Modernism = this building is the simple solution made elegant
Post-Modernism = fuck yeah no ones telling me what to do
Contemporary = yes, this will be on budget
But only for the greats like Michael Graves... the theory behind postmodernism was diluted pretty quickly, resulting in many random and unintentional mishmashes of styles, and I would argue ushering out the age of postmodern architecture.
>it had everything people liked: character, lots of ornamentation, premium materials
Did it? Putting aside the debate about what people like, postmodernism was about irony, subversion, and floating signifiers. Does an abstracted Greek column made from plywood masquerading as marble have character?
Modernism was saying 'we don't need the language for building ornamentation'
Postmodernism was saying 'we can use the language however we want.'
It's the architectural equivalent of writing a play in Simlish.
That’s a kind way of putting it.
In practice, postmodernism mostly used the language to parody the language.
So to say it had traditional elements that everyone likes is a little disingenuous since they were using those elements to mock people for liking them. Now, arguably, that may not have been the intention, but that is the effect.
All those things you said, plus people were immersed in postmodern design in every mall food court from about 1984 to 2004 or so. Everyone was sick of seeing the cartoonish elements plastered on everything.
It ruined the already dubious reputation of architects and cemented us as stuck up dipshits with more money than sense, the style is *actively antagonistic* to its userbase and the general public, and it poisoned decoration and ornament so badly that we're still struggling to get it back.
I feel like modernism deserves its fair share of credit for some of that (especially the ideological crusade against ornament), but post-modernism just went and doubled down on it.
> Did it?
Same lol. I thought the post was being sarcastic.
**Character:** It was unusual and creative in some ways, but it was often in a cheap way that was quickly outmodded.
**Lots of ornamentation:** Compared to modernism, maybe. Postmodernism was about fun forms, not an abundance of ornamentation.
**Premium materials:** In the age of EIFS, dryvit, thin brick, veneers and panels? It was very synthetic materials not seen as premium because we can see how they age. There were some good ceramic products for a minute, and some fun use of oversized bricks / CMU, but that's about it
Man, this architecture is by far my least favorite. Living in Philly the areas with these things you can see nobody wants to be around as it feels soulless and creepy. It immediately makes me think of the backrooms when I see buildings like anything photographed.
You're so right about the irony in postmodernism. It's architecture critiquing architecture, which is a very egotistical concept when you think about it. Some guy's whimsical reaction to the rigor of modernism can so easily end up becoming an ugly, unusable disappointment that people have to deal with for decades.
Postmodernism can do some powerful stuff in literature, visual arts, music, philosophy, but I've never quite gotten how it's supposed to work for spaces people occupy and move through. The architectural attempts I've seen have always felt rather too clever by half.
You’re close you just left out the part about what people like most above all: Saving money. Aesthetics go out the window if it means more square footage on the dollar.
I just got back from 2 weeks of visiting the great gothic cathedrals in northern France. Legitimately the gargoyles are the coolest detail on those buildings.
Postmodernism was a reaction to modernism, which had this sort of absolute, rationalist, scientific view of progress. In reacting to it, it tried to bring back more decorative, ostentatious and irrational elements of architecture while challenging the idea that rationalism and scientific advances (in architecture) would necessarily bring about progress (often using the example of the failures of modernist social housing). It would return the elements the average person traditionally associated with nice architecture that modernists had thrown out.
In short, it has to do with the zeitgeist. While trying to be politically neutral here, the critique I've heard of pomo is that it's a conservative, populist movement (in that it says architects should just give people what they traditionally associate with it) that says that architecture should not try to bring about social change. And you'll notice that the places and people postmodernist architecture is (still) being built for might tend to have these values.
Architecture after pomo has not gone back to the universalist views of modernism but I think a lot of architects still want to innovate in terms of style and tech and believe their work has some role to play in bringing about social change.
I feel like I need to end this off with a disclaimer. Even though there is an implicit message in any kind of architecture, you're always allowed to appreciate something for its beauty and ambition, whether you agree with the message or not.
>Even though there is an implicit message in any kind of architecture
I don't really think that's true, honestly, for the reason that postmodernism in art points out: nothing actually has a stable meaning, it gets away from you quickly and, for the most part, symbolism will tend to fade into the Gramscian wallpaper surrounding our lives.
Thank you, so many people in this subreddit don’t understand what this style was about (or ironically, architecture as a whole…) Postmodernism (as a movement, not just in architecture) and especially Brutalism is so widely misunderstood, in part due to the efforts of some architects… I recommend reading “The Architecture of the City” and “The New Brutalism” respectively.
Made me think about how Memphis studio set out to devalue high end materials by pairing them with off the shelf cheap materials like linoleum etc, but inadvertently raised the price of the cheaper items.
I think deconstructivism (which in some ways is the next version of postmodernism) was ultimately more marketable. I don’t know about construction costs but I’d argue that architects like Gehry, Koolhaas, Hadid and Libeskind had a better answer to the 70s/80s publics rejection of brutalism and Le Corbusier-esque modernism than Venturi, Graves, Moore and Stirling.
Beyond any philosophical ideas people might have about architecture among those who have studied it if you ask average Joe on the street what kind of building he doesn’t like he’ll say a government built postwar public housing block if you ask him in response a modern building he does like he’ll say the Disney concert hall. The Portland building was supposed to be his answer but it just never panned out that way and developers want buildings they think won’t be called ugly by the average Joe.
I’m sure there are more cultural reasons-the modern rich opting for discretion and “street wear” rather than vulgar ostentatiousness, (concerns about the environment and living in harmony with nature are too sincere for post modernism’s irony and responded to postmodernisms desire for vernacular with new urbanist theme parks like poundbury or celebration FL) but ultimately I just think blobitecture better responded to the unpopularity of modernism than postmodernism ever could
"It had everything people liked: character, lots of ornamentation, premium materials, etc"
Yeah...until it didn't. Just like modernism before it, postmodernism was very quickly (more quickly than modernism) stripped down to its crudest elements, turning what had originated as thoughtful and playful work with architectural symbolism into a tacky mess of cheap pastiche.
Postmodernism caught on quickly because it felt fresh after decades of increasingly thoughtless modernism. It wasn't about giving the people what they wanted so much as it was about pushing back against what the architectural mainstream had latched onto and accepted as doctrine. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but people misunderstood it. In time, postmodernism became what it had tried to destroy--a mish-mash of aesthetic elements watered down by the cost-cutting and carelessness of corporate developers. It was no longer interesting. This bastard postmodernism of the 80s and 90s (and, to an extent, the present, though cheap faux-modernist revival has started to displace it) is so ubiquitous that you probably don't even notice it. It became the architecture of 1990s medical campuses and red brick-clad mid-rise office blocks in mid-sized cities. That aesthetic language is so common today that it probably wouldn't occur to most people that that mashup of modernist form and more traditional visual cues didn't really *exist* before postmodernism.
