One reason AIA and AIBD can benefit from each other in working together in a collective effort to representing the design profession be it architects, building designers and others and the importance of contracting a competent design professional for their projects.
I'm aware of politics between architects, building designers, etc. but those senseless turf war disputes benefits none of us. While an effort to get to the public in becoming aware of our profession and understanding how we as professionals benefits the clients.
One of the reasons clients should contract a competent design professional (whether licensed or certified or not), is clients often are often overwhelmed with their brainstorming that they may have half a dozen or more different homes in their head envisioned but does not have the training to sort those brainstorm of ideas into a coherent design. Architecture involves a visual 'language' and architectural elements are like words and composition are sentences composing a message, statement or narrative. The whole message or narrative might not be a great work of art or unique but it should at the very least be coherent.
A design professional should be able to bring coherence to the ideas and organize it and bring it all together into a coherent manner provided the client works with the design professional because the process involves a back and forth process after all, we can't read people's minds. We can make rational guesses but we can't read people's thoughts.
Bernini you miscalculated the bell towers and they had to be torn down. you suck and your ego is out of control and slashing your mistress was not cool. people are alienated. the profession is doomed. - unknown 17th century architectural blogger.
EKE, I'm sorry, show me where I said *you* are belittling other architects? I did not, and you do not; you pretty much always treat others respectfully around here.
"Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. "
He is hysterical and writes logical fallacies to whip up the illiterate. It takes a special type of troll to try to undermine an entire profession in order to create fame and fortune for himself. Prick.
Shorter Shubow: AIA is a monoculture! Therefore, every building everywhere must be neoclassical!
Mar 19, 15 6:29 pm ·
·
EKE,
Why are they not remarkable?
My suggestion is we should be publishing diversity and not just high style for the rich elite. There are too many architects seeking the ridiculously limited 2% of the population that you don't have enough work.
After all, only an average 5-10% maybe 15% of the 2% are going to be wanting a house designed and built in any given year.
Of say 400 Million (estimate U.S. population over the next 10-15 years) individuals and divide that by 4 for households and you are looking at 100 million house holds. Only 2 Million in the income bracket for your idiosyncratic interests. Of that, only 100,000 to 300,000 clients of this type a year in the U.S.
Typically, it would be closer to 100,000 than 300,000. You need about 4 clients a year to be economically sustainable for a sole-proprietorship. There isn't enough clients in this economic tier to support the over 100,000 architects. Assuming only 5% of any socio-economic class, you are looking at maybe 1.25 Million clients. But professional, we need to work across a wider range of budgets and design homes that works that people are willing to live in.
My point is AIA is suppose to represent architecture not just high style idiosyncratic architecture for the ultra rich but if they want to be relevant then they need to be more diverse in their publications. Does it need to be ARCHITECT magazine... maybe maybe not. It needs to be in publication they sponsor and really aim for representing the practice of all architecture not just a special clique.
Mar 19, 15 6:46 pm ·
·
Short version: The point is diversity in how AIA officially represents architecture not just high style architecture but everyday architecture of modest budget clients if their goal is to represent architecture.
"EKE, I'm sorry, show me where I said *you* are belittling other architects? I did not, and you do not; you pretty much always treat others respectfully around here."
You addressed your post to "supporters of this article". I came out in support of the article in this forum.
By the way, Shubow didn't cherry pick anything. He used the examples that the AIA itself used on the "Look Up" website. the Boston Pei building, Pei in general, Gehry, Mayne.
Mar 19, 15 6:55 pm ·
·
How much has he basically plagarized us in his articles. Just took a sample of what several of us said and regurgitated it in a summarized form but I think he ignored too much and not done any real research of his own.
In short, Justin shouldn't really be talking about our profession without actually either being part of it in any way or form whether as a licensed architect or building designer or what not. He fails to understand what the underlying issues are and the nuances of that.
He may have states some truths that we all been talking about for years but he framed in in a manner that creates a falsehood and in turn causing problems instead of helping by cluttering noise and confusing the public and perpetuating falsehood.
richard, I disagree with that. im no fan of AIA but I think the ad is pretty good. "High style architecture" is basically the only time architectire has the chance to show its value. It is supressed in the everyday stuff because its value engineered until its architectural soul is crushed into nothing. Do you expect them to show mdf baseboard on a commercial trying to express the value of architecture?
the problem is not that the aia is only showing "high" architecture but rather that the every day architecture cannot be shown because we have not been able to affect it and elevate it to a level we can be proud of. It can be. It has been at certain points in history. That should be the main objective of the profession right now because the everyday stuff is what occupies 99% of the built environment.
