What is the one of the most disturbing aspects of the contemporary built environment? What is it that architects in practice and students in the academy do which result in a more unwhole environment? How can we unlearn these practices and build a more whole world?
Below is Morphosis' response to these questions. It cost $144 million to build.
Image Credit: http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2007/07/urbanities-and.html
This is the Federal Building in San Francisco; it was completed in 2007. There is no doubt in my mind that the firm attempted to make genuinely good architecture, to make something whole. What they were after was probably not called 'wholeness'. But having personally toured the building, it is becomes clear, in a matter of seconds, that it is a completely un-whole structure. It is one of a myriad of false visions of wholeness that pervade the contemporary canon. Magazine after magazine, blog after blog, website after website, award after award, architects and gullible students have been praising this kind of stuff. I was once one of them.
The reason for its unwholeness lies beyond the building's form language (its geometries, materials, proportions, ect.). Its unwholeness stems from an approach to building, to "design", that is fundamentally at odds with real, objective human situations at stake. It goes against itself while, at the same time, tries to redefine an entire typology. It says I am a concept of a federal building, get used to me. This kind of egotistical attitude that underscores the deeper bifurcation of human life - the split between Architecture and architecture, concept and reality, order and randomness, fact and opinion, spirit and flesh.
It is really no wonder as to why the public has difficulty in respecting the architectural profession. It is because firms like Morphosis design for the sake of their own conceptual wordplay. The reality of this is all too disturbing. Day in and day out, government workers must endure the garish and cold interior space within: a jagged mishmash of concrete that forms an empty, depressing atrium on the ground floor accompanied by a strange clump of wide steps (supposedly echoing the Spanish Steps) and an uncomfortable, windy 'skyroom' (that hole in the middle).
I was then, and still am, quite angry at what they built here. The building sits right at the cross between Civic Center and the Tenderloin. There was a great opportunity to make something of that area, to try and build a community in that public space with something far less pretentious.
Unwholeness is the antithesis of wholeness. It occurs when people begin "designing" - which in today's schools and firms often means do whatever is in your head. Of course, they slap on a few fancy words like typological, parametric, urban mixity, sustainability, computational possibilities to get the motors running. It is, in essence, a ruse.
So what does true wholeness look like then?
Take a look at the two examples below, each made by architects from different generations.
The Amsterdam Stock Exchange Building | 1896 -1903 | Hendrik Petrus Berlage
Image Credit: A composite of images I made. Sources varied.
The Kimball Art Museum | 1972 | Louis I. Khan
Image Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kimbell_Art_Museum.jpg
Both of these buildings are whole. Both put a feeling into me such that, when I encounter the building or an image of it, I experience the wholeness of the place and of the building itself - its rooms, corridors, outdoor spaces, details. But it goes even further. Wholeness is not conceptual or abstract. It is not presented in such a way that makes it possible for only architects to understand. The reason for this is because wholeness is a real, present, and visible condition in the world.
Why must the profession and the academy insist that doing what Berlage and, to an extent, what Khan did is not possible in the 21st century? We have built like this before - both architects and non-architects. This method is not new; it must be adapted for our time. Alexander has written about this many times over, but there is still a great pushback from builders, professors, critics, and others. Wholeness is embedded in human feeling he argues. It is, therefore, personal. This means that, in a profound way, all architecture is personal. This is not the same as massaging one's ego. It means that every decision we make about a building has lasting consequences.
A true vision of the whole takes seriously every single decision that is made, at every scale, so that in the end, we have made something which people can genuinely care about.
This document is a collection of thoughts, ideas, sketches, and observations of a young architecture student living in the 21st century. It is intended to serve as a resource and vehicle for personal connections that extend beyond virtual domains. The main subject of this blog is an inquiry into the elusive nature of wholeness. The purpose is to identify wholeness-making building methodologies and examples of 'whole architecture' throughout history.
110 Comments
But what about the children!
It unwholeness stems from an approach to building, to "design", that is fundamentally at odds with real, objective human situations at stake.
Ahem. WTF?
I'm a real, objective human (one might even say a "legitimate" human because I know there is a good joke in here about legitimate architecture being able to shut that whole crap criticism thing right down) and in my real, objective tour of the building I found it delightful. It's one of my favorite buildings, in fact, for its scale, urban arrangement, material use, approach to shared space, colors scheme…I seriously loved everything about it.
