Book Synopsis: Form Follows Fiasco: Why Modern Architecture Hasn’t Worked

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Form Follows Fiasco is a book by Peter Blake that criticizes modern architecture.

Peter Blake was a modernist architect and a prolific author. The book was published in 1978, so some of his arguments may no longer be valid, however a multitude still holds true. The title plays on the famous statement by the American architect Luis Sullivan, “form follows function,” which later became the maxim associated by modern architecture. In its simplest form, it means that the shape of a building, or object, should directly relate to its intended purpose or function. Modern architecture came about through the technological innovations of the early 20th century that resulted in the creation of reinforced concrete, steel framing and glass. Referred to as the “machine age,” modern architecture aspired to create a machine aesthetic, minimalist architecture stripped of ornamentation, where the function was clearly articulated in its form. This book critiques eleven “fantasies” of modern architecture.

1.The fantasy of function

“All over the world, buildings that have been recycled from an earlier function to a new one seem to server their users better today, than they ever did before”

He argues against the high cost of construction and that the new buildings that were built with a specific purpose never ended up fitting that purpose well. He basically argues that we shouldn’t be building new buildings, but converting older ones to suit our purpose and those that have done this have created beautiful spaces. Today, this same argument is voiced.

2.The fantasy of the open plan

“Few of the architects ever move into one of their ephemeral creations. The open plan is for somebody else, preferably someone who is dead to noise and blind to views” 

Le Corbusier pioneered the open plan or “free plan” in his five points of architecture. This was brought about because of the new advances in technology that replaced the wall with the column as the supporting feature, which allows the space to be molded around it, rather than as a result of the structure. He argues that these open spaces don’t serve anyone well and architects who build them have their offices in old spaces with character that they go back to at the end of the day, because even they realize their drawbacks.

3.The fantasy of purity 

“Unless modern industry came up with such miracle materials, modern architecture was sunk” 

Modern architecture was obsessed with the idea of purity. Geometric forms were regarded as the basis for the movement. A limited color palette, with white as the primary color used and the idea of perfect lines and edges. However, the real world takes a toll on buildings and many of these buildings that were built handled time poorly. They leaked, concrete aged with water stains and many other problems. Weathering and maintenance made it impossible to obtain the ideal of flawless architecture of pure geometric forms. They wanted to create the machine aesthetic, but seemingly mass-produced components were painstakingly handcrafted. New materials that failed were not reported and censorship of bad coverage in architectural magazines could cause manufacturers to withdraw their advertisement, so nobody heard of the errors and the materials were continued to be used.

4.The fantasy of technology 

“Most teachers of architecture now, at schools around the globe, never really learned how to build. Their lessons are paper lessons, their theories, paper theories. And paper does not stand up terrifically well in the outside world.”

Prefabrication of parts was the aspiration of modern architecture, but it’s almost impossible to achieve. Each manufacturer wanted their product to be used so used, so used specifications different from their competitors. For this to have become possible, a national standard would have had to have been passed in the United States and that never happened. Of course, today prefabrication of parts is a lot different from what it was in the middle of the 20th century, and it has probably become more possible to achieve.

5.The fantasy of the skyscraper 

“The modern movement, which grew out of a passionate involvement with the human condition, has, via the skyscraper, become the chief apologist for the real estate speculator.”

The skyscraper was and is the most visible symbol of modern movement. Le Corbusier created a plan to turn Paris into a city of skyscrapers called the Radiant city. The city was a city for automobiles, large streets were raised to promote traffic, glass-walled high rises laid out in a grid pattern flanked these streets and people were regulated to raised platforms above the motorways. According to Blake, glass structures took over a city, a city made up of mirrors facades, blindly reflecting back and forth into each other into infinity. The skyline became a skyline of mirrors and windswept plazas and the sidewalk, a place of interaction is replaced by the elevator. Le Corbusier’s ideas ultimately became the inspiration for many failed public housing built in this era.

6.The fantasy of the ideal city

“well intentioned diagrams scaled to the automobile age rather than organism scaled to the needs of man”

The Radiant city mentioned above represents the “ideal” city for many modern architects. However, they are missing the street. The street creates the city, human interaction on a human scale. It’s what Jane Jacobs writes about in The Death and Life of the Great American City.

“The urbanists of the modern movement rejected the street when it became an “urban sewer””

7.The fantasy of mobility 

“The ideal ideal city would be one that required few, if any forms of mechanical transportation. It is a place of crowds and confrontations, not of highways that are symbols of alienation.”

The ideal city represented by modern architects was a city of decentralization, with a reliance on highways and the car.

“Meanwhile, those stupendous viaducts envisaged by Le Corbusier and realized by the likes of Robert Moses, may soon join other antiquities on our skylines, like aqueducts, constructed before western man learned how to stow plumbing and similar necessities out of sight.”

8.The fantasy of zoning 

“The ideal city block was and continues to be a wild mishmash of disparate activities-a living “street theater”

According to Blake, the zoning of a city into areas of usage is bad. Business districts become barren wastelands after work hours, making them places where people avoid. They don’t have a population to sustain them throughout all hours of the day.

 9.The fantasy of housing 

“The excitement found in older cities is, in large part because of the cheerful chaos randomly built into them: the fact that most people, live where they work, shop where they live, and educated and entertain themselves and their relatives, friends and neighbors in those same general precincts”

“Men come together in the city to live a good life” Aristotle

10.The fantasy of form

“Form, in short, seemed to conquer content”

Aside from architecture, the modern movement brought in a multitude of new creations. Everything from furniture, to appliances, to chess seats and silverware were designed in the modernist way. According to Blake, “the furniture was not pleasurable to sit in and “appears to be a boon primarily to chiropractors, there are some chairs that cannot be easily abandoned without the help of an orthopedic surgeon.” Just look at the zig zag chair. In Blake’s eyes, the modern movement created unsuitable chairs, back-breaking beds, unreadable types, complicated coffee machines, toys children hate, ceilings lamps designed by someone who hated replacing light bulbs 

11.The fantasy of architecture 

“Somehow, without apparently being aware of what they were doing, the masters and their followers in the modern movement have become advocates and promoters of ugliness, of venality, of greed, of social disintegration, of land exploration.”

Overall, this book highlighted aspects of modern architecture that for me, weren’t talked about in graduate school. The way it is taught separates the architecture from its impact. Architecture is viewed as autonomous, but I don’t think architecture can be. It exists in a world of people and in order to perceive if architecture is “good” or “bad,” it has to take in to account how well it serves those who use it.