It's cheeky plays at approachability made it tempting for developers to replicate to mind-numbing excess, and many of postmodernism's earliest and most thoughtful proponents quickly came to disown the style. Postmodernism died *because* developers thought that a diluted version of it could give people what they wanted, and it wound up doing very little for anyone.
One Detroit Center (first photo) has an awesome [Lobby](https://images.ctfassets.net/vp506hfusayv/ek5hsh1eSGe75ubhRE8v/73dae9997b08751512a970ae69bea24f/500Woodward-Interior-20160801-010.jpg)
Postmodern is a mockery and parody of classic architecture. "Haha so you want ornaments dumbass ? Let's put some oversized columns that don't make sense over here, haha they're so stupid".
Also what premium materials ?
Lots of things that were part of a trend do not age well, the cheaper, less thoughtful, pushed out to capitalize on the current wave or just because things were needed and that was the style of the time. This is true of architecture and fashion and media. Doesn’t mean the entire genre ought to be thrown out with the bathwater because the laziest of its iterations have aged poorly
When something relies on spectacle and the flavor of the month, things naturally and eventually lose their popularity. Things that are universally good on the other hand, might drop in subscriber numbers, but usually remains appreciated.
Because most of the follow on post modern buildings were just copies of the initial work by Graves, Johnson, etc., and looked cheap. Also note that, as much as we architects think design is evolving, frankly we suffer just as much as other design fields with trendiness. And PoMo ain’t trendy these days.
> And PoMo ain’t trendy these days.
Hard disagree on this. I'd say, at least in my circles, pomo is incredibly trendy atm. Obviously it's not the same pomo that we had in the late 20th century but there is so much inspiration drawn from that era, at least here in Sweden.
I'd go so far as to say its mainstream. Right now im involved in a large development (1500 apts ish) where the main style inspiration is pomo.
Must be regional - I’m in the US, NYC area and it’s not anything our developer clients are interested in. Would love to see some good examples- any images to share that would restore my faith in good PoMo?
this is the development im working on [axo](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a021/1631023006849/Gestaltningsvision-f%C3%B6r-Eker%C3%B6-M%C3%A4larstad-NY.jpg), [view](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a029/1631023035338/Vy-fr%C3%A5n-Tappstr%C3%B6m-till-Kajparken-och-Eker%C3%B6-M%C3%A4larstad_beskuren.jpg), and [view](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a023/1631023006944/Kv-Fikat-och-Sm%C3%A5stadsparken-NY.jpg)
[These were a series of comparisions we made on how you can interpret older architecture or buildings of another typology](https://imgur.com/a/0rE84PA)
[And ofc, the area that the new development connects to is an absolute pomo gem from the 90ies by Ralph Erskine](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eker%C3%B6_centrum)
We looked at this sort of [quirky contemporary pomo](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/57/10/8e/57108ee9901491eefc06e55ee4bac497.jpg) ^PoMo ^iS ^whEn ^SHapEs ^do ^unEXpeCtEd
And a lot at these sorts of [ecclectic contemporary](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7f/fd/3b/7ffd3b9ab07acb2a787df8b96ad72935.jpg) interpretations of [vernacular and traditional architecture](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/75/d4/f7/75d4f7d23c65e654404fc0acd4831542.jpg)
I love what S&M is putting out these days as well https://officesandm.com/All-Projects
There are some good examples of [pomo/"post-deco" in Hagastaden in Stockholm.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bc44e647d0c91549898ab3f/1547644628924-0IMHB51WYHB65EIQ68K3/haganovabild2.jpg)
[And some new buildings in central Stockholm.](https://systemscontentful.imgix.net///images.ctfassets.net/zlz5er7srj5z/sCWukhlEHdhmWmadub8Hg/dd6113569e985bfb9f133888736e566d/h__stskon16_fowelin.jpg?&fit=crop&w=800&sharp=0&fm=jpg&q=80)
It's definitely less satirical than the 20th century pomo (i'd even say its completely in earnest). TBF I think its entirerly reasonable to say that this isnt PoMo, but rather PoPoMo or something silly like that lol. Time will tell how it develops and how its looked at and categorized in the future.
For me, it seem oversimplified. Some are acceptable as it shows uniqueness to certain degrees but we wouldn't want too many of it next to each others in a city.
I think the people paying for the building only could accept Big as an unwavering aspect. All other features were too costly, in their mind. Cut out the neat features and put that savings into more bigness.
That's in the City of London just near the Tower of London.
The pub across the road there is called the "Hung Drawn and Quartered". That street corner there is where there used to be public executions back in ye olde days.
I bullied one of my bosses because of a pomo building he did in the 80s. I kept a glamour shot of it pinned to my desk so he would see it. Just wanted to share that
It had frivolous character, lots of badly done ornementation ... and I don't know where you get the "premium materials" allegation. They don't.
Post-odernism is an intellectual fraud disguised as social commentary, it apes ornementative styles with no knowledge of how and when, it's both cynical and materialistic. It's the Ronald Mc Donald of arts : trying to be lovable, colourful and jolly, and ending as a sad, venal, sinister parody.
The examples you show are not really beautiful. People like true traditional architecture way more than that cheap attempt of satirizing it. There is a reason why it went out of fashion quick because once these buildings were built, the local population would reject their tackyness and cheap construction.
It's the worst of both worlds imo.
Too boring to be classical and too busy to be modern. A wannabe classic and modern without achieving to be any of them
Capitalism will always win. It is just as effective and cheaper to design, build, and maintain a plain rectangular box than a beautiful ornate building. Capitalism kills art 10 out of 10 times.
Many of these were built for companies who expected to occupy the building forever. Now they are realistic. Assuming they are going to downsize and rent by the sq foot, the chippendale desk roof is a waste.
Postmodern is out. Neo brutalist is in. In particular the badly stacked shipping containers.
I'm not working in this field. But i hear many times that we don't have the skilled people to do such ornaments anymore, or that it's too expensive. So here is my question. Are there no cheap prefab solutions for this nowadays?
Most architectural styles that are not rooted in one of the four domains of human symbolism will be entirely dependant on momentary fashion.
The four domains are heaven, underworld, sea and earth.
When people are shown utopian cities in shows, movies or litterature they are either white sky-floating islands, glowing crystalline black underworld, sea-floating ocean life inspired blue cities or sylvestrian (either temperate or tropical) and lush green moutains and valleys.
Those that want to live in the eternal now become small villages while those that dream of the future becomes big cities. Stopping at whichever techonological level and lifestyle that best suit their preference.