Jla-x may be right…there is houzz for MDF stuff, and is helping the small practitioners, but the AIA mag’s and TV spots need to more diverse with defining architecture.
Mar 19, 15 7:19 pm ·
·
jla-x,
You realize we make those decisions to make our design vision fit into a budget that we were suppose to be doing in the first place.
When a client has $500K, we are suppose to design so the entire project fits into $500k reliably. There is too much focus on art form of architecture not the fact our job is to be creative problem solvers not artists. Not to say that we shouldn't apply art in our work but it is our focal point of emphasis and prioritization that is problematic. We want to like some arrogant visioneer instead of makers of effective solutions. One problem of going over budget is bleeding the client dry and into major financial troubles. We have a professional duty to fiduciary respect which includes a small but limited part of accounting responsibility. We have that duty because we are in the position that dictates decisions with economical reprecussions and our decision decisions is a money impact decision and we have a responsibility to how our decisions effects the client which takes precedence over artistic satisfaction because we have a judicially required duty of care to the client not to our personal tastes. We all have that because of the nature of our role in a contractual relationship and good faith trust and basic law mandates that we care about how our decisions impacts the client. You don't willfully go go over budget if you have a clear budget parameter and you should determine what that budget is.
You assume we have to be showing off MDF baseboards but then is it really a problem... well, that's something else but shouldn't you have met the client's budget in the first place? In a commercial, public audience isn't going to necessarily tell the difference between a painted MDF baseboard from a solid wood one. Unless it was dented up.
Architecture can be made from just about any material. the value of architecture shouldn't just be an artistic value message but also a financial value message and we should communicate that to clients and we shouldn't always be focusing on designing with the most expensive materials specified. The value we have is bring a solution that the client can afford otherwise, it doesn't serve them because all you be doing is wasting the client's time and money by leading them on some primrose path that they can not go due to your carelessness of the client's financial limitations.
You know better than to lead clients on a primrose path to a failure. Sure, the problem isn't always just in ourselves. This is why this topic is so contentious however you attempt to explain such a topic.
Actually EKE, he cherry picks quotes and facts, or at least recasts quotes and facts to fit his limited perspective of a profession I love.
If anyone of you think that starchitects, and their designs, are the problem with the profession, you either aren't an architect, or haven't been paying attention.
Mar 19, 15 7:39 pm ·
·
"the problem is not that the aia is only showing "high" architecture but rather that the every day architecture cannot be shown because we have not been able to affect it and elevate it to a level we can be proud of. It can be. It has been at certain points in history. That should be the main objective of the profession right now because the everyday stuff is what occupies 99% of the built environment. "
jla-x, I'm catching up on your posts.
I agree. It isn't just that and sure, there is more issues than just showing high architecture but we are setting our standards too high for realistic achievement. We need to show how we can be solving clients needs in all levels. If AIA doesn't show that as representatives of architecture then they will no longer be around and cease to exist at some point.
Then who will represent us as a professional society ?
Sure, I agree that we should elevate but those vernacular that I shown are often of a higher level than what we are doing. Granted, some of them have been remuddled and some were built with a little bit of economy in mind but they are often better than some of the junk we are making including Gehry et al.
Sure, it is traditional but being non-traditional shouldn't necessarily reject good sensible composition of form or sensible spatial-function layout too much. Especially on economy budget market sector. I'm not arguing for McMansion but I am arguing for the good merits of vernacular sources as inspirations and not be too far out of line to be accepted by the public and end users.
Mar 19, 15 7:42 pm ·
·
b3tadine,
Actually they are a problem but they don't represent architecture as a profession but Justin framed his article in a manner that isn't right. However, I do believe the problems are not strictly in starchitects and their designs. They are probably not as big a problem as Justin portrays but they are given too much attention and they get framed as representing architecture as a whole and that is a bigger problem.
It is the mythology framed by those like Justin that creates a public misunderstanding of architecture and AIA also doesn't always help it at least in the past and some of us ourselves. The problem is a tad bit convoluted in reality.
EKE, I'll be less of a dick with this comment, but of all the people to represent any of your causes or associate with your cause, this clown of all people you need to distance yourself from as best as possible.
I tried reading his other writings, this guy is so uneducated, so clueless, his writing style is so poor and tabloid driven bad, and I believe Richard when he says he 'plagerizes', he probably comes to this forum for some fancy talking points...
