>>1147400My theory is that the necessity of design shifted. The view of what makes a design good is not its functionality, but rather how "different" it is. Succeeding as an architect is no longer dependent on building something that functions well, but rather designing something that is different and stands out. The lower incomes of the past meant that a building was not just a generational investment, but a multi-generational legacy meant to last for many many years. They were designed from local materials which were readily available. The ancient Roman architect Vitruvius stated that good design meant the building was durable, useful, and beautiful. Over time, particularly in the 20th, and now the 21st century this view has shifted towards a view of individualism. Being different is treated as the goal, rather than being effective. The buildings viewed as the most "prized" in the postmodern era are those which are often the most different, and the architects who design these "unique" structures are often the most successful. It's a societal trend towards individuality, rather than a focus on the community which has been lost. Look at the photo I've attached, the building is horrific. But most noticeable is that cube object on the top which has no function and makes the aesthetic of the building much worse. It's existence is intentional because it makes the structure more noticeable, rather than a design strictly built upon function.
