"Obdurate by Design: The difficult cause of willful buildings that demand heroic efforts to preserve."
"Though the shortness of the Folk Art Museum building's 13-year life is startling, it reignites an uncomfortable question for adventurous architecture: how particularly should architects hew to an idea, a program, or a personal artistic agenda if, in the future, it might demand heroic efforts to maintain and adapt? Highly expressive modernist buildings have proven especially obdurate"
It also discusses the struggle over some of Paul Rudolph's buildings, which the public generally wants torn down, while modernist preservationists fight tooth and nail to keep these (sometimes decaying) buildings standing.
To take a step back and look at this critically: Why do we make these buildings? Who are they for? Who sees them as an asset to the community? In this era of sustainability, a building with a mere 13 year lifespan is, from an economic standpoint, an enormous waste of resources.
Another related question: When we design a building which the public dislikes, a popular response from us is "it's because the public doesn't understand or appreciate what we're trying to achieve, and they have yet to be educated on why their current opinions are underdeveloped or wrong". How is that approach not arrogant?
By prizing the architect as some sort of master visionary and feeding that ego throughout school and life in general (just look at how Hollywood imagines an architect), the only real result is something that is self-serving and indifferent to criticism against the misunderstood artist.
But let's not kid ourselves: the common good has not been a main priority for decades. Private interests foot political bills and also pays for architectural dreams and desperate visionaries will not turn that offer down. The average person pays for practically nothing during development (except tax revenues that are offset by a zero-tax incentive for corporations and commercial entities) and thus have no say.
Architecture as a profession and topic of study is culturally inaccessible to most. How many have the funds to explore a new continent every summer? How many can be pampered to study the arts instead of focusing on a practical job sector? If the field wants general people to understand, treat them with some dignity and communicate better. A lot of people don't appreciate minute design details but they can tell why certain things feel better than a cheaper crappier knockoff. They can understand why the Folk Art Museum is built a certain way if someone explained the story to them. Why should it matter to them if nothing about it even echoes the mainstream? Make it matter. Draw common connections that they can remember and retell.
But also think about this: since most households change every twenty years or so (baby to college empty nest or some huge investment portfolio saved up), maybe a building, generally speaking, should have a shorter lifespan that is easily recycled or re-purposed afterwards. To make them static and stuck in a time that has long expired is also a sign of poor long-term vision.
Although I agree that architects need to do a better job talking to the people, I also believe they need improvement when it comes to listening to them. So much of the public doesn't like what do, but just as we blame it on their lack of understanding we can also blame our often deaf ears.
I'm not sure why a building's lifespan should match that of one human generation. Many of the world's great cities are made up of buildings which span multiple human generations. I don't think that a 20 year building would be able to function any better than a longer lasting one, unless the aim is to facilitate the interests of architects.
I want to challenge the conception that buildings can be static or stuck in time. I think that's impossible. All buildings are dynamic and altered over time; there are centuries-old buildings which have even renovated or repurposed many times over (despite appearing to be "stuck in time" on the outside). They might be the most sustainable buildings of all, a very successful long term strategy.
What I'm trying to get at is that "adventurous architecture", due to its inherent inflexibility or short lifespan, may be a very inefficient use of dwindling natural resources (arguably, a diversion of resources). By choosing to design buildings which satisfy their artistic expectations and not those of a common good, adventurous designers facilitate the likely result of premature demolition and rebuilding. Over the long term, this short term rebuild cycle consumes far more resources than a long term renovation/rebuild cycle. If not the architects, the clients are facilitating this too. Even if materials can be recycled, the construction process is very resource intensive.
I think it would be wise for architects to weigh the value of short term adventurous architecture against the growing consequences of resource depletion. They're not helping the problem.
Although I agree that architects need to do a better job talking to the people, I also believe they need improvement when it comes to listening to them. So much of the public doesn't like what do, but just as we blame it on their lack of understanding we can also blame our often deaf ears.
I'm not sure why a building's lifespan should match that of one human generation. Many of the world's great cities are made up of buildings which span multiple human generations. I don't think that a 20 year building would be able to function any better than a longer lasting one, unless the aim is to facilitate the interests of architects.
I want to challenge the conception that buildings can be static or stuck in time. I think that's impossible. All buildings are dynamic and altered over time; there are centuries-old buildings which have even renovated or repurposed many times over (despite appearing to be "stuck in time" on the outside). They might be the most sustainable buildings of all, a very successful long term strategy.
