From time to time I’m reminded of how unrepentant certain purveyors and apologists of modernism are regarding their role in the destruction of our cities. On the website “CityLab” one particular specialist in “design and architecture” (sic) writes about the magnificence of particular mid-century atrocities thrust upon Buffalo, New York in praise of such soul crushing examples of horrific inhumane structures that I can’t help but think it must be tongue and cheek.
These buildings are praised as noteworthy examples of urban transportation infrastructure worthy of protection(!):
Maybe he really does like this, but it’s like someone suffering from coprophagia (I looked it up) thinking they should give nutritional advice when they should realize that they need to seek help. Immediately.
This is public art?
Remember when you read “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to your kids? Think about it. I’ll give you a second. My own heuristic is that it to be art it must be beautiful, meaningful, difficult to execute, or some combination thereof with a bonus, of course, for originality…but not in total absence of the other three.
I can’t imagine a more degrading streetscape than this:
Compared to these simple, beautiful, humanizing concepts:
Anyone who disagrees needs to kept as far away as possible from any publications that might influence decision makers in urban design. He should also see a doctor. Soon. Like, right away. I know the site is called CityLab, but maybe we should stop encouraging such experimentation on our cities.
100% agree, you’re not the only one that thought “WTF?”
I saw those on my recent trip to Buffalo. I was also struck by how ugly they are, but also that they take up so much space. They’re just subway stations, so I’m not sure why they’re so big.
Today Buffalo Rising posted a piece I wrote with updates on some transit-oriented development efforts in Buffalo. LINK: https://www.buffalorising.com/2018/09/metro-rail-tod-study-results-go-public/
In the piece I discuss Mark Byrnes’ CITYLAB article, including where I agree and disagree with him.
Mark makes no bones about being a proponent of mid-century modern and brutalist architecture, and in his piece he does what a proponent is supposed to do and does it well, in my view. Even when I disagree with Mark, I still value his perspective and analysis. Mark got his graduate degree in Buffalo at the UB School of Architecture and Planning, and I appreciate how, in his work, he often shines a spotlight on Buffalo issues that often get short-shrift and low-information coverage from local media — if they are covered at all.
Agree or disagree, Mark’s recent article is another good example of that, in my view.
Understood. I’m sure he’s a wonderfully erudite man and sincere in his beliefs. I simply think that the mid century architectural style he champions is an aesthetic abomination and partly culpable for the mid century evisceration of American cities. Nothing personal.
Got it. Preservation of MCM can be a tough sell because preservationists are often urbanists, as well, and MCM buildings are often anti-urban.
Hello! I left a comment earlier this weekend, but it hasn’t shown up. Did the comment go into a moderation queue (or something)? Would someone check on that, please? Thank you!
Sorry about that! It’s up now!