Earlier today, I had an occasion to refer readers to Abraham Kuyper's 1869 lecture titled "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," where he comments, "an attempt is being made to transform the two sexes, masculine and feminine, into a neutral hybrid of the two." In the same lecture he comments on the ubiquitous movement toward uniformity of everything, including architecture. Here he summarizes these issues: "So here we are. Everything has to be equalized and leveled; all diversity must be whittled down. Differences in architectural style must go. Age differences must go. Gender differences must go. Differences in dress must go. Differences in language must do. Indeed, what doesn't have to go if this drive toward uniformity succeeds? For what I have said so far is barely a beginning of the indictment against uniformity."
Annie Holmquist nails the issue Kuyper raised more than 150 years ago. She gets it
Excellent article and I was pleasantly surprised to hear Tucker and Brand discuss architecture in the middle of what otherwise a conversation about anything/everything else. As an architect myself in this era, they and you, hit on something that I had struggled with but hadn’t pieced together...chalk it up to being too close to the industry 😏. We have a term for a lot of these architects today - ones that design many of these horrendous buildings - we call them “black cape architects”...ones who have lofty opinions of their own work, while looking down their noses at the rest of us, which now becomes evident through the buildings they design...buildings that don’t function and figuratively look down on their occupants. This is especially true of government buildings whether they be federal, state or local and especially schools...so many sad, oppressive school buildings around and our kids suffer from early ages.
That's fascinating to hear your thoughts from inside the industry, Scott. To be fair, I also know that some architects would love to build more beautiful, classic buildings, but their hands are tied due to how much the builder wants to spend on the project. I always appreciate when I see a new building go up that has some of that old class and character!
Very true, budgets can be constrained, but I have to imagine that’s always been the case for the majority of buildings throughout time. The other major factor is what designs can be pushed through the entitlement process (which all comes down to speed, often at the expense of design development) through jurisdictions...and jurisdictions typically attempt to extract their desires either by force or coercion. I have personally seen an aversion/desire to go beyond the typical glass box developer buildings of late, which gives me some hope. At the same time there seems to be an anti-class bent that rejects much, if not all of what came before...with that high/almighty attitude that we’re somehow better, more ‘evolved’ to even consider such things. I can’t help but think that it’s a byproduct (intentional or unintentional) of the prevailing political ideology that skews heavily left in the design/architecture world. Thanks for all your writing...always enjoyable!
Annie, so very true: When our principles fail and our beliefs falter, our externals—both in our dress, our architecture, and other things—become just as fluid, standing for nothing except confusion and despair.
Earlier today, I had an occasion to refer readers to Abraham Kuyper's 1869 lecture titled "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," where he comments, "an attempt is being made to transform the two sexes, masculine and feminine, into a neutral hybrid of the two." In the same lecture he comments on the ubiquitous movement toward uniformity of everything, including architecture. Here he summarizes these issues: "So here we are. Everything has to be equalized and leveled; all diversity must be whittled down. Differences in architectural style must go. Age differences must go. Gender differences must go. Differences in dress must go. Differences in language must do. Indeed, what doesn't have to go if this drive toward uniformity succeeds? For what I have said so far is barely a beginning of the indictment against uniformity."
Annie Holmquist nails the issue Kuyper raised more than 150 years ago. She gets it
Thanks, Dr. Caneday! I'll have to check into that Kuyper lecture...and I may also have to file that quote away for future use! ;-)
Excellent article and I was pleasantly surprised to hear Tucker and Brand discuss architecture in the middle of what otherwise a conversation about anything/everything else. As an architect myself in this era, they and you, hit on something that I had struggled with but hadn’t pieced together...chalk it up to being too close to the industry 😏. We have a term for a lot of these architects today - ones that design many of these horrendous buildings - we call them “black cape architects”...ones who have lofty opinions of their own work, while looking down their noses at the rest of us, which now becomes evident through the buildings they design...buildings that don’t function and figuratively look down on their occupants. This is especially true of government buildings whether they be federal, state or local and especially schools...so many sad, oppressive school buildings around and our kids suffer from early ages.
That's fascinating to hear your thoughts from inside the industry, Scott. To be fair, I also know that some architects would love to build more beautiful, classic buildings, but their hands are tied due to how much the builder wants to spend on the project. I always appreciate when I see a new building go up that has some of that old class and character!
Very true, budgets can be constrained, but I have to imagine that’s always been the case for the majority of buildings throughout time. The other major factor is what designs can be pushed through the entitlement process (which all comes down to speed, often at the expense of design development) through jurisdictions...and jurisdictions typically attempt to extract their desires either by force or coercion. I have personally seen an aversion/desire to go beyond the typical glass box developer buildings of late, which gives me some hope. At the same time there seems to be an anti-class bent that rejects much, if not all of what came before...with that high/almighty attitude that we’re somehow better, more ‘evolved’ to even consider such things. I can’t help but think that it’s a byproduct (intentional or unintentional) of the prevailing political ideology that skews heavily left in the design/architecture world. Thanks for all your writing...always enjoyable!
Annie, so very true: When our principles fail and our beliefs falter, our externals—both in our dress, our architecture, and other things—become just as fluid, standing for nothing except confusion and despair.