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
"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?"
That's a false choice. Do cutting edge modernism, or romanesque buidlings? It's not a black or white equation. Plus, who's to dictate what materials are appropriate to "our" age, or even what our age is? There's room for all of us in our pluralistic society, and to tell you the truth, natural materials will always weather better than new synthetic materials because they are from our earth, which might have some value in our ever more polutted and recourse constrained world.
"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?"
This is absolutley true, but the reverse could also be said, and it's there where the push back is the strongest, becasue it's modernism that's institutionalized today. Imagine if someone painted in Caravaggio's style, trying to learn something by emulating it. Do you think they would say that's valid? Before you run, you must learn to walk, and so it is with art. You actually have to start by emulation before you can evolve your own style, but in architecture schools today, they say, don't copy old buildings, even if that's what attracted you to architecture in the first place. Instead, they'll say, do it abstractly if you must. How can you abstract something if you don't even understand it's constituent parts? In the end, your work has to look like something, unless your in one of those schools that does art or literature, and calls it architecture. But you can't use the word style, nore can you aspire for beauty. "Set your self free to explore!" even though the constraints placed on you would suffocate any joy you might have felt towards this incredibly beautiful profession. And in the end, you'll find that all your classmates work looks incredibly similar, becasue they encourage you to explore, just with in their constricted world view. Oh, I forgot you have an i-pod, so naturally your work should look like the latest molded plastic gizmo. But you love Cole valley and it's beautiful decorative architecture, never mind, remember, this is a post industrial world. But the sun still rises in the east and the prevailing winds come from the west! Never mind, remember how interconnected we all are. How many facebook friends do you have?
"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?"
Who decides if architecture is of our time? And is it predicated on how we attach the curtain wall panels or what style those panels are creating? It's a false choice to say it's either stone arches or glass boxes. We have choice and there's a huge grey zone between these two extreme positions. I'm not sure people who still tend to buy traditional homes over the typical dwell magazine fare will care much about what an architect says is the defining choice of our age. That's the whole point of being a modern man, versus a modernist. We have choice.
"There's room for all of us in our pluralistic society, and to tell you the truth, natural materials will always weather better than new synthetic materials because they are from our earth, which might have some value in our ever more polutted and recourse constrained world. "
Huh? That is simply not true...wood rots... vs. something you make of plastic. not saying that one is better than the other (i prefer natural materials), but in a new public building with limited resources you'd be irresponsible to argue for materials that don't wear well with repeated use or would be prohibitively expensive (like stone) because of the nature of working with the material and the material itself.
"Who decides if architecture is of our time? And is it predicated on how we attach the curtain wall panels or what style those panels are creating? It's a false choice to say it's either stone arches or glass boxes."
Surely you can see that certain times have a particular style... and i'm not arguing for curtain wall panels or even glass boxes... but I would definitely say that it would be inappropriate to design and build a edifice such as the Capital building now for a new government building simply because the budget isn't there...that and the style may be appropriate to a government building of that time, but would look more like a knockoff of that style now.
In any case I'm more interested in why you think the two buildings you cited are more 'whole' or whatever matrix you're using... i think the conversation may improve as well if you provided more projects...and possibly some projects in the same building typology as the Morphosis building. I'm not convinced by your words, but maybe would at least understand what you're thinking with better examples.
"wood rots... vs. something you make of plastic" Again, false dichotomy. Clearly in an urban context brick, stone, and concrete come to mind.