My anecdotal opinion is only as good as yours, of course, so here is this: was that Berlage building not as shocking, daring, and inventive in its time as the Morphosis building is now? Did the Amsterdamians of the time not wonder what the hell this egotistical architect had foisted on them, too?
I think you need to define your concepts of "wholeness" and "unwholeness" publicly so that people are able to either agree or disagree with you. At the moment, you seem to be speaking your own language, and it's a bit difficult to converse with that.
oh, ok, I commented prematurely, as I see when I read your previous post. Yes, pattern language and all that, sure. But the difference I would say is that Alexander talks about spaces being one with themselves through consistent application towards a singular goal, and what you're talking about here is the space being one with some notion you have of how a space "should" be.
I would say that the SF Federal Building is very consistent within itself, very whole. It speaks to an edification of the complex process of government, to the collision of different people's needs, desires, and backgrounds as they approach their interactions with a very singular body (the government). You may argue that you don't find this to be an interesting statement, but if there's something about it that you do not find whole to this principle then let's talk more specifically about what that is.
Try working for the GSA - on any of their projects. Its amazing anything gets done. Much less, done well.
Donna Sink:
Wholeness derives from the physical thing itself. It is as real and objective as either you or me. It is as real as the feelings you had when you visited the building. It is as real for all of those reasons you laid out - its scale, urban arrangement, material use, approach to shared space, colors scheme.
The question is whether or not the building design from Morphosis as a whole physical thing is actually making larger physical things - the street, the neighborhood, the city, the Earth - and smaller physical things - the humans, the trees, the grass, ect. - more or less whole. Is this building really doing this? We may differ on the answer to this because I think we are answering two different questions (or at least they are posed differently and diction does matter).
The question that I asked when I saw this place went like this: Does this building put more or less life into my own soul or person? Does its construction, details, rooms, materials - does all of it put together - truly make me feel more alive, more whole, more connected to the street, the neighborhood, the city, the Earth, ect.? The real, objective answer to this was no. It was a judgement based on the real, objective building - more specifically, the wholeness of the building. It is rooted in reality. I'm not saying it is easy to think or get a sense of how to think like this - it is almost like solving a math problem backwards. You have the answer, know what I want to know is how we go there and does it make sense - is it, all at once, a single unbroken whole creation?
Berlage I'm sure had his critics. But even centuries later, I would argue his building is far more whole than Morphosis'. Its because of the physical aspects that are at work there, the attention and care given to each room and detail. I'm sure Morphosis put in the same effort, but the results are far different. Many of the things you described about Morphosis' project is actually done far better, not just conceptually but physically, in the Stock Exchange Building. The building may have been "shocking" for the times, but its physical structure, unlike the Federal Building's structure, is far more in tune with human feelings.
Erin Williams:
But the difference I would say is that Alexander talks about spaces being one with themselves through consistent application towards a singular goal, and what you're talking about here is the space being one with some notion you have of how a space "should" be.
In fact, both of the things you are saying is what Alexander has always been saying. It is no mystery for him that this is an ethical and moral situation. For me, as well as for him, it is a question of value. Do we build things that have, contained in them, any real value for our lives? Can we really connect to the universe, the kosmos (order), through architecture? (This is an ancient and long-forgotten thought)
In terms of "spaces being one with themselves through consistent application towards a singular goal", this I think is a bit of a simplification. It sounds like just follow through to the end and you'll get something that is whole. The process is far more complex and demands careful attention to every step, small and large, along the way. Once you go forward in the unfolding process (his term), you must not go back. But, in order to get there, you must make just the right decisions at just the right time. It must get better every time if there is any chance of making something whole.
It speaks to an edification of the complex process of government, to the collision of different people's needs, desires, and backgrounds as they approach their interactions with a very singular body (the government). You may argue that you don't find this to be an interesting statement, but if there's something about it that you do not find whole to this principle then let's talk more specifically about what that is.
Because wholeness has to do with the physical building, the issue I would have with this principle is just that - its a principle, a concept. The kind of description you give about why you think its more whole starts with "It speaks to an edification...". Not once did you describe the actual feelings you personally had or the physical character of the building itself. There is something to notice here. In most academic and professional circles, this issue about feelings and physical character as it relates to those feelings is totally dismissed as a serious subject of inquiry. The reason for this I believe is deliberate. It is because many in the profession have gotten away with abstracting the whole issue of architecture to the point where no one can understand what it is we do, let alone what we say. I don't necessarily have a problem with the meatphorizing, but rather, I have a problem with their consequences for buildings.
