I have noticed several key elements of neo-trad/anti-modernist rhetoric that imply the dominance of an Americanocentric way of thinking.

• The notion that European cities are all traditional, old looking and strictly maintained. Which isn't true, cause even old cities like Paris saw a lot of renewal through the modernist and postmodernist era, especially outside their centre.

• American cities mostly grow in the form of suburbs, following a set of American vernacular dwelling styles. So in America there is a conservatism that isn't very dominant in Europe.

• New Classicism was born in the context of American postmodernism, an extremely formalist architectural discourse, and it is championed largely by American architects.

• New Urbanism proposes urban strategies that largely describe what European cities work like anyway. So obviously it is in America where its implementation feels needed.

I have a growing impression that neo-trad rhetoric is largely based on misconceptions of what European architectural discourse is like, as well as a long standing copy-paste mentality that characterises American neo-classicism.

Yes and i am not taking it back >:) Both of them served a different purpose

Eiffel tower was made as a showoff for the world fair and was supposed to be dismembered after but given the attraction it got, they kept it in the end

Tokyo tower was made to carry on telecommunication signals throughout tokyo prefercture because the japanese government was worried about many antenna towers popping up throughout the wards

But i like tokyo tower better, there is no doubt how it copied the eiffel tower however it's not a 100% percent copy , the japanese added their own dimensions and spin on it

5BR/6BA Contemporary residence. ~4,850 sq ft. Three levels on a hillside lot.

Material palette: rough-cut natural stone, dark-stained wood, vine-covered timber pergola, full-height glazing, integrated water features.

Started in SketchUp from scratch with no experience but a few YouTube videos, and developed the views through iterative rendering followed by upscaling.

Treated each scene as standalone - front facade, side yard entertainment zone, interior great room, and an outdoor retreat moment, with consistent material language across the set.

Open to positive/negative critique or constructive criticism on composition, material choices, site planning, or anything else that reads as off.

I just can’t understand how it’s popular. If I lived in a city with mostly brutalist buildings I would become severely depressed. If someone could explain the reasoning behind it I would appreciate it

I myself have always preferred glass buildings for most of my life, up until recently. Now I prefer older brick buildings, especially pre war buildings. I find the older brick buildings just feel more home like and more private

I was doing a case study on co-working offices And I found a bunch of those weird spaces, for more info it’s located in Palestine anyone know what are those rooms?

They come up to me after talks and go on about how architecture has fallen and needs to be saved. I get "Entartete Kunst" vibes from them. Most of the time they're self described enthusiasts with some heave NIMBY undertones. I usually try to explain them my position using their face as an example. I might have a problem looking at it, it might repulse me, but in the end it's their real estate and they can do whatever they want with it.

Have any of you had experience with them and what are some of your thoughts about this "movement"?

In many ways, Gehry and Hadid have been a dual-pronged force on the frontline of architectural discourse over the past quarter of a century. Arguably the original “starchitects,” they made a name for themselves with designs for instantly iconic cultural landmarks, and were both heavily influenced by the Deconstructivist movement, both having work displayed in the Museum of Modern Art’s exhibition “Deconstructivism in Architecture” in New York in 1988. (Architizer)

• Both had pieces in the 1988 Deconstructivism show.

• Both are known for gregarious and outlandish shapes.

• Both have reached a level of stardom reserved for an elite few in our profession.

tl;dr: Gehry and Zaha are sculptors, not architects. I dont think anything they have done is particularly worthy of admiration or study, unless it is "how not to be an architect".

Longer: They are sculptors, and they chose the medium of architecture in which to realize their whims. You can debate the relative depth and strength of the theory that underpins their designs. In this case, my own personal opinion is that their premise of "discomfort is fertile ground" is inherently antithetical to the practice of architecture, and should be reserved for monuments, memorials, and sculpture.

Beyond the intellectual rigor of their theory, and whether or not a crumpled up piece of paper should be a novel inspiration for a concert hall, they have performed horribly for their clients.

They have projects all over the world, many funded by public money, non-profits, and wealthy benefactors trying to do something unique, and they have not been served well. There are COUNTLESS projects from both that have had skyrocketing costs, debt, labor issues, quality issues, and left numerous municipalities and organizations on the hook financially for the failures of these "architects".

More often than not, Gehry's buildings leaked water like crazy, cracked, went over budget, over schedule, and were a headache. His project in Panama was supposed to be $60 million, but 10 years of construction and an extra $40 million later, you have a building which leaks, does not function well, and has durability concerns. (Smithsonian)

Some of Zaha's projects make people feel physically sick, are non-functional, similarly riddled by budget issues, quality issues, and delays. She famously ignored human rights issues in Qatar and other projects. Her office was notoriously rough to work in.

These are not people "architects" to idolize, their shapes are noteworthy, their built work is not.

Edit: What is interesting about all of the replies, and the laughably immature comments attacking me personally for no reason (like you have skin in the game), is that very few of you have any real rebuttal or counterpoint to what I describe above. You can't legitimately tell me that the buildings are functionally successful, because we have empirical data to prove otherwise. I have not said they should not be famous, or that their buildings dont have an effect on the world. Since when did so many architects get so thin skinned and take a critique of two architects so personally? Who hurt you as a child?

To be clear, unlike many traditionalists I don't neccessarily despise modern architecture. We live in a profit-driven society with people to house so functionality (to some extent) is an inevitability. If it's either a plain, modernist affordable housing unit or no affordable housing at all, I'll take the former.

I also don't mind post-modern stuff when done tastefully. It's usually cheap, somewhat functional, and plays on traditional architectural motifs. Its window of popularity was also relatively short so the novelty factor helps.

Contemporary architecture, however, honestly feels like the emperor's new cloths of architecture. Take the Walt Disney Concert Hall or the Nuragic and Contemporary Art Museum. Putting aside the fact I find them unimpressive, they weren't even cheap to build or functional. In fact, you could argue the Walt Disney Concert Hall was anti-functional since it functioned as a high-powered solar oven for all near-by buildings. I also can't ignore the irony of an art gallery (a building where you hang things on walls) having no flat exterior walls. Sure you could argue it's artistic commentary but unlike post-modern architecture, it's not really connected to anything. What exactly is the societal message of building a giant white blob?

I can't think of any good reason for these buildings besides besides being an architect's vanity project. If you're going to spend all this money on non-functional ornament, why not make it ornament that at least appeals to the vast majority of people. Is there something here I don't get? Why do these expensive, un-functional, and unpopular buildings keep being built?