Yes, certain times have a particular style, but how do you explain eclecticism from the federal period (1820's) till WWII? Ever since the modern printing press, increased travel, and industrialization (the victorian era) styles multiplied, especially in a heterogenious country as ours. I also agree that there are budget limitations to certain work, but if one's honest, you can see all sorts of traditional work going on through out Europe and America, it's just not as visible (magazines) becasue academia is a modernist institution, and obviously they want to sell people what they prefer. The question of knock off is also interesting. DId Palladio do knock offs of roman clacissism? Did Wren do knock offs of Palladio? Did McKim Mead and White do knock offs of Wren, and so on. As for the whole concept of wholeness, I've never worried that hard about philisophical treatises on architecture, becasue as with many a politician, the distance between ones rhetoric and work has usually been quite great. I'm not sure one needs to understand the concept of wholeness or decon to appreciate a Bernard Maybeck or Ghery building, I'm only advocating for the freedom to explore any style and/or philosophy for the sake of academic freedom. Like many an eclectic street in San Francisco to New York, the variety is what makes them interesting. The difference between the ecletcticism of the 19th century and today is back in the day, certain urban manners where generally understood, where today, sometimes the variety can seem a bit cacophonous.
Sorry about my spelling.
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
I agree! Someone said on one of these threads to look at architecture through the eyes of a 10 year old. I will bet money that if you surveyed 10 year olds and asked them to either like of dislike these buildings, they would mostly like them all. They would like disneyland, Bilbao, Morphosis.............Forgetabout all the archi-speak for a moment. Our adult minds are clouded with irrational rational. It all really comes down to 2 things. Is the place cool or is it boring. "Design cool shit" should be the only rule we follow. Make the world more fun without fucking it up for the next guy. Sustainable fun shit. That is my manifesto.
All they have is an overflow of nostalgia, adapted to the time. Unfortunately it's the clients that get suckered into purchasing such renaissance counterfeits, everyone loses when neoclassical duplicates attempt proliferation.
the reverse could also be said, and it's there where the push back is the strongest, becasue it's modernism that's institutionalized today.
Pushbacks and revivals are little popcorn farts in societal systems, simplistic sentimental data streams that don't really matter in the emergent direction we travel. Revivalists run on cognitive defects, and an inability and laziness to synthesize their time. Just look at the references to Derrida and modernism, what a plethora of dated discourse.
-------------------------
A big problem that happens when the nostalgic preachers come around, is that they distract the profession and our thinkers from addressing the tougher issues.
Instead of discussing options for gaining more ground of the built environment, increasing our value to society, and properly and creatively embracing the technologies available today, we get the usual preachy, sentimental antiquated discussions about "wholeness" "naturalness" "the good 'ole days" vs "synthetic." Irrelevant.
They'd need a heavy dose of knowledge first before any wisdom can be attained.
@ Editorial,
If pushbacks and revivals are little popcorn farts that really don't matter , why are you getting so worked up about them?
You must think over-farting is "natural."
Change diet and nip it in the bud.
kidding aside, I'm glad revivals don't gain momentum like they used to. Everyone would lose if that happened.
Did I really have to repeat that?
"natural materials will always weather better than new synthetic materials because they are from our earth, which might have some value in our ever more polutted and recourse constrained world. "
this is what you said...i was simply pointing out how it is obviously not true... although who knows what you mean by 'better'. But you also missed my point again and took ou a single sentence and filtered it to something other than what i actually said...ah well.
"If pushbacks and revivals are little popcorn farts that really don't matter , why are you getting so worked up about them?"
you've done this 'worked up' thing multiple times now... it makes your argument even weaker and just kind of reinforces the thought in my head that you don't really feel like having a discourse... it's a tool of those who like to write in those comments sections of political columns etc.
Lars, If you don't know what I meant by stone and brick weathering better than synthetic materials, that's too bad. Reminds me of the Fox News and mainstreet media split over what are common held beliefs and facts. No one is saying you can't like parametric, or deconstruction, or blob, or brutalist buildings, that's up to you. What isn't up to you is telling everybody else that "it would be inappropriate to design and build a edifice such as..." fill in the blank. You say you prefer natural materials, why? You say you are "not arguing for curtain wall panels or even glass boxes", yet "certain times have a particular style". Since you seem to have it all figured out, how about telling the rest of us what we're allowed to design and what should we avoid. I'm going to guess the "strength" of your argument will destroy my "weak" argument. Looking forward to your "discorse".
