The Next New Thing: architecture's gulf between the traditional and the modern

This is all well and good but I thought the primary reason for eschewing traditional design was the cost of labour rose just as the cost of material production fell (a gap which continues to increase)

You can’t get a highly skilled stonemason to devote dozens or even hundreds of hours to ornate a building’s nonfunctional aspects without inordinate wealth and a lack of desire for a ROI on the building’s construction

Glass, steel and concrete have emerged as the cheapest mainstay structural materials, and without cheap labour was bound to become the language of contemporary architecture

There are a few things that always puzzle me when I think about it.

1. Divided lights in windows. They end up looking like cages to me!

2. Non-functional plastic shutters. They don't make any sense!

3. Wood textured vinyl or cementeous siding. Why?

4. Why aren't we using MORE (recycled) plastic in the one industry where plastic or resin impregnated products would probably benefit (moisture and insect resistance)?

We have such weird "traditions" when it comes to our home design, construction, and material selection.

After a few hours I finally figured out what bothered me about this critique. The author seems to state a premise of what designer think. His premise of the state of Architecture seems outdated from even the early 90's when I was in design school. What he states as a give was rejected by my generation at the beginning of my education.

He also seems to have fallen into the trap of believing what he learned to say in Art History class about modernism. This common description of modernism is pretty far from the original ideals.

From my point of view post modernism was created by the students of the original modernist to claim their own spot in history. There is noting about the definition of post modernism that is not encompassed in modernism. I see the post modernist as almost an oedipal complex of a movement instead actually intellectual progress.

The international style which is what most people consider modernism is actually only a modernist study in glass, steel, concrete, stone. These materials were chosen because the modernist were focused on developing as much housing as quickly as possible. The materials they choose were perfect for this goal. Modernism does not dictate only these materials are acceptable.

People often describe the coldness of modernism but that coldness only reflects the materials used at it's inception.

This is all just my opinion but this writing seems to lack the actual experience of design and it's roots.

3D printing and 3D carving has the potential to make bespoke ornamentation affordable at scale. Worth keeping in mind that the examples from the past that are often referenced are from the 1% of the day. Common housing was cheap and ugly.

Amusingly, in the first photo I actually prefer the house hiding in the background to the right.

I'm all for not trying to be a crazy Avant Garde brutalist weirdo with your buildings, but these guys seem to be fixated on an architectural style that screams "pax americana" and is really rooted in a culture of imperial grandeur.

I want people to go back to beautiful medieval village architecture. That is much more organic and unpretentious than the "classical" stuff they're trying to shill here.

Form vs Function, all over again.

Work the function aspect until it is beyond reproach. Then look at form and tweak things until the neighbors don't complain.

Or move somewhere where there are no neighbors, and skip the second step.

History is still OK, it's already there, we have pictures and drawings, with circles and arrows.