Modern architecture in Indonesia doesn`t have its develpoment in the country. As other architectural style that is imported from the western countries, This style coming to Indonesia because of influence of globalization the modern architecture style developed as an international style that has similar appearance and concept in all coutries. At least modern style keep having a similarity that function as the beginning of design. In Indonesia, modern style is considered as a style wheere functionality is also the beginning of design

In the modern lifestyle, the society seems to like things that are easier and quicker because of many tools are made industrially. The basic character of modern lifestyle is a demand to move faster, and do everything faster, that is supported by technology and industrialization.

Technology is developed to make work and daily life easier like the development of information technology that enable people to communicate using devices like telephones and computers.

Quality and speed have become important factors in modern lifestyle. There is an intention to see the value of devices based on the function value or how many function that a device has, and based on its support to modern lifestyle that demand easier and fuctional devices.

In architecture, the modern lifestyle has its impact to the will to own simple building, clean, and functional as a symbol of modern spirit. But this kind of lifestyle {in Indonesia} can only be owned only by high class, especially they who live in big cities, where life demands faster lifestyle, functional and efficient.

In Indonesia, modern lifestyle that is implemented sometimes still has aesthetic ornaments that is brought from classic or ethnic style, while other parts of the building is designed in pure modern design. It is often for us to hear `modern classical architecture`, `ethnic modern architecture`, `modern traditional architecture`, `modern Balinese architecture`, etc. In Indonesia, it seeems to be obvious that ornaments is still implemented in modern design, but this will make this kind of architecture to be `blurr`, whether it is modern or postmodern?

To call this modern architecture style that has ornaments as pure modern style, is not appropriate, beside the process of development of this kind is not happening in Indonesia. To call this as postmodern style, nonetheless, in Indonesia this term is often avoided to anticipate a misunderstanding in society. So this `modern` architecture style in Indonesia will appear as `Indonesian modern architecture style` with characters as follows:

It pays big attention to function, based on the activity pattern of the dweller or user
It has a big attention to building materials that are used to bring the desired aesthetic
It has the analogy of machine in the arrangement and development of space
It avoid ornaments {if it is modern style}, or use ornaments {if postmodern}, or being called `modern ethnic architecture`, `modern Balinese architecture`, etc.
It simple shape and ornamentation or vanishing `unnecesssary`d details as far as desired by the designer or the owner of the building

Canal rings houses
The old centre was formed by rings of canals with unique mostly 17th century residences of wealthy merchants, financiers, craftsmen, doctors, lawyers, politicians and artists. Because of lack of space, these houses were mostly narrow, not more than 30ft wide (9 meters). They are are characterized by big narrow windows, decorative gable tops, very narrow stairs inside and pulley outside to transport larger objects to upper floors. Very often the residences served also as businesses. Merchant’s houses had their storage in attics and cellars. Sometimes the lift was installed in the middle of the house plan, to transport the goods between floors. The office of the merchant was usually on the ground floor. Like in Venice the canals were the main way of transporting the goods.

Classicism
At the end of the 18th century classicism produced in Amsterdam several monumental buildings, with probably the most interesting called Felix Meritis by Jacob Otten.

Historicism and Art Deco
The development of Amsterdam into the modern city at the end of the 19th century resulted in construction of the several landmark city buildings as Central Station, Central Post Office (today rebuilt into a shopping mall Magna Plaza), Rijksmuseum (State Museum), Stedelijk Museum (Municipal Museum), Stadsschouwburg (City Theater), Concertgebouw (City Philharmonic)and St. Nicolaaskerk. The foremost architect of this was P.J.H.Cuypers. Architecture of these building was searching for the historical inspiration, using elements of gothic and renaissance.
Art Deco popular at the turn of the 19th century in the whole Europe, left several interesting buildings in Amsterdam with the American Hotel as its foremost example with wonderful interior of the café and lunch room.

Hendrik Petrus Berlage
At the beginning of the 20th century an important milestone has been a vast plan of the expansion of Amsterdam into the dimension of the European metropolis, called Plan Zuid (Plan South – 1915) by an architect H.P.Berlage, often regarded as the Father of the Modern Dutch architecture.
Located just near the Dam square the Stock Exchange building (1903, now called Beurs van Berlage and used as exhibition and concert hall) also by the architect Berlage precedes the Amsterdam School style and is often regarded as influential to the whole Dutch architecture of the first half of the 20th.

The Amsterdam School style
At the beginning of the 20th century, the new housing law in the Netherlands started the boom of the low cost housing for the working class. Most of these quarters were built in a new distinctive style called the Amsterdam School (Dutch: Amsterdamse School). It was first applied by Michel de Kerk is a housing block called Het Schip (The Ship) – today regarded as a monument, with the museum of this architecture style in a former post office.