"natural" materials don't always weather "better" and they're definitely not at their best. Too much old junk is simply propped up by hoarding, Renaissance-themed renovations, and revivals, which is what these kinds of blogs inspire aside from the anti-contemporary rhetoric.
C'mon, you didn't build that.
what I'm getting out of this essay and discussion is that there's possibly growing push-back from all directions against this process-driven formalism that has dominated these past couple decades. I don't know wtf "wholeness" means, but I think the common critique is this seeming lack of humanity in these projects from the "decon - post structuralist - post-pomo" group. It's one thing to look at the morphosis building and see some sort of aesthetic commentary through fragmentation or something, but as a container serving various social functions in an urban context (isn't this a civic building?)- does this project actually provide something better or exacerbate the problems that are being reflected back at us through this "aesthetic dialogue?"
bro, just let this thread die.
toasteroven, you nailed it. There's definate pushback at what you called process-driven formalism, which I call modernism in the latest flavor. The main complaint is just as you described it, a lack of humanity. The problem isn't the diverging views, it's how quickly and thoroughly one is attacked when questioning the status quo, like this young man did. I'm a bit foggy on wholeness myself, but somehow it dosen't seem like it will result in suffering for man kind. When you are persuing something humane, somthing others might like on the most basic level, you should be encouraged, what ever "matrix you're using".
"Lars, If you don't know what I meant by stone and brick weathering better than synthetic materials, that's too bad. "
Then explain what you mean instead of resorting to snark...i don't understand what you mean because you're not explaining yourself well. If you mean they look 'better' over time then maybe..but a number of synthetic materials would last longer.. i prefer wood siding to pvc, but the pvc lasts longer... if you're saying you like the wood siding look better over time...then i agree with you.
"What isn't up to you is telling everybody else that "it would be inappropriate to design and build a edifice such as..." fill in the blank. "
Yes I can because the budget for that building wouldn't support stone! Which is why I asked if you've ever actually built anything...because that's important to the conversation.
"Since you seem to have it all figured out, how about telling the rest of us what we're allowed to design and what should we avoid. I'm going to guess the "strength" of your argument will destroy my "weak" argument. Looking forward to your "discorse". "
This is so f'ing pathetic...seriously grow a spine. We're having a conversation...and you continue to resort to this kind of horse crap. I've asked you a number of questions, but you've yet to respond to any of them. Strengthen your points so people can understand what you mean instead of getting hurt at any insinuation that you might not know what you're talking about...I want you to prove me wrong and I want to better understand what you're trying to say.
Thayer-D, you're not challenging the status quo, you are the status quo.
"bro, just let this thread die."
thanks bro.
Big talk! You just try to say that the King is naked and you will get the response. This post obviously touched on something sensitive – hence the 60 + responses – some quite lengthy. A few people spent the time thinking and writing about it. Great! The gallons of venom that the author collected are an indicator of a job well done. Congratulations for the bravery to challenge both the king and the crowd and. This was noticed in the gray media stream!
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?
If you take off the glasses of too much classroom and lecture hall schooling, scholastic theories, literature references, magazines, and TV watching, and look at the world with the eyes of the little boy who shouted “The king is naked”, than you would see that the challenges this building is facing are much simpler. That is: How to take ingredients meant to serve the bureaucracy insisting on boring office building typology and make an expression of freedom, democracy, openness, respect to community, and urban integrity out of it? The answer is – you cannot. And because you cannot make democracy out of bureaucracy you need to invent tricks to full the crowd.
It is fun to reenact the creative process. If you look at the plan you will see typical office layout full with decks and cubicles. If you take away all the semitransparent lingerie and seductive accessories you will see a simple box much as the one Miss reproduced by thousands all over the world. But if we be honest about what it is – a box full with decks, than what The People would think? We need to be creative and come up with something new. If this novelty comes from our own (TM’s) library that is already taken the media space and established as fashionable way to express “personality” –that would be even better.
