NEW YORK | The Bellemont (1165 Madison Ave) | 210 Ft | 13 Fl

I agree with mcart and stache that modernism is definitely not a fad, it has been the predominant mode of design for so long that one could argue it’s become “classic” itself. I’d like to add that even during the reign of modernism, ornamental/historical revival fads have come and gone–just look at the '80s, it was customary for skyscrapers to have ornamental crowns and stone facades. Then by the '00s glass and steel minimalism was back in style. Trends come and go, but overall the modernist principles of “form follows function” have reigned supreme.

1 Like

Modernism only stuck around because developers found it to be cheap. What followed was just the rise of stale boxes. Take one walk around NY with one eye open, looking at all the old skyscrapers and see how different they all look. Then take another walk with the other eye open and look at how many boring boxes there are. Modernism killed architecture in many many ways. Don’t get me wrong I like some modern buildings but more in the style of Frank Loyd wright. That had some detail and identity.

I just think modernism became a scapegoat for developers to mass produce, cheap buildings without a sense of identity.

Just look at home construction. Lots and lots of people want classic homes. There is also an absolute frenzy in NY for “pre-war” buildings. The Flat Iron and SoHo districts are in demand for a reason.

Home construction where? Where I’m from like 90% of all new home construction is that cookie cutter suburban horseshit. In NYC? Well I don’t think that’s really that represetative of the nation/world and also I don’t think a large part of NYC is building classical homes. Please prove me wrong because I would love to know where that’s happening.

And I don’t think a single area of NYC being in demand is enough considering most of NYC is in demand right now, in fact there’s so much demand and so little supply that it’s hindering the growth of the city.

3 Likes

That suburban stuff is just cheap affordable housing so ignore that.

I’m talking custom homes where people can choose what they want. Just look at all of the new homes being built in places like Lincoln Park in Chicago. There is a huge demand for a pre war style. Thats one of the reasons people are moving into older neighborhoods across the country. Its a national trend. Cincinnati for example has the OTR district. Lots of the infill thats being developed is meant to blend in to match the historic fabric. They every developed an entire community guidelines developed to make sure more modern stuff doesn’t ruin the charm of the old buildings. I think Americans in particular are just bored of modern glass boxes because more people have seen what old world cities have to offer. But outside of the US just look at places like Germany. They have been trying to rebuild many of the classic buildings they lost in the war. People are just growing out of the middle 20th century,”let’s build a new world jetsons” mindset. That futuristic thinking back then just didn’t pan out and people want the old stuff back.

Wrong. The cookie cutter horseshit is not “affordable” housing at all. 250 k on the low end.

Okay can you provide me with some pics or sites or something. Genuinely trying to see more of this stuff.

There’s just so much wrong here, where do I start. Tenants wanted to be in modern office buildings because they were simply more functional, more efficient, with better lighting and floorplates. The pre-war office towers have small windows and narrow floorplates, not suitable for a growing mid-century American corporate giant. That’s why those boring boxes were built, not some conspiracy by developers to cheap out, but because that’s what tenants wanted. You know what would have happened if NYC kept building Art Deco, Beaux Arts etc office towers post-war? The companies would have decamped for the burbs 20 years before they actually did, because Manhattan wouldn’t have had the modern office space they wanted.

I just think modernism became a scapegoat for developers to mass produce, cheap buildings without a sense of identity.

Fun fact, the Seagram Building was one of the most expensive buildings built in NYC at the time! And for every SoHo there’s blocks of ugly pre-war tenements that are long gone that nobody misses.

Lots of the infill thats being developed is meant to blend in to match the historic fabric. They every developed an entire community guidelines developed to make sure more modern stuff doesn’t ruin the charm of the old buildings…People are just growing out of the middle 20th century,”let’s build a new world jetsons” mindset. That futuristic thinking back then just didn’t pan out and people want the old stuff back.

