Why Don’t We Design Buildings Like That Anymore?

This is one of the most common questions I’m asked as I walk through London with friends or family. You know which buildings they’re talking about without me giving you any examples. They point to 17-19th century buildings and ask: Why do we never see details like that anymore? Focusing on ornate Corinthian columns, cornices, and friezes that once told the story of a British Empire in full momentum—and now play host to a Wetherspoons

I can’t argue with their line of questioning. Take a survey and ask which buildings your friends prefer: Royal Albert Hall or National Theatre; Westminster or the New GLA City Hall; V&A Museum or East V&A? Why is it that we seem drawn to complex forms, yet now design and build with clean lines and cold planes? Of course, this is a generalisation—there will be plenty of people who wholeheartedly disagree with this hypothesis. They’ll prefer the GLA to Westminster, and they are of course right in their own opinions. I’m not here to say which is ‘better’, if such a thing can even be answered; we could debate for hours about the merits of each in their own time, and discuss in volumes which of the contemporary age will stand the test of time. Instead, I’m more interested in the nostalgia people appear to have for historical design and their apparent want to bring it into the 21st century. The question presents itself as an accusation and could be re-imaged: Why aren’t you, as the Architect, designing buildings with that level of detail.

There are a few reasons I can bring to mind: A funding issue, perhaps; a skill shortage, arguably; lost knowledge (i.e. masonry work), less convincing. I believe it’s possible to design buildings with all the filigree of the 18th century. It could theoretically be done within a reasonable budget, or at least one that could match the steel & glass frame boxes – this would be done by simply cladding the steel box with stone facades, and creating moulded casts of caryatids and carved frescos. I believe the real reason we no longer design public facing buildings with such ornament is that, in reality, the people do not want it. If we take the argument that ‘art imitates life’ we can establish a clearer reasoning to answer the question. The ‘historical’ Architecture exudes wealth by way of neoclassicalism, and does so ostentatiously, it is grandiose and leaves no questions with the viewer as to the owner’s authority and power. The building manifests a social presence, and here we can see the biggest change in the last 250-300 years – the social presence. In contemporary society, while wealth is still ostentatious, it is arguably far more subtle. Which of us has not embellished an Instagram post to exaggerate a lifestyle that is not a part of our day to day. Have you ever used a photo filter, available to you on any number of apps, to make yourself look younger? How common place today is plastic surgery? Just a small amount of Botox to smooth out the wrinkles? Then how far a leap must we go to reflect this in our art? The art of contemporary architecture does the same thing, we do not want to see gutters and downpipes, junction details or dust traps in the form of alcoves. What we want is a smooth complexion, free of any visual hardship. Where Architects and Masons once spent their time detailing gargoyles, the effort now goes into detailing effortlessness.

Reyner Banham echoed this idea in ‘Theory and Design in the First Machine Age’ – “The architect’s concern for materials and function was overtaken by a desire for clean, machinic perfection – an aesthetic of smoothness of effortless surfaces”. The modernist era, when this was first written is arguably the epicentre of the rejection to classical architecture and the beginning of what we see echoed globally today. The mundane. Over the years since the modernist boom our designs have lulled and whilst the effortless details might be appreciated to a trained eye (as pretentious as that sounds) they’re become boring to the lay-person. As Architect’s we must not forget that public buildings are for the public, not for our own egos; and the fact that I’m always asked the title question tells me the public are not impressed by 21st century Architecture the way they are about the past.

Thomas Heatherwick wrote in his latest book Humanise “Boring is worse than nothing… Boring is a state of psychological deprivation // The brain begins to suffer when it’s deprived of sensory information”. So, the important message here is: If you’re wondering why your office building looks practically identical to every other in your local CBD; if you’re wondering where all the creativity is gone; don’t worry about it. Just ignore it, and get back to work like everyone else!