The End Of The Modern World

9 January 2002 - 12:00am

The Twentieth Century ushered in a historic era of optimism for the rational "modern" future. History may record that September 11 ended the modernist dream for cities. But already new visions are emerging for a wiser, more hopeful future.

Michael W. Mehaffy Nikos A. SalingarosHistory may well record that the "modern" world ended on September 11, 2001.

On that day anti-modern extremists with medieval sensibilities launched a horrific attack upon a pinnacle symbol of twentieth-century modernity: the coolly rational towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City.

We now know that the organizer of that attack, Mohammed Atta, was a professional planner educated in Germany, and a skyscraper-hating anti-modernist. Atta personally flew the first plane into the north tower.

Atta was a religious fundamentalist of the most extreme sort, to be sure, along with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime. But clearly Atta felt more than Jerry Falwell's hatred of the west's libertine ways. He hated the west's hegemony in the third world, and he hated the western modernist buildings that he saw wiping out the traditional vitality of its cities. The thesis Atta wrote to get his master's degree at University was on the preservation of the ancient Syrian city of Aleppo, against the onslaught of western modernism.

Six of the al Qaeda plotters that Atta led, later arrested in Spain, were from Aleppo.

The twin towers were the grand expression of Le Corbusier's early twentieth-century modernist vision: rigidly geometrical towers, floating above a superblock, erasing the "clutter" and complexity of the street and replacing it with a breathtakingly "pure" and rational geometry. That was the modernist program in its essence: an art of geometrical fundamentalism, a chilling echo of the terrorists' own religious fundamentalism.

It may seem odd to call Le Corbusier a fundamentalist, but the term is apt. He was a utopian visionary with the most grandiose aspirations, willing to destroy almost anything in his way to build a new doctrinaire regime. Le Corbusier proposed to bulldoze the streets and buildings of Paris and replace them with soldier-like rows of modern towers.

Parisians didn't let him, thank goodness. But other cities weren't so fortunate. Le Corbusier tried to convince successive French governments, including the collaborationist Vichy regime, to implement his plan of razing Algiers, the capital of Algeria and then a French colony. The plan's eventual realization after the war coincided with the anti-French resentment that precipitated Algerian independence -- a movement that continues to fuel terrorism to this day.

In the boroughs of New York City, the regime of Commissioner Robert Moses saw dozens of neighborhoods razed and replaced by superblock "projects" that quickly degenerated into gangland slums.

Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities suffered similar fates. In New York, Moses' reign was brought to an end almost single-handedly by the urban critic and activist Jane Jacobs, who argued convincingly for the vital complexity of the street and the neighborhood. (Unthinkably now, Moses had planned to raze a part of Greenwich Village.)

But the third world continued to see more of these soldier-like "superblock" projects, scores of brutal concrete boxes marching across the landscape and destroying the complexity of traditional neighborhoods in their paths. For many natives, these awful buildings came to symbolize the west's colonial legacy and arrogant disregard for their native culture.

Le Corbusier was the cofounder of the enormously influential Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) in the 1920's, a movement that has shaped the architecture of modern sprawl to this day. Le Corbusier saw the new machine age as a final historic expression of the rational future of humanity -- the physical form of seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment, and the promise of the new century for a "modern" future beyond the ills of humanity. His unbridled optimism was echoed in the early century's scientific projects to describe all of mathematics, and to crack all of the other secrets of nature.

The grand hope for providing a unified basis for all of mathematics was dashed by the monumental results of Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. The parallel quest for a simplistic description of all of physics was in turn dashed by the discovery that the fundamental constituents of matter are in fact extraordinarily complex structures in their own right. Indeed, the most revolutionary scientific insight into how nature works has occurred in the interdisciplinary topic of complexity theory, which is the antithesis of the older search for a grand simplification.

Jacobs reflected the later, more sober and more sophisticated view -- the one that claimed science at the end of the century, as the lessons of uncertainty and incompleteness transformed physics and mathematics. Jacobs understood remarkably well the emerging lessons of the new complexity science, and she wrote eloquently of the disastrous folly of imposing simple abstractions on a natural setting. In 1962, as the grand modernist projects were still going up, her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities argued for a more artful, more accommodating design methodology, respectful of the complexities of vernacular culture.

But still the bulldozers and the towers marched over the earth, particularly in the third world, in countries like Egypt. And Atta and the others were there, with their despair and their rage growing. Then along came another visionary, to spin another utopian fantasy of a future with hope. His name was Osama bin Laden.

No one should feel sorry for terrorists such as Atta; they are murderers, and not sympathetic and sensitive figures. Nonetheless, they vividly demonstrate that twentieth-century urbanism unleashed intensely negative forces in society, precisely because it represents an assault on the mathematical qualities of life and organization. Everyone can feel those forces. Different people react variously with a numbing retreat into palliatives such as drugs; perversions; violence; the isolation of the suburbs; the superficiality of contemporary societal relations; and the like. A wily demagogue, however, can channel these forces to power his own fanatical movement. It is thus essential to stop those forces from being generated in the first place.