What I'm trying to get at is that "adventurous architecture", due to its inherent inflexibility or short lifespan, may be a very inefficient use of dwindling natural resources (arguably, a diversion of resources). By choosing to design buildings which satisfy their artistic expectations and not those of a common good, adventurous designers facilitate the likely result of premature demolition and rebuilding. Over the long term, this short term rebuild cycle consumes far more resources than a long term renovation/rebuild cycle. If not the architects, the clients are facilitating this too. Even if materials can be recycled, the construction process is very resource intensive.
I think it would be wise for architects to weigh the value of short term adventurous architecture against the growing consequences of resource depletion. They're not helping the problem.
To lump the Folk Art Building into this argument is disingenuous. That building could have been used for a long time had Lowry not been hell-bent on tearing it down just to show that he is top dog. Some buildings can be vague in their programming to allow for flexibility; however, what often makes a building beloved is its specificity. We still need some buildings that are specific and special. What we also need are custodians, such as in the FAM’s case, that are willing to be somewhat inconvenienced, who can put their egos aside, and who seriously consider the long view.
Why shouldn't the architects be expected to put their egos aside and consider the long view? If the avant-garde paradigm is building idiosyncratic buildings that are highly specific in their configuration, we shouldn't be surprised when they are torn down when they prove to not to be easily adaptable. Otherwise, eventually we'd end up with whole cities full of aesthetically rarified, disfunctional public buildings.
This subject is actually germane to the discussion of Brutalist buildings in the other thread. On very apt criticism of many of the Brutalist public buildings is that, aesthetics aside, they are very idiosyncratic and specific in their programing and configuration. When needs change, they are often highly resistant to adaptive reuse, and there is simply not enough general love for the aesthetics to put up with the functional deficiencies. Cue the wrecking ball.
Seriously, how do you re-purpose something like this?
The unsustainability of "adventurous" architecture
This article was posted in Architectural Record:
http://archrecord.construction.com/features/critique/2014/1409-Obdurate-By-Design.asp
"Obdurate by Design: The difficult cause of willful buildings that demand heroic efforts to preserve."
"Though the shortness of the Folk Art Museum building's 13-year life is startling, it reignites an uncomfortable question for adventurous architecture: how particularly should architects hew to an idea, a program, or a personal artistic agenda if, in the future, it might demand heroic efforts to maintain and adapt? Highly expressive modernist buildings have proven especially obdurate"
It also discusses the struggle over some of Paul Rudolph's buildings, which the public generally wants torn down, while modernist preservationists fight tooth and nail to keep these (sometimes decaying) buildings standing.
To take a step back and look at this critically: Why do we make these buildings? Who are they for? Who sees them as an asset to the community? In this era of sustainability, a building with a mere 13 year lifespan is, from an economic standpoint, an enormous waste of resources.
Another related question: When we design a building which the public dislikes, a popular response from us is "it's because the public doesn't understand or appreciate what we're trying to achieve, and they have yet to be educated on why their current opinions are underdeveloped or wrong". How is that approach not arrogant?
I wonder what weighs more: the folk art museum or all the shit books Sarah Palin's publishers printed?
By prizing the architect as some sort of master visionary and feeding that ego throughout school and life in general (just look at how Hollywood imagines an architect), the only real result is something that is self-serving and indifferent to criticism against the misunderstood artist.
But let's not kid ourselves: the common good has not been a main priority for decades. Private interests foot political bills and also pays for architectural dreams and desperate visionaries will not turn that offer down. The average person pays for practically nothing during development (except tax revenues that are offset by a zero-tax incentive for corporations and commercial entities) and thus have no say.
Architecture as a profession and topic of study is culturally inaccessible to most. How many have the funds to explore a new continent every summer? How many can be pampered to study the arts instead of focusing on a practical job sector? If the field wants general people to understand, treat them with some dignity and communicate better. A lot of people don't appreciate minute design details but they can tell why certain things feel better than a cheaper crappier knockoff. They can understand why the Folk Art Museum is built a certain way if someone explained the story to them. Why should it matter to them if nothing about it even echoes the mainstream? Make it matter. Draw common connections that they can remember and retell.