I'm not a member of the AIA - just an RA, and could give a rats ass about 'style', especially if it's what makes people feel all warm inside.
modern architecture makes me emotional and all warm inside but I am not going to ask you to agree with my dispositions.
I'm thinking about building a glass house without any technology in it!
Amish built glass house? Is that traditional modern?
this Justin Shubow is getting far too much attention.
I apologize for giving two shits about this clown and spending my precious billable time trying to give this half-brain twit a chance!
EKE, you're right, and I didn't intend to paint you with that brush. Let's do be clear that a lot of the enjoyment people are getting from that article is in a sort of schadenfreude at watching successful people be ridiculed with nasty language by someone how writes for a media outlet therefore must be somehow knowledgeable.
But EKE, even though we disagree, I know that you actually know a lot about architecture. Justin does not. Every paragraph you write here on Archinect shows that you have a deeper understanding of contemporary issues in the discipline; as many others have pointed out, Justin has no idea how architecture actually comes to be created in contemporary society. If you try to explain it to him (which I spent time trying to do when his last article came out), he refuses to listen. He's seriously an anti-vaxxer.
jla-x: the aia and asla are guilty for promoting the regulations that limit the youth from engaging the small stuff. I don't know about ASLA but as I've said here ad infinitum the AIA's Emerging Professionals Group and their support of NCARB's Future Title Task Force are movements towards loosening those limitations (assuming they actually exist).
Hi Donna. Fair enough, and I appreciate your contrite comment. But here's the thing...why does he need to know a lot about the inside rationale of architecture to have an opinion about architecture? Shouldn't our architecture make an effort to appeal to people who have no inside knowledge? Otherwise, what's the point? Are we making architecture just to appeal to other architects?
He cites the Hancock Building as a failure. It was arguably a structural, technological, functional, and I would argue, a formal failure, yet the AIA have it a 25 year award. I happen to agree with him. I am certainly more informed about architecture than Justin, but does that make his opinion any less valid?
1. Everyone knows and admits that we do not make enough money to survive. Is the AIA advocating change in this sphere? I think not.
2. We are universally hated in the construction field. What does the AIA do? Jack.
3. How much does the AIA charge every year for "membership"? A lot of us cannot afford it.
4. Some other trade organizations, like the Film Actors Union offer healthcare to their members, so that they can be independent contractors. Does the AIA offer any TANGIBLE benefit of that sort? I dont think so.
5. Apart from superficial community engagement, what does the AIA offer in terms of business development? Jack.
I might be skimming the surface here, but as a young-ish architect, I do not see ANY value in joining the AIA or promoting its values. Especially when I see these retarded ad campaigns.
Sam, don't suppose turning this into a discussion about the virtues of the AIA will be appreciated, but believe your list is valid, belonged my whole career, and I believe I got something out of it but not from it... liked reading they're stuff, practice manuals were invaluable (that I paid extra for), went to many conventions.... but I could afford it, wonder about those that can't, suppose too that they expect firms to pay for everybody, we did, but many can't... found my local chapter useless, state level nearly as bad.... paid for meals I never ate because of travel... will be forever mad that they never could pull off group coverage for us.... it's a good thing I never put a pencil to it because I certainly would have quit.
EKE I'll take it from you but not Shubby baby...Just because I watch a lot of college football does not mean I could coach the Oregon Ducks or something...
I don't see the profession the way the AIA does at all and as noted I am an RA and not a member for many many reasons...
but Shubby's attacks are so fucking over the top dramatic he's just shouting from across the aisle and getting nothing done...
Mar 19, 15 11:27 pm ·
·
I don't see the profession as necessarily imploding but undergoing changes because the way things worked decades ago isn't working but worked fine then and there are reasons for it but they are not easy to change or deal with. In the days of old, people / clients didn't try to argue with the professional they commissioned but occassionally they did but people had more prudence and they were taught that you know your place. You pay a professional, you listen to the professional and you had simple ethics conduct.
Now, we have a culture that thinks they read a few websites on architecture that they can be architects and think they know more than someone who committed a much lengthier investment of studying and becoming a true professional.
This relates to a what we might diagnose as a Pseudo-Neo complex where they think looking at a 5 page magazine and 5 minutes on a website and spend $20 to by a cheap software that they are professionals and more knowledgeable about architecture than someone who spent a decade or more of their life reading through hundreds of books and pdfs and spending thousands of hours using either hand drafting, professional CAD or BIM tools working full-time on producing and making a living practicing architecture/building design and making professional building plans that have been approved by the building official, permits issued and the buildings built.
There is alot of issues. There always was, is and will be but what the issues are would change with times... some persists, some come and goes like the tides.
