Modernism vs Neo-Traditionalism Essay -- essays research papers

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 beas, cheaper housing and more efficient use of space. This was to be accomplished by creating vertic all in ally dense spaces with the use of the new inventions of the nineteenth century, such as steel, glass, electricity and elevators. By change magnitude 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 piece . 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 todays citizens, assurei ng to escape the ordinary, colorless(prenominal) office buildings. Boring and redundant, is modernism today what it was conceptualized to be? Its ideas shape todays 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 mans chief sparing 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 building block 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 understand the problem of fireproofing and were definitely less costly than the materials used for traditional buildings. At the same time, mode rnist buildings became uniform built from the same materials, modular, colorless with the same components, flat roofs and wish 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 ruination the cities with corporate gigantism, failing to creat... ... mantic 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 b eautiful. 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 decorate Ive ever seen.