Modern or Contemporary: What's the Difference?
10 homes illustrate the essence of modern and contemporary home design styles
Houzz Contributor. I am an architect and writer living in New York City. I have Bachelor of Architecture and Master in Urban Planning degrees, and over ten years experience in architectural practice, split between Chicago and NYC. Currently I'm focused on writing and online pursuits. My daily blog can be found at http://archidose.blogspot.com
Houzz Contributor. I am an architect and writer living in New York City.... More »
What is the difference between modern and contemporary architecture? Why the distinction? At their most literal, "contemporary" is the architecture being produced now, the architecture of the moment. "Modern" architecture breaks with the past — specifically the traditional styles of before the Industrial Revolution.
So in this sense "contemporary" is not limited to a single stylistic thread. And "modern" recalls the early- and mid-20th-century architecture embodying the ideals of the machine age: an absence of ornament, structures of steel or concrete, large expanses of glass, a whitewash (usually stucco over brick) or another minimal exterior expression, and open floor plans.
While this starts to define the difference, there is an evident use of the term "contemporary" that refers to a particular strain of design today, such that new postmodern, neo-Classical or other neo-traditional buildings are not included. The term's use is clearly narrower than the literal definition, yet it is still rooted in the now; contemporary architecture is of its time, therefore innovative and forward-looking. In this sense it is rooted in the modern, even if it does not resemble it stylistically.
The photos that follow respond to the question, "modern or contemporary?" I hope the answers will elucidate the similarities and differences between the styles, further aiding the appreciation of both styles of architecture.
So in this sense "contemporary" is not limited to a single stylistic thread. And "modern" recalls the early- and mid-20th-century architecture embodying the ideals of the machine age: an absence of ornament, structures of steel or concrete, large expanses of glass, a whitewash (usually stucco over brick) or another minimal exterior expression, and open floor plans.
While this starts to define the difference, there is an evident use of the term "contemporary" that refers to a particular strain of design today, such that new postmodern, neo-Classical or other neo-traditional buildings are not included. The term's use is clearly narrower than the literal definition, yet it is still rooted in the now; contemporary architecture is of its time, therefore innovative and forward-looking. In this sense it is rooted in the modern, even if it does not resemble it stylistically.
The photos that follow respond to the question, "modern or contemporary?" I hope the answers will elucidate the similarities and differences between the styles, further aiding the appreciation of both styles of architecture.
| Modern. In the case of this photo, the question is a trick one, because we are looking at a house from 1939. It features expansive glass in a semi-circular volume, a cantilevered upper floor, corner windows, and a whitewash finish. This residence in Austin, Texas was the inspiration for the four-condo project in the distance by Hugh Jefferson Randolph. |
| Modern. The neighboring four-condo project by Hugh Jefferson Randolph is clearly rooted in the modern architecture of its nearby predecessor: whitewash surfaces predominate, corner windows are evident, and cantilevers and overhangs can be found. Another aspect of the modern style that they both share is an intentional asymmetry, a departure from the Classical bilateral symmetry that was prevalent before the 20th century. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| Contemporary. The MuSh Residence is an obvious departure from the previous project. Instead of white, the solid walls are covered in zinc with randomly spaced reveals. A cantilever is found, but its relationship to the main volume is more complex (not just an extension of it, like the first photo), and it is offset by a notch on the other side. The house may be boxy and flat-roofed like most modern architecture, but its idiosyncrasies make it contemporary through and through. |
Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
The MuSh Residence (the name and alternating upper-lower case make it quite contemporary too) is actually comprised of two cube-like buildings: a three-story house (previous photo) and a two-story volume with garage adjacent to the street; between is a courtyard. The shorter volume has the same skin and literal expression of circulation via glass. The composition is much more free-form than modern buildings.
Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
Modern. A couple of projects by Amitzi Architects of Israel embrace the tenets of modern architecture, or what is also referred to as the International Style, after the 1932 MoMA exhibition curated by Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock of the same name. That exhibition articulated the ideals of modernism as a style, uniting buildings and architects across the globe through the articulation of volumes, walls and windows. House L does it so well it looks like it could have been made 70 years ago.
Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
Modern. House K by Amitzi Architects features simpler volumes than House L, but the solid walls are treated to the same whitewash. The window treatment is of note here; the louvered screens cut down on direct sunlight. Even though hermetically sealed office buildings — the high modernism of Mies van der Rohe — give the impression that modern architecture ignores climate, many early- and mid-20th-century modern buildings used architectural elements in response to sun, wind, etc. This simple house is rooted in that modern vein.