Idea set – plan in action. Unite the plaza with the building – public with office space. That is tough. Wait! Use the lobby. Carve it into the body of the office floors. Unite the otherwise disconnected floor slabs. Throw some skirt (curtain) over the box and the plaza. Mask it. Call it folds. Hope that nobody will notice the box underneath. Put this skirt to the south. Say it is a solar shade. Be green. C’mon on! In this way you also are addressing the highway. What a view for the people coming from the airport and experiencing the San Francisco skyline for the first time! Oh well, the building it is kinda grayish and looks like nothing else out there, but t this is a part of being novel and strange. Create an intrigue! This needs to look futuristic, new, …and BIG. New York has the statue of Liberty to greed the newcomers and to represent what we stand for, we have the Federal Building. What about the back of the building? Wait! Where is the back? Facing the City? This is a detail. It does not matter. Live it boxy as is. Who cares? Just make a hole through the box. This will “unite” the front and the back. Call is sky garden. Windy? Later, later, no time! Let’s look at this now…Hm.. still looks gloomy” grayish colors, pavers on the plaza…This does not “hold the people” too much…Wait.. the people … Do we really want a crowd with banners shouting protests under our transparent canopy? Probably not… Let’s put some cameras…This will deter them. Do same to the street.. Use some grads. We like to look inviting but we are not a forum after all. The homeless from the neighborhood should find another place. They create a wrong impression… we are almost done… A few more things … How about the classical courts building across the street? Which one? A.. this..this…thank you for pointing out.. did not notice…hm.. . listen.. we are not here to create harmony, you know.. we cannot solve all of the social discrepancies in the world.. we cannot solve all of the urban discrepancies either… we are just architects after all (well federal architects…) we cannot create “wholeness” out of a world who is contradictory, segregated, dynamic, we understand our goal as…hm…expressing the dichotomy , the drama, the contradiction…we live it as it is.. let the politicians deal with it.. we just esthetise… you know.. hm…If architecture is fragmented – so be it. The world is fragmented and so is architecture. What is wrong with this? If there is not a uniting idea, than what we should we build? Yah , yah Bartholdi 1886…it was a different time…
While some of your comments about Mayne's building are somewhat relevant, this blog is an embodiment of the faux-old network, the backwards tea party of architecture silly enough to create arbitrary divides in history. It is so faux-old, it's copying paragraphs from debates that occurred in the 80's. Riding this faux-old oligarchy cloud makes one a right arm of the establishment, not a renegade movement of "holeness." In professional circles this thinking is at best, a dumb and lazy niche market of neoneoclassicism.
Faux-oldies freak out at the present, thus seek to impose faux-oldie ways of being, aligning themselves with various conservative political factions, seeking to divide and conquer the built environment through hoarding, overpriced faux-old vacation towns, and anonymous McMansions. Indeed, the faux-old network has even infiltrated junkspace.
Can't take the heat of living in the present? Good luck trying to convince others that copying stuff from 1940's Graphic Standards will save the world.
A, almost forgot...For those who noticed all the literature references under the seductive folding semitransparent lingerie but did not see the bureaucratic office box and the ever-empty plaza recommended is the following selective attention test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
cute little crack house inspired by christopher alexander
maybe next time bro.
To Blog 10-10-12
Here we go!
New = Gewat! progressive, personal, welcomed, desirable
Old=Bad! Bad! Bad! anonimous, niche market of neoneoclassicism seeking to impose faux-oldie ways of being and conquer the built environment through hoarding, overpriced faux-old vacation towns, and anonymous McMansions
Well, this computer parametric exploring and experimenting generation may benefit from referencing to the graphics standards from time to time. They deal with the dimensions of the human space not with the computer technology. ...Not that I reject one world for the expense of the other.
