Mies van der Rohe's architecture and modern architecture in general suffered from not only being repetitive, but not explaining to the populous what the different rooms were for.

The quote by Charles Jencks, “Mies van der Rohe's architecture and modern architecture in general suffered from not only being repetitive, but not explaining to the populous what the different rooms were for,” offers a critical perspective on the limitations of modernist architecture. Jencks, a prominent architectural theorist and a key figure in the postmodern movement, critiques the functional ambiguity and visual uniformity that he believed plagued much of Mies van der Rohe’s and other modernists' work. According to Jencks, while modern architecture valued simplicity and minimalism, it often failed to communicate meaning clearly to everyday users.

The phrase “not explaining to the populous what the different rooms were for” reflects Jencks’s belief that architecture should be legible—that is, people should be able to understand the purpose and function of a space through its design. In his view, modernist buildings frequently lacked symbolism or distinctiveness, making it difficult for users to relate to or navigate them intuitively. This critique ties into a broader argument made by Jencks: that modernism had become too austere, too rational, and detached from cultural meaning and user engagement.

Jencks was a vocal advocate for postmodern architecture, which emerged as a response to the perceived sterility of modernism. Postmodernists sought to reintroduce ornament, historical references, playfulness, and semantic richness into architecture—elements that could communicate with the public more effectively. Through this quote, Jencks highlights one of the central failures he saw in modernism: its inability to serve as a narrative or expressive medium for the people who use and experience architecture daily.

The origin of this quote is found in Jencks’s many writings and lectures, particularly in works like The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. He consistently challenged the idea that form should strictly follow function and instead argued for architecture that speaks in a pluralistic, culturally aware, and emotionally resonant way. His critique of Mies and others wasn’t meant to dismiss their contributions entirely, but to call for an architectural approach that embraces complexity and meaning, not just clarity and order.