The "future" that architects dream up always seems to be made of some colorbody (white, always white) composite material... there are no scratches revealing that the white gloss is merely a paint finish. Until we invent such a material (and put it to practical, economical use), such "futuristic" design (Zaha in Cincinnati comes to mind) will always ring hollow (literally) as merely stagecraft.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A question for DOCOMOMO (documentation and conservation of the modern movement):
Since it's de rigeur in preservation circles that additions to historic buildings should be modern so that "we can tell what's old and what's new," should additions to mid-century modern buildings thus be, say, Georgian Revival?
There exists a chasm between what we thought the future would be like and the reality of our present. In design, perhaps the greatest miscalculation by Modernists predictions was the tenacity of tradition. For the single-family home, even the mildly radical ranch house has fallen out of favor, replaced by various revival-ish styles.
What we've learned about modernity is that it doesn't matter what it looks like... Your iPad works just as well in a Greek Revival house as one by Rem Koolhaas.