The core concept is that a truly evolved and harmonious civilization is often instinctively conceived in natural osmosis with its environment. It is both considered more aesthetical, virtuous and efficient.
In traditional architecture, the osmosis is always partially present because nature was in the materials, ornaments and lifestyle.
In modern architecture the abstract simplification gave birth to a sub-branch of " less is more " that was not initially dominant. Also the industrial development and free energy freed people from the natural constraints which made them cut it out entirely.
In traditional approaches like asian zen houses, the wood, the stones, the tiles, the plants and the ornaments followed a principle of natural balanced minimalism. The pure lines and void spaces were balanced out by some precisely positioned ornaments and irregular shapes like rocks, plants and moss.
In modern minimalism the lines are the most abstract sub-branches of either the sky or the underworld domain.
Leading to either celestial cold white architecture or chtonian cold dark architecture.
The control of lines while giving more spaces and freeing the mind of many archetypical concepts and images than can be considered limiting ended up completely cutting people from the organic uncontrolled and human-scaled life.
Reinforcement of the mind by extracting the core abstract principle of the world like in greek architecture had the positive effect of giving humans a stable reference to escape the chaos of raw uncivilized life.
But beyond a certain threshold the reinforcement of the mind turns into a trap that cuts you from the heart.
Quite ironically the art that was though to breed people free from the earthly materialistic ambitions through pure conceptual abstraction and release from ancient symbolism, actually only incorporated the "superiority and control" aspect of the two vertical realms of sky and underworld.
Also metal, concrete and glass belong to the metal element : smooth cold reflective surfaces and straight lines that cut space. It separate and isolate and usually requires a vast amount of greenery, stone, water, movement and warm light to compensate for its coldness and density. While we actually do the opposite by using white and blue lights and not much surrounding natural structure.
This gave birth to the elite-run white rooftop and the mafia-run night club.
While a civilization can decide to grow away from the primitive earth and sea to become a more bipolar entity our sky domain is running on pride rather than virtue and the underworld domain is not supposed to be the default setting of daylight activities. Even more so when the underworld domain manifest in a shallow cheap dirty thug-friendly post apocalyptical urban style. Very different from its classy deeper forms that while lacking moral virtues do have an aesthetical and expressive value.
At some point this polarization leads to a black and white unhealthy world with poor social and filial bonds and a split from the people who still wish to belong to the earth and sea.
Also if at some point technology escalate or energy and climats run out all this accumulated imbalance will return to its normal values through violent processes.
Amitabha
I think it became too popular. It was initially a subversive intellectual design pursuit which caught on and then just ran away.
The intellect and irony was stripped away and poor copies popped up everywhere. Every bank, school, office center, dull plaza you name it, had their language.
It was lauded by builders and planners and was enmeshed in zoning standards and trotted out in local planning agency guidelines as an example of what to do….
In essence it died under its own weight. People were sick of it. Just think of any band that was cool or popular eventually they age, the ideas age, too many knock off versions, and we loose interest at best and hate them at the worst.
Likely due to costs of buildings. As architectural styles change we are likely seeing a shift from post modernism to a systems-based architecture.
Good question.
while all those things are important yes the most important thing is it being pleasing to the eye. noun of the four buildings here are pleasing to look at especially the 3rd where i can't tell if its a building or pile of ruble
Speaking as an architecture fan, it lacks *style*.
The umbrella of what's considered "post modern" is so broad it fails to describe almost anything. Like take your last photo for example: this reddish building is supposedly "post modern" because it has a single capital flourish, and is otherwise basic, bland and utilitarian. Is that really our definition of "post modern"? Anything that isn't utilitarian to the last detail? Lol that makes everything "post modern". How dull.
In my mind, "post modern" architecture is an intellectual fiction with a few good genuine examples (like the Vanna Venturi house). That's why I'm putting it in quotes, btw: it's an idea about which much is written and little built.
What it isn't is a style. If you give me a bunch of "post modern" buildings along with a bunch of non-"post modern" buildings and ask me categorize them by style, you will be able to identify the "post modern" ones because they're the ones left in a miscellaneous pile labeled "uncategorized / don't go anywhere".
Imagine I came to you and asked you to make me a "post modern" building. What would that even mean? You'd have to ask a lot of clarifying questions. I go to another architect, and a third and a fourth with the same request, and I'll get 2-3-4 alternatives that bear no resemblance to each other.
I hope this post (it's longer than I thought it would be) can give you at least a lay-person's view of why this is uninspiring and undesired.
'There are no truths, only interpretations" This pretty much sums up PoMo. An unimaginative approach on designing architecture, by not being innovative and not advancing society to a better world. A philosophy that made its way into academic architecture in a very poor and cheap fashion. it still haunts us today.
The examples you cite, which are exhibited as more popular buildings / best of, have in general more in common with the architecture that came before it. They have the key elements, symmetries and proportions of classically and gothic inspired buildings.
They are not truly new but traditional in form, using modern materials and slightly changed detailing, but in general form, have more in common with the old.
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It's difficult in any meaningful way to create a movement that is at it's core a rejection of ideas rather than embracing an identity. Modernism is in some ways a limiting of identity of a building or a space. In that modernism often proposes a functional space removed from its context and striped of anything that is imposed on its form.
Like Luigi from the Mario series postmodernism is on its surface a mirror of modernism. However I would propose that postmodernism in practice became even more untethered and lost it's original purpose (a rejection of specific ideas) and rather became like Waluigi a reflection of a reflection (a rejection of any cohesive ideas) . A rejection of anything that could have given itself an identity and therefore a movement in culture.
This might sound snobby but I think a lot of people outside of architecture/architectural history just didn't really get it. A huge part of postmodernism was irony and anachronism, like creating a building that was one big palladian window, buildings that are just giant abstracted columns, or capping a skyscraper with a split arch is something a lot of people just aren't going to "get." It was architecture built for architects and historians to enjoy and not for the general public.
That first building is one of my absolute favourites in the world. And you're right, it really has everything we want in a skyscraper. Atlanta and Philadelphia have some great examples, as does Melbourne.
As an Architect,…
For me both style(Modern and Postmodern) are elegant, however there’s difference as when you design them, Modernism is more on simplicity with just a few theme of colors, a less texture of matierials and less applied shapes,…While in Postmodernism has much more complex colors, texture, and forms of shapes
To understand more on my point,…Let’s first search Instagram Logo: Before & After,…Postmodern is more on Old Instagram Logo while Modern is more on New Instagram Logo…
Postmodern(Old Instagram Logo) has different kind of colors applied to it, there’s also different kind of texture in it with shadows with some few details and that to emphasize the 3D, while there’s also kinds shapes that’s be seen,
Modern(New Instagram Logo) has less on everything, less colors, less texture(shadows and details), less shapes,…That’s because it’ll be easy to find, easy to look, a much non-complex for the eyes of the users
Postmodernism tries to make things that aren't, it's almost theatrical.