I never expected to read an article like this in a major architecture periodical. I'd like to think of it as a step in the right direction but I won't hold my breath. When modernist ideology became dominant, so did their adolescent view that for architecture to be valid, it couldn't apeal to our softer nature. In otherwords, ideas like beauty and harmony where banished as week and degrading, or to use the parlance of the day, bourgeoisie. Unfortunatley, like the communists found out, human nature isn't quite so simple. Not that all modernist buildings aspire to coldness, abstraction, and deconstruction, as the work of Louis Kahn and many others will attest to, but the public's reaction to modernism as a whole speaks for itself. Even acknowledging this much (for modernists) is verbotten as the lay public has always been viewed with contempt, from the Bauhaus to morphosis. As a style, modernism has certainly evolved, but what still hasn't changed is the fear of being loved, as if the mere thought disqualifies ones work as infantile.
As an example to how uncomfortable both macho men and modernist architects are when discussing feelings, just look at the snarky first comment to this article. It turns out that even a metrosexual sheen dosen't quarantee sensitivity for humanity, who would have thunk? Another comment that's illustrative of our professions inability to confront this reality with anything other than snark and irony is "Did the Amsterdamians of the time not wonder what the hell this egotistical architect had foisted on them, too?" The implication is that all great architecture shocks, which dosen't hold up in the light of history. From the Rainesance to the Chicago School, from Roman Times to Art Deco skscrapers, the size and scope of some new building types might have shocked, but as their enduring apeal proves, there was always a concerted effort to have people admire the artistry. With modernists, the (positive) sensual appeal as been replaced with an intellectual appeal, that while compelling, doesn't address the way 99.9% of people will experience the building. Berlage's Stock Exchange style comes right out of the LowLands' brick heritage, along with influences from America's Richardsonian Romanesque, to the Nationalist Revivals accross Europe. So no, the Amsterdamians didn't wonder what Berlage foisted on them as the Stock Exchange retained so many typological aspects of Dutch urban buildings, but then again, I'm sure Morphosis's building won't shock contemporary San Fransicans, but not for the same reason. Our built environment has been bombarded with mediocraty for so long, that we hardly notice when they erect another banal and dehumanizing tower. Just stroll through just about any American downtown, strewn with countless glass boxes.
There should and will always be space for experimentation and novelty in architecture, but unlike modern art, that we can leave at the gallery, we have to walk the streets full of unlovable buildings, if walking is even an option. But as the value of traditional and historic neighborhoods relative to modernist environments will attest to, people will always gravitate to beauty and wholeness as an antidote to the world's stresses. If only architects would have the courage to follow them.
You deserve credit for venturing blindly in to topics dealing with architectural autonomy and urbanism. Your search for "the whole" is obviously a common ambition. i think you will benefit by study of The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture (Writing Architecture) by Pier Vittorio Aureli . He address the need for incorporating political conflict in the actual design of the urban environment as well as the dialectics of urban forms. I would be curious to see your critique of this project after reading this book.
all your chosen wholenesses seem to feature arch shapes. are you subliminally associating wholeness with holeness?
i do not mean to be mean or vitriolic but your posts above are as lifeless and as vapid as those pictures. you have allowed yourself to be nothing, to commit literary suicide and let your literary self be animated by the impersonal soullessness of your pseudo-belief. you are a pseudo-trans-phenomenological zombie; you think you are a god bidden golem, a cthonic self manifesting god of truth but you are only the alignment of words forming a chain of cliches. your false vision is your own staring into you. come back, self-resuscitate, awaken.
theperennialwhole
reading your post was kind of like hearing someone saying, "i dont like his shirt" with a lot of big words. i found the post to be very subjective.
i like the building(subjective). i have been there and had a very different experience than the one you described(subjective). i also like the fact that there are designers out there who are trying to do better, regardless of whether or not people like it.
sounds like you have the profession all figured out, i look forward to seeing what you produce in the future.
The question is whether or not the building design from Morphosis as a whole physical thing is actually making larger physical things - the street, the neighborhood, the city, the Earth - and smaller physical things - the humans, the trees, the grass, ect. - more or less whole. Is this building really doing this? We may differ on the answer to this because I think we are answering two different questions (or at least they are posed differently and diction does matter).
