A street in Tokyo | Circa 1950 | Source unknown
Wholeness is everywhere. It can be viewed through a microscopic and telescopic lens. It is in nature and, therefore, it is in our nature.
Some places are more whole than others, some contribute to the life of the world more than others. It is beyond simply not liking something and it is not a matter of relative opinion. It is an objective matter that is also intensely personal (or subject-orientated) at the same time.
In our time however, people have seem to completely forgotten, whether intentionally or not, what real life – life that was constructed from the whole, that made us feel like we belonged – felt like prior to the rampant industrialization period of the 18th and 19th centuries. Prior to the Machine Age, the world simply looked and felt differently.
Look at the image above. How was it that the people, the carts, the trolley, the telephone poles, the buildings all seem to be able to work together? Is this just the angle of the photographer? I don’t think so. Something very profound and delicate here is at work. If I were to Photoshop the image so as to remove the bicycles and carts from it (because I believed somehow they were “cluttering” or “distracting” to the image ), I will have, in fact, destroyed the wholeness of the image resulting in something that lacks life. The wholeness of the image depends upon the presence of the carts and the bikes as much as the carts and the bikes depend upon the whole.
The point is this: it is not the part that makes the whole, but rather, the whole makes the part. The “part” really is one of many smaller wholes that comprise of one, single, unbroken whole or the whole. The carts and bikes in the image above are parts. Simply being a part does not guarantee wholeness. It depends on how these things are arranged. This, in turn, depends upon the steps that are taken to arrive at that arrangement of parts which, because of how they are arranged, result in the complete, unbroken whole of the image. These steps have to do with the sequence of unfolding, a process defined by Alexander, which deals with the order in which something is done.
One can image a myriad of steps that the photographer used to capture this one moment of Japan’s street life. It probably, however, did not go like this: Load the film, randomly pick a lens, climb up a random balcony or street car, close your eyes, and just shoot without looking. Wholeness, given its complexity, can never really be casual. It is a disciplined practice requiring great attention and care to detail. Working from the small decisions, one at a time, to the large decisions is truly the only way something can arrive at wholeness. Of course, it is practical to consider the scale of the project in question. The first decision in planning out a city block, for instance, would not be deciding where to put the public bathrooms.
Having considered this image of wholeness as seen above, why is it that the people intrusted with developing this kind of space – city planners, architects, developers, governments, ect. – resort to making places that are show below?
Image Credit: http://www.fastcompany.com/1204698/suburbia-rip
A street in the U.S. | Sources unknown
Money, politics, ignorance, lack of collective will. These are easy answers. I believe that it goes far deeper than this. The real answer lies in the normative machine-like way of existence that human beings have adopted over several centuries. We have permitted ourselves to behave, work, think, and do things in concert with a mechanistic worldview of human life. It is a worldview that pervades every aspect of our lives; we have gained much from it, but we have forgotten why we adopted it in the first place: to make human life better, not machine life. In the images above, we see a street that has resulted from this way of thinking. The developers and the city would probably say that this is the most practical, cost-efficient, tried and true, standard way of doing things. That we don’t need to think twice about it – a little bit of asphalt here, some cheap metal light posts, a sliver of green crap, and we’re good to go.
Here’s what is most maddening about this mechanistic worldview: it is not just happening in our streets, it is very much present in our contemporary buildings.
Image Credit: Sources available upon request.
Is the feeling of architecture in the 21st century really any different than the feeling of the two asphalt-laden streets above? What is the point of trying to look cool if it ends up looking the same in the end, if it feels lifeless in the end?
It is not just about architectural movements and styles over time. Its not just about the battles between deconstructivism and post-modernism or this -ism versus that -ism. The issue is far more practical, far more real, far more consequential. Does it actually feel good to be there with your own heart, body, and mind? Does the architecture make nature, life, spirit, humanity – whatever you call it – actually better than whatever was there before or does it make it worse? Expensive, new, and hip does not automatically make it good. It is not that difficult to ask yourself to think about architecture with this question in your mind, it is about trusting yourself to take it seriously.
Maybe there is an answer in-between. But I think this mostly arises from the same neutrality that the mechanistic worldview has imposed on people. I would guess that at some moment in your experience of the building, you may realize that it wasn’t all what the magazines and photographers wanted you to think it was really about. In order to get you to “buy into” the building, the magazines and photographers piggyback on imagery, shove it in front of your eyes, and call it art. They are not interested in hearing about how the building affects you emotionally. This attitude is what perpetuates more of the same, and, if this is the “future”, we are going to wish for something more like the street in Japan. Something better from outside our windows.
