While some believe the modern movement in architecture completely eradicated the use of color, it isn’t entirely true. Rather, architects of the era used planes of color to complement the white interior and exterior walls that most people are familiar with. However, because many of the photos from that time are black and white, the effect goes wholly unappreciated. So, when I see color integrated in a building design in a meaningful or decorative way that makes it “work,” I get excited.
Top image: Linked Hybrid, Beijing, China, by Steven Holl Architects. Taken by and used with the permission of photographer Shu He. Above image: building by Legorreta+Legorreta at UCSF Mission Bay campus, San Francisco.
A couple of months ago, the front cover of Architectural Record caught my eye. It featured Steven Holl’s Linked Hybrid, a new housing complex in Beijing. What drew me in were the colored undersides of the sky bridges, or “sky loops,” that connect the eight towers. They seem to signify these habitable bridges as “hotspots” to the pedestrian below. He also applied color on the window header and jambs, just as he had done on Simmons Hall at M.I.T., where he introduced color on the window soffits. And while the color pattern might seem random, the very opposite is the case. Holl took the colors found in “polychromatic Buddhist temples” and “used the I Ching to determine the pattern.” This bit of information ― that meaning exists behind the seemingly arbitrary ― really thrilled me. Holl’s application of colors may not be bold enough for some, but I’m guessing it doesn’t seem too overwhelming from the perspective of a pedestrian or apartment dweller. Is it enough to make the complex approachable and inviting? This I cannot answer, but in theory, the colors seem to work.
There is a building by Legorreta+Legorreta — I have walked by it every day for the past three or so years — at UCSF’s Mission Bay campus here in San Francisco. Color is certainly an integral architectural element of this building. It is swathed in a rich brownish-red hue, and the main atrium is awash in a deep blue ― nothing too alarming. But there is a pink patio — a hotspot, if you will — located on an upper floor at the front of the building. The pink intrigues me; it is like a beacon amid all the beige and gray buildings. My eye is drawn to it every time I walk by and I stare at it expecting something to happen, but nothing ever does. Turns out that the patio belongs to the university’s administrative offices and, alas, often goes unused ― an outdoor party room gone to waste. Tsk. Color can certainly enhance a building, but it shouldn’t be slapped on just for the sake of using color.
Regretfully, sometimes color can transform an innocent building into an eyesore rather than an icon. For example, there are a couple of residences here in the Bay Area — one incorporates a baby pastel color scheme, and the other, featured on the Curbed SF Web site, is cast in full Technicolor glory!
Share with me architectural examples where you think color has been used with thoughtful and intentional consideration.
Post your reply below.
Amy Kim studied architecture at M.I.T. and has 15 years of experience in various project types, ranging from residential and institutional buildings to neighborhood planning. Her broad design experience also includes graphic design and building code consulting. She has worked in offices in Boston, New York and Baltimore, and currently resides in San Francisco.
You may also enjoy:
- Material Color: When Color Takes the Driver’s Seat
- How to Think About Exterior Paint Color
- Living Color: Bohemian Hues
Like
The title of this article is troubling. It doesn’t read well at all. Sorry, but I can’t get past the grammar in the rest of the article, either. Build is a verb. Could “Color in the BUILT Environment” possibly be what you mean to say? Were you discussing the “Design Build” industry? Very dissapointing.
To Kim-
“disappointing”….D-I-S-A-P-P-O-I-N-T-I-N-G
Thank you for bringing this mistake to our attention. You are correct — it should have said “built” not “build.” It has been fixed.
Hello Amy-
Great article! It’s amazing how many people greatly overlooked the subtleties of the modern movement. Poor Gerrit Rietveld… Thanks for reminding others of the power in thoughtful use of color.
Cheers from Bmore!
Hi Brian from Bmore! Color seemed to have been used in a more purposeful manner in architecture.
Interestingly…Johannes Itten, an instructor at The Bauhaus, developed theories to help develop the color wheel, a tool that is still relevant and used today. His book, “The Art of Color”, documents his approach to color which were based on the intuition and emotion of the artist or designer.
Great article, Amy!
now i am intrigued to learn more as you alluded to: “However, because many of the photos from that time are black and white, the effect goes wholly unappreciated.” Can we put in requests for your next topic?
I would love to do a story on color and the modernist movement! Though it would be a very very short synopsis.
When the renovation of the Guggenheim was nearing completion there was an article in the NYT that said FLW had intended the building to be a color. Peach, Blue and even Red were in his sketches. i had always heard that he didn’t care much for artists and intended the building to overshadow and art that was displayed…The offwhite that was on the building for years was not even the final choice – which, if I recall, was yellow.
Hi Paula,
Thanks for your comments! I’ve also read that crimson was initially proposed by Wright who described the color as a “color of creation”, but was nixed by then curator, Hilla Rebay, and Solomon Guggenheim. I think the red is still being used in the museum’s identity. And during the last major renovation, the restorers found that the building was initially painted tan and eventually a light gray. They decided to maintain the light gray.
The museum’s design was controversial from the get-go. Stats indicate that more people visit the museum for the building than the art itself…no surprise there.