This does not make much sense. This building is an easy target because if its security sensitive nature. How can a federal building be humane. "Wholeness" is subjective. Those places that you define as whole may not be defined as whole by a tribesman from Papua New Guinea. I think you need to dive into some anthropology before you make ethnocentric assumtions about what makes people feel whole.
I
to the perennialwhole,
Some of these attacks show you're on to something. Take tammuz, and his mean and vitriolic personal attack "you are a pseudo-trans-phenomenological ", or Connely Farr, who accuses you of being subjective, as if your opinion could be anything but! Or when he condisendingly says, "sounds like you have the profession all figured out" as if the modernist manifestos where some conceptual journey into what might be. Remember that many people have invested their whole being into the whole mystical architect schtick, and anything that threatens that well crafted (pun intended) image will engender serious pushback.
The building may have been "shocking" for the times, but its physical structure, unlike the Federal Building's structure, is far more in tune with human feelings.
oh boy here we again...he is on to nothing..
I'll try some restraint, but...
This is what Alexander-insinuated diatribes are continuously about, why they play no part in empowering architects or society, and why they became so irrelevant. It's ephemeral, pseudo-moral,phenomenological, self-perpetuating mumbo-jumbo reconstructed as quaint cottages courtesy of Holiday Inn. Conservatism on steroids, Martha Stewart sentiment engineered to mobilize historical romantics longing for a time that never was.
Despite it's cultural achievements and failures, the biggest lie in philosophy was romanticism. Alexander is a pure romantic, like the teenage boy from 100 days of Summer, or someone with cognitive disabilities. You almost feel bad for him when they say "Sorry Chris, but if you can't explain something, it doesn't mean that (G)od did it."
And the theoretical arguments...are dualistic arguments between parts vs whole, fragments vs wholeness, which were rewritten long ago due to concepts such as emergence in agent-based systems.
If you really love someone, that person despite whatever fallacies and shortcomings is perfect for you, compatible, you see this person for who they are, not as a built-up plastic idealization. Alexander and Krier capitalize off of these mirages, they are the Tea Party of Architecture.
One would assume that we can all come out smarter from such things, or at least compromise with dignity like Kahn did (which Alexander would despise). maybe not, dearest OP please do not fall behind. Be a sucker for the future, not the past.
And BTW that Morphosis building is in line as a great federal building,
" Does its construction, details, rooms, materials - does all of it put together - truly make me feel more alive, more whole, more connected to the street, the neighborhood, the city, the Earth, ect.? The real, objective answer to this was no."
You can't ask how something makes you feel, and then say that there is an objective answer to it. By making it about your feelings, it is inherently subjective. I think a lot of the attacks here are a reaction to the pretense that this is anything more than a simple gut reaction of "I just don't like it."
I personally like the spaces inside, because feeling good is not the only criteria that I have for a space, sometimes feeling bad is just more fun. It is always exciting to walk around a slum, or go into a haunted house or an abandoned subway station. It is the reason why people like ruins, ghost towns, and films about dystopian futures. Experience and adventure is more valuable than feeling nice. This building was fun to visit. It felt like I was in a futuristic fortress. If I remember it I value it. It is the forgetable that is the real "problem" in the built environment. Too much of the city is forgetable these days. Everyone likes a quiet serene place with lush trees, natural materials, fountains.....but if everywhere was like that it would be a boring world.
The Federal Building is probably one of the better buildings in SF. Decon isn't about whole-ness. The term doesn't apply really to the project.
hah. ok pseudo intellectual is a bit harsh, but appropriate. Chris Alexander wrote some fantastic stuff before pattern language. He eviscerated the metabolists in 1970 (around there anyway) with his brilliant essay " A city is not a tree" that I think everyone should read even now.
but his architecture don't make the grade. I used to design large schools (in Japan) for a living and as part of the job our office traveled all over the country trying to learn all we could from the new and the cutting and sometimes just the "it was on the way so why not stop and see" stuff too. So I got to see Christopher's school. And it was not as advertised. Horrible. just horrible. Really turned me off the guy. Sent me straight into the arms of Koolhaas even. Had to go buy SMLXL just to wash the horrible Alexander out of my head.