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.
18 Comments
you should also read koestler's stuff if you really feel like going this route.
about tokyo, dude i been in big cities for most of my adult life and in tokyo for almost 10 years now. that photo is pretty much just what happens in a big city with any kind of history to it. comparing it to a newly built american suburb is silly. then using that as stepping stone to say modern and disconnected architecture is wrong is not logical step. japan is cool because there are no regulations stopping every building from being different from the one next to it. there are no building height regulations (or not as you know them) and it is basically a frickin mess and ugly as hell. but it is quite lively. most of that is just density, same as london or paris. the design side of things is a different question altogether.
will galloway:
I am not saying that the suburb caused the architecture or that the architecture caused the suburb. I am not really talking about anything having to do with density or city planning or history per se. What I was describing was how the feeling of the image is whole and attempting to show why we need more of this feeling of wholeness in our streets and architecture. I am not talking about city planning, urban growth, development, ect. The question at hand is whether the feeling of these places, the image of the suburbs and the image of the architecture, is essentially one and the same.
I would imagine that the Tokyo of today, as you describe it, would feel less whole and less living than that of the Tokyo in 1950. The reasons for this have to do with how we plan streets, build buildings, ect. But the wholeness of the same place, at different points in history, is drastically different.
Do you suppose we can feel ourselves out of this problem of "drastic differences?"
Copying paragraphs from Pattern Language doesn't count as an answer.
japan is cool because there are no regulations stopping every building from being different from the one next to it
Bingo! Collage City and Delerious NY hit on that idea.
You asked "Does it actually feel good to be there with your own heart, body, and mind? Can you imagine that being a criteria in an architecture school program? Yet that is what almost every residential client asks when developing their home. Even in large scale projects where they might be more interested in a flagship design, in the end, it will be viewed a success or failure mostly on how well it feels to be there. Take Rem Koolhaus's Seatle Library, I've read that the employees hate the building, not becasue Rem failed to work out the logistics of circulation or even that it's ugly as sin. No, they hate the building becasue it makes you feel bad. Seatle got some press for picking the bold and controversial Koolhaus, but my guess is like so many modernist beohemoths, no one will shed a tear when the candy coating has worn off and they call for it's demolition.
But take a previous commentator on one of your previous blogs who said, "because feeling good is not the only criteria that I have for a space, sometimes feeling bad is just more fun." Feeling bad is just more fun. How rich and removed from the world must you be to want to feel bad.
BTW, I'm going to guess that photo of Tokyo was taken before WWII, becasue there's very little chance all those delicate and humanely scaled wooden structures would have survived Doolittle's bombing raids.
what strikes me more than anything architectural in the tokyo photograph is the variety of transit options.
what strikes me more in the contemporary photos is the single-purpose of paved/finished surfaces. what a waste!
a holistic architecture won't be relevant unless it can be embedded in an environment that allows for the variety of life/uses. and that modern car infrastructure pretty much makes impossible in a lot of places....
But take a previous commentator on one of your previous blogs who said, "because feeling good is not the only criteria that I have for a space, sometimes feeling bad is just more fun." Feeling bad is just more fun. How rich and removed from the world must you be to want to feel bad.
My point was that experiance is not always about feeling comfortable and nice. Sometimes experiance can be gained in places that feel hostile and challenging. In my opinion, any place that is memorable is good. That is not to say that we should live in a world that is in totality hostile, but a fair mix of the serene and stark can compliment/contrast one another, and can enrich ones experiance of the city. The character of place, or the "essence" as you may refer to it, comes from the grime and hardship as much as it does from the beauty. For instance NY's character is not the result of a picturesque view of central park, but also the chaotic streets, mean people, and the grime. The stark glass towers contrasted by James Renwicks cathedral, small streets out of the film "Do The Right Thing," chinese people selling crap on the corner, are how we distinguish NY from anywhere else. Places are rich because of their unique combination of things. If we dictate what "should" be done, we are ignoring the reality of life and destroying the reality of place. Life is not perfect, and trying to promote your narrow vision of perfection is counterproductive. We should absorb and love it all, because it is all beautiful and interesting.
