about the last 30 years of architectural history.

That's a lot to pack into 18 minutes.

It's a complex topic,

so we're just going to dive right in at a complex place:

New Jersey.

Because 30 years ago, I'm from Jersey,

and I was six, and I lived there in my parents' house

in a town called Livingston,

and this was my childhood bedroom.

Around the corner from my bedroom

was the bathroom that I used to share with my sister.

And in between my bedroom and the bathroom

was a balcony that overlooked the family room.

And that's where everyone would hang out and watch TV,

so that every time that I walked from my bedroom to the bathroom,

everyone would see me,

and every time I took a shower and would come back in a towel,

everyone would see me.

And I looked like this.

I was awkward,

insecure, and I hated it.

I hated that walk, I hated that balcony,

I hated that room, and I hated that house.

And that's architecture.

(Laughter)

Done.

That feeling, those emotions that I felt,

that's the power of architecture,

because architecture is not about math and it's not about zoning,

it's about those visceral, emotional connections

that we feel to the places that we occupy.

And it's no surprise that we feel that way,

because according to the EPA,

Americans spend 90 percent of their time indoors.

That's 90 percent of our time surrounded by architecture.

That's huge.

That means that architecture is shaping us in ways that we didn't even realize.

That makes us a little bit gullible and very, very predictable.

It means that when I show you a building like this,

I know what you think:

You think "power" and "stability" and "democracy."

And I know you think that because it's based on a building

that was build 2,500 years ago by the Greeks.

This is a trick.

This is a trigger that architects use

to get you to create an emotional connection

to the forms that we build our buildings out of.

It's a predictable emotional connection,

and we've been using this trick for a long, long time.

We used it [200] years ago to build banks.

We used it in the 19th century to build art museums.

And in the 20th century in America,

we used it to build houses.

And look at these solid, stable little soldiers

facing the ocean and keeping away the elements.

This is really, really useful,

because building things is terrifying.

It's expensive, it takes a long time, and it's very complicated.

And the people that build things --

developers and governments --

they're naturally afraid of innovation,

and they'd rather just use those forms that they know you'll respond to.

That's how we end up with buildings like this.

This is a nice building.

This is the Livingston Public Library

that was completed in 2004 in my hometown,

and, you know, it's got a dome

and it's got this round thing and columns, red brick,

and you can kind of guess what Livingston is trying to say with this building:

children, property values and history.

But it doesn't have much to do with what a library actually does today.

That same year, in 2004, on the other side of the country,

another library was completed,

and it looks like this.

It's in Seattle.

This library is about how we consume media in a digital age.

It's about a new kind of public amenity for the city,

a place to gather and read and share.

So how is it possible

that in the same year, in the same country,

two buildings, both called libraries,

look so completely different?

And the answer is that architecture works on the principle of a pendulum.

On the one side is innovation,

and architects are constantly pushing, pushing for new technologies,

new typologies, new solutions for the way that we live today.

And we push and we push and we push

until we completely alienate all of you.

We wear all black, we get very depressed,

you think we're adorable,

we're dead inside because we've got no choice.

We have to go to the other side

and reengage those symbols that we know you love.

So we do that, and you're happy,

we feel like sellouts,

so we start experimenting again

and we push the pendulum back and back and forth and back and forth

we've gone for the last 300 years,

and certainly for the last 30 years.

Okay, 30 years ago we were coming out of the '70s.

Architects had been busy experimenting with something called brutalism.

It's about concrete.

(Laughter)

You can guess this.

Small windows, dehumanizing scale.

This is really tough stuff.

So as we get closer to the '80s,

we start to reengage those symbols.

We push the pendulum back into the other direction.

We take these forms that we know you love

and we update them.

We add neon

and we add pastels

and we use new materials.

And you love it.

And we can't give you enough of it.

We take Chippendale armoires

and we turned those into skyscrapers,

and skyscrapers can be medieval castles made out of glass.

Forms got big,

forms got bold and colorful.

Dwarves became columns.

(Laughter)

Swans grew to the size of buildings.

It was crazy.

But it's the '80s, it's cool.

