more modernism (this show runs all week)

I'm still plowing through Shand-Tucci's book on architecture in the Boston region and I periodically come across information that helps fill in pieces of the puzzle that is the story of American architecture. Shand-Tucci points out that the modern aesthetic had its origins as a suburban phenomenon. Gropius and his followers embraced the low density lifestyle of the towns that ringed Boston and built modest homes for themselves in the great tradition of Thoreau and the Pilgrims. They could commute to their jobs in the city in their cars just like everyone else and escape the "maddening crowds" by retreating to Cape Cod, where they built summer cottages on dirt roads with paths that led to sandy beaches.

Of course, the modern style never caught on with houses, and the suburban expansion was a function of the automobile and an innate human psychology that has curious territorial impulses. In an earlier post, I claimed that the success of modernism had less to do with aesthetics than methods. I'm not so sure about that. The details of high rises, which seem to be predominantly modern, have an economic component that gets mentioned from time to time. Could it have all gone down differently? For the urban setting, maybe.

The suburban phenomenon feels as inevitable as the force of gravity. The story of the detached single family home, the single story factory/warehouse/store, the parking lots, the relentless drive outward (and to warm, flat places) is like the dull roar of the ocean. No narrator or conspiracy is required. I can't come to grips as to why it feels so strange, however. When I drive my car to the local Wal-Mart and trudge across the parking lot, I can't help but wonder if this is all there is.