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
Ha ha ha, right on jla-x! Cultural progress! I cannot believe it! Wooden steel, dry water. This is just one step from : Our culture is better then yours(because we are progressive and you are not.). Hence our troops here are doing you good, because we are bringing to you our more advanced culture. In exchange for the "progress" you give us your petrol. Ha ha. I kinda felt where this Blog was going.
Here bro, educate yourself about what culture is. This is FREE stuff.
http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures.html?quote=95
Ha, ha, Blog It is getting better, and better. :) :)
"cultural luddism" is an ingenious concept generation bro! I am jealous. I figure this is meant to be something like destroying the "cultural" machinery, a? I cannot speculate here about the meaning since I am not sure if someone is not pouring paint over the canvas with a bucket and then using his beard as a brush (see the above discussion for the semantics of this imagery :) ). If this is the case, than any struggle to figure out the meaning will be as ridiculous as the act of the creation. Right bro? :)
The funny thing about the faux-old is, they really like copying, so it is not surprising that there has been a large amount of repetition here, and it still doesn't sink in.
I disagree that culture doesn't fundamentally progress. It might be subject to external forces like technology, or even experience glitches, but that doesn't mean it isn't getting better. And it will, even for once isolated tribes now on the internet (stomach viruses are not that cool BTW).
Architecture should reflect that, not second-guess and lie about it.
Ha Blog changed name to Schools but did not change the phraseology. The wolf may change the fir but never the character. he, he
So the advanced white american culture brought a great progress to the native Lakota people a? They were living happily chasing the bison but then the cultural progress came and see what happened:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_huey.html
All this "progress" is has happened not in the deep past. This is happening how.
Anyway, you the Respectful Reader should not believe what you see in this TED presentation. Remember!- No questioning of the cultural progress! No second guesses! It is probably all lies.
Architecture should reflect that, not second-guess and lie about it.
Architecture should only do one thing- Make the world more interesting without fucking it up for others. Thats it. If you can do that with shit and straw huts, steel and glass, pencil and paper, parametric models........Then so be it.
The role of Architecture is not to reflect the glory of western progress onto the masses like some kind of propaganda, or to mask our "square" reality with curvey facades. imo that is dangerous stuff. It makes people feel as if we are progressing, because we look new and fresh, but behind the curtain its just more of the same old boring shit, and that wouldn't be such a big deal if the polar bears weren't floating on little ice rafts but they are! And, if people feel like their double mochachino with skim milk and indigenous tears is sustainable because it is in a green washed cup, then they are unlikey to change their behavior. The cup, the container, the architecture, when reduced to representation, to symbol,basically perpetuates the inertia of society to make real changes for the better of society. It is shallow. It is like those talentless pop stars that rely on their stupid costumes.
Now that being said, I am not siding with perenial or any of the others who promote faux old crap! That stuff does the exact same thing!
But I have to also crap on faux-new crap!
I am just saying that good architecture is not about style, representing progress......It is about sustaining life, and making life more worth living. It is nothing more than that!
I AM JUST SAYING THAT GOOD ARCHITECTURE IS NOT ABOUT STYLE, REPRESENTING PROGRESS......IT IS ABOUT SUSTAINING LIFE, AND MAKING LIFE MORE WORTH LIVING. IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT!
Wow! I sign under this.
And Thom Mayne did that pretty well, better than the faux-old. Good architecture is always progress.
My name changes on a weekly basis. Things change/evolve/progress, sometimes "unfairly" ,that's life.
Major changes are coming this century and this faux-old junk/hoarding is not cutting it. Shed a tear for the dinosaurs, or become one yourself, but don't pretend that earth was never hit by a comet.
If you want to build Jurassic Park don't use dryvit, hire Thome Mayne or the next non-faux-old renegade, bro.
I agree. Thom Mayne did do it well. It is an interesting building.
Good architecture is always progress.
As in nature, progress and beauty are the inevitable bi-products of good architecture and design, not the goal.
It is ok for middlemen to believe that, but I'm going to guess that progress is self-initiating.