And so we are left with a world after the modern towers, and after modernism. We will surely destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban. But even more important, we need to destroy the festering conditions in which men like these are made. To do that, we will have to reexamine the kind of modern world we have imposed upon the planet -- economic, technological, artistic. We will have to reexamine, and rebuild, the decaying foundations of our own modern culture.

The very word "modern" carries a hidden negative attachment, by creating a false dichotomy of values: if modern is good, then all that came before it must now be bad. It is just one philosophical step further to throw away the accumulated value of millennia of civilization in the pursuit of a false utopian promise of progress. The alternative, however, is emphatically not a nostalgic looking-back to the past. It is an application of the evolutionary principles that have produced us: advantageous adaptations are built on top of existing structures. Evolution has no "eraser"; it is natural catastrophes that cause discontinuities of the fossil record.

Throughout history, innovation takes place in a complex spatio-temporal pattern. If we are to survive as a species, we must be open to change while not losing what we already have. The technological success stories of our times resulted from adapting old ideas to new uses, combining them into a complex brew that catalyzed new ideas with an empowerment of the individual. Information and communications technology is not a monolithic modernist structure, but instead a connecting network that links persons in a complex society.

This lesson is not obvious. There is a tragic disconnect between two opposite points of view. What the World Trade Center Towers' architect Minoru Yamasaki thought was a "symbol of peace" was for others a symbol of war -- a war of occupation and extermination of traditional architectural and social values by what they regard as overwhelmingly powerful forces of global imperialism.

The crisis forces us to examine, and to fight for, what is most important about our legacy: democratic equality, open society, tolerance, freedom and self-determination As we fight to secure these conditions for ourselves, we must be willing to secure them for others who seek them as well. In an age of nuclear and biological terror, we no longer have a choice.

As we fight for the rights of others, we must honor their right to their own traditions, and their right to protect their world from the rapacious effects of misguided technology. Science is the understanding of nature, whereas technology is the application of what we have learned. That application can be either constructive or destructive, so it is foolish to trust in technology without the guiding hand of a wisdom gained through experience and reflection.

We can hope that this crisis may catalyze a new era in history, in which science and technology learn to better support the richness of traditional culture and the natural world. Then traditional cultures around the world may be more willing to join our call for a new age of tolerance and coexistence, cooperation on mutual threats to survival, and human progress for all.

That kind of modern world just might survive modernism.


Michael Mehaffy is an urban designer and author in Portland, Oregon. Nikos Salingaros is a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, San Antonio. He has conducted extensive research into the mathematics of architecture and urban design, supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Their full paper, "Geometrical Fundamentalism", can be seen at Plan Net Online Architectural Resources. An Italian version is available at Professione Architetto.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Benefits of Modern World

I think that it is ironic that Mr. Atta and Mr. bin Laden would attack the modern world when they have benefitted from it the most. Both men have enjoyed the benefits of education and financial rewards that have resulted from providing the modern world with the energy resource necessary to keep it functioning and expanding.

I think the greatest enemey to life on earth as we know it are those who have a world view and whose aim is to destory anyone or anything that gets in the way of making it a reality. The timing this day coming into reality is dependent on our decisions about life issues today.

Offensively Simplistic Comment

James Khamsi seems to be able to infer that Mehaffy and Salingaros by the sentence "But even more important, we need to destroy the festering conditions in which men like these are made. To do that, we will have to reexamine the kind of modern world we have imposed upon the planet -- economic, technological, artistic" mean that modern architecture is to blame. I suppose that only few terrorists are raised in New York City? The authors stress economic and technological factors as well, leading us beyond the unfruitful design determinism you seem to be reading from their article.

Further, to say that New Urbanism is the pulled the trigger against Pruitt-Igoe seems largely premature given that it happened in 1974, and that the at the time about ten year old project by no means was a success (however it is again a fallacy to blame the architecture itself for the failure). As little as I can be blamed (or honored) for inventing the automobile, as little can the New Urbanism movement be held responsible for Pruitt-Igoe. You seem like a fundamentalist against the New Urbanism. I suppose we are all fundamentalists then.

Offensively Simplistic

Fundamentalists take many forms. Mohamed Atta was an Islamic fundamentalist, Le Corbusier was a modern architectureal fundamentalist, and Mehaffy and Salingaros are new urbanist fundamentalists. What defines a fundamentalist is his unwavering devotion to a principle beyond the point reason. Complex issues become reduced to dogmatic slogans and the fundamentalist loses the ability to be critical of his position and see the nuance in problems that he is addressing.

I'm appalled at how close the authors come to excusing Atta's attrocious actions in the name of good urbanism. It is also gauling that the authors claim the modern architecture creates "a festering condition" in which terrorista are made.

Years ago new urbanist fundamentalists demolished architect Minoru Yamasaki's Puitt Igoe housing project in St. Louis. On Sept. 11 Islamic fundamentalists destroyed Yamasaki's World Trade Center.

