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

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

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.

Although architecture is not widely recognised as an “important” and “popular” profession it is in fact one of the most influential and widely recognised jobs throughout history. Almost everything we know about ancient civilisation is based upon what we have found in and about it’s architecture and there are countless political and cultural symbols known primarily for their structural achievements such as the Pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Coliseum. Even modern cities and locations are both visited and known by architectural landmarks such as the Opera House of Sydney and the Empire State building of New York.

The history of architecture is also extremely interesting, as human technology and scientific and mathematical understanding increases, so to did our ability to build wonderful buildings. Architecture was born out of a combination of needs, such as shelter, security and worship and means, mainly the local building materials and physical ability. Early architecture was mainly vernacular architecture, a special type of architecture which is based around local needs and means. As it evolved the classic civilisations were born and great time and effort put into crafting areas of religious or political significance and even back in these times architecture was more than just a visual product. The roman Coliseum was designed so that all of the thousands of crowd members could see and hear the action at the centre and the way it amplifies sound was no accident.

As time passed architecture developed more and more with medieval structures like the castle and fort proving architecture had a place on the battle field as w ell as he city floor. During this period architects, especially in Europe, began to form guilds (as many craftsman did then). These guilds were design to help architects work together and achieve more monumental things, a practice that is still in society today in the form of architect partnerships.

In the renaissance architecture became a very personal affair and moved quickly away from war and religion. Many famous architects are from this period as this marked the start of buildings recognising their architects with individuals such as Palladio and Brunelleschi going down in history.

Today architecture is everywhere, almost any public building is professional designed and many compete for recognition inside their respective cities. There is massive emphasis on certain elements such as energy efficiency, environmental blending and the use of environmentally friendly construction materials. Design is also becoming increasingly advanced with superstructures like the Burj Al Arab 7 star hotel.