I’d love to better understand how the modernists conquered ~all architectural and planning programs. Why was there no effort to conserve the older mode of these institutions? Or if if there was, why and how was it defeated.
I’m guessing it has more to do with that the Bauhaus was the godfather of architectural education. Prior to it, there wasn’t a terribly established and deep well of architecture and planning schools. Most architects were trained by an older architect as an apprentice (see Frank Lloyd Wright). Professional registration came along, and with it, the need for the academy,
So I think the schools came of age along with the ideology.
I’m asking the narrow question of institutional transformation. Lots of clients dislike modern architecture now, but the clients aren’t dragging the academy to change…
Damn good question, but I think you are presuming too much influence by designers and planners. I think the answer, or at least a good part of it, is in the post-Watergate saying “follow the money.”
Planners and designers have clients. Their clients at the time the urban spaces that so many want to restore were prominent businessmen who wanted the buildings they paid for to project a sense of stable prosperity and who were not fully committed to the car. By the 50s and 60s, their clients were corporate managers who wanted everything to be shiny and new, and who almost literally worshipped the automobile. That’s too simple, but the evolution of the professions and professional schools was always reflecting their clientele, not setting the trends.
Thinking in terms of a longer historical arc--that is, the transition from the pre-industrial world to the modern world--the most consequential trends have been the growing separation between residence and workplace and the trend toward the companionate, closed nuclear family. Anti-urbanism is downstream from both of these trends. Furthermore, this informs the common understanding that cities should be less urban.
I’d love to better understand how the modernists conquered ~all architectural and planning programs. Why was there no effort to conserve the older mode of these institutions? Or if if there was, why and how was it defeated.
I’m guessing it has more to do with that the Bauhaus was the godfather of architectural education. Prior to it, there wasn’t a terribly established and deep well of architecture and planning schools. Most architects were trained by an older architect as an apprentice (see Frank Lloyd Wright). Professional registration came along, and with it, the need for the academy,
So I think the schools came of age along with the ideology.
I’m asking the narrow question of institutional transformation. Lots of clients dislike modern architecture now, but the clients aren’t dragging the academy to change…
This is fascinating! So it wasn’t a revolution, but a founding. No wonder it’s so entrenched…
What about the academe beaux arts? Outlier of premodern arts ed?
Damn good question, but I think you are presuming too much influence by designers and planners. I think the answer, or at least a good part of it, is in the post-Watergate saying “follow the money.”
Planners and designers have clients. Their clients at the time the urban spaces that so many want to restore were prominent businessmen who wanted the buildings they paid for to project a sense of stable prosperity and who were not fully committed to the car. By the 50s and 60s, their clients were corporate managers who wanted everything to be shiny and new, and who almost literally worshipped the automobile. That’s too simple, but the evolution of the professions and professional schools was always reflecting their clientele, not setting the trends.
There is a reason I picked up on Russell KIrk's designation of automobiles as "mechanical jacobins" https://kirkcenter.org/environment-nature-conservation/the-mechanical-jacobin/
Thinking in terms of a longer historical arc--that is, the transition from the pre-industrial world to the modern world--the most consequential trends have been the growing separation between residence and workplace and the trend toward the companionate, closed nuclear family. Anti-urbanism is downstream from both of these trends. Furthermore, this informs the common understanding that cities should be less urban.
Excellent column. I'm all for applying that Burkean wisdom in new ways.