Functionalism (1920-1970) and after
As in many other European countries Dutch architecture after 1920 has been influenced by the ideas of the French architect Le Corbusier. New technologies – use of concrete, prefabrication, standardization as well as strongly emphasized function of the building are characteristic for architecture of this movement. The most imprtant architects were Gerrit Rietveld, Jacobus Oud, Johannes Duiker, Cornelis van Eesteren, Michiel Brinkman and Leendert van der Vlugt. The finest examples of functionalism were, still influenced by the Amsterdam School style housing district Betondorp (1921-1928) and Van Gogh Museum, by Gerrit Rietveld (1963-1973).
Later years (before 1990) brought several different streams in Dutch architecture. The most interesting architects of the 1960-1990 in Amsterdam were Aldo van Eyck, Herman Hertzberger. Still, it may seem that functionalism has been heavily influencing new projects.

The exact characteristics and origins of Modern architecture are still open to interpretation and debate.

Some historians see the evolution of Modern architecture as a social matter, closely tied to the project of Modernity and hence to the Enlightenment, a result of social and political revolutions.

Others see Modern architecture as primarily driven by technological and engineering developments, and it is true that the availability of new building materials such as iron, steel, concrete and glass drove the invention of new building techniques as part of the Industrial Revolution. In 1796, Shrewsbury mill owner Charles Bage first used his ‘fireproof’ design, which relied on cast iron and brick with flag stone floors. Such construction greatly strengthened the structure of mills, which enabled them to accommodate much bigger machines. Due to poor knowledge of iron’s properties as a construction material, a number of early mills collapsed. It was not until the early 1830s that Eaton Hodgkinson introduced the section beam, leading to widespread use of iron construction, this kind of austere industrial architecture utterly transformed the landscape of northern Britain, leading to the description, “Dark satanic mills” of places like Manchester and parts of West Yorkshire. The Crystal Palace by Joseph Paxton at the Great Exhibition of 1851 was an early example of iron and glass construction; possibly the best example is the development of the tall steel skyscraper in Chicago around 1890 by William Le Baron Jenney and Louis Sullivan. Early structures to employ concrete as the chief means of architectural expression (rather than for purely utilitarian structure) include Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unity Temple, built in 1906 near Chicago, and Rudolf Steiner’s Second Goetheanum, built from 1926 near Basel, Switzerland.

Other historians regard Modernism as a matter of taste, a reaction against eclecticism and the lavish stylistic excesses of Victorian Era and Edwardian Art Nouveau.
Whatever the cause, around 1900 a number of architects around the world began developing new architectural solutions to integrate traditional precedents (Gothic, for instance) with new technological possibilities. The work of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright in Chicago, Victor Horta in Brussels, Antoni Gaudi in Barcelona, Otto Wagner in Vienna and Charles Rennie Mackintosh in Glasgow, among many others, can be seen as a common struggle between old and new.

Modernism as dominant style
By the 1920s the most important figures in Modern architecture had established their reputations. The big three are commonly recognized as Le Corbusier in France, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius in Germany. Mies van der Rohe and Gropius were both directors of the Bauhaus, one of a number of European schools and associations concerned with reconciling craft tradition and industrial technology.
Frank Lloyd Wright’s career parallels and influences the work of the European modernists, particularly via the Wasmuth Portfolio, but he refused to be categorized with them. Wright was a major influence on both Gropius and van der Rohe, however, as well as on the whole of organic architecture.

In 1932 came the important MOMA exhibition, the International Exhibition of Modern Architecture, curated by Philip Johnson. Johnson and collaborator Henry-Russell Hitchcock drew together many distinct threads and trends, identified them as stylistically similar and having a common purpose, and consolidated them into the International Style.
This was an important turning point. With World War II the important figures of the Bauhaus fled to the United States, to Chicago, to the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and to Black Mountain College. While Modern architectural design never became a dominant style in single-dwelling residential buildings, in institutional and commercial architecture Modernism became the pre-eminent, and in the schools (for leaders of the profession) the only acceptable, design solution from about 1932 to about 1984.

Architects who worked in the international style wanted to break with architectural tradition and design simple, unornamented buildings. The most commonly used materials are glass for the facade, steel for exterior support, and concrete for the floors and interior supports; floor plans were functional and logical. The style became most evident in the design of skyscrapers. Perhaps its most famous manifestations include the United Nations headquarters (Le Corbusier, Oscar Niemeyer, Sir Howard Robertson), the Seagram Building (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe), and Lever House (Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill), all in New York. A prominent residential example is the Lovell House (Richard Neutra) in Los Angeles.