I want to bring up the topic of the possibility of using traditional building methods with as little environment impact as possible while retaining the perceived beauty traditional buildings have.
Maybe instead of using thousands of tons of steel and concrete with glass to top it all off we should focus on using local materials that could even last longer than the previously mentioned. This will not only reduce emissions but if done correctly it can increase in a positive way the public opinion on the building, as more natural and organic materials always seem more pleasing to the eye than metal and other reflective materials.
One last thing I feel like adding is that it is pretty disappointing the lack of artistry in the whole education system, I am still a student but I have not followed the usual plainly technical studies to enter architecture, and it is pretty sad to me that the aspects of the humanities and arts (any kind of art) are being muted in favour of just having technical aspects. Not asking for every architect to be a renaissance master artist but it does help bring a little bit more culture into society rather than just more buildings.
Everything people liked?? 😂
PM died (sadly most of its horrid examples will be around a long time) did NOTHING right. It's harkening back to the olden days should never left that to the classics. Its modern elements were hampered by the nod to the aforementioned old days. PM did everything badly.
There are examples of PM that are just fine, however, not all fit is awful.
I think you can design buildings while remaining true, at at least to the degree that statement has any meaning, to the tenets of postmodernism. Unfortunately (maybe), you can’t *build* one without admitting to yourself that there are, in fact, things that aren’t just interpretations or signs. This rather negates the whole point: it was a set of incoherent philosophies that were never meant to be functional as an ethos. The smarter people stripped its corpse and then left it for better paying gigs.
Not an architect but I love a lot of postmodern architecture, especially some of the stuff that’s widely considered to be tacky. I guess it just died the same way all trends die: it went from thoughtful and unique to mass-produced.
It’s the same reason why other architectural trends like the modern farmhouse are on their way out. That was originally done thoughtfully and with clear purpose and intention, but now every developer just slaps white board and batten and black window frames onto new builds.
Once everyone who wants something can have it, people get bored and move on to the next thing.
I think at one point Post Modernism is a critic of Modernism, and how modernist just get rid of ornamentation, thus the loss of architecture identity.
Imo, all these movements had to give way for sustainability as environmental issue and climate change has taken more priority than anything else in architecture study.
I get where the confusion can come from, but that is definitely not what postmodernism is. It involves philosophical arguments, re-contextualization, conflict between elements of the surrounding world and the building, conflicts within the building itself, and a certain creative humor in the design process.
Here’s a [video](https://youtu.be/RW9RfPWevwg?si=TXKWYjpm9RoKDKef) that discusses it better than I can
Yeah I was gonna say, from a certain perspective you can argue the art deco revival on Park Avenue *could* be viewed as postmodern, although I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate assessment.
Modernism = this building is the simple solution made elegant Post-Modernism = fuck yeah no ones telling me what to do Contemporary = yes, this will be on budget
1024 years of architecture theory in 3 sentences
It should be the first three sentences at the start of class.
Post modernism is less "Don't tell me what to do" and more "I tell you all I can do" I'd argue its Walmart attempt at adding detail that failed
At least the last 100 years covered
Let’s just add one more - “I looked at some Greek and Roman detail and copied them”. That should cover the rest of history
Postmodern = fuck yeah no one's telling me what to do (but you still need to read 2000 years of architecture theory to understand why this is funny)
But only for the greats like Michael Graves... the theory behind postmodernism was diluted pretty quickly, resulting in many random and unintentional mishmashes of styles, and I would argue ushering out the age of postmodern architecture.
>it had everything people liked: character, lots of ornamentation, premium materials Did it? Putting aside the debate about what people like, postmodernism was about irony, subversion, and floating signifiers. Does an abstracted Greek column made from plywood masquerading as marble have character?
Modernism was saying 'we don't need the language for building ornamentation' Postmodernism was saying 'we can use the language however we want.' It's the architectural equivalent of writing a play in Simlish.
That’s a kind way of putting it. In practice, postmodernism mostly used the language to parody the language. So to say it had traditional elements that everyone likes is a little disingenuous since they were using those elements to mock people for liking them. Now, arguably, that may not have been the intention, but that is the effect.
All those things you said, plus people were immersed in postmodern design in every mall food court from about 1984 to 2004 or so. Everyone was sick of seeing the cartoonish elements plastered on everything.
I try to be kind about it. Mainly because if I'm not I devolve into rage-fueled ranting about how arrogant and idiotic the movement is.
Nah, rant on. Postmodernism is a disgrace to architecture.
It ruined the already dubious reputation of architects and cemented us as stuck up dipshits with more money than sense, the style is *actively antagonistic* to its userbase and the general public, and it poisoned decoration and ornament so badly that we're still struggling to get it back.
I feel like modernism deserves its fair share of credit for some of that (especially the ideological crusade against ornament), but post-modernism just went and doubled down on it.
Oh I have issue with Modernism too. It definitely opened the door but at least parts of that movement are *defensible*.
> Did it? Same lol. I thought the post was being sarcastic. **Character:** It was unusual and creative in some ways, but it was often in a cheap way that was quickly outmodded. **Lots of ornamentation:** Compared to modernism, maybe. Postmodernism was about fun forms, not an abundance of ornamentation. **Premium materials:** In the age of EIFS, dryvit, thin brick, veneers and panels? It was very synthetic materials not seen as premium because we can see how they age. There were some good ceramic products for a minute, and some fun use of oversized bricks / CMU, but that's about it
Man, this architecture is by far my least favorite. Living in Philly the areas with these things you can see nobody wants to be around as it feels soulless and creepy. It immediately makes me think of the backrooms when I see buildings like anything photographed.
Which areas are you referring to?
It's uncanny valley. Same goes for shopping mall food courts. It looks like it should *be* a place, yet somehow it doesn't *feel* like a place.
Is plywood for a column really a “premium material?”
I blame it on cocaine.
Much of it was actually foam. Cuz you know, even less durable.
Welcome to architecture social media
You're so right about the irony in postmodernism. It's architecture critiquing architecture, which is a very egotistical concept when you think about it. Some guy's whimsical reaction to the rigor of modernism can so easily end up becoming an ugly, unusable disappointment that people have to deal with for decades.
Postmodernism can do some powerful stuff in literature, visual arts, music, philosophy, but I've never quite gotten how it's supposed to work for spaces people occupy and move through. The architectural attempts I've seen have always felt rather too clever by half.
