Why is architecture outside the US so much more cutting edge?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by vid

All of the buildings are various shapes and sizes. (As opposed to those in the US which are all the exact same shape, ha ha ) The one in the centreright has some loopy crap on top, just behind it the next tallest after what I'm assuming is a David Foster design looks like it has a sort of curved bevel to it, not a straight line. There is a dark green-blue building on the left that has a sort of rocketship thingy attached to it, and maybe a building hole, and that bridge beside it is just plain cool looking. It's like the iPod of bridges. And behind loopy crap is a building that looks like "fancy" 5 dollar speakers from a dollar store. Cool! Most are either crap or boring, but you could say that about most building in New York when seen from afar. At least the ones in New York have details to enjoy up close.

haha, loopy $%#&, iPod bridge, those where the exact thoughts I had when I saw that photo.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by STR

As for the World Trade Center tower, while I've seen many people compare it to previous SOM proposals ranging from the 1990's Trump NYSE tower, to a proposal in Philly, I've yet to see a constructed skyscraper that's similar. The basic massing has been used in century-old lighthouses, but saying that makes one a rip-off of another is being disingenuous.

The WTC is no rip-off, that's for sure, but it definitely is not as exciting a project it could've been. NY was presented with this huge site in the middle of downtown; the oppurtunity to make an incredible super-project at the scale of the city was just beckoning, but the project was watered down into five (beautiful) towers that simply sit on this enormous base that pretends to be an extension of the city a la new urbanism.

Rockefeller Center was built at the same scale of the city and it made these incredible gestures towards layered circulation and what a metropolis of the 20th century could be (arcaded pedestrian corridors underground connecting buildings and subways, terraced roof gardens, plazas with retail and event spaces, theaters, media centers, among other things). Rockefeller Center is more culturally relevant today than the new WTC, and Rockefeller is 80 years old!

[Zerton]

We still build cutting edge in the US. These two are U/C in Dallas, TX alone.


http://www.e-architect.co.uk/america...re_science.htm


http://www.trinityrivercorridor.com/...y_bridges.html

And we've been at 'cutting edge' for a long time now:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...t=16750&page=1

Much of the United States' infrastructure is in place and I'm quite fond of a lot of it.

[Zerton]

repeat post...

[muppet]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Do people forget that the US is in the second worst economic recession in its history? Yeah, I guess it would be easy to start a thread that crows about construction in developing nations, with booming economies that build hundreds of less than ten-percent occupied buildings purely out of futile speculation and international attention, and compares it to the US, which builds out of actual, tangible market demand, not to mention being currently amidst a slow, painful recovery, with close to every construction project on hold or cancelled. The US doesn't build these outlandishly designed and engineered attention getting structures because they often make little or no economic sense. It is a nation that actually cares about the return of an investment and values business, which is why our economy is bigger than the next 3 countries put together. This is also why you see much more conservative and cost efficient designs, because the US puts profit before international pissing contests that don't prove anything or make money. Would you start this thread if America's economy was booming right now as well as China's, and construction was just as prevalent? Anything to point out something bad about America i guess, even if the economic conditions are clearly unequal.

Maybe the same question for this thread should be asked in about 5 years.

^one word: Europe. Also mired in the downturn, but still churning out cutting edge designs. But then the majority of outre designs round the world from China to US to the Middle East originated from European designers anyway.

[muppet]

I think the problem with US is there is a big culture of pandering to what the public wants - rather than pushing their boundaries on taste or creating new aesthetics, they work on the accepted status quo. This isnt just in architecture but across the commercial world, from shopping products to food, fashion to music (think Lady Gaga, Kings of Leon, The Killers etc, who failed in the US, then had to make it big in UK/ Europe before they could return and break their own native markets). Its an enormously lucrative enterprise - the Gap Effect as its infamously known, you create safe, median designs, sellable, one-size-fits-all categorisation, water down anything risque, then reap in the benefits. Look at the fashion shows in New York - infamous (or renowned if you prefer) for safe, wearable designs in comparison to the formbreaking, sometimes unwearable 'art' of the European or Japanese catwalks - but NY shows remains the world's largest market. Compare even the commercial brands, places like H&M and Topshop/ Topman that are making new inroads into the NY fashion scene still have to water down their designs that are the norm in Europe. Sadly, you can see the Europeans have recently (finally for some) started to water down their shows and shops in response to this success.

