slow building · 2006-06-06 17:36

I was speaking to Paul on IRC, and he wondered what the lack of ornament and decoration in modern buildings is doing to society. I agree; I’m a far bigger fan of brutalist architecture than most, but most new buildings are just, well, boring square boxes, wood, steel and glass. White walls. Wood floors. Right angles (though I don’t consider the blobject movement any more interesting or inspiring).

To me, it was the separation of interior design and architecture that was at fault (and the movement of star architecture to form and napkin-sketched primitives & deconstructionism rather than use), but most notably the speed buildings are constructed. If buildings are put up fast, there’s not time to try, change and adapt. There’s certainly no time to take stock of the shell, and alter the interiors as they are constructed. Old buildings used to take centuries to build, often with plans, architects and ideas changing constantly. New buildings appear without reflection. The whole remuneration system is designed to stop change, and to ‘finish’ as quickly as possible. The snagging should take place throughout the process, not at the end.

So, it’s time for slow building. Like slow food, it should celebrate the process, regionalness, and history, reward reflection, and most of all interalise change. I want skyscrapers that take a thousand years to finish, new towns that are built a street a year, demolition a room at a time.

I’m a fan of the oft-derided Arts & Crafts movement, and do miss some of the pretentiousness, indulgence and decadence in design and architecture. A few curlicues wouldn’t go amiss. I want new romantic architecture like Marc Almond and Visage even more than the neo romantic stylings of Saarinen.

(here, have a free link to the wonderful Grammar of Ornament (thanks, Paul))

home