>
> "Which is what 90% of (Developers) architects do.

I didn't say that. The original did not include the word developers, but
the point is well taken.

The vast majority earn
> their livings producing viable structures in styles that their clients
> are comfortable and familiar with. The metaphorical building next door
> may be Lever House or a mock-Tudor Greenwich home or a Colonial or
> Garrison in a development or a redwood treehouse, but most consumers of
> architecture are an
> ill-informed gang and the field of architecture very much reflects
> that."
>
> Do developers design structures? I don't think so. They pay someone to
> give them ideas, advice and to provide designs that satisfy commercial
> needs. Who generally does that?

No they don't, but they aren't exactly babes-in-the-woods either, out to be
conned into Modernism by big bad architects. They choose architects who's
oeuvre shows them that they will get what they want.
>
> Also, much of what we are preserving now was the result of developers
> activities from the past. The mills, warehouses, department buildings,
> train stations, gas stations, McDonalds, etc.

I don't think that "developer" as the term is used now, applies to these
examples. In real estate terms these were non-speculative structures not
dependent upon rental or resale to satisfy the needs of their builders.
Developer's economic imperative is to speculate in real estate, their's was
to produce or sell a product for which the building of the structure was
just a means to that end.  If I build myself a house or a workshop I am not
ipso facto a developer, nor were the Cabots and Lowells when they built
their mills, or Ray Kroc when he strewed the landscape with Golden Arches..
>
> Using the logic stated above for architects and architecture, don't the
> developers meet the same criteria. All they are doing is providing
> people with easy access to items that they need in a setting that they
> are familiar with and comfortable in.

Agreed, and then some. It is they who bear the bulk of the blame. Have you
ever met a mall developer? I've met a few and I can assure you that none of
them sat around sighing because they had to choose from a pool of
architects who had no vision.
>
> This is one blatant example of were "Can't we just get along" was not
> appropriate.

SNIP

 The process worked
> because the old building was able to be shown as an asset and not a
> liability. Once the developer started promoting his project with this
> tavern as an asset he found businesses willing to locate in the old
> structure even before knowing what the rest of the development would
> look like. Maybe its not coming up with mutually acceptable definitions
> but rather understanding the language and the context of the other side.

I'm not sure what this has to do with suggesting that a mutually acceptable
definition of modern architecture for the purposes of our BP discussion
would be helpful.

As to the anecdote: Hurray for the developer. But if I cited five examples
(and I could) where developers ignored the advise of architects and engaged
in acts of wanton destruction of historical structures would I win the
argument. To cite one example, when The Donald decided to raze The Bonwit
Teller Department store building (another story for Mary) in N. Y., which
included much wonderful Art Deco ornamentation, the effort to thwart him
included many notable New York architects, among them many known for their
allegiance to the International style and its progeny. The effort failed,
though some of the ornamentation was salvaged.
>
> Adversarial conditions can have their place and purpose. I believe it is
> more useful for BP to examine differences for awhile. This allows a
> diversity of ideas to come up. Being "mutually acceptable" may not
> always be the best place to start.

I agree with the first statement. But I wasn't looking for anything to be
"mutually acceptable" except our in-house definition of modern
architecture, which should be, as definitions generally are, non-judgmental


Bruce