OK so it was just one project, but I think it was pretty much everything he always talked about, and you know for all his sensitivity the work is actually pretty rigid and all about chris alexander and his method and not so much about the people and the community...
that is my subjective opinion sure enough. was a great lesson though. don't trust anyone with a system. and rigidity and zealous morality don't work in the 21st century or any century so better to just get over it and drop it.
we also saw a school by an office called Coelecanth on that trip that was a marvel. Did all the things Chris was on about, at least in terms of the holon type of thing you seem to like (btw, check out the theory of the holon, it fits alexander's work to a tee, if you want to go further down the evil road of this particular philosophy). Anyway, turns out common sense is more important than theory in most cases.
Big lesson was that most of the times it is more important to be good than to be right. As much as I respect his effort and his early work, I don't think Chris Alexander ever got that point.
To all:
So far, the response is fairly what I expected. There is a wide range of stuff from this doesn't make any sense to to you just don't like it to buildings have nothing to do with this to Alexander's buildings are bad. There are, clearly, many different ways of saying you're wrong.
There are also, I believe many different ways of saying that wholeness is real, that human feelings matter, and that the degree to which architecture is good or not hinges on these two facts. I am saying it in my own way, others will say it in their own way. Perhaps the style could be polished, but even if it were, I doubt that would change some minds - this to me is more important. It is more important to raise these issues publicly then let it sit in some mental purgatory for all time.
Having said this, I will not deter from the necessary role of wholeness in architecture for the sake of following the crowd - I've sadly spent too much of my young life doing this.
To Thayer-D:
I hear what you are saying and I know the feeling. I wouldn't hold my breath either, but a serious revival of this kind of stuff is important no matter the forum. Getting it on people's minds is the first, of many, many, many steps forward.
I will not deter from the necessary role of wholeness in architecture for the sake of following the crowd - I've sadly spent too much of my young life doing this.
Being hard-headed does not translate into rebellion. Only one person agrees with you, and it's probably you, shed your arrogance, 2050 will not be Chris Alexander 2.0, spare us all the butt-hurt. Revivals are the most counterproductive things architects do.
but a serious revival of this kind of stuff is important no matter the forum
No one needs this kind of imposition, you are like a cave man launching voodoo on European castles.
There are also, I believe many different ways of saying that wholeness is real, that human feelings matter, and that the degree to which architecture is good or not hinges on these two facts.
And that exists in Thom Mayne's building, but ****g nostalgia is in your way.
Nikos Salingaros.
is Prince Charles' pompous butt buddy
Wholeness and it's properties, components, principles, etc. are as hard to trudge through as any other design language. I'm going to take a wild guess and say the Morphosis building was designed with humans in mind as much as, or as little as, the other examples.
Why not just poll the occupants? And the surrounding workers/residents/etc? So we could really see how whole/unwhole aka how in tune it is with people's senses.
So far, the response is fairly what I expected
In other words, what you wanted, because it makes you feel proud of yourself to be a rebel. Fantastic, Enjoy it. Revel in it. But don't make up fake profiles (honestly, it's so transparent) to agree with yourself and pat yourself on the back. Don't posture and say your feelings are somehow OBjective while mine are merely SUBjective and therefore yours reflect some universal truth while mine are just wrong.
To not be totally mean, I'll recommend you read For An Architecture of Reality by Michael Benedikt, a touchstone of my architectural education. His term is "realness", but he backs it up with specific conditions that come into play to bring about the quality he calls "realness" and then admits that quantifying those conditions almost always depends on intuition.
So you don't like the Federal Building, fine. I like it. I also like the Berlage building and utterly adore the Kimbell. Am I not allowed to like all of the above, and also adore BIG, because they aren't all the same and therefore don't reflect one theory in which I'm supposed to plant my flag? What a boring world it will be if it ever actually reaches a state of "wholeness"!
You could all be free, if only you would do what I say!
Donna Sink:
First off, you misunderstand the word expected which, according to a simple Google search is defined as to "regard (something) as likely to happen". I did not want anything from anybody, I do not revel in anything, I do not "make up fake profiles... to agree with yourself and pat yourself on the back", I do not feel proud to be a rebel, and I certainly do not feel proud to have to respond to such cutting assertions. Do not confuse this with whatever it is you want to project onto me. Coming from somebody who is a campus architect for the Indianapolis Museum of Art, I would expect a little more class from you. I am human being with a purpose of my own, let's get that straight.
