Is New Architecture Worse Than Old Architecture

People without a background in architecture are often quick to express their distaste for current building designs; they contrast the masterful artistry adorning old buildings with the refrain of make-up and jewellery on new ones and use that as evidence for the claim that current architecture is soulless and bland. In answer to this, let me first introduce something known as the Golden Age fallacy.

A writer that goes by JJJ explains it well in an article in Medium as the"cognitive error that occurs when we believe that a specific era in the past was inherently better than the present or any other time. It is characterized by selective memory, idealization, and a lack of critical analysis."

When people think of Vicotrian, Gothic, Greek, or ancient Islamic architecture (just to name a few), the images that pop up into their heads are those of monumental palaces and grand houses of worship which leads them into then thinking that all buildings of these periods were constructed with similar levels of exquisite craftsmanship, which would be an example of the consequences of selective memory in action.

The ugly buildings are not usually remembered. Once ugly or average looking houses become old, they are demolished, and in their places new dwellings are constructed. On the other hand, stunning buildings often get regularly maintained, documented, and renovated. This in turn leaves us in a situation where the only remaining structures of any one era are the best that that era had to offer, so that when people come along, they only see the still standing marble and gold monuments, and not the long since torn down and replaced average Joe mud, thatch, and timber huts.

And this is just the result of selective memory.

People sometimes tend to idolise certain time periods, and form ideas of what life must have looked like in these periods without actually looking too closely at the available literature. However since this is not the topic for this article, I will not go into further detail and instead provide a link for a detailed exploration of it, and a second link for a witty overview.

In addition to all of this, it often slips people's minds to think of the economy involved with erecting an apartment building or office tower. Although architects are the ones responsible for a building's design, they very rarely have absolute reign and liberty. They have to adhere to budget and use requirements, and obey city codes and regulations. Whilst the latter is often undeniably for the best, the earlier can sometimes be suffocating.

Here I am not talking about a married, working or middle class couple finally wanting to build their dream home on a small budget after years of saving up, but instead am referring to business owners and real estate developers wanting to maximise profit at the expense of the buildings appearance and it's amenity for future residents. Even if the developers are not greedy, there are many good reasons for them to sideline appearance and comfort, particularly when aspiring to provide as many units as they can at affordable prices for struggling communities or during housing crises.

What further exacerbates this issue is the deceptiveness of the semantics involved in discussing recent architectural styles. For instance, Modern architecture, unintuitively, is the architectural style that had dominated the western world between the 1930s and 1960s. This style was revolutionary when it was first introduced, and skyrocketed to stardom after both World Wars due to its function-focused philosophy. Then when it's novelty factor faded over time, and it's machine-like efficiency became unnecessary, it became no longer "clean and refreshing," and was instead labelled as "soulless and boring." Since then, many new styles have stepped onto the mainstage, and Modern architecture is no longer trendy amongst architecture schools.

The semantics problem that this has introduced is that, now, if someone is to talk about 21st century architecture, they need to be careful not to describe it as modern (a synonym of current or contemporary) lest they be construed as referring to that specific style in the 1960s; if a non-architect was flipping through a design magazine and happened to come across an article criticising Modern architecture, then they might understandably think that it is talking about architecture in 2024.

All that said, it should be clear now why new buildings might appear to be shy to put on make-up: most of all buildings have always been unashamedly bare due to budget constraints. And thinking otherwise would be falling for the Golden Age fallacy. Moreover, modern architecture is not boring and soulless like Modern architecture.