Detractors of the international style claim that its stark, uncompromisingly rectangular geometry is dehumanising. Le Corbusier once described buildings as “machines for living”, but people are not machines and it was suggested that they do not want to live in machines. Even Philip Johnson admitted he was “bored with the box.” Since the early 1980s many architects have deliberately sought to move away from rectilinear designs, towards more eclectic styles. During the middle of the century, some architects began experimenting in organic forms that they felt were more human and accessible. Mid-century modernism, or organic modernism, was very popular, due to its democratic and playful nature. Alvar Aalto and Eero Saarinen were two of the most prolific architects and designers in this movement, which has influenced contemporary modernism.

Although there is debate as to when and why the decline of the modern movement occurred, criticism of Modern architecture began in the 1960s on the grounds that it was universal, sterile, elitist and lacked meaning. Its approach had become ossified in a “style” that threatened to degenerate into a set of mannerisms. Siegfried Giedion in the 1961 introduction to his evolving text, Space, Time and Architecture (first written in 1941), could begin “At the moment a certain confusion exists in contemporary architecture, as in painting; a kind of pause, even a kind of exhaustion.” At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a 1961 symposium discussed the question “Modern Architecture: Death or Metamorphosis?” In New York, the coup d’état appeared to materialize in controversy around the Pan Am Building that loomed over Grand Central Station, taking advantage of the modernist real estate concept of “air rights”, In criticism by Ada Louise Huxtable and Douglas Haskell it was seen to “sever” the Park Avenue streetscape and “tarnish” the reputations of its consortium of architects: Walter Gropius, Pietro Belluschi and the builders Emery Roth & Sons. The rise of postmodernism was attributed to disenchantment with Modern architecture. By the 1980s, postmodern architecture appeared triumphant over modernism, including the temple of the Light of the World, a futuristic design for its time Guadalajara Jalisco La Luz del Mundo Sede International; however, postmodern aesthetics lacked traction and by the mid-1990s, a neo-modern (or hypermodern) architecture had once again established international pre-eminence. As part of this revival, much of the criticism of the modernists has been revisited, refuted, and re-evaluated; and a modernistic idiom once again dominates in institutional and commercial contemporary practice, but must now compete with the revival of traditional architectural design in commercial and institutional architecture; residential design continues to be dominated by a traditional aesthetic.

Characteristics
Modern architecture is usually characterized by:
• a rejection of historical styles as a source of architectural form (historicism)
• an adoption of the principle that the materials and functional requirements determine the result
• an adoption of the machine aesthetic
• a rejection of ornament
• a simplification of form and elimination of “unnecessary detail”
• an adoption of expressed structure
• Form follows function

Italy’s Romanesque architecture (12th cent.) reveals the first use of the groined vault with projecting ribs. It is also typified by the development of a type of basilica having side galleries. The style was especially pronounced in Lombardy and is superbly exemplified in Sant’ Ambrogio, Milan. There are two regional forms of Italian Romanesque—Tuscan (including Florentine) and southern. The cathedral of Pisa (1063-1118), with its campanile (the “leaning tower” ), admirably displays the Tuscan characteristics, chief of which is the decorative use of tier upon tier of columns. Tuscan architects of the period also made a specialty of using variegated marbles and followed the antique style in this rather closely. The Romanesque of the south, as in the cathedral of Monreale, is characterized by its rich mosaics and delicate carvings, which show Byzantine, Saracenic, and Norman influences.

Gothic Influences

Gothic architecture was not greatly developed in Italy; a notable exception is the cathedral of Milan, built in part by foreign architects. The Church of St. Francis in Assisi (begun 1228) and the cathedral at Siena (begun 1269), among others, also have Gothic elements—the ribbed vault and the pointed arch (see Gothic architecture and art ). However, the Italians largely adhered to the native tradition of building in terms of simple basilican proportions with massive walls, a practice that was carried into the Renaissance.

The Renaissance

In the 15th cent. a conscious revival of classical antiquity began (see Renaissance art and architecture ). Brunelleschi emulated the ancient Romans in his masterly construction (1420-34) of the dome of the Florentine cathedral, and Michelozzo used antique elements in the courtyard of the Medici Palace, Florence (begun 1444). Alberti borrowed freely from a Roman triumphal arch in his design (1450s) for the exterior of the Tempio Malatestiano in Rimini. Bramante, Antonio da Sangallo, Peruzzi, and Raphael made Rome the center of spectacular architectural developments in the first half of the 16th cent., when St. Peter’s was the most important project under way. Vignola did significant work in Rome in the latter part of the 16th cent., while in N Italy the formal classicism of Palladio was a potent factor in the spreading of Renaissance architecture throughout Europe. The monumental work of Michelangelo reflected elements of mannerism and his influence extended into the baroque period.

The Baroque

The beginning of the 17th cent. ushered in the drama of the baroque era with Maderno’s nave and facade for St. Peter’s, to which a magnificent colonnaded plaza was added, designed by Bernini, the foremost genius of the period. Other outstanding architects of the century included Borromini, Cortona, and Rainaldi. After their deaths, Carlo Fontana became the most influential architect in Italy, transmitting the ideas of the great baroque masters to many of the most important architects of Europe. Italy, however, no longer possessed the undisputed leadership in European architecture, although in the 18th cent. Piedmont in N Italy produced remarkable designers, such as Guarini, Juvarra, and Vittone.