Neither is this just a US thing, its rather a multinational, big-business thing. Every High Street in UK or Germany looks the same, every apartment block - middle class or luxury - in China looks the same, every teeny bopper hit round the world works on the same look, and increasingly every tv churns out the same news, gameshows and reality programmes but in a plethora of different languages. Huge tracts of suburban housing across the globe resemble each other too, whether its India or Egypt or South Carolina. It is merely a formula for maximum gain. -However, what exists in Europe is a concerted effort to move away from this genericism, in terms of cultural preservation under a globalised onslaught, despite the huge amount that is already taken.

In the developing world, rather its no concerted effort to protect a culture of innovation as in Europe, but one to distinguish rising power in a spirit of oneupmanship, not just from other firms and businesses, but on an international stage too, between countries.

US needs neither of these as globalisation started as a form of Americanisation, albeit with twists. It's remained in its own ways, changing slowly, and only on prescribed formulae for success, or maximum returns for minimal investments.

Saying all this, there is still a huge amount of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, as befitting American culture, although alot of it is channelled abroad or into specific cities (eg NY).

[spyguy]

Here's a recent article in the NYT related to this topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/business/16build.html

Architects Find Their Dream Client, in China
By LAWRENCE W. CHEEK

IT was an unusual commission, unlike anything that Stuart Silk, a Seattle architect, had been offered in his quarter-century of practice: design three high-end custom homes for clients he would never meet. Although there were some specifications for functions and dimensions — total square feet, for example, and the number of bedrooms and baths — there wasn’t a clue as to style or a construction budget.

Some interesting quotes:

“I have no idea whether Chinese architects can do this,” said Mr. Wang, in an interview from Shanghai. “Maybe they can — but I didn’t want to take that risk. In China there was no development like this. The villa market is rather young in China.”

He says there may be more involved than just an intrepid spirit. “There’s another dimension to it,” he muses. “There’s an appreciation of nonmaterialist ideas, a connection to history and culture and especially, meaning. They drive toward a solution, but there’s also a metaphysical dimension.”

“They don’t establish a construction budget in the same way we do,” says the firm’s president, James Goettsch. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a project slowed down or held up over the budget.”

[jetsetter]

So pushing boundaries = terrible modernism as posted above? Exactly what boundaries are being pushed? The boundary between ugly and terrible? I do hope that some of you realize that glass/metal cladding + concrete in odd shapes are not the only ways to decorate a building.

[mhays]

Anything learned before 1940 = derivative. Can't have that.

Also, food recipes from before 1940 are derivative. We should be thinking of new recipes that say something about today, challenge us, and don't borrow ye olde ideas about flavor.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by mhays

Anything learned before 1940 = derivative. Can't have that.

Also, food recipes from before 1940 are derivative. We should be thinking of new recipes that say something about today, challenge us, and don't borrow ye olde ideas about flavor.

wait what...?

[RLS_rls]

Well China is a developing country, and that shot of the Guangzhou skyline shows a sense of exuberance and daring that hasn't been seen on such a big scale in the States for a long time...because the US has long moved past that stage. A shot of Cleveland's skyline from the 20s/30s would have been much the same I imagine; massive buildings in all sorts of styles and shapes with every kind of ornamentation you could think of.

Fast forward 70 years and you have China, or any other developing country. Things will eventually stabilize in China in terms of design and vision. Prices will probably go up too, and the cost of labour etc. and this would put them in a similar position as America.

And I think Muppet pretty much summed up whats happening in Europe. As well I've always seen Europe as being a bit more in to the arts then the west.

Besides it could be worse: look at Canada, when have we ever been daring in anything? We're chronically behind the times and/or in another ball field.

[PittPanther]

I have to agree that things sometimes seems bland but as a couple people said before, these are just the best examples.

Maybe it is just a regional thing, I mean, I think Sydney Brisbane and Melbourne have a "certain look" as well as some of the larger European cities.

I can't find the article the other day but I recall reading somewhere that the China Central Television Building isn't at max capacity due to fears over structural integrity, I think - I can't exactly recall or remember the details.

and on a personal note, as exciting as Dubai looks now. I give it 30 years before the place looks like an outdated time capsule.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Oh come on guys. Most buildings in the rest of the world don't look like those. Most buildings in the rest of the world are completely mundane. You're only seeing the most interesting ones.

