Malcolm Millais is a retired structural engineer who has written a classic text on 'Building Structures' and has worked on many projects, particularly in Great Britain. In 'Exploding the Myths of Modern Architecture' Millais takes on what he terms the Modernist Movement "ghetto". Millais starts by examining the evolution of architectural thought through time as architecture and engineering become more professional yet separate (and largely uncommunicating) entities. He details what he sees as the basic tenets of the rising Modernist Movement, starting largely with le Corbusier. From here, Millais examines what he perceives as the intellectual laziness of the Movement (paying lip service to utilization of advanced technology while understanding little of it), its failure to consider (or arrogant disregard of) the economic and ergonomic needs of the end users, all abetted by engineers who should know better.

Modernism at its best celebrates structural form and building materials with a cleaness of line and the uplifting of technology and advanced building techniques for better and more economic construction. Any building, modern or not, which is not functional (i.e., does not live up to its purpose as either habitation, public forum or workplace, does not provide a habitable and readily maintained environment, and far exceeds the owner's budget) is a failed building. Millais contends that modern architects all too often provide buildings which are precisely that.

Millais attributes this to a multitude of factors. Modern architects have cut ties completely with all architecture which came before. In doing so, they have also dispensed with some knowledge which is useful and hardwon. Dogmatic adherence to modernist principles without consideration of locale and climate leads to leaking flat roofs in snowbound areas, where pitched roofs would help eliminate snow; heating and ventilation issues and 'glasshouse effects' where huge expanses of windows meet strong sunlight. Millais points to the rise of cultlike worship of egomaniacal architectural stars, who insist on pursuing their vison regardless of cost, appropriateness of use, and technical feasibility. This is compounded by the divorce between architects, who have little or no technical knowledge, and engineers, who do. The architects in essence 'dream the dream', then it is up to the hapless engineer to try to devise a technical plan to make the dream a reality. Unfortunately, that dream will often insist upon elements that are more difficult and costly than traditional building techniques, and ultimately require costly upkeep and renovation.

Living and working in an urban setting (Boston), I can readily see how architecture can enhance or degrade one's daily life. I personally feel that our buildings should have a human scale (or at least be relatable on a street level) and be appropriate to their surroundings. The modernist buildings and reflecting pool which gather around the Christian Science Church headquarters are quite successful in this regard. Unfortunately, way too many of our modern buildings, such as the inaccessible and confusing City Hall and the windswept desolate plaza surrounding it, are much less so.

By inclination I am disposed to look favorably on Mr. Millais' basic thesis. Readers who are similarly minded will be willing to overlook his sometimes lacking writing skills. His enthusiasm and many illustrations made up for any lack. Those who disagree will likely find him pedantic and polemical. While I tended to agree in many respects, I doubt the Modernist Movement is as monolithic as he makes it out to be. Additionally, once one gets beyond questions of whether a structure is functional, aren't many of these issues ones of tastes and aesthetics?

I have read some reviewers who decry critics of modern architecture as lacking in proper understanding and sense, part of the great unwashed masses. Even the more mild seem to agree that modernist adherents could do a better job in educating the general public. It seems to me that the general public has no problem in recognizing and adopting new technology and good design. Apple's various popular devices and our love affair with the automobile come to mind. Perhaps the failing has less to do with the recipient public, but with the message and the messengers. ( )