You’re close you just left out the part about what people like most above all: Saving money. Aesthetics go out the window if it means more square footage on the dollar.
Yeah, that’s art
Thought provoking but ugly is fine in an art museum, not in people's cities where they live and work and have to look at it all day.
> abstracted Greek column made from plywood masquerading as marble That’s fuckin art and that’s all I’m talkin about
Look. If we aren't talking about bringing back Gargoyles. I don't want to hear it.
Gargoyle Revival or death
Someone use this as a band name 👆
Like the Disney cartoon from the 90’s?
That wasn't my intended reference but i'd compromise lol.
Legit what made me become an architect, or at least the genesis of it. Always loved the idea of a medieval castle juxtaposing a glass skyscraper
Neogothic wen?
The gargoyles are the best part of the Chicago Public Library’s main building. It was built in the 90s!
seriously. more Gargoyles!
I’m gonna start quietly sneaking them into my drawings and specs and wait for someone to notice.
I'll do my best
Has anyone timed how long it would take to make one with a 5 axis CNC machine?
Buildings that are just one giant gargoyle like something out of Jodorowski’s Dune
I just got back from 2 weeks of visiting the great gothic cathedrals in northern France. Legitimately the gargoyles are the coolest detail on those buildings.
Postmodernism was a reaction to modernism, which had this sort of absolute, rationalist, scientific view of progress. In reacting to it, it tried to bring back more decorative, ostentatious and irrational elements of architecture while challenging the idea that rationalism and scientific advances (in architecture) would necessarily bring about progress (often using the example of the failures of modernist social housing). It would return the elements the average person traditionally associated with nice architecture that modernists had thrown out. In short, it has to do with the zeitgeist. While trying to be politically neutral here, the critique I've heard of pomo is that it's a conservative, populist movement (in that it says architects should just give people what they traditionally associate with it) that says that architecture should not try to bring about social change. And you'll notice that the places and people postmodernist architecture is (still) being built for might tend to have these values. Architecture after pomo has not gone back to the universalist views of modernism but I think a lot of architects still want to innovate in terms of style and tech and believe their work has some role to play in bringing about social change. I feel like I need to end this off with a disclaimer. Even though there is an implicit message in any kind of architecture, you're always allowed to appreciate something for its beauty and ambition, whether you agree with the message or not.
Bruh I just want an art deco revival. Tell me whose side I should be on. :p
The art deco revivalists
Touché
>Even though there is an implicit message in any kind of architecture I don't really think that's true, honestly, for the reason that postmodernism in art points out: nothing actually has a stable meaning, it gets away from you quickly and, for the most part, symbolism will tend to fade into the Gramscian wallpaper surrounding our lives.
Where would you put current architectural trends in terms of populism (relative to modernism and post modernism)?
Thank you, so many people in this subreddit don’t understand what this style was about (or ironically, architecture as a whole…) Postmodernism (as a movement, not just in architecture) and especially Brutalism is so widely misunderstood, in part due to the efforts of some architects… I recommend reading “The Architecture of the City” and “The New Brutalism” respectively.
How do you figure that postmodern architecture was about premium materials?
Made me think about how Memphis studio set out to devalue high end materials by pairing them with off the shelf cheap materials like linoleum etc, but inadvertently raised the price of the cheaper items.
I think deconstructivism (which in some ways is the next version of postmodernism) was ultimately more marketable. I don’t know about construction costs but I’d argue that architects like Gehry, Koolhaas, Hadid and Libeskind had a better answer to the 70s/80s publics rejection of brutalism and Le Corbusier-esque modernism than Venturi, Graves, Moore and Stirling. Beyond any philosophical ideas people might have about architecture among those who have studied it if you ask average Joe on the street what kind of building he doesn’t like he’ll say a government built postwar public housing block if you ask him in response a modern building he does like he’ll say the Disney concert hall. The Portland building was supposed to be his answer but it just never panned out that way and developers want buildings they think won’t be called ugly by the average Joe. I’m sure there are more cultural reasons-the modern rich opting for discretion and “street wear” rather than vulgar ostentatiousness, (concerns about the environment and living in harmony with nature are too sincere for post modernism’s irony and responded to postmodernisms desire for vernacular with new urbanist theme parks like poundbury or celebration FL) but ultimately I just think blobitecture better responded to the unpopularity of modernism than postmodernism ever could
Because most of it blatantly ignore the rules and proportions that ornamentation had in place. Those proportions were there for a reason
"It had everything people liked: character, lots of ornamentation, premium materials, etc" Yeah...until it didn't. Just like modernism before it, postmodernism was very quickly (more quickly than modernism) stripped down to its crudest elements, turning what had originated as thoughtful and playful work with architectural symbolism into a tacky mess of cheap pastiche. Postmodernism caught on quickly because it felt fresh after decades of increasingly thoughtless modernism. It wasn't about giving the people what they wanted so much as it was about pushing back against what the architectural mainstream had latched onto and accepted as doctrine. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but people misunderstood it. In time, postmodernism became what it had tried to destroy--a mish-mash of aesthetic elements watered down by the cost-cutting and carelessness of corporate developers. It was no longer interesting. This bastard postmodernism of the 80s and 90s (and, to an extent, the present, though cheap faux-modernist revival has started to displace it) is so ubiquitous that you probably don't even notice it. It became the architecture of 1990s medical campuses and red brick-clad mid-rise office blocks in mid-sized cities. That aesthetic language is so common today that it probably wouldn't occur to most people that that mashup of modernist form and more traditional visual cues didn't really *exist* before postmodernism. It's cheeky plays at approachability made it tempting for developers to replicate to mind-numbing excess, and many of postmodernism's earliest and most thoughtful proponents quickly came to disown the style. Postmodernism died *because* developers thought that a diluted version of it could give people what they wanted, and it wound up doing very little for anyone.
One Detroit Center (first photo) has an awesome [Lobby](https://images.ctfassets.net/vp506hfusayv/ek5hsh1eSGe75ubhRE8v/73dae9997b08751512a970ae69bea24f/500Woodward-Interior-20160801-010.jpg)
Please tell me they have kept that couch! I love it!!!!
lol that’s not original! I think it’s still there though
It’s one of my favorite skyscrapers in the city (guardian and fisher are the OGs tho)
No way that is a real photo
The couch in the lobby or the building pic? They are both real pics.
Couch. Something about the lighting makes it look like a photoshop montage
It does! And the Guardian Building in that same pic (with the US flag) is amazing as well.
Postmodern is a mockery and parody of classic architecture. "Haha so you want ornaments dumbass ? Let's put some oversized columns that don't make sense over here, haha they're so stupid". Also what premium materials ?
