Committee on Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Committee on Design and Residential Knowledge Community .
-------------------------------------------

The title of this piece posted by David Andreozzi reveals an acceptance of the conventional wisdom that style doesn't matter: style is an aspect of - literal - surface that has an only superficial place in our efforts to create architecture of lasting value.  A claim to significance depends on a seriousness of purpose that prioritizes architectural "content" that must be something "deeper," i.e., something that lays below the surface.  And yet this is the title of a demand for the acceptance of non-modernist architecture that is based on a variety of historical styles, or at least of architecture that is generically "traditional" in character.  But if style doesn't matter, why is it important to build in styles?  Clearly, the acceptance of the premises of the dominant modernist dogma eviscerates the argument against its stylistic hegemony before it can even get started.

We have to think clearly if we are to understand our own society in which major cultural commissions prioritize the expression of innovation while the homes of 90% of the population prioritize the expression of tradition. (And this dichotomy is specifically about the expression of values - no one is accepting less than up to date technology in the realm of function).  Perhaps both innovation and tradition are important, with the proportional mix of each depending on the specific circumstances.  If it is so important that the configuration of the surfaces of certain buildings reflect traditional values, and that architects ought to be recognized for doing so in an exemplary manner, then clearly style has substance (the title of a recent book by Virginia Postrel).  Indeed there is no architecture without the meaningful articulation of surfaces - otherwise we have mere building.  It seems to me that Mr. Andreozzi's words suggest the opposite of what he believes - that in order to acknowledge the world that exists and to promote the importance of the architect's role within it,  Architecture must be judged by all appropriate and relevant criteria, not the least of which is the plurality of styles.


-------------------------------------------
Michael Ytterberg AIA
Principal
BLT Architects
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------

There is no question that style is important. I don't know why we bother to debate the issue, but there is far more to design than appearance. (See my blog comments in "Examining Architecture"). It is a question of priority, not elimination. The taste of a McDonald's hamburger was not the highest priority the last time I saw their list. It was consistency that could meet common expectations in a globally diverse franchise.

When our priorities provide public benefit that is widely accepted, rather than claimed, we will be able to make a much greater contribution to the society we wish to serve.

You may be interested in looking at my blog. It will not put food on the table, but it might stimulate some to prove the relevance of architecture beyond claims that will always be a matter of opinion.
http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------