Modern or Contemporary Architecture? The Interiors Edition
A while ago I took a crack at defining the differences between modern and contemporary architecture by looking at the exteriors of 10 homes. In my view modern architecture is rooted in the early- and mid-20th-century architecture that broke with traditional architecture by “embodying the ideals of the machine age: an absence of ornament, structures of steel or concrete, large expanses of glass, a whitewash (usually stucco over brick) or another minimal exterior expression, and open floor plans,” as I wrote in that ideabook. To me contemporary architecture is what is being produced now, but that which does not follow a particular stylistic strain — even the strain of modernism. Therefore contemporary is pluralistic but generally forward-looking.But how does that distinction hold with interiors? And how does one make a distinction between modern and contemporary when the stylistic cues of exterior form aren’t present? This ideabook will tackle those questions in terms of interior architecture rather than interior design. This means I’ll focus on the spaces, surfaces and assemblies that are integral to the interiors, instead of the furnishings, colors and other elements that are added by designers or homeowners. This take is based on my experience as an architect but also the fact that a house’s interior design can work with or against the architecture, depending on the client’s wishes, therefore complicating matters.One thing you may notice is that my categorization of each space is sometimes at odds with the architect’s. This points to the subjectivity of these definitions and the fact that some photos may reveal contemporary traits while the overall project is modern, and vice versa. Any mismatch between my definition and the architect’s also makes it clear that some discussion on the topic is needed; at the very least, this ideabook is a start.
Modern. One outcome of modernism is the glass box, which is used today in office buildings, apartment buildings and even houses. Certainly the full-height glazing for this house makes it fit the modern bill, but one detail made me a tad doubtful: the wood columns are quite different than the steel predominantly used with glass-box houses. Nevertheless, the wood is exposed structure, just like in modern houses by Mies van der Rohe and others with exposed steel, so I’m keeping it in the modern category. |
Contemporary. Here is a house that also has full-height glazing and some wood structure (beams, joist and decking), but I define it as contemporary because of the hybrid nature of the structure and the concrete hearth. (The firebox is on the other side, facing the living room.) If structure is exposed in a modernist house, it has a clarity and order to it, but the white steel beams below the wood joists are a disjunction that points to a different way of thinking. This departure from order is also found in the way the concrete hearth punctures the ceiling; its form does not follow the structure, so the wood joists have some unusual intersections to accommodate it. |
Modern. By comparison, the order in the steel structure of this house is clear. The steel columns and beams are accompanied by steel joists and decking at the roof, where the skylights also fit between the structure’s regular grid. |
Modern. Here is one more look at how structure helps determine if a house is modern or contemporary. I’d call this project modern, considering the way the steel structure and wood beams of the skylight work together on a regular grid, something that extends to the exterior glass walls. |
Modern or Contemporary Architecture? The Interiors Edition