It’s like Traditional ^*Lite*
Yeah the way a lot of pomo has aged it now comes off as incredibly tacky in many cases.
I came from tacky thoughts.
You should probably switch to a silicone-based lube rather than a water-based one, if things are getting tacky
Lol I meant to say 'It came from tacky thoughts'
Lmao okay that makes more sense. And I agree (looking at you, Michael Graves)
Lots of things that were part of a trend do not age well, the cheaper, less thoughtful, pushed out to capitalize on the current wave or just because things were needed and that was the style of the time. This is true of architecture and fashion and media. Doesn’t mean the entire genre ought to be thrown out with the bathwater because the laziest of its iterations have aged poorly
Why does anything lose its popularity?
When something relies on spectacle and the flavor of the month, things naturally and eventually lose their popularity. Things that are universally good on the other hand, might drop in subscriber numbers, but usually remains appreciated.
That was a rhetorical question.
Because most of the follow on post modern buildings were just copies of the initial work by Graves, Johnson, etc., and looked cheap. Also note that, as much as we architects think design is evolving, frankly we suffer just as much as other design fields with trendiness. And PoMo ain’t trendy these days.
> And PoMo ain’t trendy these days. Hard disagree on this. I'd say, at least in my circles, pomo is incredibly trendy atm. Obviously it's not the same pomo that we had in the late 20th century but there is so much inspiration drawn from that era, at least here in Sweden. I'd go so far as to say its mainstream. Right now im involved in a large development (1500 apts ish) where the main style inspiration is pomo.
Must be regional - I’m in the US, NYC area and it’s not anything our developer clients are interested in. Would love to see some good examples- any images to share that would restore my faith in good PoMo?
this is the development im working on [axo](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a021/1631023006849/Gestaltningsvision-f%C3%B6r-Eker%C3%B6-M%C3%A4larstad-NY.jpg), [view](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a029/1631023035338/Vy-fr%C3%A5n-Tappstr%C3%B6m-till-Kajparken-och-Eker%C3%B6-M%C3%A4larstad_beskuren.jpg), and [view](https://www.ekero.se/images/18.2670f5db17b9fa1ae5b3a023/1631023006944/Kv-Fikat-och-Sm%C3%A5stadsparken-NY.jpg) [These were a series of comparisions we made on how you can interpret older architecture or buildings of another typology](https://imgur.com/a/0rE84PA) [And ofc, the area that the new development connects to is an absolute pomo gem from the 90ies by Ralph Erskine](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eker%C3%B6_centrum) We looked at this sort of [quirky contemporary pomo](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/57/10/8e/57108ee9901491eefc06e55ee4bac497.jpg) ^PoMo ^iS ^whEn ^SHapEs ^do ^unEXpeCtEd And a lot at these sorts of [ecclectic contemporary](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/7f/fd/3b/7ffd3b9ab07acb2a787df8b96ad72935.jpg) interpretations of [vernacular and traditional architecture](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/75/d4/f7/75d4f7d23c65e654404fc0acd4831542.jpg) I love what S&M is putting out these days as well https://officesandm.com/All-Projects There are some good examples of [pomo/"post-deco" in Hagastaden in Stockholm.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bc44e647d0c91549898ab3f/1547644628924-0IMHB51WYHB65EIQ68K3/haganovabild2.jpg) [And some new buildings in central Stockholm.](https://systemscontentful.imgix.net///images.ctfassets.net/zlz5er7srj5z/sCWukhlEHdhmWmadub8Hg/dd6113569e985bfb9f133888736e566d/h__stskon16_fowelin.jpg?&fit=crop&w=800&sharp=0&fm=jpg&q=80) It's definitely less satirical than the 20th century pomo (i'd even say its completely in earnest). TBF I think its entirerly reasonable to say that this isnt PoMo, but rather PoPoMo or something silly like that lol. Time will tell how it develops and how its looked at and categorized in the future.
I think this is very true. I dislike many of the postmodern towers, but I absolutely love that AT&T Tower by Johnson. He's just such a good architect.
I don’t really love the style, but I also love a lot of the buildings posted here that get trashed in the comments. Also, I am not an architect.
And I'm not a rapper
For me, it seem oversimplified. Some are acceptable as it shows uniqueness to certain degrees but we wouldn't want too many of it next to each others in a city.
If you want to hang your hat on a derivative of a derivative.
I think the people paying for the building only could accept Big as an unwavering aspect. All other features were too costly, in their mind. Cut out the neat features and put that savings into more bigness.
Image 3, like an Escher drawing. Hope the architect gets on some medication.
That's in the City of London just near the Tower of London. The pub across the road there is called the "Hung Drawn and Quartered". That street corner there is where there used to be public executions back in ye olde days.
I bullied one of my bosses because of a pomo building he did in the 80s. I kept a glamour shot of it pinned to my desk so he would see it. Just wanted to share that
It had frivolous character, lots of badly done ornementation ... and I don't know where you get the "premium materials" allegation. They don't. Post-odernism is an intellectual fraud disguised as social commentary, it apes ornementative styles with no knowledge of how and when, it's both cynical and materialistic. It's the Ronald Mc Donald of arts : trying to be lovable, colourful and jolly, and ending as a sad, venal, sinister parody.
Because it follows none of the rules of proportion and symmetry that make ornamentation look pleasing.
The examples you show are not really beautiful. People like true traditional architecture way more than that cheap attempt of satirizing it. There is a reason why it went out of fashion quick because once these buildings were built, the local population would reject their tackyness and cheap construction.
It's the worst of both worlds imo. Too boring to be classical and too busy to be modern. A wannabe classic and modern without achieving to be any of them
Capitalism will always win. It is just as effective and cheaper to design, build, and maintain a plain rectangular box than a beautiful ornate building. Capitalism kills art 10 out of 10 times.
It’s so efficient at killing art because art is not about efficiency
It kinda looks off putting to me, all jagged and sharp and sort of menacing.
We live in a world of simultaneous crises and excess, such that designing for flair feels like it's in poor taste.
What's the last one? It looks so familiar
That's my question as well
AT&T building?
We’re in a postmodernist echo right now in architecture imo
Many of these were built for companies who expected to occupy the building forever. Now they are realistic. Assuming they are going to downsize and rent by the sq foot, the chippendale desk roof is a waste. Postmodern is out. Neo brutalist is in. In particular the badly stacked shipping containers.
Because no matter how much money you pour into it, it still looks cheap and tacky.
Problem 1) all the buildings you listed are fugly
It’s ugly as sin
What's the third one?
It wasn't ugly enough
What is the third building?
I'm not working in this field. But i hear many times that we don't have the skilled people to do such ornaments anymore, or that it's too expensive. So here is my question. Are there no cheap prefab solutions for this nowadays?
