Things that make bad architecture

As a result of my distaste for much of the built world being produced nowadays, I thought I would offer some critiques for everyone inhabiting it with me to consider. Looking at the architecture in the U.S., much of it, in many ways, is lagging if not void of any architectural validity. Quality design is no longer a priority, but quantity and efficiency. I've made a quick list of ways buildings fail, reasons they frustrate me and do not provide their inhabitants with the many benefits good architecture should. My interest is in designing homes and so my most critical eye is upon this building type.

1- Ornamental excess/ trend reflection: Too many buildings lack good design where it matters, and become mere displays of the latest trends in architectural style and materiality. For example, the 'Tuscan' obsession right now in the western U.S. Trends come and go- if you look at subdivisions in Southern California you can tell which decade they were built by the style they are reflecting. There, entire shopping centers and areas of town can become run down and abandoned when the style they represented has run its course. I have witnessed the strange phenomenon of a strip mall getting a make over- application of the trendy stone cladding, correct beige tone stucco and the obligatory arch here and there- and all of a sudden it is a thriving oasis once again.

This seems odd and also wasteful when so much material and money is spent on superficialities with such short life spans. I realize buildings require maintenance and the occasional renovation. But good architecture and design is timeless. It should reflect the culture, character and climate of the area it is in and not fleeting trends. In places where culture and character is becoming increasingly lacking, this wasteful cycle is thrown into hyper drive. Good design has never been so needed and so disregarded.

2- Faux cladding: I see this often as a way to disguise an otherwise ugly and poorly designed building. Cladding does have its place- perhaps on a high rise where the true material is too large, heavy or expensive to use, but if it is simply for the purpose of a trend like that mentioned above, please spare me. Let something a little less costly and permanent like your car tell the world you seek its approval and inclusion.

3- Stucco: Just a nasty looking exterior material. Affordabilty makes it attractive, so I suppose it has its place. But it looks and acts cheap as well! Concrete block is infinitely cooler in my book, and am still partial to wood and other materials displaying a more natural beauty. In general, I like the idea of using materials that don't need to painted and disguised, but can be celebrated for their unique properties just as it is.

4- Fabric Awnings: I think of a sculptor finishing a masterpiece in stone, celebrating the human body- Then ruining it by dressing it up in a cheesy outfit. If it is a true masterpiece, then the outfit is unneeded and detracts from the finished work. If it is good architecture I feel like it should have more of a sense of permanence and purity. If shade or shelter is required, a material which doesn't require regular bathing and maintenance would, to me, be more successful. The idea of materials that age well is something I am also a fan of. Too often, fabric awnings look like an old band aid or cheap remedy for a design that missed something somewhere during the process.

5- The 'Grand Entry': I am not impressed by these, am I completely insane? I feel like these have become increasingly important in the world of those seeking their neighbors praise, or those building a home as a temple unto themselves. An article I once read discussed this design element, along with a couple others, as an extremely effective selling tool. The person mentioned that such a feature ups the 'wow' factor for someone viewing the house quickly and superficially. Once they move in they find the grand entry to be less impressive, but more a waste of space, decreasing privacy throughout the house and increasing the noise level unnecessarily. I suppose that is one of the main differences in buying a developer designed home and one designed by an architect. Wow factor, trendy materials and gimmicks to make a quick profit vs. quality design tailored to the needs of the occupant. But people continue to eat it up. It is a waste of space! It serves no function but to impress the person as they enter! If that is a main requirement in your home's design, please don't seek out my input. I think of some of my favorite architects and their designs, even when a home is large, the entry is often quite humble. For me, a home with a connection with nature is important, not one that is meant to outdo it through the use of high ceilings and spiraling staircases. Spaces with a sense of openness or of intimacy should be strategically designed and located to fit the users needs, lifestyle and the overall site.

6- Site unspecific design: Too many buildings look like they were designed without any particular site in mind. This leads to generic, predictable, out-of-place, or at the least, inefficient design. Quality architecture should respond to the site and client and user needs. Although the idea of green building is being touted as the latest fashion, many of the concepts regarding sustainable design have been there since the beginning. Orienting the building to maximize/minimize daylight and heat gain, use of local and sustainable materials, etc are simple strategies of good design that until modern times have simply been logical and necessary decisions. One of the main things that bothers me with tract and 'cookie cutter' homes is their uniformity despite their location and orientation. Many buildings today look as though they were designed without any visit to a site or research into the surroundings of where the project is to be. But most don't care about such things when they wish only for maximum square footage and four car garage. Impact on the site, energy efficiency, conscientious use of materials are all things for others to worry about- but as the built world increasingly taxes the natural world and we find our quality of life being compromised, a return to such basic principles is important.

7- Disconnect from nature: This issue blends together with the previous- In our complete ignoring of the world outside our own built universe, we not only are wasteful, but harmful to the environment. A connection with nature is not only beneficial for daylighting, heating, cooling and ventilation, but also healthy for people themselves. There is a tradition now of dominating, neglecting and abusing the natural environment which must be reversed before it is too late. A balanced relationship should be the goal.

8- Reliance on unnatural systems: Last idea and one that has been talked about already is the overuse of a/c and ventilation systems, electric lighting, and other inorganic systems. While their use is sometimes unavoidable, simple design solutions and the right materials can usually greatly reduce the need for these energy consuming and pollution causing systems. Corbusier called the house 'a machine for living'- and I love the imagery it brings to mind. A place adaptable to fit the changes in living and usage by its occupants as well as to accommodate the changing environment outside. To paraphrase architect Glenn Murcutt, a home should be a living and breathing thing, one that closes up when it's cold and rainy and opens up and can breathe when it is hot and sunny. Bad architecture relies on unnatural systems- these systems allow for sloppiness as they can make up for the design's incompetencies.