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

As the population of Singapore is drawn from many ethnic origins, and the island has been ruled by a succession of foreign powers, the country has struggled to find its identity since gaining independence in 1965. First the city’s banks and then the government have actively aimed to develop high-quality landmark buildings with the aim of not only defining a sense of national identity, but also to boosting business and tourism. For this reason the city is full of high quality architecture.

Singapore’s Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers
In the late seventies and eighties Singapore’s businesses and hotels drew attention to themselves by constructing high-quality skyscrapers. The city became synonymous with the high-rise as buildings by some of the world’s leading architects, including Pritzker Prize winners, I.M. Pei and Kenzo Tange, rose in the city. In 1986 Singapore was the focus of the world’s attention, as the 280-meter Overseas Union Bank Centre became the tallest building outside of North America. This building would start a trend as Asian cities constructed higher and higher buildings.

First Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers), then Taipei (Taipei 101) and most recently Dubai (Burj Dubai) have all constructed visually interesting “world’s tallest”, skyscrapers that have focused the world’s attention on the host city. However, Singapore’s could not follow this route due to a height restriction imposed by the downtown’s proximity to the airport.

Singapore’s Modern Architecture: Municipal Buildings
Denied the chance to increase it’s exposure through the construction of the “world’s tallest building”, Singapore has tried to find other ways to distinguish itself and increase people’s awareness of the city through its architecture. City officials knew this could be achieved by creating an iconic landmark building, an Eiffel Tower or a Sydney Opera House, which would become synonymous with the city’s prosperity.

Since the beginning of the millennium three extremely high quality municipal buildings designed by internationally famous architects have been constructed in the city. First Michael Wilford and DP Architects’ Esplanade Theatre in 2002, followed by T.R. Hamzah & Yeang’s National Library of Singapore in 2005, and most recently Stirling Prize winner Norman Foster’s Supreme Law Court of Singapore in 2006. All three are examples of excellent modern architecture that Singapore can be proud of.

These buildings, and the recently completed Singapore Flyer, (which like the London Eye has become a major attraction) have drawn business and tourists to the city, however, although each building is a striking and successful addition to the city none has become the iconic symbol of Singapore.

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.