That being said, I do feel that many places have become lifeless, but not because of the architecture. The pic above from the 1950's no longer represents the reality of cities. At one time cities were "alive" because they were multifunctional. The garment district in NY was once like the steet above. It changed because of outsourcing, technology, etc....Not because of the buildings. Now cities are more homogenous with regard to function. This is just the reality of a post industrial modern world. The architecture is just a reflection of this. Cities were once places of necessity, and now they are mostly places of novelty. If you focus on the form of the architecture you are not even scratching the surface. The lifelessness that you describe has more to do with sociology, economy, and history than with architecture. A better aproach you may want to take is to look at localization of production. Urban farming, local manufacturing, slow food......are all things which can help to bring back "life" If you look into it I will bet that a food truck will get you closer to your goal than a classical building.
I am not knocking anyone here. I like this debate, and I do kind of see where you are going with this. I agree that the problem exists, but I disagree with the cause and solution that you propose. It seems to me to be 99% social,technological,economic trends and only 1% architectural. A better approach may be to think about how architecture or planning can enhance the "ecology" of the city (program) and forget about this idea of "nobel form." Form is really irrelevant. I think that if you do this you will find 21st century solutions to 21st century problems. Also what are your views on critical regionalism? Anyway fun discussion!
From experience, most architects that I've seen which take perennailwhole's ideas to heart end up doing the following:
1. high-end residential traditional architecture
2. traditional town planning (not so bad as long as they allow for contemporary buildings)
3. McMansions - maybe that image of suburbia has more in common with Alexander than the author thinks.
"That is not to say that we should live in a world that is in totality hostile, but a fair mix of the serene and stark can compliment/contrast one another, and can enrich ones experiance of the city." I completely agree with this assesment of a vibrant city, but the truth is architects in the past never "designed" the hostile elements, they already are an integral part of our human existance, be it in the bush or the city. Now it seems this latest crop or modernists are trying to instill "hostility" into their work as an expression of "reality and honesty". Life certainly wasn't perfect in the middle ages, yet we still admire the beauty of their cathedrals.
Cities are still multifunctional, it's just more apparent in a traditional city like NYC where the public realm is clearly defined and there's still a strong economy, unlike the modernist vision of cities promoted by LeCorbusier which is still going strong in places like China. Since my school days in NYC back in the 1980's, my professors (at least the cool ones) where pushing this idea of a post industrial world. That's an incredible statement when we see so much industrial pollution in our land fills and oceans, it's just not made in NYC, but in the third world, and last time I checked they where still part of our world. The image of New York as being the contrast between Renwick's Cathedral and the glass tower only works if the cathedral is there. Take it away and you might as well be anywhere.
Metal, you're susinct characterization of anyone who would dare listen and even agree with some of these ideas says all one needs to know of your depth.
I kind of agree with you. I just do not agree with the solution that you propose. Or the reasoning behind your disatisfaction. Embrace the chaos my friend. Understand that the "city" is still evolving and that your opinion is not an absolute truth.
We cannot recreate the past. we cannot copy the form of 1850 europe and paste it in 2012 china because we like 1850 europe. We can however, identify the elements that make a place "feel good" and reinterpret those basic things within the context of the present. I do believe that there are universal "likes" but they have nothing to do with any specific architecural language or form. These are really primal things like water, scale, shade, tactile materials, nature, human interaction, access to food, security......... I do understand that in the past, some of these elements were more pervasive, but there is no reason why we cannot apply these things to avant-garde architecture.
Nothing is more human than the desire to create new things. If we revert back to antiquity, we are really losing some part of our nature. The "new" does not always "feel good", but it does always 100% of the time add to the human story, for better or worse. I do not think that architecture is all about making people feel good. I think it is about making people open up and experiance something or maybe learn something. Perfect example is the vietnam memorial. Classical architecture could not do what this stark modern memorial does. Same goes for the 9-11 memorial. Some architecture should "feel good" and some should be there to wake us up. The function of architecture in many ways is similar to that of film, music, etc.......If all we heard was feel good music we would go crazy! There is always room for some Dark Side.
Indeed it is deep, despite whatever outliers. I particularly enjoy practicing #2 with a little landscape urbanism and especially
some
civic
space
modernist cities are going in China not because of Corb, he was just a messenger. I know where this is going, the strange excuse to champion traditional buildings.
I would say more, but this discussion is over 1000 years old now and rather tiring.
"I do understand that in the past, some of these elements were more pervasive, but there is no reason why we cannot apply these things to avant-garde architecture."
This points to the narrowness of much of today's architectural discourse. We were all raised on the early modernist myth that architects should be society's interpreters looking down from up high as the mortals try to grasp our magnificence, and that is why so much of modernism fails to connect with people. The assumption is that architecture must be "avant-guard" to be succesfull or meaningfull. We are taught to embrace and emulate the enfant terribles of modernism as they screamed their manifestos from Vallhalla. It's not inherantly wrong to aspire to this posture it that's in your nature, but we aren't all cut from the same cloth. If you do want people to feel good in your buildings, you should be allowed to persue that, becasue truth be told, people do tend to want shelter from our world when they go home and stop thinking with the frontal lobe.
