Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I consider myself a modernist, but I was surprised to find I preferred the Harrods frontage to the modernist building in the picture below it.


The Harrods building has a well proportioned facade. One could say it has good bones. It is only the idiom which organizes its ornament which has fallen out of fashion. None of this should surprise us. Typologically, it is a modern building. There are not 18th Century department stores. The building has elevators and escalators.

The comparison to Sullivan's building is silly. The sites are differently constrained. Harrods low profile fits its context outside the urban core. Carson Piere Scott is sitting in Chicago's Loop; it is downtown where land is expensive. Hence it's greater overall height and lower story to story height.

But even more relevant is that Sullivan's architecture is a series of additions and renovations. The building was not birthed fully formed, but is several projects joined together as additional land was available. Part of his job was to tie these pieces together, and that's what its facade reflects.


Me too. In interior decor, I always thought I liked it clean and modern, but the more I look around I realise I like it comfortable and homely. Not Laura Ashley or shabby chic, but not stark and unfriendly either. Not white walls and chrome. Even in an office, I like colour and warmth.

Clean lines, light and airy, colour and not too much over-ornate art... there has to be a name for this design movement.


Have you seen postmodernism? It seems to fit more or less with that, at least to my layman eye.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: