Owings & Merrill, and the Seagram Building (1958) by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, both in New York, became the paradigmatic standards for American corporate architecture.

As the curtain walls of those landmarks cloned themselves in the thousands of high-rises that made up postwar downtown America, however, the unhappiness of the public grew. The obtuse application of rational planning principles in urban renewals, including the brutal construction of highways through city centers, led to a loss of distinctive character and a sense of anonymity. The resultant decline in the quality of life and property values augured certain death for modern architecture. By the end of the 1960s, the austere schemes of modernist architects garnered only public condemnation. But 40 years later, modern architecture is being revived to popular acclaim. How is that possible? And why now?

Modernism, through all its permutations to the present day, has stood for an alliance with technology in the belief that this will yield the betterment of human life — in spite of the perennial elusiveness of this goal. Technology’s manifestation in architecture goes beyond the hardware that makes a functional building; it is an investment in the future of knowledge. As alarm over the maladies of the natural environment has engendered new faith in technology to make them right, so sustainable design is the latest incarnation of modern architecture, which has learned its environmental lesson and is responding accordingly. Diversity is the strength of this renewed commitment to modernism, rather than its contradiction. Architects such as Tadao Ando, Zaha Hadid, Renzo Piano, Rafael Moneo, Steven Holl and Frank Gehry can coherently coexist as part of the same trajectory without the straitjacket of a single formal language. Long gone are the days of the endless repetition of the Miesian high rise.

But in light of this modernist renewal, what explains the simultaneous comeback of the mid-century modern style? A major factor is nostalgia for the postwar period in which technology’s relationship with design was considered largely positive in the United States. We see it as a more innocent era, when technology brought us closer to nature and strengthened family life: large expanses of glass in the single-family home delivered suburban trees and grass into our living rooms, while new appliances reduced the chores of domestic life to free up leisure time. These changes helped produce a reassuringly solid and satisfied image of the typical American family. Today, as the digital revolution radically transforms our lives again, this recent antecedent, made familiar through the recycling of period lifestyle photography in fashion, film, and advertising, mitigates our anxiety about this ever changing technology with its pervasive newness.

Discussions about architecture are framed increasingly in terms of technological performance. But is that enough to make great architecture? Fortunately, some designers are committed to a cultural critique of technology itself. The work of Ettore Sottsass and Philippe Starck comes to mind: neither judgmental nor prescriptive, but a reminder that, along with the benefits of each innovation, technology also informs our notions of class, aesthetics and other social and cultural phenomena. Either way, the modernist marriage of architecture and technology is now stronger than ever. 

Architect Pierluigi Serraino is the author of four books, including Modernism Rediscovered and NorCalMod: Icons of Northern California Modernism. His projects and articles have appeared in Architectural Record, Architectural Design and ArCA.