"Nothing is more human than the desire to create new things. If we revert back to antiquity, we are really losing some part of our nature." Again, the assumption that our highest goal is to be original, so that other's may point to our genius. What if you took a more humble approach and simply wanted people to like what you did. You might still want to be considered a genius, but your motivation wouldn't be solely to be different, but maybe to create harmony. Yes there is always room for the dark side, although for some that dark side might be a bit too scary. It dosen't mean you are week, or that you are a nostalgic dope. Fighting this constant marketing of the new dosen't mean those who thrive with constant change are wrong, they are only wrong to tell you that is the only posture you can take. There's no law that didcates one is false to strive for harmony, beauty, and serenity. I would also add that we not be scared of the word style anymore, since the whole world uses the word without sucombing to the fear mongering of modernists who view it as kryptonite. It's just a word and works wonderfully if you think about how we where before archiecture school gave us the ten commandments of archispeak.
"Nothing is more human than the desire to create new things. If we revert back to antiquity, we are really losing some part of our nature." Again, the assumption that our highest goal is to be original, so that other's may point to our genius.
No. You are missing the point. 21st century problems require 21st century solutions. You can't remove the author from the architecture. If you do, you get crap. This is because you put the ism or ideology in the way of the best fit solution. I am an architectural athiest. I think that w should treat everything as a tool and nothing as a rule. I argued this on one of those parametric threads. Originality is not about ego. Originality is about finding the best solution to a unique problem. If you deny the legitimacy of the unique end result, then you deny the uniquness of the original problem, and thus do a diservice to society by placing ideology over common sense. Every program and context is different and requires originality.
This points to the narrowness of much of today's architectural discourse. We were all raised on the early modernist myth that architects should be society's interpreters looking down from up high as the mortals try to grasp our magnificence, and that is why so much of modernism fails to connect with people.
This is what you are doing as well. You are dictating your narrow ethnocentric/eurocentric image of "what architecture should be." Like I said, you cannot remove the author. You pass this stuff off as if it is some kind of "absolute truth." Your view point is not much different from that of the parametric worshipers. You are also acting as societies interpreter by stating that "This is what society needs." No act of architecture is neutral.
If you do want people to feel good in your buildings, you should be allowed to persue that, becasue truth be told, people do tend to want shelter from our world when they go home and stop thinking with the frontal lobe.
And you will get closer to that by interpreting what they need, and designing something that is custom to those needs. You cannot do that with the copy/paste method. Since everyone has specific 21st century needs with a specific program, and within a specific context, the most reasonable solution is to design somthing that is "new." Like I said, this does not mean that we cannot incorporate principals from the past. Passive heating and cooling, natural ventilation, rain water collection, etc........(critical regionalism) Repeating the aesthetic of the past is a very shallow way of reaching your goal toward making people "feel good." At the same time, if the best solution is a barrel vault then go for it, who cares.
excuse my grammer and spelling, I no speaka good english.
jla-x,
We may be talking past eachother, becasue half the things you accuse me of doing are quite the opposite. I too am an aethist and see history as a tool box, and I have no intention of stating what society needs or what is an absolute truth. You put quotations around these phrases as if I had said them, but I didn't. If you are honestly addressing a clients needs in relation to the budget, site, context and whatever other parameters you want to throw in the mix, sometimes it ends up looking like something that's been done before, much like in literature, music and art. I guess I just don't buy into these bright lines that supposedly comparamentalizes history or for that matter people.
If I where to design a row house in NYC, it might do me good to see the variety of stoop configurations visible in the upper west side, not becasue they are warm and fuzy, but becasue people still like to hang out on stoops, whether their facebooking or just wittling wood. But if it "looks" like something from the past, modernists jump all over you with accusations of coly and pasting, as if the 1,000 Meisian grid isn't. There will always be a percentage of folks who take the easy way out and simply copy something, which while isn't admirable, it is part of our human family. It's not a crime, but I wouldn't want to make the same mistake you are implying others do when they do something that resembles some other building. That's to say, judge it only on it's superficial aspects. The cult of originality is in form, not content.
Sounds like you are trying to slide in a justification for copying. In NYC at least, glad to see it's existence in minimal in new construction.
I get you now, and I agree.