The Modern Era

Nineteenth-century Italian architecture, such as Giuseppe Sacconi’s Victor Emmanuel monument, shows a decline in quality and increased pomposity. In the 20th cent. Italy has followed the trends of modern architecture ; its outstanding practitioners include Pier Luigi Nervi , Giuseppe Terragni, Gio Ponti, and Renzo Piano.

There is a connection from the classical days of the design of building to the modern day style. In the overall decision of the design, the whole inside to the outer accessibility area to include common, modern day, and casual access, but in timed sequenced. Making available the areas of use for whatever purpose chosen, in the designated parts of the building. This accessibility includes the population of the area surrounding the building; availability of such a resource is a step towards combining a highly technological possibility, with a social aspect. By integrating and applying a technological implementation, to include a larger mass of people, is in need of the insights of the many different degrees of intuitional thinking. A process that should, as a principal include the natural light of the sun, as a devised source of the natural habitual construction of the design.

Architecture is a perspective in one view, of what is considered contemporary art. The style or design of the homes across the market that has a demand or need of the usually accepted form of what is considered, “enough.” This is a reflection of the society based value system that could be utilized for a broader understanding of living within proximity of others. There is a thread of the institutional factors of the development of the higher ends of society. Which spends on the majority of the manufacturing singularities, which is a process that includes the debts, in the amount spread out in the purchases, such as homes.

In a concept, architecture can be a reflection on the historical value that brought the first inclusion of art into the creation of buildings. In this art integrated type of creating a building was a combination; with what was held as important to the people,

who were in relation to the structures. The connection to the economy of a city, and, or the rulers of the nation, and to the creators, was a valued construction that was symbolic for the accomplishments of a technological state of the art, design.

In knowing the relation to human life and the good emotional states provided by the natural world, invites a concept for the environment of a habitual atmosphere, to be a vital reason for life in the design. This is according to the mass numbers of people that are spread out across the world, but have a certain place where they call home. The place from where they originated in decent of ancestry heritage. The inclusion of a place for the goodness of living, can be as the commonwealth of investment of a society, that can respect the artistry of architecture, as a place of healthy living in relation to the other life forms in the natural environmental surrounding.

Looking to the history of then, when the days of living was as though the king kept the city, and gave the protection of the people in his care. As too the surrounding area was in relation towards the other people in the environmental relation towards other nations of the area. Why should a government provide material to other countries, when the government can construct the buildings, and be in the development plans of a whole situated place, that is available for accessibility, for commercial, recreational, and habitual living? Instead of taxing people and major corporations – in fractions – when where those industries and individuals invest in the markets of other countries, and are accumulating billions of net worth each year?

Architecture has the value in the accessibility of common living in relation to the structure of time in the availability of the quality of life. Being able to live in an integrated area, that is, in a concept of homes and the buildings of development, is an investment for the health of a community and a larger whole of society.

Today people can look back and see the integration of society, at the time of the constructed architectural building of magnificent artistry. The modern day style of building, is in a transitional state of awakening, to the mass market of the many billions more of people, now alive today around the world. Including the same freedoms depicted in the creation of the most magnificent buildings has a connection to the ever-closing fast paced future of economical arising construction of habitual designs. Can the new forms of buildings, which, could be built with the availability of the material from the very government, that, could provide the accessible tools, be used for the collaboration or individual and personal approach of designs?

In the aspect of the individual and personal approach the architecture of a home should have the geometrical beauty of the natural sunlight being accessible for the person who is building the home. Major projects of construction should reflect the personal design of homes; the architectural blueprint should be effective in every space created. The future is a place of vast possibilities and the architect of buildings to hold masses of people, can be an accessible and available places of society integrated interaction of schooling, work, and recreational activities.

In the opposite subjection, the housing of the masses of people can be an isolating closed in and degrading dark place that can seem like in all absolution as a penitentiary for the whole of society and the individual soul. The solution is in the design of a plan, and in the creation of freedom in the basis of what is considered and implemented as important. When accounting for the larger scores of people who could benefit in the production of architectural buildings, that is possible with the ever increasing technological advancements in the creation of buildings that are both: accessible, and available.

The past shows of many great artistries of then modern man, today shows the evolution of the creations and in the materials used in the constructions. Tomorrow things get refined and there are even more breakthroughs, in the state of the art of architectural design and building. Examining the history and seeing how the created designs, had their place in the valued system of the people then. To now the influence, shows that the political and religious sectors were involved in the concepts that first started as a line from a pencil on a paper and became the cities of today, designed on a blueprint.