| This is some strange no? It looks like you are talking about city planning more than architecture when talking about city centers. Modern designs are affected by supply and demand, while modernist designs have been supplanted by many other school. Innovation has ranged from tiny homes, to livable homes, to new materials, to shipping containers, building heights, concrete types, designs and more. I’ve seen architectural styles emerge and evolve from different countries, so it’s hard to read this and find the source of your opinion. The creation of public spaces is highly dependent on the governance of those localities. I was bemoaning the growth of self sufficient enclaves as a real estate solution in Mumbai, but I acknowledge that this is the market providing for its consumers what the government is yet to provide. Is this primarily an attack on academia, under the assumption that everyone hates the combination of “innovation” “modernism” and “professors”? |
For one, you don‘t need academics to build houses.
It‘s an idea of the 20th century that you would.
Previously architecture schools were part of the art departments. A bit of engineering, maybe, but that‘s it.
Now that you have academics, they need to be innovative.
The old doesn‘t count. Architecture becomes like fashion. Students are scolded if they want to produce anything traditional.
This is true for 99% of architecture schools worldwide. Notre Dame is a noticeable exception, as are several summer schools in Europe (by INTbau for example).
There is zero reason for neglecting or denying traditional architecture. The Romans have already known how to live well. Without artificial air condition. Perfectly climate adapted. Natural materials.
Second, architecture schools are not about education, it‘s about becoming part of a cult. It‘s about telling a story, about winning competitions, and about convincing investors. Not so much pleasing the users of a building.