"It was not until 1988 that the public learned that there had been problems with the building even more disturbing than those of the glass… [A]n engineer had discovered that the building might, under certain wind conditions, topple over… As a result, the building was, while still under construction, virtually disemboweled and rebuilt with an additional 1,650 tons of steel bracing costing some five million dollars."
How is an engineering failure, the failure of Pei? Did Pei design the structure?
"It’s worth adding that Pei, who was subject to a massive lawsuit and was almost driven out of business, later built the East Building of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., which was also a functional failure. A mere 27 years after it was completed in 1978, the exterior marble panels that clad the entire structure were tilting outward and were in danger of falling. Every single panel had to be replaced at a cost of $85 million."
If anyone bothered to read the linked WSJ article, one would find that Pei's oversight, while his to own, is a bit of 20/20 hindsight and not completely his fault. We try things, and sometimes those methods don't always work. I mean I can't imagine the scrutiny we have in America today on experimentation, if it were placed in history, with need of buttresses added on to several cathedrals in Europe.
This quote is rich:
"So much for an allegedly great American architect. Of course, Pei received the AIA’s Gold Medal, the organization’s highest prize. The American Medical Association, by contrast, does not hand out awards to doctors who nearly killed their patients through repeat negligence."
Please, any one of us can point to the innumerable cases of the starts and stops of medicine, the use of eugenics, the use of experimental techniques, x-rays - Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, Marie Curie, just to name a few, pioneered techniques and medicine that harmed many, but they won Nobels, not quite as esteemed as AIA's Gold Medal, but I think I made my point. Architecture, and those designing these buildings, are far from perfection, but I dare say if you're looking for perfection, medicine is not the place to start looking.
Now we get to Gehry.
"Modernists architects love the building, which resembles a Cubist haunted house. But, as Gehry notes in the video, his neighbors hated the rude structure. He says he was drawn to the chain-link aesthetic “because it was so universally hated” [emphasis added]. No one would want to live in a neighborhood of houses like that. It is an experimental art object incongruously situated among ordinary houses. It is a work of in-your-face sculpture, not architecture. Tourist buses swing by to gawk at the freakshow."
First, is anyone going to point out to this asshat, that "Modernism" is not the same as "Contemporary"?
Again, Shubow does a brilliant job, brilliant, of selecting quotes that proves his narrative. I mean did anyone watch the video? There are a whole boatload of instances where any one of you, myself included, would grab at the chance to take a material that no one likes, and re-contextualize in a way that makes it wonderful. To move from one idea, to the idea no one would want to live in a neighborhood with that, makes a mockery of Sambo, and Rural Studio, and their efforts at bringing design to the masses, or to Rockwood and Studio 801 in Kansas. Again, this fucking, fucktard knows jack shit.
I mean, what tour bus, or tour group, goes to rubber neck at a "freakshow"? No, they go, like other people, to see things out of the ordinary, and unexpected.
"In the video, a chuckling Gehry reminisces that when a neighbor complained about the house, the architect pointed to the neighbor’s trailers, corrugated metal fence, and car on his lawn and said, “I’m just relating to you.” In other words, Gehry was telling him, “My house is no uglier than yours.” Read between the lines and Gehry is revealing his passive-aggression."
Again, if you didn't watch the video, you take the above comment as fact, when nothing could be further from the truth. And nothing like reading someones mind, or putting words in their mouth. I mean really, given the shit that the architect in Raleigh, N.C. has had to deal with, does the supposed "legal expert" Shubow really expect me to believe, that one of Gehry's neighbors, who by the way is an attorney, really hated his house so much, that she still let it go up without so much as a hint of legal proceedings? Really?
So let's look at the company Shubow keeps. A veritable who's who in architecture, I mean the Chairman is one of the idiots responsible for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the memorial in Canada. Right.
If you think that's funny, here's another tid-bit:
Was the inspiration for Ellsworth Toohey, yeah, that Toohey.
and here's our contemporary version, notice I did not use "Modern".
Notice ANY similarities?
So, is Shubow masquerading as a Socialist? Or is he in fact the new-old breed of the Neo-Conservative?
In either case, rank amateur is an understatement. What we all know is this; opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but it doesn't mean we should listen, or take it.
well damn Beta, all rational and shit...If this ass-hat-clown worked he would know what an Architect does and what an Engineer does...but he use Wikipedia for basis of arguments.
neo-classical can you do this?
I walked around that building, did not get lifted off my feet, went to a restaurant with my wife and me and all the Bostonian tourist gazed in amazement...wasn't that windy.