But also think about this: since most households change every twenty years or so (baby to college empty nest or some huge investment portfolio saved up), maybe a building, generally speaking, should have a shorter lifespan that is easily recycled or re-purposed afterwards. To make them static and stuck in a time that has long expired is also a sign of poor long-term vision.
Although I agree that architects need to do a better job talking to the people, I also believe they need improvement when it comes to listening to them. So much of the public doesn't like what do, but just as we blame it on their lack of understanding we can also blame our often deaf ears.
I'm not sure why a building's lifespan should match that of one human generation. Many of the world's great cities are made up of buildings which span multiple human generations. I don't think that a 20 year building would be able to function any better than a longer lasting one, unless the aim is to facilitate the interests of architects.
I want to challenge the conception that buildings can be static or stuck in time. I think that's impossible. All buildings are dynamic and altered over time; there are centuries-old buildings which have even renovated or repurposed many times over (despite appearing to be "stuck in time" on the outside). They might be the most sustainable buildings of all, a very successful long term strategy.
What I'm trying to get at is that "adventurous architecture", due to its inherent inflexibility or short lifespan, may be a very inefficient use of dwindling natural resources (arguably, a diversion of resources). By choosing to design buildings which satisfy their artistic expectations and not those of a common good, adventurous designers facilitate the likely result of premature demolition and rebuilding. Over the long term, this short term rebuild cycle consumes far more resources than a long term renovation/rebuild cycle. If not the architects, the clients are facilitating this too. Even if materials can be recycled, the construction process is very resource intensive.
I think it would be wise for architects to weigh the value of short term adventurous architecture against the growing consequences of resource depletion. They're not helping the problem.
Although I agree that architects need to do a better job talking to the people, I also believe they need improvement when it comes to listening to them. So much of the public doesn't like what do, but just as we blame it on their lack of understanding we can also blame our often deaf ears.
I'm not sure why a building's lifespan should match that of one human generation. Many of the world's great cities are made up of buildings which span multiple human generations. I don't think that a 20 year building would be able to function any better than a longer lasting one, unless the aim is to facilitate the interests of architects.
I want to challenge the conception that buildings can be static or stuck in time. I think that's impossible. All buildings are dynamic and altered over time; there are centuries-old buildings which have even renovated or repurposed many times over (despite appearing to be "stuck in time" on the outside). They might be the most sustainable buildings of all, a very successful long term strategy.
What I'm trying to get at is that "adventurous architecture", due to its inherent inflexibility or short lifespan, may be a very inefficient use of dwindling natural resources (arguably, a diversion of resources). By choosing to design buildings which satisfy their artistic expectations and not those of a common good, adventurous designers facilitate the likely result of premature demolition and rebuilding. Over the long term, this short term rebuild cycle consumes far more resources than a long term renovation/rebuild cycle. If not the architects, the clients are facilitating this too. Even if materials can be recycled, the construction process is very resource intensive.
I think it would be wise for architects to weigh the value of short term adventurous architecture against the growing consequences of resource depletion. They're not helping the problem.
To lump the Folk Art Building into this argument is disingenuous. That building could have been used for a long time had Lowry not been hell-bent on tearing it down just to show that he is top dog. Some buildings can be vague in their programming to allow for flexibility; however, what often makes a building beloved is its specificity. We still need some buildings that are specific and special. What we also need are custodians, such as in the FAM’s case, that are willing to be somewhat inconvenienced, who can put their egos aside, and who seriously consider the long view.
Why shouldn't the architects be expected to put their egos aside and consider the long view? If the avant-garde paradigm is building idiosyncratic buildings that are highly specific in their configuration, we shouldn't be surprised when they are torn down when they prove to not to be easily adaptable. Otherwise, eventually we'd end up with whole cities full of aesthetically rarified, disfunctional public buildings.
This subject is actually germane to the discussion of Brutalist buildings in the other thread. On very apt criticism of many of the Brutalist public buildings is that, aesthetics aside, they are very idiosyncratic and specific in their programing and configuration. When needs change, they are often highly resistant to adaptive reuse, and there is simply not enough general love for the aesthetics to put up with the functional deficiencies. Cue the wrecking ball.
Seriously, how do you re-purpose something like this?
but seriously, folks
can anyone explain to me how this shit gets published?
i'm never hewing to a program again, let alone an idea.
and not even a wink to our sardonic koolhaas? for shame!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.