Less is more or was it a bore?

We are well into the 21st century and can now look back on two major architectural influences of the last century, Mies and Venturi. Herr Mies, one of the European transplants who brought modernism to our shores between the great wars is credited with saying ‘less is more’ and this philosophy permeated his architecture. One of my favorites is the Seagram Building in New York and another is the National Gallery in Berlin. These buildings are exercises in minimalism exquisitely detailed with rich materials, almost spiritual in nature, what’s not to love? This approach led to many imitators; some good and many not so much. As for the good, the Lever House by SOM in New York comes to mind and I am sure you can think of several more. And for the bad, this minimal approach was, in my view, one of the great undoings of the second half of 20th century architecture. And then we look to the ugly; developers and architects who got hold of this new aesthetic and created buildings which were stripped of detail and mostly devoid of quality materials. While the early modernism period produced many great buildings, one could argue the vast majority were poor imitations at best and misguided value engineered atrocities at worst. What resulted was, for the most part, a sea of boring lifeless boxes.
 
In 1966 Bob Venturi wrote Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, and posed the challenge ‘less is a bore.’ This was Venturi’s rebuke of the result of the architecture of minimalism, and a return to a more interesting mannerist approach to design. This is evident with his mother’s house, the Trubek and Wislocki houses, Wu Hall at Princeton, the Seattle Art Museum … the list goes on. Venturi believed in design as something more complex, routed in scale, texture, culture and history. He was not an advocate for historic pastiche that many misinterpreted his book to mean. Just as Mies’s work led to lifeless boxes, Venturi’s work led to the over exuberant collisions of misunderstood historic styles.
 
As we move towards the brave new world where the AIA 2030 Commitment reigns supreme, can we take any lessons from these two masters of the last century? Let’s face it, neither of them were particularly interested in sustainability – they practiced in a world of seemingly limitless energy and resources. Today our understanding of the limits of our planet is better understood, be that peak oil or sea rise. ‘Less is more’ may be a great philosophy to live your life in a more sustainable way; don’t super-size that burger, do you really need 25 pairs of shoes? But does it still pertain to architecture? Isn’t our world full of complexity? Is simplicity a thing of the past? Not if you are Tadao Ando who’s new addition to the Clark Museum in Williamstown will be open in July. Then again, I’m not sure he has signed the 2030 Commitment, but given his body of work I’m not sure you would want him to. He is the exception that proves the rule.

Can one still design a building that is, for the most part glass, exposed structural systems with all elevations the same regardless of their solar orientation? Unfortunately many to the new buildings going up in the seaport district of Boston seem to be stuck in this motif. For the most part these buildings are scale-less glass boxes that presumably just meet the energy code. So is modernism as it was brought to us between the wars on its last legs? I believe that buildings need to be more interactive with and in their micro environments, dare I say more mannerist, more complex, more interesting, messy and vital. Perhaps the buildings need to be more responsive to the occupants, more connected to our culture and less about abstract modernist dogma? Dogma replaced by building science, energy and water conservation, daylight harvesting, and carbon footprint are driving the new design aesthetic … viva complexity!

Let’s not forget a little contradiction so we can have some fun while we are at it.