic-pressed decorative cast iron panels, and terra cotta blocks molded into any shape imaginable. Even these techniques have more likely than not become cost-prohibitive by the middle of the 20st century, but perhaps the 21st century solution is 3D printing; assuming architects and clients have regained an appetite for decorative adornments. Despite some rare examples with 3D-printed concrete homes and bridges, I have not seen this technology take off (yet) for decorative façade elements. Perhaps I have been overly optimistic in anticipating this ornamental renaissance.
Cross Laminated Timber - What’s old is new again
If 3D printing is one emerging technology that has yet to show results, there is another architectural technology that is already bringing one of the longest standing building materials into the 21st century. Climate scientists have well established that we are in the midst of a crisis, and it turns out that the built environment is one of the largest contributors to energy consumption and CO2 production, with concrete and steel being the main culprits. One solution is to replace those carbon-hungry structural materials with cross-laminated timber (CLT), an engineered wood product consisting of multiple layers of kiln-dried dimension lumber oriented at right angles to one another and then glued to form strong structural panels. Yes, this is essentially structural plywood. This technology has been around for a while, but the latest generation of CLT has comparable strength to concrete, is five-times lighter, enables prefabrication and faster construction, and is even fire resistant because of its bulk. While no silver bullet for the climate crisis, you will see a lot more of CLT in coming years as this building technology is scaled up and more municipal building codes allow for mass timber mid-rises and even towers.
I am more curious as to what the aesthetic implications will be for this emerging architectural trend. The implementation of CLT and other mass timber technology for larger-scaled buildings is still in its infancy, and may need time to develop a unique visual expression. From what early adopters have built so far, I will admit that most of it looks unspectacularly like everything else that goes up today. Once CLT has proven itself structurally, perhaps it will result in an expressive new style that reflects society’s progressive goals as we venture into the future, and also echoes timber architecture of previous generations. As a relatively recent example, the PNW Modern style, which flourished in the 1960s and 1970s, illustrates how timber architecture can have its own unique language.
So, I ask again: what is the state of contemporary architecture, and where is it going? There is unfortunately no succinct answer, but I can say the appearance of architecture is and will continue to be molded by increasingly complex software and construction technologies, and the imperatives of the climate crisis. Additionally, the pendulum of collective taste is perceptibly swinging back toward maximalism, while the architectural average is a hesitant intermixture of refined Modernism, playful Postmodernism, and perplexing Deconstructivism. Is this a sign that architecture is in a rut, or is the crucible of styles simply simmering until architecture emerges more triumphant than ever?
Architecture’s Evil Empire? The Triumph and Tragedy of Global Modernism, Miles Glendinning
If Postmodernism helped to foster individualism of architectural designers, one of its extreme after-effects was the rise of egotistical architecture. This book provides a critical assessment and cynical outlook of the state of “iconic” buildings from the 1990s to 2000s by Starchitects within the framework of Deconstructivism and Parametricism, and provides some hopeful outlook for the future of architecture.
Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Emergency, Barnabas Calder
I don’t see this book supplanting any of the well-established general architectural history books, but it provides a fresh perspective for comparing the built environment since industrialization with everything that came before within the context of energy expenditure. I personally found the book’s tone a little self-righteous and the narrative too contrived, but it provides the latest critical evaluation of architecture’s ever-increasing carbon footprint and offers a convincing rallying cry for radical sustainability.
CLT – Cross Laminated Timber, is the most popular in a series of recent engineering wood products that promises to be the best cost-competitive alternative to carbon-hungry concrete structures.
Deconstructivism – See my first book recommendation for a critical evaluation of the movement. This new “style” made a splash in the 1988 MoMA exhibition and companion book, “Deconstructivist Architecture,” but it was not until around Y2K that prominent built examples began to pop up. This movement technically falls within the umbrella of Postmodernism and is yet another of the many masks of Modernism, but it be summed up as the fragmentation of form, compositions lacking harmony, controlled chaos. Just look at Seattle’s Central Library and MoPop to get a general impression.
Maximinimalism – I thought that I came up with word to describe the paradoxical state of contemporary architecture, but after a quick Google search just after writing this reveals that I am not the first to come to the realization that the forces of minimalism and maximalism are in fact colliding in multiple facets of design from architecture to interior design.
Modernism – “Form follows function.” “Less is More.” “A house is a machine for living.” “Ornament is Crime.” “Architecture begins where engineering ends.” In the early 20th century, a group of mostly European architects formulated philosophies and aesthetic principles based in minimalism and functionalism that coalesced into not just a new style, but a dogmatic paradigm that continues in some form today.
Parametricism - Design based on algorithmic processes rather than direct manipulation. The result is paradoxically both nature-inspired, and computer technology-driven. Think other-worldly undulating curving forms.
Postmodernism – The anthesis to Modernism or just a rebranding attempt to the same old Modernism? Why don’t you come back for one of my future columns?