Thank You II

I believe the substance of your article to be some of the most compelling and usefull thoughts to date towards understanding some of the larger meanings surrounding those dastardly deeds in NY and DC. I only hope the dialogue generated by your thoughts will solidify a better understanding of what is truely important and ultimately meaningfull about the built environment. I would especially hope that the critics of your views do not react too quickly, but rather search deep in their hearts for some humble enlightenment which ultimately I hope, when aligned with the legacy of more traditional cultures will produce the essential paradigm shift needed in our current (Western) World view toward architecture and urban design.

25 years too late?

It hit me reading this: Modernism has been long gone. Recalling that undergraduate college told us that modernism was definitively over after the demolition of the (modernist) Pruitt-Igoe project in the early seventies and the postmodernism discussions through the eighties confronting not least the epistemological properties of our accumulating knowledges. But I suppose that doesn't make the criticism less valid. What we don't wanna do is to look for the architectural antithesis of the skyscraper - lower density - as the panacea in a society of risks. New Urbanism doesn't solve (nor create) problems of terror. Whatever can be said about 9-11, it seems odd that it should influence at all the shape of our cities. We cannot ensure the uninsurable. Let our cities be, whatever we call them modern or postmodern, and let us evaluate them for what they do to the people who inhabit them rather than discard baggage because of fundamentalist reasoning with planes. Ideals of modernism and enlightenment may have been challenged in the latter half of this century. That doesn't mean they lose their appeal altogether. While we need a synthesis of rational, aesthetic and social knowledges in making our cities, we need to acknowledge just what urban form in itself does - and equally important - what it doesn't (and hence should not be blamed for) should do.

Downtown still here

As an architect who works in Lower Manhattan and witnessed the events of September 11 first hand, I have a hard time swallowing this fallacious argument. Certainly, a broad overlay of modernist social ideas (and modern planning) have damaged the world's urban landscape, but let us not forget the ravages of war and a few madmen.

A lot of comments have surfaced in recent months from fellow downtown office workers--they miss the WTC. Those underground concourses and that "wind-swept" plaza became a much-used and well-loved landscape.

Modernists declared that "their movement" would signal the death of classicism. Post modernists declared that "their movement" would signal the death of modernism. Maybe it would be more useful to research movements that could signal the death of war and wanton destruction and quit wasting efforts on adorning a madman's acts with a useless theory.

Modernism is dead: long live modernism

It's interesting to contrast this article with Herbert Muschamp's New York Times piece of Sept. 30.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/arts/design/30MUSC.html

Both are calling for new recognitions of complexities, but Muschamp still believes in--even insists upon--the Enlightenment progressivism that we also call modernism. I agree with Stolzenberg that this essay lays too much blame on the modern skyscraper. I think Muschamp has the better argument.

Reading minds of dead men yields chaos

The fallout from September 11 will continue for years. For those directly affected, the horror of the loss of loved ones in such a cruel fashion may never abate. Unfortunately, little comfort will be found from the quarters of those who choose to use these actions to support their particular theories. There are those who point to the September 11 actions as proof that an enraged diety has turned against a sinning America, and those who point to the same actions as proof that all who call that diety by the name "Allah" are violent. To me, the saddest fallout comes from those in the planning profession who rush to argue that the murderers were driven to their acts by the buildings themselves. A pretty theory -- but it falls apart in the face of reality. Fact 1: the Pentagon, also attacked, is not a 'rigidly geometric tower' and did not replace beautiful neighborhoods. The Pentagon is the nerve center of the US Military, just as the World Trade Center could be understood as one of the hearts of international commerce. Absent a written treatise from the terrorists, it is just as logical to conclude that the structures were targetted for their functions. After all, if the attack had just been about tall buildings, the Sears Tower should have been a target. Fact Two: We don't know, and may never know, the intended target of the jet that was forced down in Pennsylvania when passengers fought back. (Again, we are reading dead men's minds.) But the jet's direction was the capital. Most of the buildings in the capital can't be described as rigidly geometric towers. Fact three: most of the dictionaries I've consulted do not define "modern" in such a manner as to suggest that everything that is not "modern" is bad or wrong. "Modern" relates to a current time period; those who dislike the "modern" may attribute this kind of bias to "modernists", but it is not a logical progression. Fact four: large structures that don't relate well to their surroundings (in the judgments of some) are NOT a recent innovation. The massive pyramids built by Egyptian Pharoahs are now regarded favorably. Architectural critics of that time may have been as unhappy with them as these authors are with today's skyscrapers -- but their commentaries have not survived to enlighten us. Fact five: Many (not all) religions pass through a phase during which those adherents to a 'fundamentalist' view become completely intolerant of any other religion or sect. Christianity's past contains periods of inquisition, witch burning and crusades. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden uses the term "crusader" to refer to the west, because Islam is going through one such period itself. It is to be hoped that we all survive this phase of Islam and produce a more humane world. Finger-pointing and blame-the-victimology won't achieve that objective.

Thank you

Thank you for this fascinating and insightful article. I hope it receives wide distribution in planning, architecture, and real estate development circles.

Bookmark and Share
If housing does exceed three times household income, it is a warning sign that there are likely regulatory impediments to that particular urban market's ability to supply affordable housing around the urban periphery.