I am criticizing him for being that thing Ayn Rand warned against; a hater of excellence and innovation. I find it ironic, that Shitbow, would in all likelihood, agree with Rand, yet he clearly occupies the space of Toohey, and represents the those values very well.
Irony, is not criticism, I think, because I am tired..
Mar 20, 15 1:11 am ·
·
EKE, try taking a critical analysis if you know how to do one or are you Mr. Shubow.
Lets be honest with ourselves, just because he points out some problems doesn't mean he has any credibility to speak on this subject. He doesn't even do anything architecture so what is his credibility. Why should we care about his opinion not to mention he probably ripped off his points from us either here on this forum or any of the numerous architecture related forums. The bottom line is he done no real research let alone has no skin in the game or credible credentials in any form to have any clue about what he is talking about. He takes a cluster of opinions which we have, compiled it and basically regurgitated but what does he know on the matters of architecture. Zip nada. So although he points out some issues, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe his original sources do but I rather here from them then someone who doesn't understand architecture as a profession and the layers of issues and challenges we deal with.
Everyone is defensive, or should be, when unwarranted attacks based on incorrect information are thrown at them. If my neighbor yells at me for the dogshit left on her lawn but it was another neighbor's dog who did the shitting of course I'm going to defend myself. Shubow dropped trou and shat in my lawn For no better reason than to get us to pay attention to him. He deserves to either be ignored or have it thrown back at him.
(Pretty please someone make a gif of this guy squatting on the lawn of Villa Savoye!)
so there I was roaming the streets of Boston with my wife...dum dee dum dee dooo....
nothing like NYC I tell wife, all these cute short buildings....
wait, what's that? - I says
what's what? - she says.
that - that highly reflective almost disappearing building on the horizon . WOW, that's a skyscaper, it's like it disappeared to respect the context. London needs a few of those.
-
you walk up to the facade and go, wow, look at the flat plane of glass, how does it perform like that when it is the only tall building fully exposed to the high winds...
(well we know the history)
tintt - I wouldn't call it defensive just shitting on a person whose method of opinion is shitting on one group of people because deep down he has some serious pscyhological hate issues, hence the Nazi analogy I don't think is too out of align.
I thought he was trying to be Dominique francon. He just wants to get laid by an architect like she did. Tabloid journalists aren't as smart as Harold Laski.
It's all tabloid journalism if you disagree with it. He does cite Blake, and the Mayne quotes sum it up perfectly - architecture for other architects, in other words, trying to one-up the competition. Like the writing of Schumacher, which is simply a thinly veiled attack on competitors styles ("philosophies").
But as much as you want to disagree with his specific points, the perception of architects today is largely correct. I see it in the clients, many of whom don't trust us to care for their concerns - especially their budget. I see it as a builder with ego-driven and often unbuildable, stupid guaranteed-to-fail designs that negate the very basic premise of both architecture and construction. I also see it in my father's reputation and how that has been spun for various purposes.
Once again, dismissing the messenger does not invalidate the message. Understanding that the guy is trying to make his rep, that he's writing for an audience (and dough), etc., makes it easy to dismiss any valid points that he makes. But let's face it, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
The AIA campaign does nothing to address these issues, it is essentially a sales pitch to high schoolers. Look what YOU can do when YOU become an architect! Unless of course you look at it as an architect, like Mayne, as directed at architects. Then it is self-congratulatory, which makes it even more emptier.
"you walk up to the facade and go, wow, look at the flat plane of glass, how does it perform like that when it is the only tall building fully exposed to the high winds..."
Actually it could have been much worse if other tall buildings were in the immediate vicinity due to the Bernoulli effect that channels winds between the buildings and accelerates them.
Did any of you AIA lovers see this?
Then again, maybe this is the problem..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XTIYh6WAk
One reason AIA and AIBD can benefit from each other in working together in a collective effort to representing the design profession be it architects, building designers and others and the importance of contracting a competent design professional for their projects.
I'm aware of politics between architects, building designers, etc. but those senseless turf war disputes benefits none of us. While an effort to get to the public in becoming aware of our profession and understanding how we as professionals benefits the clients.
One of the reasons clients should contract a competent design professional (whether licensed or certified or not), is clients often are often overwhelmed with their brainstorming that they may have half a dozen or more different homes in their head envisioned but does not have the training to sort those brainstorm of ideas into a coherent design. Architecture involves a visual 'language' and architectural elements are like words and composition are sentences composing a message, statement or narrative. The whole message or narrative might not be a great work of art or unique but it should at the very least be coherent.