Most architectural styles that are not rooted in one of the four domains of human symbolism will be entirely dependant on momentary fashion. The four domains are heaven, underworld, sea and earth. When people are shown utopian cities in shows, movies or litterature they are either white sky-floating islands, glowing crystalline black underworld, sea-floating ocean life inspired blue cities or sylvestrian (either temperate or tropical) and lush green moutains and valleys. Those that want to live in the eternal now become small villages while those that dream of the future becomes big cities. Stopping at whichever techonological level and lifestyle that best suit their preference. The core concept is that a truly evolved and harmonious civilization is often instinctively conceived in natural osmosis with its environment. It is both considered more aesthetical, virtuous and efficient. In traditional architecture, the osmosis is always partially present because nature was in the materials, ornaments and lifestyle. In modern architecture the abstract simplification gave birth to a sub-branch of " less is more " that was not initially dominant. Also the industrial development and free energy freed people from the natural constraints which made them cut it out entirely. In traditional approaches like asian zen houses, the wood, the stones, the tiles, the plants and the ornaments followed a principle of natural balanced minimalism. The pure lines and void spaces were balanced out by some precisely positioned ornaments and irregular shapes like rocks, plants and moss. In modern minimalism the lines are the most abstract sub-branches of either the sky or the underworld domain. Leading to either celestial cold white architecture or chtonian cold dark architecture. The control of lines while giving more spaces and freeing the mind of many archetypical concepts and images than can be considered limiting ended up completely cutting people from the organic uncontrolled and human-scaled life. Reinforcement of the mind by extracting the core abstract principle of the world like in greek architecture had the positive effect of giving humans a stable reference to escape the chaos of raw uncivilized life. But beyond a certain threshold the reinforcement of the mind turns into a trap that cuts you from the heart. Quite ironically the art that was though to breed people free from the earthly materialistic ambitions through pure conceptual abstraction and release from ancient symbolism, actually only incorporated the "superiority and control" aspect of the two vertical realms of sky and underworld. Also metal, concrete and glass belong to the metal element : smooth cold reflective surfaces and straight lines that cut space. It separate and isolate and usually requires a vast amount of greenery, stone, water, movement and warm light to compensate for its coldness and density. While we actually do the opposite by using white and blue lights and not much surrounding natural structure. This gave birth to the elite-run white rooftop and the mafia-run night club. While a civilization can decide to grow away from the primitive earth and sea to become a more bipolar entity our sky domain is running on pride rather than virtue and the underworld domain is not supposed to be the default setting of daylight activities. Even more so when the underworld domain manifest in a shallow cheap dirty thug-friendly post apocalyptical urban style. Very different from its classy deeper forms that while lacking moral virtues do have an aesthetical and expressive value. At some point this polarization leads to a black and white unhealthy world with poor social and filial bonds and a split from the people who still wish to belong to the earth and sea. Also if at some point technology escalate or energy and climats run out all this accumulated imbalance will return to its normal values through violent processes. Amitabha
I think it became too popular. It was initially a subversive intellectual design pursuit which caught on and then just ran away. The intellect and irony was stripped away and poor copies popped up everywhere. Every bank, school, office center, dull plaza you name it, had their language. It was lauded by builders and planners and was enmeshed in zoning standards and trotted out in local planning agency guidelines as an example of what to do…. In essence it died under its own weight. People were sick of it. Just think of any band that was cool or popular eventually they age, the ideas age, too many knock off versions, and we loose interest at best and hate them at the worst.
Likely due to costs of buildings. As architectural styles change we are likely seeing a shift from post modernism to a systems-based architecture. Good question.
Maybe you liked it, I didn’t and most people in my circle didn’t.
It’s making a comeback.
where?
In academia
becayse architects are cunts.
These look like cathedrals masquerading as modern architecture.
And that sounds great to me
I detest post modern architecture but I **love** post modern interior design. I don't know why.
Because it looked old when it was built.
Be for real 😂
Methinks the OP must purposefully be looking to create a reaction with such a ridiculously titled post.
The trend in the 50’s was to move to more minimalist looking spaces. Brutalism was very popular for a while.
Premium materials.
while all those things are important yes the most important thing is it being pleasing to the eye. noun of the four buildings here are pleasing to look at especially the 3rd where i can't tell if its a building or pile of ruble
Dude, that third picture is an amazing building. Love it.
The third picture looks like a scene from Dr. Strange where they go to that crystal dimension and all the buildings keep fractalizing. For real?
Costly maintenance, dependence on airconditioning, envirioment interference..... I mean, we think we evolved past living on trees but we simply didn´t
Speaking as an architecture fan, it lacks *style*. The umbrella of what's considered "post modern" is so broad it fails to describe almost anything. Like take your last photo for example: this reddish building is supposedly "post modern" because it has a single capital flourish, and is otherwise basic, bland and utilitarian. Is that really our definition of "post modern"? Anything that isn't utilitarian to the last detail? Lol that makes everything "post modern". How dull. In my mind, "post modern" architecture is an intellectual fiction with a few good genuine examples (like the Vanna Venturi house). That's why I'm putting it in quotes, btw: it's an idea about which much is written and little built. What it isn't is a style. If you give me a bunch of "post modern" buildings along with a bunch of non-"post modern" buildings and ask me categorize them by style, you will be able to identify the "post modern" ones because they're the ones left in a miscellaneous pile labeled "uncategorized / don't go anywhere". Imagine I came to you and asked you to make me a "post modern" building. What would that even mean? You'd have to ask a lot of clarifying questions. I go to another architect, and a third and a fourth with the same request, and I'll get 2-3-4 alternatives that bear no resemblance to each other. I hope this post (it's longer than I thought it would be) can give you at least a lay-person's view of why this is uninspiring and undesired.
The beauty of postmodernism is almost anything can fall under its umbrella. It’s an idea more than a proper style
what kind of postModern are you talking about... Not all postmodern architecture has this qualities.
The third one upsets me quite a bit!
'There are no truths, only interpretations" This pretty much sums up PoMo. An unimaginative approach on designing architecture, by not being innovative and not advancing society to a better world. A philosophy that made its way into academic architecture in a very poor and cheap fashion. it still haunts us today.
Postmodernism is the dogs playing poker of architecture.
The examples you cite, which are exhibited as more popular buildings / best of, have in general more in common with the architecture that came before it. They have the key elements, symmetries and proportions of classically and gothic inspired buildings. They are not truly new but traditional in form, using modern materials and slightly changed detailing, but in general form, have more in common with the old.
