Why This Matters
Modern architecture isn't just about buildings that look different—it represents a fundamental rethinking of how structures relate to people, nature, and technology. When you study these iconic buildings, you're really studying the philosophical debates that shaped 20th-century design: Should buildings blend with their environment or stand apart? Should structure be hidden or celebrated? How do materials like steel, glass, and reinforced concrete create new possibilities for space and light?
On exams, you're being tested on your ability to connect specific buildings to broader movements like the International Style, organic architecture, Art Deco, and high-tech architecture. Don't just memorize dates and architects—know what design principle each building demonstrates and how it influenced what came after. When an FRQ asks you to compare two structures, the winning response identifies the shared philosophy or contrasting approach, not just surface-level differences.
Organic Architecture: Buildings That Embrace Nature
These structures reject the idea that buildings should dominate their sites. Instead, they grow from and respond to the landscape, using horizontal lines, natural materials, and site-specific design to blur the boundary between inside and outside.
Fallingwater (Frank Lloyd Wright)
- Cantilevered terraces extend directly over a waterfall—the house literally hovers above Bear Run creek, making nature part of the living experience
- Organic architecture philosophy dictates that the building's horizontal stone and concrete forms echo the rock ledges of the Pennsylvania woodland site
- Completed in 1935, it remains the most famous example of architecture designed for a specific landscape rather than imposed upon it
Guggenheim Museum, New York (Frank Lloyd Wright)
- Continuous spiral ramp replaces traditional gallery rooms—visitors experience art while moving through a unified, flowing space
- Organic form mimics a nautilus shell, demonstrating Wright's belief that even urban buildings should reflect natural geometries
- Opened in 1959, it challenged museum conventions by making the architecture itself part of the artistic experience
Compare: Fallingwater vs. Guggenheim Museum—both express Wright's organic philosophy, but Fallingwater integrates with a rural landscape while the Guggenheim creates an organic oasis within Manhattan's grid. If asked about organic architecture's adaptability, these two show its range.
The International Style stripped away ornament to celebrate pure geometric forms, open floor plans, and modern materials. These buildings embody Le Corbusier's and Mies van der Rohe's belief that architecture should be rational, universal, and honest about its construction.
Villa Savoye (Le Corbusier)
- Five Points of Architecture made manifest—pilotis (supporting columns), free façade, open floor plan, ribbon windows, and roof garden all appear in this single structure
- Reinforced concrete construction enabled the revolutionary free plan, liberating walls from structural duty
- Completed in 1931, it served as Le Corbusier's built manifesto for the International Style
Farnsworth House (Mies van der Rohe)
- Floor-to-ceiling glass walls dissolve the barrier between interior and landscape—the house becomes a transparent pavilion in nature
- "Less is more" philosophy reduced the house to its essential elements: a floating white steel frame, glass, and a travertine floor
- Built in 1951, it represents the extreme endpoint of minimalist residential design
Barcelona Pavilion (Mies van der Rohe)
- Free-flowing plan uses freestanding walls of onyx, marble, and chrome to define space without enclosing it
- Designed for the 1929 International Exposition as a temporary structure, it was so influential it was reconstructed in 1986
- Spatial continuity between interior and exterior established principles that shaped modernist architecture for decades
Compare: Villa Savoye vs. Farnsworth House—both reject traditional walls, but Le Corbusier lifts his box on pilotis while Mies dissolves walls entirely into glass. Villa Savoye is a machine for living; Farnsworth House is pure transparency.
Glass and Transparency: Dissolving Boundaries
These architects pushed glass technology to create structures where the distinction between inside and outside nearly disappears. The result is architecture that emphasizes light, views, and connection to surroundings.
Glass House (Philip Johnson)
- Fully transparent walls make the Connecticut landscape the primary interior feature—furniture and a brick cylinder (containing the bathroom) are the only solid elements
- Built in 1949 as Johnson's personal residence, it tested how radically domestic space could be redefined
- Influenced by Mies van der Rohe, but Johnson embraced the theatrical quality of living in a glass box on display
Seagram Building (Mies van der Rohe)
- Bronze and amber glass façade created a refined, luxurious interpretation of the glass curtain wall for corporate architecture
- Plaza setback from Park Avenue introduced public space into Manhattan's dense grid—a model copied worldwide
- Completed in 1958, it established the template for modernist skyscrapers through its proportions, materials, and urban gesture
Compare: Glass House vs. Farnsworth House—both are glass pavilions by Mies-influenced architects, but Johnson's is a perfect square while Mies's is a rectangle elevated on stilts. Johnson sought drama; Mies sought purity.
Sculptural Expressionism: Architecture as Art Object
Not all modern architects embraced minimalism. These buildings treat structure as sculpture, using dramatic curves, expressive forms, and innovative engineering to create emotional, even spiritual experiences.
