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 margin modernism underlies matchless of the greatest ideas in architectural development. Modernism was meant to abide more green areas, cheaper housing and more efficient use of space. This was to be accomplished by creating vertically dense spaces with the use of the new inventions of the nineteenth century, such as steel, glass, electricity and elevators. By decreasing costs of building, modernists hoped to bequeath cheaper housing, affordable to almost bothbody. The modernist movement was also promising to meet the growth demand for maculation spaces, hence the motto form follows function . Today, the inha pussants of either large city are able to see products of modernist influence. Its opposite, neo-traditionalism, is admired for its strike and variety. Small City U.S.A. is an extremely popular concept among at onces citize ns, looking to escape the ordinary, color slight 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 down neo-traditional skin. Modernist concepts are of incredible importance and necessity how of all time, they were misunderstood in application.Modernism was a response to the rise of industrial manufacturing as mans chief economic activity. Modernism fulfilled the growing demand for office space. It made use of such inventions as steel, glass, cover and elevators. Steel and concrete allowed building to go to whole new heights. Glass and electricity provided lighting, therefore devising the workday longer. Elevators made the office buildings possible by carrying its inhabitants to any floor in the building. These materials also solved the problem of fireproofing and were definitely little costly than the materials used for traditional buildings. At the same time, modernist buildings became uniform create from the same materials, modular, colorless with the same components, flat roofs and lack of ornamentation. Kunstler argued that such buildings ware seized to have any meaning that they destroy social arrangements and do not consider natural resources. He blamed modernism for ruining the cities with incarnate gigantism, failing to creat... ... supposed 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 distillery be less than those of traditional buildings. I believe that our society exigency 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 beautiful. We need this no less than we need office buildings. Modernism and post-modernism are deemed to be different, and they are in the mother wit 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 showy than neo-traditional. So, maybe one day when all modernist ideals are realized, a psyche will come out of the new Federal Plaza and for a hundredth time think, This is the most relaxing landscape Ive ever seen.