A design professional should be able to bring coherence to the ideas and organize it and bring it all together into a coherent manner provided the client works with the design professional because the process involves a back and forth process after all, we can't read people's minds. We can make rational guesses but we can't read people's thoughts.
Bernini you miscalculated the bell towers and they had to be torn down. you suck and your ego is out of control and slashing your mistress was not cool. people are alienated. the profession is doomed. - unknown 17th century architectural blogger.
LOL vado as always gets it exactly right.
what donna said:
"Shubow has no understanding of architectural practice today, he cherry-picks examples to provide histrionic clickbait. Worse than being poorly-researched, of course, is that he's simply making the most outlandish argument possible to generate clicks. "
He is hysterical and writes logical fallacies to whip up the illiterate. It takes a special type of troll to try to undermine an entire profession in order to create fame and fortune for himself. Prick.
+++++++JLC-1. Only person who gets it. This guy is a loser, let's move on to real people.
Shorter Shubow: AIA is a monoculture! Therefore, every building everywhere must be neoclassical!
EKE,
Why are they not remarkable?
My suggestion is we should be publishing diversity and not just high style for the rich elite. There are too many architects seeking the ridiculously limited 2% of the population that you don't have enough work.
After all, only an average 5-10% maybe 15% of the 2% are going to be wanting a house designed and built in any given year.
Of say 400 Million (estimate U.S. population over the next 10-15 years) individuals and divide that by 4 for households and you are looking at 100 million house holds. Only 2 Million in the income bracket for your idiosyncratic interests. Of that, only 100,000 to 300,000 clients of this type a year in the U.S.
Typically, it would be closer to 100,000 than 300,000. You need about 4 clients a year to be economically sustainable for a sole-proprietorship. There isn't enough clients in this economic tier to support the over 100,000 architects. Assuming only 5% of any socio-economic class, you are looking at maybe 1.25 Million clients. But professional, we need to work across a wider range of budgets and design homes that works that people are willing to live in.
My point is AIA is suppose to represent architecture not just high style idiosyncratic architecture for the ultra rich but if they want to be relevant then they need to be more diverse in their publications. Does it need to be ARCHITECT magazine... maybe maybe not. It needs to be in publication they sponsor and really aim for representing the practice of all architecture not just a special clique.
Short version: The point is diversity in how AIA officially represents architecture not just high style architecture but everyday architecture of modest budget clients if their goal is to represent architecture.
"EKE, I'm sorry, show me where I said *you* are belittling other architects? I did not, and you do not; you pretty much always treat others respectfully around here."
You addressed your post to "supporters of this article". I came out in support of the article in this forum.
By the way, Shubow didn't cherry pick anything. He used the examples that the AIA itself used on the "Look Up" website. the Boston Pei building, Pei in general, Gehry, Mayne.
How much has he basically plagarized us in his articles. Just took a sample of what several of us said and regurgitated it in a summarized form but I think he ignored too much and not done any real research of his own.
In short, Justin shouldn't really be talking about our profession without actually either being part of it in any way or form whether as a licensed architect or building designer or what not. He fails to understand what the underlying issues are and the nuances of that.
He may have states some truths that we all been talking about for years but he framed in in a manner that creates a falsehood and in turn causing problems instead of helping by cluttering noise and confusing the public and perpetuating falsehood.
I'm not understanding what you mean Richard. Plagerizing what?
richard, I disagree with that. im no fan of AIA but I think the ad is pretty good. "High style architecture" is basically the only time architectire has the chance to show its value. It is supressed in the everyday stuff because its value engineered until its architectural soul is crushed into nothing. Do you expect them to show mdf baseboard on a commercial trying to express the value of architecture?
the problem is not that the aia is only showing "high" architecture but rather that the every day architecture cannot be shown because we have not been able to affect it and elevate it to a level we can be proud of. It can be. It has been at certain points in history. That should be the main objective of the profession right now because the everyday stuff is what occupies 99% of the built environment.
the aia and asla are guilty for promoting the regulations that limit the youth from engaging the small stuff..
Jla-x may be right…there is houzz for MDF stuff, and is helping the small practitioners, but the AIA mag’s and TV spots need to more diverse with defining architecture.
jla-x,
You realize we make those decisions to make our design vision fit into a budget that we were suppose to be doing in the first place.
