[mhays]

Originally Posted by LostInTheZone

this is the problem. Architecture is supposed to be able to be appreciated by the general public, since they are its users and viewing audience.

now, what about a building like this:

this is the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton, in Philly. Personally, I really like this building. I like it for its sleek, clean-lined, classic modernism. By your line of argument, however, this building is no good, since it incorporates the cantelevered roof, sheer glass walls, and open arcade/plaza characteristic of 1950s modernism. It's a revivalist building.

Modernist architects are just as guilty of putting form over function as the styles they claim to hate. They love putting on the appearance of cantelevered facades and ribbon windows, even if it's a conventional frame with structural columns directly behind the glass. How many buildings have wraparound corner windows trying to look like they're cantelevered, but then have a column inside at the corner?

I like well-done modernist architecture, I like well-done historicist architecture. I've never understood throwing out a style and calling it immoral. Because that's all it is: just style. Everyone has their own preferences.

What an outstanding post.