Second, I have not suggested that my feelings are objective and that yours are somehow wrong and/or invalid. I do not think you are wrong in feeling whatever you want to feel. I am aware of Michael Benedikt's work and I think there is certainly value in it. But the issue of wholeness, I think, is even more pertinent to the Earth.
Third, you can like whatever you want to like. A more whole world, I think, would not be boring. I think we are living in a boring world right now as a result of the way we are currently building. Why wouldn't "realness" produce the same kind of world?
Tammuz: Very nicely written, cheers.
Indeed its a great post tam.
As expected, "theperennialwhole" gives ignorant opinions, than moralizes themselves into a corner, this behavior amongst architects is like a gangrenous 3rd leg.
Seriously consider the tea party/caveman analogy perennialwhole, and the various points throughout architectural history which periodically witness Alexander-like reincarnations.
wholeness, I think, is even more pertinent to the Earth.
Gaia theory, yet wholeness does not mean stability. Systems are defined by the interactions, something which Alexander likes to forget.
A more whole world.
Thom Mayne is for a more whole world, imagine where we would be if Alexander's false romanticism wasn't so pervasive. A more pertinent choice of words to wholeness is intelligence. Everyone benefits from greater intelligence, very few benefit from top down imposition of metaphorical wholes, it's like being sedated.
Yes, perennial, I am employed at the Museum of Art, and I'm also not so insecure in my opinions as to need to remain anonymous on this forum.
You're not using any intellectual rigor. Maybe I'm being too harsh in my criticism of your musings here, but it's the lack of rigor that upsets me - we've all seen far too much of it of late in our political climate.
Donna Sink:
I do not think I am the one that needs to worry about intellectual rigor. My anonymity is a right, not an indicator of my personality. Please just respect the fact that we may disagree and that, despite what anyone says, I will not stop writing.
that was some cheap shot at Donna, perennial. Shame on your false morality.
...I used to be into Alexander as a first year student, then realized that it was like being in a wacky cult.
At best the people he inspires help keep certain memories alive, at worse they spread fairy tales that the better days were way behind us, and therefor the present and the future are irrelevant. Unfortunately the latter is what gets thrown around the most, which your blog is doing.
I can't believe in the complexity of the current architectural world that people are still taking about the preposterously elusive "wholeness.". You apply the term "whole" as if there was no difference in varieties of programs, content, engagements, politics, clients, scales, etc. that architecture deals with.
You have no idea what architecture can achieve because all you're doing is preaching a stale revival. Your wasting your time even thinking about this when there are so many more engaging ways to practice and think about architecture.
I love the arrogance of assuming what an architect was thinking because you visit a building once and find images on the web.
The Tea Party analogy is spot on. Very funny
UNCLE SAM WITH A MOHAWK
My impression of the building is that has the 'punk' look down. It's supposed to be a solar cooled energy efficient design and it may be that. But the facade reminds me of some graphic cliches you would find in a ounk-band flyer.
Overly gestured and trying way to hard to be edgy. Rip, Tear, Slash, Crimp, Crack, Puncture. These are the architects gestures of choice. The distinctive Morphosis look of semi-transparent layered skins over the main body comes off like lingerie composed of perforated metal. Ouch!
How the public, the neighbors, sees the building is another matter. The front has a large sandy dog park where pooches do their thing. i dont think it is a comment on the architecture.
As a new vision for a federal building this is a hipper. and i suppose is more reflective of the tastes of the local San Francisco constituents. Compared to other Federal buildings this is wild. This is Uncle Sam now redressed with a mohawk.
eric chavkin
I heart Donna Sink
actually, the kimbell musuem strikes me as not being about wholeness but rather about the fragmentary ; it also looks (and this is very much my own opinion) quite ugly - or at least, nonchalant- from the sides. sure, its interesting as an essay on vaults...but there is nothing subtle or touching about those side elevations. in fact, they are more stoically abstract stating that "it is a concept of the vault" than does it allude to the experiential or the wholesome. perhaps you would have done a better job posting an interior shot. - interestingly, you chose to show those iconic sides which says that you are falling prey to the same disposition you accuse thom mayne of...namely pushing the concept of "this is the kimbell musuem" (and the other buildings) - as does the musuem itself push forth the concept "these are vaults"- ahead of any allusion to what might relate the person emotionally to this building vide the picture and, by extention, to your literature which is anyway, impersonal and does not carry any individualism : archi-phenomenological spam, so to speak.
