I agree that this is a very weak analysis, but i haven't come to expect very much from slate's critics.

Witold ignores one of the principle elements of architecture - the site. Many, if not most sites do not lend themselves to symmetrical design - Symmetrical designs automatically stick out on any landscape rather than blending in - asymmetry is used to balance a building with its surroundings. Symmetry is a design tool, not a design school. There are practical reasons to make a design symmetrical, but symmetry more often than not leads to boring, monolithic, and even oppressive architecture. Unless you're building sits at the top of the Acropolis, you're not designing in a vacuum.

certainly it would be nice to here more on symmetry but its kind of a hugely complex topic that one could spend their life studying. i'm glad that witold is one of the few critics who actually discusses symmetry in architecture. most critics are too 'in bed' with the old bauhaus to even be open minded to the idea of symmetry in architecture. symmetry, proportion and scale are among the most important fundamentals of architecture and yet receive absolutely no attention in the study of architecture in schools.

You are definetly correct in saying that good visual design is not a large enough part of architectural training.

Proportion and Scale are of course fundamental in building design - but I think Balance is the word you are looking for as opposed to symmetry. All good designs must have balance, but symmetry is the crudest form of balance that often causes more design problems than it solves. (The first of which is that it demands artificial and often imposing verticality)

The Bauhaus didn't abandon symmetry just to be contrary - it did so because they wanted to emphasize harmonious clean lines and downplay the arbitrary decorative elements that were passed down through history that did little to aid the building's visual or functional appeal.

yeah your right i think balance would be a better word because its more than symmetry. i also agree very much that symmetry can cause more design problems than it solves.

i'm certainly not suggesting that good architecture must have symmetry but that there is an understanding and a consideration of it particular in how it communicates to people. it just appears that architects go out of their way to avoid symmetry today maybe because deconstructivism is the latest architectural fad, maybe its because it is not taught in architectural education or maybe it is because symmetry is associated with traditional architecture which is considered the most evil thing in the architecture world (I really can't understand exactly why it is so universally reviled by the profession).

Traditional architecture isn't considered evil - its just impractical and irrelevant to contemporary culture. Modern materials don't lend themselves to traditional forms - If you've ever designed a fake-limestone facade out of E.I.F.S. (artificial stucco) you know what i'm talking about. We'd all love to design everything with limestone and river-rock but that's just not cost effective today. Traditional forms (cornices, columns, etc.) were designed for mud and stone - today we use steel and glass which is far more sturdy and efficient. But if you design a symmetrical building out of steel you end with a boring grid-like box. Visit any suburban office park built in the last 15 years and you'll see why traditional forms don't work today - they're just lifeless! There are a few great architects who still use traditional forms and symmetry - Michael Graves is the most well known - but often the buildings end up looking artificial, like a disney castle (or in the case of Graves, they end up looking like they were constructed with legos.)

Going back to the symmetry point tho - the real reason that people don't design symmetrical buildings is that they are placing a building within a landscape, on a site. The vast majority of sites are not symmetrical, and i guarantee that the landscape is non-symmetrical. its just not good (or for that matter, practical) design to place a symmetrical form on a non-symmetrical plane - because it will stick out like a sore thumb. That's the real reason why they're so opposed to it in school.

Yeah, for example, Crown Hall------

"A non-symmetrical plane"---now that's a good one! So ho-hum to the Seagrams Building, Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building, Dulles, TWA, Lake Point Tower, 333 Wacker, the Larkin building, Unity Temple, John Deere, the Monadnock, Salk Institute------?

Ho-hum indeed thanks for that lovely little primer on the most boring buildings of the 20th century! Its a stretch to call Dulles or lake point or the Salk Institute symmetrical. Lake point is triangular in plan and Dulles is only symmetrical from one elevation -From the side its anything but symmetrical. Not to mention that Dulles is also a pinnacle of impracticality if you've ever stood in line for one of the shuttle-crawlers there. All of the buildings you listed are monolithic - made to be seen from space - but not necessarily good design. Just because its a feat of architectural ego doesn't make it a feat of aesthetics.

Well, since you define symmetry as any building that does not fit your mysterious view of "interesting", we don't speak the same language. Not to belabor the point, but Salk [the one in California], Lake Point Tower [the Chicago version] and Dulles most certainly are symmetrical. And if you don't like Dulles because you believe it impractical [perhaps you're one of those who doesn't know how to find the bathroom?], there's little to be said for your vacuous sense of grandeur. And if, as you say, it isn't symmetrical, then it must be fascinating. The very notion that sites that may or may not be symmetrical is vapid. People build on sites as they happen. Most urban sites don't require asymmetry. Quite possibly none do.

"The very notion that sites that may or may not be symmetrical is vapid." obviously not the words of an architect.

Save the rancor. I never said that only asymmetrical buildings were interesting - I just said that symmetry was often problematic and that you referenced buildings that weren't necessarily attractive - they were all just huge and iconic - but big and flashy does not equal good design. There are of course thousands of boring, gaudy, and pompous asymetric buildings as well - they just don't typically shout their grandeur like a symmetrical building does. You seem to want every building to be a cathedral - I think modesty and subtlety are far more admirable qualities in architectural design.

The buildings you mentioned are technically symmetrical, but not in the classical sense. Dulles is symmetrical from the front elevation, but you can't see it symmetrically - the overall look is a wave that embodies asymmetry. Lake Point is a triangular site and its windows have an irregular grid effect. The Salk site has two mirrored buildings - but the buildings themselves aren't symmetrical. The buildings all use symmetry as a tool but don't adhere to a classical format which is presumably what witold is talking about.

Well, I guess you can fit your presumptions to fit your biases. I have no idea what you mean by Lake Point Tower having an "irregular grid" As I said, I was speaking of the one in Chicago. And if that building "shouts" to you, perhaps you should turn your hearing aid down. What you actually said was that I presented a primer on boring buildings. It's really sad that you're unable to enjoy the greatness in the built environment, and that you wouldn't recognize elegance if you were locked in a windowless room with it. As for Salk, the only thing it "shouts" is symmetry. And it's hardly huge. I'll admit that if you're standing in the corner of the Dulles terminal and face the diagonally opposite corner, it won't look symmetrical. But then, perspective rarely does either. As for Chrysler, if you're bored looking at it, you'd be bored looking at a lightning storm. Same holds true for the soaring [former RCA] Building.

Oops, I was wrong in my characterization of your stunted sense of design: You said that I had presented a primer of "the most boring buildings " of the 20th century. 333 Wacker, TWA, Monadnock, the others---BORING?!?!!! You must have ADD.

You seem to have some sort of "greatness" fetish and i'd get that checked out. Just because its in the history book and a popular tourist destination for architectural nerds doesn't make it an aesthetic success. Or do you subscribe to the "make it big and paint it red" school of design?

Lake Point - review picture: <link> doesn't exactly scream symmetry. except maybe during a power outage. The interesting part of this building is the assymetric organic patterning created by the choice of using non-reflective glass. Otherwise its any old 100 story symmetrical glass phallus.

Dulles is pointless argument - but all i'll say is typically you don't see it photographed from the front - not exactly its good side.

Apparently you've been having trouble in your English-as-a-Second-Language course.

Such maturity! I would expect more from someone displaying their clear superiority of taste by making lists of overrated architectural landmarks. Tchuss!