I’m old enough to remember when people were saying the exact same things about Celebration, Florida and Poundbury, England. Basically, what you’re describing are communities that combine the top-down central planning megalomania of modernism with twee traditional architecture and street fabric. But central planning of design, which may work in small suburban communities or urban historic districts, is not suitable for an evolving city. If you want to cast the city in amber, then knock yourself out advocating for mandated traditional design guidelines or whatever. But if you want a dynamic, evolving city, one-size-fits-all design rules don’t make sense.

Although your personal distaste for it is obvious, I’d suggest reading up a bit on modernism and the history of 20th century architecture because you seem to hold a lot of misconceptions about it. Just because you dislike it doesn’t mean you have to misrepresent it. Modernism remains popular with designers and users for many reasons that don’t have anything to do with “cheapness”.

For every charming, prewar haute bohemian unit there’s hundreds of similarly prewar junk blocks with little in the way of actual quality due to many decades of wear and tear. For a residential example, I would rather take a building I know is on solid footing such as one of the midcentury tower-blocks such as LeFrak City or Luna Park houses because those areas still have some city miles left on them. I would also take some revitalized private transportation solutions post-pandemic. Maybe we should pull some of Robert Moses’ proposals from the old filing cabinet. I have a particular affinity for modernist architecture, and simply desire some balance, so all I want is an occasional Art-Deco or Beaux-Arts project thrown in there and stitched into the plans as a nice counterweight to “keep me regular” so to speak in rather crude terms.

What is really holding the city back is suburban NIMBYs who want to live in those shitty shotgun houses in Howard Beach or a single-family Tudor in Forest Hills. Those neighborhoods should have been upgraded to brownstone/walkup status 20 years ago, but they remain to be single-family and low-density. Any of the inner-ring suburbs that are still single-family have to get some density up in there. Brownstones and 4-5 story walk-ups with built-in pool decks in Howard Beach, or the same thing but perhaps with gardens built-in would work well without any sort of big litigation and fights over high-rise condominium complexes occurring, due to the people in those neighborhoods being given that “big, bad developer” feel.

In the words of Cosmo Kramer himself, “I’m lookin’ right at you, big daddy!”

You guys are right Corbusie was inspiring. You guys should just move to China since you love a solid floor plan above aesthetics.

2 Likes

This entire community guideline is basically saying “Do what SoHo is doing”

All the midcentury tower-blocks need is upgrades such as balconies for private, outdoor space and low-rise extensions to make each complex more substantial and appear more contextual at the same time. That, and throwing in an additional high-rise if it’s really that desperate and the conditions call for it.




1 Like

Everyone loves to clown on Corb for wanting to raze Paris and rebuild it in his own style while ignoring that Haussmann literally did just that! Anyway, Corb was a brilliant architect and an awful planner. Modernism, like many things in life, is complicated. It has done great and terrible things. I actually agree that there are tons of junky '60s modernist buildings in Manhattan that should go, but the problem isn’t their modernist style–there’s good and bad buildings from every period. That’s why I was disappointed in the demolition of the old 270 Park–it was one of the better '60s boxes on a street with many mediocre ones. Chicago generally has much higher quality “Modernist Box” 60s architecture than NYC.

1 Like

I’d like to see Lacaton + Vassal take on some of those dilapidated '60s housing blocks in NYC:

Lacaton & Vassal Have Pioneered a Strategy for Saving France's Social Housing - Metropolis.

Haussmann and Burnham are my hero’s because they built for humans, not robots of the machine age.

I actually like that first development you sent but I don’t see that as modernism. Its some sort of hybrid for of architecture that I see forming. I see some of it in SoHo and Nolitta as well. I think in the end I care about materials. Look at the examples in the deck I attached.

Glass walls seem very very inhuman to me.

They would be fantastic for the larger developments in the Mitchell-Lama and NYCHA program, especially those which were awkwardly positioned on their sites.

1 Like

It just adds a little something to the preexisting project. It could be a good way to implement some timber construction in preexisting projects, maybe test some of the waters a bit in urban environments here, develop actual proofs of concept.

1 Like

This modern building…

Was just torn down to rebuild this…

2 Likes

This modernist building…

Was just torn down to build this…

3 Likes

This….

Was torn down for this…

3 Likes