1. HUD doesn’t have anything to do with international urbanization, and

2. the modernist experiment that this building is a near perfect example of, together with blatant racism, was far more destructive of the U.S. urban fabric than any other movement in history. This building replaced an old African American neighborhood (buildings like Capitol Hill) that was considered “blighted”, which of course meant that it contained working class African Americans and it was close to the city center. It was buldozed to provide people like Breuer and IM Pei empty canvasses on which to experiment (and to provide an opportunity for developers to make lots of money, mostly gov’t funded). This building, and many others in SW, uses its lot spoorly and has no relationship to the street, block, adjacent buildings, or neighborhood (such as it is). This building is a single-use dead zone.

I prefer the mundane, boring, sometimes ugly buildings south of Dupont Circle to these over-designed starchitectural abominations, because the boring buildings have storefronts and restaurants and abutt each other and the side walk, and therefore create a livable, walkable, pleasant experience for the pedestrian.

These issues might seem trivial, nitpicky, or merely esthetic, but the design of our cities, as many have point out (from Jane Jacobs to ) is an important determining factor in whether or not a neighborhood or city has high crime, poverty, and social unrest.

“In the early part of the 20th century, modernist aesthetics in architecture swept aside the ideologically entrenched symbols of classicism for an era of quantifiable performance, geometric minimalism and transparency in construction technique.”

One of modernisms primary faults repeated here is the over-simplified characterization of the prevailing architectural establishment as being nothing more than “ideologically entrenched symbols of classicism”. Then “an era of quantifiable performance” is one of those empty marketing terms better suited to a government consultant aiming to soak up more work. “Geometric minimalism” would leave out several early modernists such as Reitveld. “Transparency in construction technique” leaves out Corbu.

This hall of mirrors intellectualism where by one has to agree to so many premisis to even begin a discussion does exactly what the early modernists strove to do. Divorce the architect from any responsability towards the public by speaking over their heads.

“detached signifiers”??? Designing a building for one’s parents would help in understanding what architecture is actually about because they (presumably) wouldn’t put up with all this blather as an excuse for designing. Architectural schools should turn towards a trade school model to actually ground the building process in things that actually matter. If you are not an architect, all my points have been a misunderstanding, and please accept my applologies.

In my view one of the two most destructive legacies of Modernism was not its alienating forms or abstract details but its environmental arrogance. Post-Modernism never bothered to correct that and only aped historic stylistic flourishes in a misguided attempt to restore “meaning” to architecture. Polysemy is the fundamental condition of architecture and to pretend that “a” meaning can be pre-loaded onto an architectural element was really remarkably naive.

From the environmental perspective–which I define as the irreducible relationship of building to situation, both natural and cultural–Modernism and Post-Modernism are indistinguishable. Both assume that we can build anything anywhere, facing any orientation, and simply add technology to suit. Put a pediment on it if that’s the fashion, but it changes nothing about the building.

In the end, architecture derives all of its meaning from place…that’s not an “-ism”, nor is it a movement. It’s just the way it is. One day soon we will stop defining ourselves reactionarily, post and post-post, still suffering our Modernist hangover.

Oh, and wondering what the other most destructive legacy of Modernism is? Architecture’s view of itself as art. But, that will have to wait for another time…

Thank you for this excellent photo tour and for your commentary. You\’ve given me many buildings to take in on my next trip to D.C., and I\’m especially interested in seeing the JP2 Center.