Correct me if I am wrong - Human will be human even on Mars. ..and so a social system and values will express themselves and will find an adequate realization and expression in space no matter the architect's formal interpretations. Architecture is a social art after all. An artist and a musician are free to express personally. With architects this expression goes trough a social verification. The product is just too expensive and subject to discussion. This blog is a proof.
Call this new, or call it old. Listen to it or choose to close your eyes and ears. The environment we create for ourselves speaks loudly about who we are and how we organize our life. We just need to know the language to make some sense of the message.
(When we start listening we will know that many things we consider novelty are invented long before Rome. )
Our knight in shining armor has arrived, in one arm is the Charter for New(faux old) Urbanism, in the other is the T-square sword of hand drawing. To protect against computer viruses, the knight yields a rustic shield decorated in neoclassical imagery- crafted by a hand no CNC machine or 3d printer could ever reproduce (yeah right). Alas this faux-old warrior will guide us into the deepest heavens of what it is to be "human"
Correct me if I am wrong - Human will be human even on Mars. ..An artist and a musician are free to express personally. With architects this expression goes trough a social verification.
Try and think about building on Mars for longer than a second.There are some very basic requirements to social interaction and physical human needs, but it is short-sighted to think that only the faux-old can do it. The only thing this blog proves is that architecture cannot substitute itself for deep-seeded social processes. It can frame them in certain instances, but there is no proof that the faux-old architecture is more successful at eliminating social ills. The "social verification" mobilized here tries to be a call to arms for the faux-old oligarchy.
To the cartoonish classifications of "old" and "new": while there is not much ado about the old, the faux-old is especially problematic in generating false visions, by romanticizing historical recreations. It is irrefutable that this blog panders to that sensibility. False vision indeed.
They deal with the dimensions of the human space not with the computer technology. ...Not that I reject one world for the expense of the other.
They are one and the same, with computational space allowing for much more.
I can't but agree with what you said, especially with this: architecture cannot substitute itself for deep-seeded social processes. This is profound. The equal sign between the "call for social verification" of architecture and the "call to arms for oligarchy" comes out of the blue though. One does not lead to the other at all. In fact one is the complete opposite of the other.
I found the frivolous introduction of concepts and the and capricious logical correlations enjoyable. The description of the night as vivid. Does this hold a value as a public discussion over he substance of architecture? - probably not, but I can certainly amuse myself for relaxation before going to bed. Please keep posting pictures and visualizing characters. You are good in this. Seriously. No irony here. When talking about the advantages of the computational space over the T-square sword you start sounding like a one faux-old. Do not kill it. Live this topic for those who really know how to make this difference. :)
The dogmatic social verification process re-hashed here is a huge distraction to the present. A divide and conquer initiative where nostalgia is labeled virtuous, like putting lipstick on a mummy. The association of faux-old oligarchies with various conservative factions has been well documented. One cannot read this blog and ignore, lest forget, those associations and their theoretical roots in the 70-80's.
Revivals have been a burden, a barrage of mummies which habitually like to pile themselves upon society and gorge upon its cultural juices when it needs them most. Never again should such widespread resurrections occur. Indeed this blog panders to the resurrector's sensibility.
As for the resurgence of computational methodologies: their present impact and exponential potential will not diminish. Old perhaps, but by no means faux, let alone faux-old.
Believe me, I got it bro:
Tom Mayne, computers, 3D printing - cool stuff
Everything else - dumb stuff , neoclassicism, oligarchy, dogma, mummy, faux-old
Got that. No need to clutter the blog. Luckily there are some pearls in your stuff:
computational methodologies: their present impact and exponential potential will not diminish
Old perhaps, but by no means faux
architecture cannot substitute itself for deep-seeded social processes
This saves the day.
