Find solution
What is the relationship between spirituality and Gothic architecture? In what ways does Gothic architecture differ?

Why does the public's concepts of "good" or "beautiful" architecture differ so much from architects'

  • It's as though the public has their own innate ideas of beautiful architecture (often characterized by traditional forms), and the architect community has their own "acquired taste" for building forms, many of which end up unloved by the public. Would any architects care to comment on this phenomenon? There isn't too much research available on this phenomenon but there is enough information to mention the following correlations about today's divide: It may be bad for business. It may be responsible for the public's aversion for new construction and the popularity of historic preservation (which some architects find to be an impediment). It may be responsible for the substantial drop in the architect's salary between 80 years ago and today. Many architects address this divide by simply declaring that the public is falling behind or conservative in their tastes or that they are resistant to change. One of the consequences of this divide is that the public's quest for traditional architecture, without guidance from trained architects, has fallen into the hands of a home building industry who is not versed in traditional architecture and continues to build poor and cartoonish replications of traditional buildings. Does any other industry operate in this manner? How can architects address and correct this phenomenon in a way that doesn't discount the opinions of the public?

  • Answer:

    There are, in reality, quite a few architects out there who specialize in traditional architecture and the University of Notre Dame's program specializes in teaching traditional design. I think the problem with the cartoonish buildings you see built has little to do with the lack of architects, and far more to do with people trying to save money. The products available on the market today that attempt to replicate traditional building elements in cheap materials (i.e. vinyl windows, foam cornices etc) are pale imitations of the real thing yet many people are not able to tell the difference or do not want to spend the extra money and time to have the job done right. There are many, many architecture firms that specialize in historic preservation, I don't think the majority of the field sees that issue as an impediment. I also think that the public, in general, has little to no architectural or art historical knowledge (because it is not taught in schools unless you seek it out in college) and this results in misinterpreting what historical architecture should look like. I see this a lot in practice - a community demanding a new apartment building be built to look like a Spanish mission so that it will relate to their history, when in reality the town's history was completely industrial and there is no Spanish-style architecture for miles around (other than an office park built 5 years earlier). It is also worth pointing out that architectural salaries, to my knowledge, are not drastically lower today than they were 80 years ago. In fact fees were running only about 5% of construction in the 1860s, and only improved slightly as time went on. See this recent article from Architect Magazine: http://www.architectmagazine.com/compensation/a-better-value_o.aspx You are right that some architects try to force unpopular designs on the public, but architects need clients to get things built. Someone with money had to approve those buildings in order to commission them, so I think following the money is a better way to look at this. It's also worth mentioning that architects are not involved in a large number of the buildings you see around you. The most unattractive buildings I can think of, like Wal-Mart Supercenters or self-storage facilities, are certainly not heavily influenced by the hand of an architect. Without specific examples, it's hard to know exactly what you are thinking of when you bring up this topic. Much resistance to development is cloaked in complaints about style when in reality, people just don't want things to change.

Mark Hogan at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

There are a number of factors: 1 - What is popular is not necessarily good. 2 - Beauty can be subjective and objective. Fashion is a 'subjective' beauty. 3 - There is a high level of visual illiteracy amongst the general public, due to not teaching subjects that require a high level of visual understanding. 4 - 'Traditional' architecture is a misnomer anyway. All architectural styles were new when introduced and often unpopular and ridiculed too. 'Comfortable' would be a better term. 5 - Research, development and better solutions to architectural or constructional problems often need new ideas. 6 - Whilst new ideas are often evolutions of previous ones, revolutionary ones are also required. 7 - NIMBYs, 'focus' groups, community involvement and politics usually hinder the process of finding the best objective design solution. 8 - A meritocracy will always be democratically unpopular, despite it being the best rational approach to any issue! For example. Prince Charles' Poundbury development 'works' because of some of the objectively good solutions NOT because of the classical styling. The USA has equivalent developments. Another example. Many of the currently unfashionable architectural developments of the 1960s and 1970s were and are popular with those that they were designed for. The 'problems' are usually due to mismanagement and poor maintenance. 'Traditional' materials, construction methods and aesthetics are often not even remotely relevant to the C21. But then neither is demolishing functional buildings, that can be restored or adapted, just because they are unpopular and/or the visually illiterate cannot understand other solutions!

John Kellett

This was actually the topic of my  thesis in architectural school ("Architecture for architects, aesthetic dissociation between the architect and the client").https://books.google.cl/books?id=-V7YPgAACAAJ&dq=arquitectura+para+arquitectos&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQku3cmKHMAhULkpAKHWc9A9QQ6AEIQjAD I think the reason is that architects, in the beginnings of the XX century, separated from the common sense of construction and started to follow modern theories (inspired by an optimism about progress, a mechanistic view, and Marxists ideas) that by this day proved to be wrong in many ways. The so called "Modernism". These theories continue in essence today and are taught in 99% of architectural schools. This separates the architects from the real needs of the people and, in lack of a real, comprehensive and empirical theory, architects end up wasting a lot of energy in designs that no one really needs.There is today a bunch of architects and theorists (that are getting more attention with time), that propose a different view of architecture. An empirical, science based and historically inspired architecture, that focus in the needs of the human and the environment. One of these theorists is http://zeta.math.utsa.edu/~yxk833/, whom I have the privilege to know and i have helped translating his books to spanish.

Francisco Contreras

Most people appreciate good modern creative architecture. They understand that to simply duplicate historic forms is to be stagnant. That said buildings must be humane, have obvious entry's , be functional, have clear circulation, and be detailed and built with care and high quality durable materials. As important as individual building design is buildings, modern or otherwise must work in context with their surroundings. Folks must be able to get from one building to the other easily and on foot. (Beijing, Dubai, Shanghai are terrible in this regard while London and New York are terrific) Buildings need to be mixed use, have retail, restaurants, and if possible residential elements along with commercial/offices to be accepted by the public.  San Francisco is great at this even though the individual architecture isn't particularly sepectacular. Modern buildings by Frank Gehry, Norman Foster, and yes , even SOM have been great successes and popular with the 'masses' because they have human scale. Many famous Architects, like LeCorbusier built monstrosities that were irrational responses to their hatred of ornament and what they called bourgeois design of the 'past'.  Jeez, I could go on forever about this topic but I guess the bottom line is that the city planning elements such as good circulation, transit, mixed use, and a pedestrian scale,  are much more important than individual buildings esthetics

Gordon Crespo

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.