The modern movement in architecture began with the fundamental changes that swept through

society in the 19th and 20th centuries. These changes were born out of technological
advancements and a growing industrial society and came from a sincere desire to break away
from the historical architectural styles that had preceded the years of industrialization. The
architects of the modern movement sought new forms, new materials, and new technologies to
express the new functional demands and, at the same time, sought to embody a new aesthetic that
matched the revolutionary social changes of the era. The modern movement sought to unify form
and function and resulted in a totally new expression and understanding of what architecture
could be.

The German architect Walter Gropius—who founded the Bauhaus in 1919 and became one of the
early and notable backers of modern architecture, not to mention one of its all-time notable
figures—pushed an agenda of sorts and tried to muscle in a new aesthetic. His Bauhaus was (and
is) very much about art, craft, and technology. A breeding ground for design ideas and innovative
architecture, the Bauhaus was where Gropius and his contemporaries—most notably Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe, of Chicago School fame, and Le Corbusier—did much to champion, and
even somewhat to monopolize, certain concepts of "contemporary design."

The famous dictum "less is more" from Mies van der Rohe perfectly expresses the modernist
ethos in architecture. The glass-and-steel skyscrapers of his such as the Seagram Building in
New York most clearly show the ideal: a structure with clean lines, an open feeling, and no
decoration whatsoever that might detract from its beautiful and essentially rational form. Le
Corbusier, a Swiss-French architect, was another figure who dreamed of modernism. He wanted
to build a new world somewhere between utopia and the reality of contemporary life. His design
principles—using pilotis (a kind of stilt), open floor plans, and a flat roof—might have worked,
at least for a while, had he not built actual structures that people had to live in. By and large, they
didn’t. The designs of Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe and their followers are part of a
larger movement known as the International Style.

While these architects and their works have undoubtedly left a profound mark on the built
environment, the modernist vision of architecture has not been without its detractors. As the
movement evolved, it gave birth to what is now known as brutalism, characterized by raw,
exposed concrete, imposing structures, and a stark, often harsh aesthetic. The cold, utilitarian
nature of modernist design began to permeate public buildings, residential complexes, and
cityscapes, giving rise to criticisms that the movement, in its pursuit of functionality, had
sacrificed beauty, human scale, and a sense of connection to history and nature.

By the mid-20th century, as modernist architecture took root in cities worldwide, it became
increasingly apparent that the emphasis on abstraction, minimalism, and mechanization had
resulted in built environments that felt sterile, impersonal, and disconnected from the needs and
desires of the people who inhabited them. The towering concrete blocks, the glass-and-steel
skyscrapers, and the bare, flat facades were seen by many as symbols of alienation rather than
progress. Public spaces designed with little regard for human warmth or comfort became
uninviting, and the relentless pursuit of efficiency led to the destruction of historical buildings
and neighborhoods that had character, charm, and cultural value.

In this context, the very ideals of modern architecture—its emphasis on simplicity, functionality,
and universalism—began to reveal a darker side. What was once heralded as a new beginning, a
clean slate free from the clutter of the past, had, in many cases, resulted in an architecture that
felt lifeless, ugly, and disconnected from the natural and human elements that had always
informed great design. As architects and urban planners sought to design for the future, they
failed to engage with the rich heritage of classical architecture and the inherent beauty of natural
forms. In many cases, buildings became mere boxes, devoid of the intricate details, organic
curves, and visual harmony that had defined architecture for centuries.

This movement as a whole, in its widespread implementation, has contributed to the

homogenization of the urban landscape, stripping cities of their unique identities and historical
richness. The emphasis on functionality and abstract form, while undoubtedly important, has too
often led to the creation of environments that lack the warmth, beauty, and soulfulness that
characterize the best of human design.

In light of these shortcomings, it is time to reassess the direction of architecture and return to the
classical and natural standards of beauty that have stood the test of time. Classical architecture,
with its balanced proportions, harmonious forms, and deep connection to nature, offers a
framework for design that can address the failings of modernism. The principles of symmetry,
order, and proportion, rooted in ancient Greek and Roman ideals, provide a timeless foundation
for creating spaces that not only function effectively but also inspire awe, comfort, and a sense of
belonging.

Furthermore, a return to natural forms—curved lines, organic shapes, and materials that resonate
with the human senses—can infuse modern architecture with the warmth and beauty that have
been sorely lacking in recent decades. By looking to nature, both in its forms and its materials,
architects can create buildings and spaces that feel alive, integrated with their surroundings, and
deeply attuned to the needs of the people who inhabit them.