I on the other hand had not intended to attack Mr. Thom Mayne whatsoever neither to provoke your anger, nor to defend some oligarchical,faux-old point of view. All my respects and sympathies are with Morphosis. Tom was completely aware what he was facing when he took this commission and he did what was possible to mitigate the outcome. He is not guilty for not being able to create an exiting, vivid, sociably active, environment nor to suggest a symbol of what the federal government stands for. The result is grayish, self referenced, disconnected unimpressive. The message is confused. The connection to the local neigbourhood is horrible/nonexistent. Connections to BART, bus, pedestrian patterns - forget it. City relationships as function, space composition, meaning of the expression - raised eyebrows what this guy is talking about? This was just an available lot next to the courts building that attracted 144 million investment capital. Than the stake holders hired a fissionable architect as Mr. Thom Mayne in a desperate hope that his genius will do the magic and solve what was not solvable at the get go. That is all. The magic did not happen. Even the internal workings for the employees is terrible. This building was scored the worst of all federal buildings in the Nation. Reed more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Federal_Building
Thom is a forward thinker and a philosopher. See his lecture at www.TED.com. Reed his books. Look at his buildings. He tried to make something out of the decks and the cubicles. How about LEED? Make the employees interact. Fight obesity, the sedentary life. Make them walk three floors. Make them walk all the way down to the plaza to get their coffee The chances are they may meet someone from the neigbourhood and actually talk and be human. Make them open a window and breathe some fresh ocean scented air. Do not build a 200' high concrete bunker as newyorkians did with their "Freedom Tower" to protect from bombing attentats. Connect to the street. Make the plaza, the lobby and the entire environment one. Bring the garden to the roof. Let the wind go trough the building.
Helas! It did not work. It was beautiful but Utopian. The employees wanted their cars. They hated the opened windows that let the wind in and scattered their papers. (Was this an intended effect that Thom envisioned?). They wanted the cafe at the deck not at the plaza. Why risk to meet the drogatics from the neigbourhood? These cameras- who knows if they are good enough to protect us? We are the federal government. Can we trust these liberal, Democratic voting, San Fransicanians?
Yah, it is False Vision. Who is false though? The vision of the architect or the vision of the client? Where do we start - from the program and the budget or from a dream for a better world? How much these coincide? An if they do not what an architect is supposed to do?
The architect can only do so much. When an architect attempts to correct the reality the reality always wins. The choice is this: As professional you either conform and make the reality work, or try to change it and take the rick. The answer to this is individual. Philip Jonson admitted: I am for sale..I am a whore. Thom's is different.
What is yours bro?
huh...so now Thayer D is posting as koivika?
"Big talk! You just try to say that the King is naked and you will get the response. This post obviously touched on something sensitive – hence the 60 + responses"
having people respond to what you write isn't in and of itself telling on how relevant, interesting or well said an initial post was... if you look at the majority of posts in this thread they're mainly asking the initial poster (who has not posted after the OP) to expand on their original post that was not really all that clear and didn't really have a well defined point really. It's just a bunch of words without a truly coherent thesis other than to say that old is good and new is bad apparently... and that modernist plazas designed 40-50 years ago are also bad...
Mayne is no utopian, with all the spelling errors and Corb associations I agree with lars that koivika is starting to sound like thayerD.
The choice is this: As professional you either conform and make the reality work, or try to change it and take the rick.
Like conforming to a peanut gallery?There is nothing wrong with post-rationalization if all did not go according to plan. Take a risk - Mayne, Johnson, FLW, Borromini, all took intelligent risks. The faux-old at best comes to similar conclusions as innovators, but instead resorts to resurrections.
Again, that is what this blog was about. If any valid criticism is to be leveled at starchitecture it should be a window to the future, not a call to recreating an idealized faux-old.
Look at Masdar City for one, some old concepts in a new city, but in no way dogmatic historicism.
