When I looked down from the 55th floor of my summer internship, I was shocked to see that these tall buildings looked almost identical. Regular rectangles, almost the same materials, colors and contour lines, even with a nice evening sunset, still looked like a public cemetery.
Why do the tall buildings all look the same? I can’t help but wonder. Is it because everyone copies each other? But isn’t it the first law of design to prohibit copying?
I searched some information on the internet and was shocked to see more similarities. For example, the museums of Mu Xin and Wang Zengqi. As the museums of two famous people from different times and regions, it is surprising that their designs have so many similarities. The reason I believe they are not being copied is simple: the latter’s design came from a university famous for its architectural design program, and there were many people involved in the project, and the possibility that everyone happened to copy the corresponding part of the former museum is very small.
But what led to this similarity? What are the reasons for the homogenization of public architecture? From my perspective, the prevalence of modernism has led everyone to learn and apply design thinking and concepts according to the same theories, with function as the top priority. At the same time, as the population grows and the need for urbanization increases, economic considerations have led most designers to choose convergent and less expensive designs.
This reminds me of the frenzied use of Helvetica, and the controversy that followed. Helvetica, as a typeface for conveying information at that time, was somehow the “best solution”, but when everything was solved in the same way, it didn’t make sense. It’s the same for public buildings. I’ve visited different cities in China with their so-called antique complexes – essentially commercial neighborhoods – and renovated old neighborhoods with antique building materials. This very much satisfies the above quest for the same materials, efficiency, and speed, and satisfies the economics, but they are so identical that I really had a hard time enjoying my trip there.
Jonathan Nunn wrote an article indicting the strange homogenization of restaurants that pop up in our cities, such as modern and comfortable slightly culturally specific interiors, international flavors yet locally sourced food, etc. （https://www.dezeen.com/2022/09/27/sohofication-strangling-city-centres-jonathan-nunn-opinion/）It resonated strongly with me as I read it; their presence is not uncommon, and one might even say that they are gradually taking control to monopolize the market. But this same deserves caution. Is this the kind of food you want to eat, is this the kind of city you want to live in, is this the kind of lifestyle you want to live?
I have a very favorite architectural firm called MVRDV, and their work is completely unique, scene-related, and applicable to separate cases. I think we have reached a point in public architecture and urban design where mass homogenization of buildings is no longer useful and what we really need is a case by case, researched, concrete solution.