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| Contemporary. Like the previous example, the Skyline Residence in Los Angeles uses architectural elements to cut down on direct sunlight. Yet the design by Belzberg Architects articulates the horizontal wood planks in a manner that is contemporary: they angle and overlap, giving a feather-like appearance. The form of the house is also quite interesting ... |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| ... And the front of the house gives an indication of what is going on: the second-story cantilever creates a carport but also a surface for watching films, something quite LA. This "drive-in theater" represents a hybrid condition: it's a house and a cinema. This further roots the house in a contemporary style rather than a modern one, since the latter preserved distinctions between various aspects of life (live-work-play, etc). |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| Modern. This long and low house in upstate New York is a simple composition of stone and glass floating atop the landscape on a plinth of sorts. The roof overhang, supported by slender round columns, shields the full-height glass wall from summer sunlight. Each element — roofs, walls, plinth — combine to create a strong horizontal composition that recalls the modern houses of Mies van der Rohe. |
Modern. Another Miesian house is this house on Long Island by Stelle Architects. A solid bar with pool supports and sits perpendicularly to the glass box. The open floor plan is apparent in the transparency through the box. This house is clearly modern, almost orthodox except for the manner in which it is raised above the surrounding dunes.
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| Contemporary. Full-height glazing does not solely a modern building make. What at first looks like a glass box framed in red is a contemporary interpretation of one, sheared and shifted in the middle. Here the ribbon-like continuity of the stucco-red frame is the most overt expression, a sharp departure from the clear structure and framing of modern houses. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| Contemporary. This last photo illustrates one vein of contemporary architecture: sustainability. This extreme example, a demonstration home called ScrapHouse spearheaded by Public Architecture, is completely fabricated from salvaged materials: railroad ties, street signs, shower doors, and even phone books. As participating designer Jensen Architects indicate, "some materials were re-invented for their intended purpose," a consideration that makes this project as contemporary as can be. Form does not exist before the building is realized, it is driven by the atypical design palette of salvaged materials. Next: Modern vs. Contemporary — the Interiors Edition |
Ideabook updated on May 22, 2013.
What are you working on?
News From Our Partners
Latest Ideabooks
People found the photos in this ideabook after searching for:
View over a million photos:
basements · bedrooms · dining rooms · entries · family rooms · garage and sheds · halls · home offices · landscapes · laundry rooms · powder rooms · wine cellars and more.
And as always - stunning example photos!! Thank you!
Now, just to through some more confusion into these words, would you consider the MuSH house to be Post-Modern? It looks very PoMo to me, thought I'm not quite sure I could put into words why.
http://blog.17thandriggs.com
Looking forward to the next post!
Thanks for posting. I love the subject, I do both Contemporary and Modern, and sometimes it is the same.
jerry@jerryjacobsdesign.com
Bubba67, thanks for pointing out the more decorative Art Moderne elements of the home, which are more evident in the front of the house. Credit to the original architect, Roy L. Thomas.
It appears that I've associated that look with the word "contemporary" simply because that's what those homeowners that I've known saw as the current and in-style look, so they themselves labeled it as "contemporary". But clearly that is too narrow of a definition.
I would be very curious to see someone examine the modern/contemporary issue in regards to interiors. Do you think it would have basically all the same points as related to architecture?
Good environs make good life!
Being modern (or contemporary) isn't a style, it's an attitude. It's not about copying a particular pre-existing style (colonial, arts & crafts, mediterranean, or even "Modern" with a capital M - which to me means 1920's International Style). Granted, all designers are affected and inspired by what came before, but there's a difference between copying from and being inspired by. This is not a value judgement in and of itself, as great (or terrible) design can come from either approach, and different circumstances and clients may merit one path or the other.
My guess is that if you polled architects about whether their work is "modern" or "contemporary" you wouldn't get a meaningful distinction. And if those of us who live and breathe this can't tell the difference, then it really is just semantics.
Kaylana - Not sure I'm the best person to give an answer to this, but I think many of the same ideas apply, especially in the way modern landscape forms parallel modern building forms. A similar parallel can probably be found in contemporary landscape. What might distinguish the two is a more systems-based approach that prizes native species and other means of, say, reducing water usage in contemporary landscapes versus form and surface being important in modern landscapes. But again, I'm probably the last person that should be answering this question. Regardless, maybe an ideabook on that topic is needed...
The neighbors weren't horrified-- fascinated was more like it... but if you knew Austin back then, it makes perfect sense.
I remember driving by that house many times on the way up the hill on 29th to my Grandmother's.... it always looked like a cruise liner docked there.... and captured my imagination, especially with my father's stories of it being built... the well, the pool with spring water constantly flowing through it....he was just a boy when it was being built and they watched with avid interest as it went up.