The latest edition of “Architizer: The World’s Best Architecture” — a stunning, hardbound book celebrating the most inspiring contemporary architecture from around the globe — is now available. Order your copy today.
Back in my second year of university, one of the professors handed out a questionnaire before starting his course, so that he could get to know us better.
Eight years later, I only remember two of those questions —“What’s the last book you read?” (I was secretly re-reading the Harry Potter series at the time and for some reason this question made me feel exposed, so it stayed with me) and “Name at least five architects you know.” So for the second question, like any good architecture student, I listed the usual suspects — Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and a couple of big names from my country’s modernist glory days to mix things up.
Afterward, when I talked to my classmates, it turned out we all gave pretty similar answers. Everyone named the same modernist icons, the kind of figures you’d expect to find in any architecture textbook. The funny thing is, this isn’t just a one-time experience. A variation of that question —“Who’s your favorite architect?” — pops up all the time in the industry, whether you’re meeting colleagues or sitting through interviews. And, more often than not, the answers are not far from the ones in my school questionnaire.
This begs the question: why are we still glorifying these same figures from a movement that peaked almost a century ago? A lot has happened in architecture since then — bold ideas, new challenges, creative solutions. So why are we still stuck idolizing modernism? And more importantly, what’s the negative impact?
How Modernism Came to Dominate Architecture Schools
To understand why modernism has such a hold on architectural education, it helps to look back at the early 20th century, when the movement first gained traction. With the industrial revolution ushering in new materials and mass production techniques, modernism emerged as a practical response to a world increasingly focused on efficiency and functionality.
Architects like Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius championed ideas like “form follows function” and minimalism, favoring clean lines and functional spaces over unnecessary embellishment.
These architects didn’t just influence design however. They also played a key role in shaping architectural education as we know it. Gropius founded the Bauhaus, a school that revolutionized design thinking, while Mies led the Illinois Institute of Technology, embedding modernist ideals directly into the curriculum. Their ideas resonated in a world that was rebuilding after war, where simplicity and practicality made sense for a society focused on progress and efficiency.
Modernism quickly became the dominant philosophy in schools, not just because it was new and exciting at the time, but because it was practical. Its principles — like focusing on the essentials and prioritizing function — were easy to teach and apply. Over time, these ideas solidified into the foundation of most architecture programs around the world.
marco 2000, FarnsworthHouse-Mies-5, CC BY-SA 2.0
Today, those same principles are still prevalent. Modernist concepts such as “less is more” continue to be emphasized in classrooms and it’s easy to see why — they offer a straightforward, logical approach to design. But while these ideas remain valuable, they’ve also become a bit of a default mode in architectural education. The challenge now is that the world has evolved and the issues architects face today require a broader range of thinking and solutions.
That’s not to say modernism doesn’t have its place — it absolutely does. But it’s time for schools to start balancing these foundational ideas with a focus on more contemporary approaches that address the complexities of the present day.
The Negative Impacts of Glorifying Modernism
Komera Leadership Center by BE_Design, Rwanda
While the movement’s legacy is undeniable, continuing to center it in architectural education comes with its own set of challenges.
Focusing heavily on modernism limits students’ exposure to the diverse range of architectural styles and movements that have emerged since. By repeatedly emphasizing figures like Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier, schools often leave out more contemporary and culturally diverse approaches, giving students an outdated or incomplete understanding of architecture’s potential — and the ways that diverse knowledges have been erased by modern’s hegemony. Indeed, this narrow focus not only restricts their appreciation of global design but also discourages the exploration of new, context-driven ideas that better align with today’s architectural landscape.
Like any other historical movement, modernism was a product of its time, responding to the needs of post-war industrialization and urbanization. Its clean lines, minimalist principles and functionalist ideals made sense in an era focused on rapid rebuilding. But today’s architects face a different set of challenges — sustainability, climate change and the need for cultural sensitivity in a globalized world. Modernist ideals, rooted in the past, often fail to address these pressing concerns, yet many schools continue to prioritize them. The heavy reliance on materials like concrete, steel and glass (symbols of progress back then) doesn’t align with today’s emphasis on eco-friendly practices. And modernism’s one-size-fits-all approach often overlooks cultural nuances, which are critical in today’s diverse and interconnected world.
Moreover, treating modernism as the gold standard can stifle creativity. When students are repeatedly taught to value minimalism and functionalism above all else, they often fall into the trap of replicating these aesthetics without considering alternative approaches. (It’s safe to say that many of us were guilty of this at some point.)
This emphasis on staying within the confines of modernist thinking can make students hesitant to break away from the mold or experiment with unconventional materials, forms or ideas. In the end, they risk becoming designers who reproduce the past rather than pushing the boundaries of what architecture could be.
What Should Architectural Education Focus on Instead?
HiLo Unit at NEST by ETH Zurich, Block Research Group, Zurich, Switzerland
While modernism has shaped how architecture is taught, it’s time to broaden the perspective. The world is facing new challenges and architects need to keep up. Schools should be encouraging students to explore more than just the classics — there’s so much happening in contemporary design, from sustainable architecture to experimental projects using cutting-edge technology.
Today’s architects have a lot on their plates. It’s not just about whether form follows function or vice versa anymore. Issues like climate change, urban sprawl and social equity are at the forefront of design. Instead of relying solely on traditional design principles, students should be learning how to address these real-world challenges directly. How can buildings reduce their carbon footprint? How can urban spaces become more inclusive and livable? These are the kinds of questions that need to take center stage.
Students should feel empowered to break away from the mold and explore new materials, forms and solutions. To achieve this, schools need to equip them with the tools to think critically and creatively, allowing them to push the boundaries of traditional design.
The good news is—some schools are already taking steps in this direction. At the University of British Columbia, for example, sustainability and cultural sensitivity are key parts of the curriculum. Over at ETH Zurich, students are diving into experimental design and using technology to rethink how buildings are made. These schools are showing that there’s a way to honor architectural history while also preparing students for the future.
Time to Let Le Corbusier Rest For a Bit
The biggest takeaway here is that modernism had its time, but architecture has evolved and so must our approach to education. The continued glorification of modernist icons keeps students anchored to a past that doesn’t fully address the pressing challenges of today — whether it’s sustainability, social equity or the complexities of urbanization. Clinging to these old frameworks limits creativity and narrows the scope of what architecture can achieve in our rapidly changing world.
That’s not to say we should disregard the past completely. In fact, studying modernism provides valuable lessons, but it’s important to balance that with a forward-thinking mindset. For those searching for examples of what architecture looks like when it embraces new ideas, Architizer’s World’s Best Architecture offers a window into groundbreaking projects that are redefining design today. These award-winning works show just how much is possible when architecture moves beyond outdated ideals and welcomes bold, innovative approaches.
In the end, modernism isn’t going anywhere, but it doesn’t need to be the centerpiece. It’s time to appreciate it as one chapter in architecture’s story, while focusing on what comes next.
The latest edition of “Architizer: The World’s Best Architecture” — a stunning, hardbound book celebrating the most inspiring contemporary architecture from around the globe — is now available. Order your copy today.
