The Barbariasm of Modern Architecture.

Totalitarianism Masquerading As Design.

If you live in a modern city, you might notice a few things about your buildings. They are probably made of reinforced concrete, glass or steel. Often they are made with a combination of all three of these materials. You might also notice that they are all, without exception, hideous. They need air conditioning and other amenities to be inhabitable, but on the ugly to lovely scale, they are always near the ugly side.

Look at this building; it is over almost 2000 years old and is still used today. Now, look at the building; it is less than 100 years and is currently being used as a building for the Indian government. Notice the differences between them? How did this happen? How did we go from this to this?

Why has "progress" made the world an uglier place?

To understand that, we need to go back to the Roman Empire.

In 1AD, the famous Roman architect Vitruvius stated that a suitable building satisfies three main principles:

Durability - a building, should be robust and remain in good condition

Utility - it should be suitable for the purposes for which it is used

Beauty - it should be aesthetically pleasing.

According to Vitruvius, the architect should strive to fulfil each of these attributes as best as possible. Based on what was built around 1AD and until the 19th century, most buildings seemed to incorporate these three characteristics. From the ancient pyramids of Egypt to the Greek Parthenon to the Islamic temples of India and the Buddhist temples of China - the architecture was an art dedicated to the metaphysical world and the human world. Beauty was the defining characteristic of architecture throughout the ages, but beauty is not merely about aesthetics. As Roger Scruton once said, experiencing beauty is recognizing a form of fittingness or harmony, which applies to works of art and many ordinary things such as a room arrangement or a street scene looking just right or a musical refrain sounds just right.

As you look at the buildings that have defined our civilization, they are beautiful as objects but more importantly, they create harmony within the context where they are found.

The Pantheon is the quintessential building that has stood the test of time and is the best example of what architecture can achieve. A great example of this is the Pantheon in Rome. First built in 114 AD and still used to this day, the Pantheon is one the clearest examples of a building that has instilled Vitruvius' three critical attributes of a building. In terms of durability, it is almost 2000 years old and still used to this day. In terms of utility, it has been a Catholic Church since 609 AD and still holds masses and religious celebrations. As for beauty, the Pantheon has been one of the most influential buildings in world history - the basic structure of the portico in the front and the rotunda behind has been copied and emulated worldwide.

Unfortunately, things took a turn for the worse in the 19th century.

Louis Henry Sullivan was born on the 3rd of September 1856, and he coined the most destructive term in the history of architecture: "form follows function". According to Sullivan, the shape of a building or object should relate to its intended function or purpose (which we now call Functionalism); everything else, such as decoration, ornaments or beauty, was superfluous and should be disregarded. In essence, Sullivan only considered one of the critical attributes (durability, utility, and beauty) essential and the rest superficial. The utility was the only thing that mattered, and since then, the quest for utility has completely desecrated our buildings, towns, and lives.

This 'functionalism' school of thought has dominated the schools of architecture worldwide, stripping buildings and spaces of beauty and durability.

Functionalism is best understood through the life of Le Corbusier, a Swiss architect with a totalitarian mindset which is best found in his most famous quote:

"A house is a machine for living in".

Le Corbusier was a totalitarian who used architecture as a tool of control. To understand Le Corbusier and modern architecture generally, we have to look at the plans he had for Paris. Named Plan Voisin, Le Corbusier wanted to replace a large quarter of Paris with 18 skyscrapers to accommodate tens of thousands of residents. According to Le Corbusier, he needed this radical plan to solve the urban design of Paris, which consisted of grand boulevards that separated the rich from the poor. His idea would have destroyed the very essence of what makes Paris, Paris. Le Corbusier wanted to discard millennia of order and beauty to satisfy his political aims in the name of equality. Thankfully, his plans for Paris were considered too risky, but his spirit of destructiveness was considered imaginative and bold.

The great writer Edmund Burke once said, "History is a pact between the dead, the living and the not yet born". Le Corbusier and modernity in general only 'care' about the living, and that idea has destroyed any concept of sustainable beauty in our living spaces. The living is tools of ideology that can be engineered and controlled by an architect's totalitarian mindset. Our ancestors and what they valued do not matter in the mind of a modernist.

Because essentially, modern architecture is totalitarianism masquerading as design.

The modern architect sees a city or a town as a ground zero for their dictatorship. Instead of passing oppressive laws or sending rebels to prison camps, modern architects use design and space to suffocate humanity and replace it with anti-human design. As a clear example of this anti-human element in modern architecture, Le Corbusier designed a playground at the top of one of his buildings in Marseille, France. This 'playground' consisted of a flat concrete surface without a roof, grass, or greenery. Only someone who truly hates humans would believe that a concrete surface can be a playground to be used by children. One would hope that Le Corbusier would be treated as a totalitarian, but unfortunately, this is not the case. He is one of the most highly regarded architects in world history and is revered in architectural schools. His ideas have permeated every culture that has been stained by modernism. From the United States to China and even in South Africa - the modern building carries the core of Le Corbusier's ideology.

Modern architects want us to live in misery.

The function of a building determines the building; whether humans find the building appealing or beautiful plays no part in the design process. The modern architect uses concrete, steel and glass to make buildings that socially engineer humanity so that they can overcome their petty tendencies. Functionalism, then, is not a form of art but a form of politics. In terms of Functionalism, streets are made for cars, not people. As a functionalist, having a beautiful street on which people can have strolls serves no purpose whatsoever; streets are merely thoroughfares for transportation. A street, therefore, becomes a road and nothing else. Since a house is a machine to live in, it is stripped of all decoration and ornament, leaving only a functional space for people to inhabit physically but not spiritually. Since the architect is a totalitarian, the ingrained humanity of the residents plays no part in their decisions.

We must remember that before WW1, architects had been capable of building differently but in harmony with all that had gone before. Architects were not mad egoists who wanted their names placed on plaques for all to see; they were content to add their little bit to their civilization.

In modernity, with the emphasis on individualism - architects do not seek harmony; they seek revolution. They have done everything possible to make the world an uglier place than before, solely for selfish reasons.

However, when observing places that still have beauty, you are left with one conclusion - beauty matters. Looking at tourism figures for Europe, the world flocks to the cities with the most beautiful buildings. France, Italy, Spain and Turkey lead the pack in tourism. TheseThese countries also happen to have stunning architecture, from Notre Dame to the Hagia Sophia. Humans from all over the world flock to see this beauty first-hand.

So humanity wants beauty, but the architect thinks that humanity is dumb, ill-informed and not educated enough to have a say. However, this 'dumb' humanity flocks to the Taj Mahal, The Palace of Versailles and Notre Dame.

The progressive presumption is that things become better as time goes on, but architecture is a clear example of progressivism as a myth. 

Buildings are not better today than they were 100 years ago; they are worse. A modern building represents the spiritual, intellectual and moral deformity of life in the new millennium.

So, what can we do about it?

It's simple; we need to create human-scaled neighbourhoods again. A town where you can walk anywhere within 15 minutes is around 1/3 of a kilometre; all towns and cities from the ancient to modern world were limited to that size. By building human-scaled towns, it is good to be a human. The streets belong to the people who use them, which reduces crime and insecurity. We will save money on petrol and car costs and most importantly, we can build where we want as human-scaled towns already have far more character and beauty than any city. And you don't need to build your town; they already exist. Some good examples are Granada in Spain, Ulm in Germany and Gamla Stan in the heart of Stockholm in Sweden.

To live better, we do not have to create anything new; we need to accept that our grandparents knew what the good life was.