When a client has $500K, we are suppose to design so the entire project fits into $500k reliably. There is too much focus on art form of architecture not the fact our job is to be creative problem solvers not artists. Not to say that we shouldn't apply art in our work but it is our focal point of emphasis and prioritization that is problematic. We want to like some arrogant visioneer instead of makers of effective solutions. One problem of going over budget is bleeding the client dry and into major financial troubles. We have a professional duty to fiduciary respect which includes a small but limited part of accounting responsibility. We have that duty because we are in the position that dictates decisions with economical reprecussions and our decision decisions is a money impact decision and we have a responsibility to how our decisions effects the client which takes precedence over artistic satisfaction because we have a judicially required duty of care to the client not to our personal tastes. We all have that because of the nature of our role in a contractual relationship and good faith trust and basic law mandates that we care about how our decisions impacts the client. You don't willfully go go over budget if you have a clear budget parameter and you should determine what that budget is.
You assume we have to be showing off MDF baseboards but then is it really a problem... well, that's something else but shouldn't you have met the client's budget in the first place? In a commercial, public audience isn't going to necessarily tell the difference between a painted MDF baseboard from a solid wood one. Unless it was dented up.
Architecture can be made from just about any material. the value of architecture shouldn't just be an artistic value message but also a financial value message and we should communicate that to clients and we shouldn't always be focusing on designing with the most expensive materials specified. The value we have is bring a solution that the client can afford otherwise, it doesn't serve them because all you be doing is wasting the client's time and money by leading them on some primrose path that they can not go due to your carelessness of the client's financial limitations.
You know better than to lead clients on a primrose path to a failure. Sure, the problem isn't always just in ourselves. This is why this topic is so contentious however you attempt to explain such a topic.
If anyone of you think that starchitects, and their designs, are the problem with the profession, you either aren't an architect, or haven't been paying attention.
"the problem is not that the aia is only showing "high" architecture but rather that the every day architecture cannot be shown because we have not been able to affect it and elevate it to a level we can be proud of. It can be. It has been at certain points in history. That should be the main objective of the profession right now because the everyday stuff is what occupies 99% of the built environment. "
jla-x, I'm catching up on your posts.
I agree. It isn't just that and sure, there is more issues than just showing high architecture but we are setting our standards too high for realistic achievement. We need to show how we can be solving clients needs in all levels. If AIA doesn't show that as representatives of architecture then they will no longer be around and cease to exist at some point.
Then who will represent us as a professional society ?
Sure, I agree that we should elevate but those vernacular that I shown are often of a higher level than what we are doing. Granted, some of them have been remuddled and some were built with a little bit of economy in mind but they are often better than some of the junk we are making including Gehry et al.
Sure, it is traditional but being non-traditional shouldn't necessarily reject good sensible composition of form or sensible spatial-function layout too much. Especially on economy budget market sector. I'm not arguing for McMansion but I am arguing for the good merits of vernacular sources as inspirations and not be too far out of line to be accepted by the public and end users.
b3tadine,
Actually they are a problem but they don't represent architecture as a profession but Justin framed his article in a manner that isn't right. However, I do believe the problems are not strictly in starchitects and their designs. They are probably not as big a problem as Justin portrays but they are given too much attention and they get framed as representing architecture as a whole and that is a bigger problem.
It is the mythology framed by those like Justin that creates a public misunderstanding of architecture and AIA also doesn't always help it at least in the past and some of us ourselves. The problem is a tad bit convoluted in reality.
Someone here said he cherry picked projects. I simply pointed out that the AIA actually selected the projects.
EKE, I'll be less of a dick with this comment, but of all the people to represent any of your causes or associate with your cause, this clown of all people you need to distance yourself from as best as possible.
I tried reading his other writings, this guy is so uneducated, so clueless, his writing style is so poor and tabloid driven bad, and I believe Richard when he says he 'plagerizes', he probably comes to this forum for some fancy talking points...
I'm not a member of the AIA - just an RA, and could give a rats ass about 'style', especially if it's what makes people feel all warm inside.
modern architecture makes me emotional and all warm inside but I am not going to ask you to agree with my dispositions.
I'm thinking about building a glass house without any technology in it!
Amish built glass house? Is that traditional modern?
this Justin Shubow is getting far too much attention.
I apologize for giving two shits about this clown and spending my precious billable time trying to give this half-brain twit a chance!
F**k, I did not know my post got so many comments! Ok will read em now
natematt, "I actually love when non-architects have an opinion on architecture and want to talk about it. "
Non-architects are our clients, you might remember...
EKE, you're right, and I didn't intend to paint you with that brush. Let's do be clear that a lot of the enjoyment people are getting from that article is in a sort of schadenfreude at watching successful people be ridiculed with nasty language by someone how writes for a media outlet therefore must be somehow knowledgeable.