anyway, generally, i find in kahn's work a severity and decidedness that possibly recognizes the scale of grandiose ideas more than it does the human scale. had he, for instance, been associated with some terrible despotic regime, we today might have called his architecture fascist, great amputations and abortions of idealism divorced from the experiential prowress of the earth-crawling individual. to me, he is more of a philosopher than a philanthropist. he values the echoless void of formalism whatever we might have retrospectively painted on him only due to uncritical reverence. now, had you mentioned herman hertzberger, for instance, i could understand the relation to individuals, the democracy, the non-hebraic non-reverential feel of ease and - why not- belonging.
no, seriously, i neither mean to be vitriolic nor mean. it would be obvious to me if that were my intention. i recall a teacher of mine who had beliefs along your lines shaken and stirred with some Zen and for me, it was nothing but architectural mock-altruism enveloping intellectual rubbish and i read somewhere you are a "young architectural..."(my screen margin stopped there)..so i assume you are a student; i am suggesting that you be self-critical. good luck
It's awsome how this simple opinion piece is eliciting so much venom. Take Ms. SInk and her pedantic statement "I'll recommend you read For An Architecture of Reality by Michael Benedikt, a touchstone of my architectural education. " To quote her... "Fantastic, Enjoy it. Revel in it". Or her bullying "Yes, perennial, I am employed at the Museum of Art, and I'm also not so insecure in my opinions as to need to remain anonymous on this forum." Wow. Take another "insecure" anonymous commentator tammuz "interestingly, you chose to show those iconic sides which says that you are falling prey to the same disposition you accuse thom mayne of...namely pushing the concept of "this is the kimbell musuem" So tammuz knows the right way to look at architecture. Or this gem "no, seriously, i neither mean to be vitriolic nor mean. it would be obvious to me if that were my intention" becasue most people are so self aware as to know when they are being mean. Imagine any of the great pre-modernist architects going through these pseudo-intellectual gymnastics. Like Michelangelo at the Campidoglio or Palladio at the Basilica in Vicenaza. Or John Wellborn Root with his masterful Montauk building.
Someone dares challenge the edifice of "conceptual architecture" that so much of architectural academia has digenerated and the wolves come out. In our pluralistic world, theres room for everyone's opinion, with out the personal attacks. Don't criticise, be self-critical, so no one has to hear you talk. Got it.
Honest question: What if I find the building to be whole?
You say that: "A true vision of the whole takes seriously every single decision that is made, at every scale, so that in the end, we have made something which people can genuinely care about."
I feel that I do care about it. If I find it "whole", am I not getting something or fundamentally flawed in my experience of the architecture? Is a subjective experience of architecture valid?
One day Thayer-D's great great grandson will be busy regurgitating Thom Mayne buildings and that "good feeling" they create.
Someone dares challenge the edifice of "conceptual architecture" that so much of architectural academia has digenerated and the wolves come out. In our pluralistic world, theres room for everyone's opinion, with out the personal attacks. -ThayerD
OHH holy one, by the powers vested in thee. This is not challenging anything. It's a reincarnation of 70's debates, which essentially promote "Martha Stewart Living."
"As expected, "theperennialwhole" gives ignorant opinions, than moralizes themselves into a corner, this behavior amongst architects is like a gangrenous 3rd leg"
When you can't win an argument or can't agree to disagree you go completely personal. You call theperennialwhole "ignorant" and say his behavior is "gangrenous". I know your type, intellectual bully.
I know your type voodoo priest.
i heart voodoo priests.
i heart robert stern...sort of....sometimes...very little
perennial
Now that I read your essay (while awake) I see what your argument is: the concepts whole vrs not-whole. But isnt the opposite of 'whole' just called 'parts'. The morphosis building is clearly not the 'whole-mess' that you admire in experiencing architecture. And like Ramussen's book of the same title the perception and experience is disturbing in a basic psychological way.
But your argument has this flaw. You are arguing that the architecture should express an obvious or perhaps even wholeness, which it doesn't. The strategy here is an assemblage of parts; layered, shifted, smashed together, pulled apart, left undone, dynamic, unsettled.
This is what Morphosis does. The attraction is how the parts go together. Their buildings are visually active.