Thanks larslarson. I am not Thayer D. I have my own identity and my own professional position which I tried to express may be too sharply. We need to have some fun along with the serious conversation too. :) right? I agree with you that the initial question was somewhat blur. What attracted me here was the title: "False Vision". which touches the wound. Further it has to do with my own definition of professionalism and what i do as architect. I myself am struggling with this for some time and was curious to see what otters think out-there. The effect so far is silence. I do not count "responses" such es ones above. Old, new, neoclassicism, computers and such - blah. For me a serious question is: If someone is willing to spend 144 million to accommodate administration, If this someone do not show too much respect for the local urban (and human) environment and instead tries to "solve" all questions on "artistic" rather than on functional level, if the media shouts hosanna but the locals are silenced and the professionals mumble about what it is like Alexander, Berlage or whatever, than what can we say about the present society state, the life in general and the architects practice in particular? Silence is an expected response. I just got into the No Entry Zone. But I will take silence as an answer.
To say Mayne solves problems simply in artistic terms is ignorant. Similar comments emanate from hoarders who want to stuff every city function into old derelict buildings.
To moralize Mayne is a strawman, like proposing the Guggenheim in NYC should have never been built because FLW wanted everyone to start the exhibition from the top floor.
Post-occupancy bro.
Luckily just across the bay we have a different setting - the Roland V Delums Federal Building. This one restores my believe that the democracy has not died after all and architects have something meaningful to say. This one has nothing that resembles the gloomy urban and human solitude of its San Fransiscian brother. It is connected, it is pleasant to be in, it is cheerful, and human. The connection between 12th Bart station and the building is one of my favorite places to be. On my test of successful architecture: "Where are the people?" this building scores 10 out of 10. The people are right there - working, dining. exercising, shopping, watching performance, listening to music, reading or simply resting around the fountain.
http://www.terragalleria.com/california/picture.usca44375.html
This environment talks to me. I can listen to some music there. Why shall I listen to the silence?
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/san-francisco-federal-building.html
http://www.arcspace.com/architects/morphosis/usfb/usfb.html
Quote:
Morphosis works closely with its clients to help them define the ethical and functional goals of the project, then translates those goals into a design that satisfies the unique requirements and aesthetic opportunities of the program, site and context. The ultimate goal is to produce an architecture that surprises and inspires—a critical architecture that contributes to the conversation about how we live today.
End Quote
Read more:
http://morphopedia.com/uploads/SFB_PRESSKIT_AllDocs.pdf
Much better than the Michael Graves rip-off you posted.
The music you're hearing is from the bygone, try a hearing aid old-timer.
To the example, faux-old faux-stone and nearby outdoor mall, hardly qualifies as architectural music Simply put Oakland's building is an urban outcome. A poster-boy for faux-old facism, which a young designer could have done better.
Perhaps one day Mayne's building will be surrounded by rustic pavers and cybernetic birds will perch upon its metal. By then Alexanders tears would have long evaporated and his great grandchildren will be putting out a revised edition of pattern language, only this time with some reference to decon.
And the pseudo-false vision returns, again.
http://www.terragalleria.com/california/picture.usca44375.html
holy crap that is hideously ugly and can be found all over the place... and your main architectural question is "Where are the people?"... i mean that picture above is a mall..right? How different could it possibly be than the intent, function, setting, etc of the Morphosis building?
I mean seriously... I don't mean to be harsh..but how is Dryvit advancing architecture? How is the absolutely most banal architecture moving us forward? I can't imagine that these are examples of 'wholeness'...
Define "advancing architecture" and "moving forward" in the context of this dialog.
moving forward does not fall into "the context of this dialog" or this blog.
for starters try reading something that doesn't come out of the perenialhole camp
It is remarkable how out of all the Blah-Blog-logia a rational question can still come out of the mess: A False Vision is still l a vision, but what if there is no vision at all? What if the idea was to just create something without any intent whatsoever to give it any meaning transcending the creation? In such context any haphazard gesture, scream, and broken move, equals art, music and ballet. What if we just withes one very late "architectural" Sartre or Jackson Pollock? What if the entire meaning of the architectural form is limited to the form itself - just as the "thoughts" of this Blog have no other meaning but to take over the space in some desperate "pure existence", proving that despite the all human evolutionary experience, despite all of the power for human imagination and the symbolysing ability of the human brain meaningless objects can still exist nonetheless.