Sydney Opera House (Jørn Utzon)
- Sail-like roof shells required groundbreaking engineering—each shell derives from sections of a single sphere, enabling prefabrication
- UNESCO World Heritage site and Australia's most recognizable building, it demonstrates architecture's power to define cultural identity
- Finished in 1973 after years of construction challenges, it proved that expressive form could be achieved at monumental scale
TWA Flight Center (Eero Saarinen)
- Sculptural concrete forms evoke a bird in flight, capturing the optimism and romance of jet-age travel
- Continuous flowing interior eliminated sharp corners, creating a seamless spatial experience from entrance to departure gate
- Opened in 1962, it represented architecture designed around emotional experience rather than pure function
Ronchamp Chapel (Le Corbusier)
- Curved, sculptural roof appears to float above thick walls pierced by irregular windows, creating dramatic interior light
- Departure from International Style rationalism—Le Corbusier embraced organic forms and spiritual atmosphere over geometric purity
- Completed in 1955, it shocked modernists who expected the master of the machine aesthetic to maintain his earlier principles
Compare: TWA Flight Center vs. Ronchamp Chapel—both reject the glass box for expressive concrete forms, but Saarinen designed for secular optimism while Le Corbusier created sacred mystery. Both prove modernism could be emotional, not just rational.
Art Deco: Ornament and Ambition
Before the International Style rejected decoration, Art Deco celebrated it. These skyscrapers combine modern materials and vertical massing with geometric ornament, luxurious finishes, and symbolic imagery.
Chrysler Building (William Van Alen)
- Stainless steel spire with sunburst patterns and eagle gargoyles made it briefly the world's tallest building and permanently an Art Deco icon
- Automotive imagery throughout—hubcap ornaments, radiator cap eagles—celebrates the client's industry with unabashed symbolism
- Completed in 1930, it represents American corporate ambition expressed through craftsmanship and theatrical design
Empire State Building (Shreve, Lamb & Harmon)
- Setback silhouette created by zoning laws became an iconic form, demonstrating how regulations can shape architectural expression
- World's tallest building for nearly 40 years (1931–1970), it symbolized American technological and economic power during the Depression
- Art Deco detailing in the lobby and crown combines geometric ornament with modern construction at unprecedented scale
Compare: Chrysler Building vs. Empire State Building—both are Art Deco skyscrapers completed within a year of each other, but Chrysler embraces flamboyant ornament while Empire State achieves grandeur through sheer scale and elegant restraint.
Bauhaus and Mid-Century Modern: Design for Living
These structures embody the belief that good design should be accessible, functional, and integrated with daily life. They influenced everything from furniture to urban planning.
Bauhaus Building, Dessau (Walter Gropius)
- Glass curtain wall workshop wing was revolutionary in 1926—the transparent façade expressed the school's commitment to openness and innovation
- Integration of art, craft, and technology made physical—different wings for workshops, classrooms, and dormitories connected by bridges
- Architectural embodiment of Bauhaus philosophy that design should unite aesthetics with industrial production
Eames House (Charles and Ray Eames)
- Prefabricated industrial components assembled into a personal residence demonstrated that factory materials could create warm, livable spaces
- Double-height living space filled with collected objects, plants, and natural light reflected the Eameses' belief in design serving human needs
- Built in 1949 as part of the Case Study House program, it influenced generations of architects exploring affordable modernism
Compare: Bauhaus Building vs. Eames House—both use industrial materials to democratic ends, but Gropius designed an institution while the Eameses created a home. Together they show modernism's range from public to intimate scale.
High-Tech Architecture: Structure on Display
Rather than hiding mechanical systems and structure, high-tech architecture celebrates them. These buildings turn ducts, pipes, and structural elements into expressive features.
Centre Pompidou (Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers)
- Exposed color-coded systems—blue for air, green for water, yellow for electricity, red for circulation—turn infrastructure into architectural expression
- Flexible interior spaces result from moving all services to the exterior, allowing galleries to be reconfigured for any exhibition
- Opened in 1977, it rejected the idea that cultural institutions should look dignified and traditional, sparking controversy and crowds
Compare: Centre Pompidou vs. Seagram Building—both are urban landmarks that influenced their surroundings, but Seagram hides its systems behind a refined curtain wall while Pompidou displays them proudly. They represent opposite approaches to architectural honesty.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Organic Architecture | Fallingwater, Guggenheim Museum |
| International Style | Villa Savoye, Farnsworth House, Barcelona Pavilion |
| Glass/Transparency | Glass House, Seagram Building, Farnsworth House |
| Sculptural Expressionism | Sydney Opera House, TWA Flight Center, Ronchamp Chapel |
| Art Deco Skyscrapers | Chrysler Building, Empire State Building |
| Bauhaus/Mid-Century Modern | Bauhaus Building, Eames House |
| High-Tech Architecture | Centre Pompidou |
| Mies van der Rohe Works | Farnsworth House, Barcelona Pavilion, Seagram Building |
| Le Corbusier Works | Villa Savoye, Ronchamp Chapel |
Self-Check Questions
-
Which two buildings best demonstrate Frank Lloyd Wright's organic architecture philosophy, and how do they adapt that philosophy to different contexts (rural vs. urban)?
-
Compare the Villa Savoye and the Farnsworth House: What International Style principles do they share, and how do Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe differ in their approach to the relationship between building and landscape?
-
If an FRQ asked you to discuss how modern architects used glass to transform spatial experience, which three buildings would you choose and why?
-
The Ronchamp Chapel surprised critics who knew Le Corbusier's earlier work. What philosophical shift does it represent, and which other building on this list shares its sculptural, expressive approach?
-
How do the Chrysler Building and the Seagram Building represent fundamentally different attitudes toward ornament, materials, and corporate identity—even though both are Manhattan office towers?