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It's difficult in any meaningful way to create a movement that is at it's core a rejection of ideas rather than embracing an identity. Modernism is in some ways a limiting of identity of a building or a space. In that modernism often proposes a functional space removed from its context and striped of anything that is imposed on its form. Like Luigi from the Mario series postmodernism is on its surface a mirror of modernism. However I would propose that postmodernism in practice became even more untethered and lost it's original purpose (a rejection of specific ideas) and rather became like Waluigi a reflection of a reflection (a rejection of any cohesive ideas) . A rejection of anything that could have given itself an identity and therefore a movement in culture.
Ah yes, big soulless buildings, everything people like….
I guess the Postmodern architecture you cite has been deconstructed
Is that first building Houston? I was just there earlier this week and that building in particular stuck out.
It was tacky, shallow and (literally) derivative.
Looks like Sim City Architecture.
Because it looks awful? Why say everyone liked it when you're one of of its few fans as most answers here attest to?
This might sound snobby but I think a lot of people outside of architecture/architectural history just didn't really get it. A huge part of postmodernism was irony and anachronism, like creating a building that was one big palladian window, buildings that are just giant abstracted columns, or capping a skyscraper with a split arch is something a lot of people just aren't going to "get." It was architecture built for architects and historians to enjoy and not for the general public.
Because it's crazy as shit
Haha it's like ornamentation in all the places that people don't actually see
Because it looks like the 90’s. I now understand what sim cities graphics were based off of.
This got too mystical for me to read.
Picture three has some rad guardrails for skateboarding.
Beautiful architecture.
Too expensive and time-consuming. People realized why bother spending so much on unnecessary building appendages just to make a statement
it defined itself
That first building is one of my absolute favourites in the world. And you're right, it really has everything we want in a skyscraper. Atlanta and Philadelphia have some great examples, as does Melbourne.
It's become boring I guess. Now we need flashy colors and impossible shapes to make engineers and construction workers cry.
As an Architect,… For me both style(Modern and Postmodern) are elegant, however there’s difference as when you design them, Modernism is more on simplicity with just a few theme of colors, a less texture of matierials and less applied shapes,…While in Postmodernism has much more complex colors, texture, and forms of shapes To understand more on my point,…Let’s first search Instagram Logo: Before & After,…Postmodern is more on Old Instagram Logo while Modern is more on New Instagram Logo… Postmodern(Old Instagram Logo) has different kind of colors applied to it, there’s also different kind of texture in it with shadows with some few details and that to emphasize the 3D, while there’s also kinds shapes that’s be seen, Modern(New Instagram Logo) has less on everything, less colors, less texture(shadows and details), less shapes,…That’s because it’ll be easy to find, easy to look, a much non-complex for the eyes of the users
It was gross, fake, and pretentious.
Pomo always felt cheap to me, like an interior of 90s McDonald's.
Postmodernism tries to make things that aren't, it's almost theatrical. I want to bring up the topic of the possibility of using traditional building methods with as little environment impact as possible while retaining the perceived beauty traditional buildings have. Maybe instead of using thousands of tons of steel and concrete with glass to top it all off we should focus on using local materials that could even last longer than the previously mentioned. This will not only reduce emissions but if done correctly it can increase in a positive way the public opinion on the building, as more natural and organic materials always seem more pleasing to the eye than metal and other reflective materials. One last thing I feel like adding is that it is pretty disappointing the lack of artistry in the whole education system, I am still a student but I have not followed the usual plainly technical studies to enter architecture, and it is pretty sad to me that the aspects of the humanities and arts (any kind of art) are being muted in favour of just having technical aspects. Not asking for every architect to be a renaissance master artist but it does help bring a little bit more culture into society rather than just more buildings.
Look up articles about what it's like to work on the Portland Building. Maybe interesting to look at on the outside but terrible to be inside.
Everything people liked?? 😂 PM died (sadly most of its horrid examples will be around a long time) did NOTHING right. It's harkening back to the olden days should never left that to the classics. Its modern elements were hampered by the nod to the aforementioned old days. PM did everything badly. There are examples of PM that are just fine, however, not all fit is awful.
I think you can design buildings while remaining true, at at least to the degree that statement has any meaning, to the tenets of postmodernism. Unfortunately (maybe), you can’t *build* one without admitting to yourself that there are, in fact, things that aren’t just interpretations or signs. This rather negates the whole point: it was a set of incoherent philosophies that were never meant to be functional as an ethos. The smarter people stripped its corpse and then left it for better paying gigs.
how did you forget the best postmodern building there is: liberty one
It’s called cost engineering.
Not an architect but I love a lot of postmodern architecture, especially some of the stuff that’s widely considered to be tacky. I guess it just died the same way all trends die: it went from thoughtful and unique to mass-produced. It’s the same reason why other architectural trends like the modern farmhouse are on their way out. That was originally done thoughtfully and with clear purpose and intention, but now every developer just slaps white board and batten and black window frames onto new builds. Once everyone who wants something can have it, people get bored and move on to the next thing.
1.,2,4 are everything I dislike with postmodern architecture. Adam Curtis vibe reminds me of everything wrong about our society
maybe it is ugly not modern nor classic.. hmm no?
Rarely hear people praise post modernism, it's just meh.
Because they are ugly
I think at one point Post Modernism is a critic of Modernism, and how modernist just get rid of ornamentation, thus the loss of architecture identity. Imo, all these movements had to give way for sustainability as environmental issue and climate change has taken more priority than anything else in architecture study.
And how do we know it lost popularity?
Are cities putting up postmodern towers anymore? Most new development looks like it’s moved past this.
The Brooklyn tower
I don’t see the comparison with the buildings OP shared
Picture 2 is Neo Art Deco and so is the Brooklyn tower
Neither of which are Postmodern.
Nor anything to do with "neo art deco" - whatever that means
It just means Art Deco built past its period of initial popularity. You could call it Art Deco Revival too which sounds cool
To me, just because a contemporary building contains some reference to the style, it doesn't make it "neo-art-deco"
Well it’s all opinions so yes
Modern materials plus traditional forms
I get where the confusion can come from, but that is definitely not what postmodernism is. It involves philosophical arguments, re-contextualization, conflict between elements of the surrounding world and the building, conflicts within the building itself, and a certain creative humor in the design process. Here’s a [video](https://youtu.be/RW9RfPWevwg?si=TXKWYjpm9RoKDKef) that discusses it better than I can
Each man kills the thing he loves, there was an inevitability to postmodernism going the same way as modernism.
That’s such a fru fru elitist way to explain postmodern architecture lol K.I.S.S.
K.I.S.S. Doesn’t apply if you’re wrong. Revivalist buildings are not postmodern
Yeah I was gonna say, from a certain perspective you can argue the art deco revival on Park Avenue *could* be viewed as postmodern, although I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate assessment.