Modernism vs Neo-Traditionalism

Modernism vs Neo-Traditionalism: A debate on the merits and failures of two major competing paradigms in architecture and urban planning.

Beyond the term modernism underlies one of the greatest ideas in architectural development. Modernism was meant to provide more green areas, cheaper housing and more efficient use of space. This was to be accomplished by creating vertically dense spaces with the use of the new inventions of the nineteenth century, such as steel, glass, electricity and elevators. By decreasing costs of building, modernists hoped to provide cheaper housing, affordable to almost anybody. The modernist movement was also promising to meet the growing demand for office spaces, hence the motto “form follows function” . Today, the inhabitants of every large city are able to see products of modernist influence. Its opposite, neo-traditionalism, is admired for its beauty and variety. “Small City U.S.A.” is an extremely popular concept among today’s citizens, looking to escape the ordinary, colorless office buildings. Boring and redundant, is modernism today what it was conceptualized to be? Its ideas shape today’s housing, from housing projects to single homes that have neo-traditional skin. Modernist concepts are of incredible importance and necessity; however, they were misunderstood in application.

“Modernism was a response to the rise of industrial manufacturing as man’s chief economic activity.” Modernism fulfilled the growing demand for office space. It made use of such inventions as steel, glass, concrete and elevators. Steel and concrete allowed building to go to whole new heights. Glass and electricity provided lighting, thus making the workday longer. Elevators made the office buildings possible by carrying its inhabitants to any floor in the building. These materials also solved the problem of fireproofing and were definitely less costly than the materials used for traditional buildings. At the same time, modernist buildings became uniform: built from the same materials, modular, colorless with the same components, flat roofs and lack of ornamentation. Kunstler argued that such buildings have seized to have any meaning that they destroy social arrangements and do not consider natural resources. He blamed modernism for ruining the cities with corporate gigantism, failing to creat...

... middle of paper ...

... supposed to provide for both.

People who despise modernism, probably do not know what it is supposed to be. Post-modernism seems to be more or less of an answer. It finally lets modernist buildings nurture creativity. Post-modernist buildings vary in shape, size and color, thus making them more appealing to the eye and less redundant. It seems that the costs of such innovations would still be less than those of traditional buildings.

I believe that our society needs post-modernism. People long for trees and parks and waterfronts, as well as for buildings that one can look at and think, “Oh, G-d, that is beautiful.” We need this no less than we need office buildings. Modernism and post-modernism are deemed to be different, and they are in the sense that post-modernism is exactly what modernism was supposed to be, may be with a bit more variety. In many instances, post-modernist buildings are even more attractive than neo-traditional. So, maybe one day when all modernist ideals are realized, a person will come out of the new Federal Plaza and for a hundredth time think, “This is the most relaxing landscape I’ve ever seen.