The Architecture of Controversy
The Architecture of Controversy: How Every Era Criticizes Its Own Buildings
If history teaches us anything, it’s that every generation thinks its architecture is either too much, too little, or completely off the mark. Today, people lament the rise of modern construction trends—from the farmhouse-style takeover in suburban America to the glass-and-steel minimalism of urban high-rises—but this critique is nothing new. Two hundred years ago, Victorian architects were accused of overbuilding, filling cities with garish Gothic spires, exaggerated turrets, and cluttered ornamentation. One hundred years ago, people criticized Art Deco and Modernist architecture for being too stark and inhuman. And yet, these styles—once deemed excessive or unsuitable—are now protected as heritage architecture, celebrated as symbols of their era.
History Repeats Itself in Architecture
In the late 19th century, newspaper editorials derided the rapid expansion of Victorian housing, warning that speculative builders were over-developing cities with uncoordinated, overly ornate houses. Publications like The Builder (UK) and Harper’s Weekly (US) ran stories lamenting the loss of simpler, classical architecture, much like people today critique the spread of McMansions and bland cookie-cutter housing developments.
During the postwar boom, Mid-Century Modern homes—which we now admire for their clean lines and open floor plans—were once criticized for being too boxy, sterile, and soulless compared to the traditional homes of the early 1900s. Today, those same houses are prized and even replicated as an ideal of thoughtful, functional design.
Even San Francisco’s iconic Victorian homes—now beloved and preserved—were originally built as speculative housing, often seen as excessive, too frilly, or architecturally incoherent. When the city began modernizing in the mid-20th century, many of these homes were torn down in favor of sleek, mid-century apartment buildings, and at the time, no one thought they were losing a piece of history. Now, we see those demolitions as tragic, a cautionary tale of progress moving too fast.
Geary Boulevard: A Future Controversy in the Making
Fast forward to today, and San Francisco’s Geary Boulevard Corridor is in the middle of a transformation. With recent zoning changes allowing for 60-foot buildings rather than 40 feet, we are witnessing the early stages of a major urban shift toward density. The backlash has already begun—people are worried that the character of the neighborhood will be lost, that taller buildings will overshadow historic areas, and that the city’s skyline will be permanently altered.
But let’s take a step back: In 20 or 30 years, will anyone find this shocking? Probably not. Just like past architectural transformations, today’s complaints about increased building heights will fade. By the time a new generation grows up in these taller, denser buildings, they will simply see them as part of the city’s fabric. The cycle will repeat, and in 50 years, people may be fighting to preserve these “historic” 60-foot structures while arguing against whatever architectural trend comes next.
Architecture as a Reflection of Time
The evolution of architecture isn’t just about aesthetics—it’s about the realities of population growth, shifting economies, and changing technologies. Cities must respond to the needs of their people, and that means that what is considered excessive or out of place today may become essential and beloved tomorrow.
Instead of resisting change as inherently negative, we should recognize that every era contributes to the built environment, and the discomfort people feel about today’s construction will one day give way to nostalgia. What we see as controversial now will eventually become history, just like the grand Victorian mansions and Art Deco skyscrapers once criticized in their own time.
So next time someone claims that modern construction is ruining the city, remember: it’s just history repeating itself.