People in other countries who see all the mundane buildings in their homes and only know about the most interesting ones here probably think the US has much more cutting edge architecture.

This is an excellent point.

Additionally, most of the cutting-edge designs in other countries are, lets face it, designed by prominent American, Canadian, and European architects. The term "starchitect" applies here.

Of course, there are also prominent Eastern Architects as well, such as Tadao Ando, Kengo Kuma, Yung Ho Chang, and I'm sure there are others which escape me.

China and other developing countries are merely in a position where they are going to build a lot. They are not preserving much. Imagine the United States in the 1950s-80s - we tore down a lot of older buildings and built a lot of new stuff, including infrastructure. What was built in the US at that time was "cutting edge" for its time.

[muppet]

I think the point is not so much where the international architects are coming from, but why many of them can't make their designs on home soil.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by muppet

I think the point is not so much where the international architects are coming from, but why many of them can't make their designs on home soil.

There is more than enough good work and cutting edge architecture that is happening in the states...sure, it isn't in the form of super tall towers, but height doesn't equal cutting edge. Also one has to remember, a large number of architects within the States are doing work all over the world as a means of survival. If the economy is bad here and almost everything is stalled, you need to look for work that is happening outside of the country to stay afloat.

To say there is nothing cutting edge going on in the States is basically ignoring anything that actually is going on or has been built in the past decade.

[hammersklavier]

I think the issue isn't so much the utter lack of interesting avant-garde architecture in the U.S. so much as it is that all the good stuff is happening at smaller scales. For instance, the neighborhoods of Nothern Liberties and (increasingly) Kensington are hotbeds of avant-garde architectural ideas in Philadelphia. Architects like Erdy-McHenry, Onion Flats, Interface Studio Architects, etc.*, are all set up over there and work at scales of between three and ten stories (Scott Erdy does think big, though).

But the lack of interesting architecture in big (expensive) projects in the U.S. is as arresting as its prevalence underground.
_________
*There is tradition here. Philadelphia was/is the home of Frank Furness, Edwin (?) Hale, Vincent Kling, Louis Kahn, and Robert Venturi, among others.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I think the issue isn't so much the utter lack of interesting avant-garde architecture in the U.S. so much as it is that all the good stuff is happening at smaller scales. For instance, the neighborhoods of Nothern Liberties and (increasingly) Kensington are hotbeds of avant-garde architectural ideas in Philadelphia. Architects like Erdy-McHenry, Onion Flats, Interface Studio Architects, etc.*, are all set up over there and work at scales of between three and ten stories (Scott Erdy does think big, though).

But the lack of interesting architecture in big (expensive) projects in the U.S. is as arresting as its prevalence underground.
_________
*There is tradition here. Philadelphia was/is the home of Frank Furness, Edwin (?) Hale, Vincent Kling, Louis Kahn, and Robert Venturi, among others.

Well I ask you what was the last big building boom in the US? It was with housing and condos, not really in office space or airport expansions or anything like that. With housing, developers want something safe that people with be willing to buy and live in, therefore much of the towers built in this country over the past decade were safe and boring because that is what has the biggest target audience when it comes to looking for buyers.

Which as you pointed out, doesn't mean innovative things were not happening, it just means they were taking a different form. There were a number of museum expansions that happened over the past decade that were some of the most breathtaking buildings, I look to Seattle for their library and art museum expansion, or Chicago with the museum expansion and Millennium Park and Aqua tower (which actually pushed the creative level for condos), or the next building that Cooper Union built in NYC or the Beekman Tower in NYC, San Francisco just built two huge museums in Golden Gate Park that are definitely cutting edge and amazing works of architecture.

As I pointed out, the only reason why this thread is able to exist is because it is ignoring all the amazing architecture that has been built in the US over the past decade for a hand full of unique buildings that have been built in Asia and the Middle East in their massive building booms. Now if everything that was being built in Asia and the Middle East could be called cutting edge, then there would be a valid argument, but none of these cutting edge buildings that are being built there are for housing.

Heck, when it comes to housing the country I am most jealous with is Japan because more often than not people there work with an architect to build their house regardless of size, while in the States it is very rare for someone to work with an architect when it comes to building their house unless it is a huge expensive house. If even the most modest, small affordable home was being designed by an architect for a specific client, we would have a much better display of architecture in this country.