(Laughter)

We're all hanging out in malls

and we're all moving to the suburbs,

and out there, out in the suburbs,

we can create our own architectural fantasies.

And those fantasies,

they can be Mediterranean

or French

or Italian.

(Laughter)

Possibly with endless breadsticks.

This is the thing about postmodernism.

This is the thing about symbols.

They're easy, they're cheap,

because instead of making places,

we're making memories of places.

Because I know, and I know all of you know,

this isn't Tuscany.

This is Ohio.

(Laughter)

So architects get frustrated,

and we start pushing the pendulum back into the other direction.

In the late '80s and early '90s,

we start experimenting with something called deconstructivism.

We throw out historical symbols,

we rely on new, computer-aided design techniques,

and we come up with new compositions,

forms crashing into forms.

This is academic and heady stuff,

it's super unpopular,

we totally alienate you.

Ordinarily, the pendulum would just swing back into the other direction.

And then, something amazing happened.

In 1997, this building opened.

This is the Guggenheim Bilbao, by Frank Gehry.

And this building

fundamentally changes the world's relationship to architecture.

Paul Goldberger said that Bilbao was one of those rare moments

when critics, academics, and the general public

were completely united around a building.

The New York Times called this building a miracle.

Tourism in Bilbao increased 2,500 percent

after this building was completed.

So all of a sudden, everybody wants one of these buildings:

L.A.,

Seattle,

Chicago,

New York,

Cleveland,

Springfield.

(Laughter)

Everybody wants one, and Gehry is everywhere.

He is our very first starchitect.

Now, how is it possible that these forms --

they're wild and radical --

how is it possible that they become so ubiquitous throughout the world?

And it happened because media so successfully galvanized around them

that they quickly taught us that these forms mean culture and tourism.

We created an emotional reaction to these forms.

So did every mayor in the world.

So every mayor knew that if they had these forms,

they had culture and tourism.

This phenomenon at the turn of the new millennium

happened to a few other starchitects.

It happened to Zaha

and it happened to Libeskind,

and what happened to these elite few architects

at the turn of the new millennium

could actually start to happen to the entire field of architecture,

as digital media starts to increase the speed

with which we consume information.

Because think about how you consume architecture.

A thousand years ago,

you would have had to have walked to the village next door to see a building.

Transportation speeds up:

You can take a boat, you can take a plane, you can be a tourist.

Technology speeds up: You can see it in a newspaper, on TV,

until finally, we are all architectural photographers,

and the building has become disembodied from the site.

Architecture is everywhere now,

and that means that the speed of communication

has finally caught up to the speed of architecture.

Because architecture actually moves quite quickly.

It doesn't take long to think about a building.

It takes a long time to build a building,

three or four years,

and in the interim, an architect will design two or eight

or a hundred other buildings

before they know if that building that they designed four years ago

was a success or not.

That's because there's never been a good feedback loop in architecture.

That's how we end up with buildings like this.

Brutalism wasn't a two-year movement,

it was a 20-year movement.

For 20 years, we were producing buildings like this

because we had no idea how much you hated it.

It's never going to happen again,

I think,

because we are living on the verge of the greatest revolution in architecture

since the invention of concrete,

of steel, or of the elevator,

and it's a media revolution.

So my theory is that when you apply media to this pendulum,

it starts swinging faster and faster,

until it's at both extremes nearly simultaneously,

and that effectively blurs the difference between innovation and symbol,

between us, the architects, and you, the public.

Now we can make nearly instantaneous, emotionally charged symbols

out of something that's brand new.

Let me show you how this plays out

in a project that my firm recently completed.

We were hired to replace this building, which burned down.

This is the center of a town called the Pines

in Fire Island in New York State.

It's a vacation community.

We proposed a building that was audacious,

that was different than any of the forms that the community was used to,

and we were scared and our client was scared

and the community was scared,

so we created a series of photorealistic renderings

that we put onto Facebook

and we put onto Instagram,

and we let people start to do what they do:

share it, comment, like it, hate it.

But that meant that two years before the building was complete,

it was already a part of the community,

so that when the renderings looked exactly like the finished product,

there were no surprises