If you are looking for religion go to church bro.
Oh, no not at all. I am looking for some fun, and this is the right place to get it. Thank you bro, as usual you make my day.
Oh, here is one: If Dryvit is not advancing architecture is perforated aluminum doing it? What do you think bro? :) :) :)
yes
Dryvit is one of the most banal materials...it's completely false. It doesn't hold up well over time, but also has the added wonderful quality of not breaking down over time. The only reason to use dryvit is because you can't afford the actual material you actually want to make whatever piece of column/moulding etc you want to make. If you're going to do work that emulates or revives or whatever architecture from 200 years ago then at least use the real material and hire some craftsman.
Advancing architecture...hm what could that mean? Maybe moving whatever style you want to work in forward. Those office buildings could have been designed and built 20 to 30 years ago... no one would know the difference. But it's impossible to prove to you guys that each decade/era has an architecture of their own... Do you really think the romans wouldn't have used steel if it were available to them?
Perforated aluminum may not be the answer, but why not use new materials in new and interesting ways? Why make new materials into faux replicas of pieces of the past?
Like it! :)
Question for larslarson:
Advancing architecture...hm what could that mean? Maybe moving whatever style you want to work in forward.
Why in the US so many professionals and non-professionals are having long discussions over "style"? "Style" is focused on the formal characteristics of architecture. This "stile"-conversation is supposed to be exhausted in the 30's and 40's. Now we are supposed to discuss topics such as architectural environmental quality, architecture and freedom, architecture as social medium, architecture and technology, 0-carbon, energy efficiency, architecture and the planet resources, architecture as a cultural dialog, local architecture, architecture and climate and so on. Projected over this background it seems so strange that crowds of professional are still focused on the form rather than on the substance.
Here is a hint for an answer: We represent individual rather than collective culture in which the questions of the relationships of personality(individuality) versus collectivity (socium) are still not quite clear. We praise the power of the personality, the super-heroes, the gurus over the "collective wisdom".The question of how to express our individuality dominates our cultural horizons and our daily behavior. We often forget what this is all about for the sake of over-shouting the crowd about our own ingenuity and uniqueness often taking the negligence and ignorance as revolutionary novelty. It is not about what it is. It is about how it looks. It is about being NEW, no matter if the "new" last for a day before being replaced by the next short-to-live novelty. In this context of course the question of self-identification with a "style" (any style) is of course a part of the question who are you? The problem here is that in the rest of the arts "self-expression" is achievable. Architecture lives longer, have become too much of a collective effort and is too costly to allow for irrational and sub-cautious individual gestures and experimentations.
"Advancing Architecture...hm what could that mean? Maybe moving Whatever Style(any) YOU WANT to work in forward."
Hm I am not sure about this. I am European.
(My position is purely philosophical. No personal criticism meant.)
Most of the time, (like what you wrote) the faux-old tries to pose as a collective good.
First step to advancing architecture is to not second-guess cultural progress. The faux-old fails to take this crucial first step. Instead, they distribute cultural luddism and take on ultra-conservative measures, like your dryvit recreation.
Despite whatever doubt the faux-od tries to make about the past and now, for certain we are better off than 200 years ago. Architecture should reflect that, not second-guess and lie about it.
First step to advancing architecture is to not second-guess cultural progress?
We Always have to question progress or we just get missles instead of spears?
culture doesn't really advance technology does! Culture just is what it is.
We can't recreate the past. It is a deadend! And even worse it's fucking boring!!!
I agree that we need to move foward, it's what we do, however we should move carefully with vigilance and fear as if we are walking through a pitch black forest.....Can't go back because our old territory can't sustain us anymore, but if we prance foward foolishly and happy-go-lucky without questioning where we are going we might get lost, smash into a tree, or fall off a cliff...