The material palette of metal mesh, glass over concrete frame is derived from James Stirling's Brutalist works, whose sources were Russian constructivism. Stirling is an acknowledged influence on Morphosis.
When i strolled around with friends that one late afternoon wholeness wasn't the word that comes to mind. The night view with the office light on brings out the buildings fractured aspects best.
eric chavkin
SF Federal? usta be a greyhound bus station there - with druggies hanging out - now SF Federal with druggies hanging out - 40 years of progress folks
Hardly something Alexander could fix, just imagine all the crackheads living in European rowhouses, or greedy bureaucrats fancying their Tuscan columns. Koolhaas can be quoted on that, "you would have to be a politician to pull off major social change."
Usually we can only hope that advances in humanity can parallel advances in technology.
Sometimes they cross paths.
A few brief notes|
1. as a thesis, and this appears to be some kind of attempt at intellectual discourse, this piece fails miserably, well, at least in my limited understanding of how a thesis works. it starts attacking, without giving the reader a chance to understand what is even meant by "wholeness" - the idea seems inextricably linked to a conversation the writer is having with themselves. i am thinking that you start out presenting your idea about "wholeness", cite examples, get the reader on your side, then, blast the morphosis project. then wrap it up. as an example of skilled writing, this ain't it. - like that? ain't...
2. you rail against this building, define what is good, what is bad, what is and what is not. one thing though, if you really care about people - it seems you do, and you care about experience, then where, pray tell are the interviews you must have conducted with the end users of the facility, where are the interviews with the neighboring residents, business, community leaders and government officials? you surely did that too, right??
3. you state that the - un-wholeness - and by extension the morphosis building, is designed based on "do whatever is in your head". then about - wholeness - go on to state this "It is both intuitive yet rational. Feeling-based and perceptual. Cognitive yet reactionary." so, i'm confused, intuition has as one definition this - knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception. so, which is it? i'm confused? both ideas seem to emanate from human minds, yet you seem to forgive one for "feeling-based" and blast the other for an intellectual rigor that does not connect with your sensibilities?
4. words are failing you, perhaps you could add some simple drawings to better help explain your ideas more thoroughly.
more later...
i think that where the piece fails absolutely is that it takes one type of building typology and then attempts to compare it with a completely different type...The stock exchange and Kimball are absolutely different in ever single way from the Morphosis building. Building budgets, typologies, era etc, etc, are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
And you couldn't find a single contemporary example of architecture to use as an example of 'wholeness' (could a word/concept be ANY more vague).
I keep looking for some kind of meat in your criticism of the building..but I'm not finding it. As some have said here it's amazing that anything got built let alone this building... government work is a whole different realm in and of itself these days... projects take years longer with many more restrictions than the average project. I'd be interested in how long the author has been working in the profession..or if they've done any of this type of project or similar.
Also, I guess the main question is should architecture be of a time? Why should we be doing stone arches when technology has allowed us to move past that? Why not use forms and materials of the age that you're in?
Would we take a piece of art and say...well he/she doesn't paint like Caravaggio so it isn't valid as a true piece of art..of course not. Why is this kind of subjective argument then more valid in architecture? What makes the experience of walking around the harvard campus with all its brick and old buildings more WHOLE than walking around Kahn's Salk Institute or Morphosis' Cooper Union building or Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao? They're all absolutely great experiences and each feels completely different..but I wouldn't say that one is any better than the other (although the cooper stair was one of those wow moments like nothing I'd ever been in.. kind of the same way i felt walking into St. Peter's..in terms of feeling a new experience on the body..obviously not spatially) why limit the palette to only one typology of architecture anyway?
revivals suck!
I live in San Francisco. I took pictures of the building during construction. I love the fedora topper, which I can see from the end of my street, a dozen blocks away.
I finally visited the building last week. My impressions: Wanted to see an office floor; nope, off limits. Liked the ideas if not the presentation. Some cool materials -- big-stone EA concrete (or is that industrial terrazzo ?) -- but would it have killed them to maybe pave that one public space with brick -- even gray brick ? Worst move: the color of the pop-riveted panels that dominate the nave. A cold dark-ish gray is oppressive enough -- but it fights terribly with those lovely translucent green fiberglass duct shrouds -- which look so great in their other location, outside on the Mission St end of the building, where their color reads as a warmer green and leaves the impression that the neutral concrete is sandy in color. Yum. Oh well. Just some observations.