Sierra Rasberry

      It seems that new movements in architecture have almost always been prompted by trying to fix the current “state” architecture is in. In the last 100 years, with the world technologically advancing all the time, and with the global network becoming more and more autonomous, there have been a number of architectural revolutions. One of the most well-known architectural movements was of the Modernists. Modernism was characterized by the simplification of form and creation of ornament from the structure and theme of the building [1]. The problem with modernism is that it disregarded social implications in order to promote pure forms. This downfall was most exemplified with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe building on March 16, 1972. This event is known as the “death of Modernism”. This building was destroyed because it had become a breeding ground for corruption and violence. As good the form may have been, it was designed with little or no regard for the people living within. In response to this event, structuralism was among many of the anti-modernist movements to gain recognition.




Structuralism does not have a signature style or formal qualities, but is more oriented as a system of thinking. Structuralism is similar to ways in which DNA control the form of the human body. If one piece of DNA is manipulated, that change creates a change with the system as a whole. It is concerned with the interrelationships of all parts to a whole. Particularly, the way in which a social system occurs on a daily basis in our lives. Humans sleep at night, they eat at certain intervals in the day, and move within their environment. For Structuralists, design is a process in searching for the relationship between elements. Structuralists are also interested in the social structures and mental processes that contributed to the design [2].