ABSTRACT
Unoriginal and commonplace, the very definition of banal, is the fate of most buildings. The background building is ignored by the critics but is an important and necessary work of architecture. Banal architecture is the background that is needed in order for foreground buildings to shine as landmarks. Every jewel needs a setting. Banal does not necessarily imply bad. As Steven Izenour and the Venturis famously proclaimed in Learning From Las Vegas (1977), there is value in the ugly and the ordinary as a reflection of the truth of the American suburban condition – the low-density sprawl of Levittown. Banality reigns. It is familiar, and thus comfortable, for most of its occupants. The desire to live in the same architecture as your neighbor is universal. As the appreciation of highdesign architecture is still the domain of the initiated, everyone else is perplexed. The problem became most evident during the era of modern architecture. Modern international-style buildings, hailed by critics at the time, now form the banal backgrounds of industrialized cities around the world (Figure 19). Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine that the colorful and aggressively foreground blob building of the more recent past will become banal. They are more likely to simply become sad reminders of a short-lived mannerist, neo-baroque, pop architectural style. Like the glitz
and glitter of 1970s Las Vegas, they will be regarded as pathetic and dated as they become trite and age badly. As “green” building becomes the norm, the banal, modest, background building may become respectable once again. After all, the dominant architectural agenda will be to humbly do the right thing and not necessarily to impress. It may ultimately be the age of banality in architecture in a good way.