But EKE, even though we disagree, I know that you actually know a lot about architecture. Justin does not. Every paragraph you write here on Archinect shows that you have a deeper understanding of contemporary issues in the discipline; as many others have pointed out, Justin has no idea how architecture actually comes to be created in contemporary society. If you try to explain it to him (which I spent time trying to do when his last article came out), he refuses to listen. He's seriously an anti-vaxxer.
jla-x: the aia and asla are guilty for promoting the regulations that limit the youth from engaging the small stuff. I don't know about ASLA but as I've said here ad infinitum the AIA's Emerging Professionals Group and their support of NCARB's Future Title Task Force are movements towards loosening those limitations (assuming they actually exist).
Hi Donna. Fair enough, and I appreciate your contrite comment. But here's the thing...why does he need to know a lot about the inside rationale of architecture to have an opinion about architecture? Shouldn't our architecture make an effort to appeal to people who have no inside knowledge? Otherwise, what's the point? Are we making architecture just to appeal to other architects?
He cites the Hancock Building as a failure. It was arguably a structural, technological, functional, and I would argue, a formal failure, yet the AIA have it a 25 year award. I happen to agree with him. I am certainly more informed about architecture than Justin, but does that make his opinion any less valid?
Yes.
How do you know if the profession is imploding if you don't practice?
Some broad questions about the AIA:
1. Everyone knows and admits that we do not make enough money to survive. Is the AIA advocating change in this sphere? I think not.
2. We are universally hated in the construction field. What does the AIA do? Jack.
3. How much does the AIA charge every year for "membership"? A lot of us cannot afford it.
4. Some other trade organizations, like the Film Actors Union offer healthcare to their members, so that they can be independent contractors. Does the AIA offer any TANGIBLE benefit of that sort? I dont think so.
5. Apart from superficial community engagement, what does the AIA offer in terms of business development? Jack.
I might be skimming the surface here, but as a young-ish architect, I do not see ANY value in joining the AIA or promoting its values. Especially when I see these retarded ad campaigns.
Ok, Olaf. Take it from me. The profession is imploding. :)
Sam, don't suppose turning this into a discussion about the virtues of the AIA will be appreciated, but believe your list is valid, belonged my whole career, and I believe I got something out of it but not from it... liked reading they're stuff, practice manuals were invaluable (that I paid extra for), went to many conventions.... but I could afford it, wonder about those that can't, suppose too that they expect firms to pay for everybody, we did, but many can't... found my local chapter useless, state level nearly as bad.... paid for meals I never ate because of travel... will be forever mad that they never could pull off group coverage for us.... it's a good thing I never put a pencil to it because I certainly would have quit.
EKE I'll take it from you but not Shubby baby...Just because I watch a lot of college football does not mean I could coach the Oregon Ducks or something...
I don't see the profession the way the AIA does at all and as noted I am an RA and not a member for many many reasons...
but Shubby's attacks are so fucking over the top dramatic he's just shouting from across the aisle and getting nothing done...
I don't see the profession as necessarily imploding but undergoing changes because the way things worked decades ago isn't working but worked fine then and there are reasons for it but they are not easy to change or deal with. In the days of old, people / clients didn't try to argue with the professional they commissioned but occassionally they did but people had more prudence and they were taught that you know your place. You pay a professional, you listen to the professional and you had simple ethics conduct.
Now, we have a culture that thinks they read a few websites on architecture that they can be architects and think they know more than someone who committed a much lengthier investment of studying and becoming a true professional.
This relates to a what we might diagnose as a Pseudo-Neo complex where they think looking at a 5 page magazine and 5 minutes on a website and spend $20 to by a cheap software that they are professionals and more knowledgeable about architecture than someone who spent a decade or more of their life reading through hundreds of books and pdfs and spending thousands of hours using either hand drafting, professional CAD or BIM tools working full-time on producing and making a living practicing architecture/building design and making professional building plans that have been approved by the building official, permits issued and the buildings built.
There is alot of issues. There always was, is and will be but what the issues are would change with times... some persists, some come and goes like the tides.
"It was not until 1988 that the public learned that there had been problems with the building even more disturbing than those of the glass… [A]n engineer had discovered that the building might, under certain wind conditions, topple over… As a result, the building was, while still under construction, virtually disemboweled and rebuilt with an additional 1,650 tons of steel bracing costing some five million dollars."
How is an engineering failure, the failure of Pei? Did Pei design the structure?
"It’s worth adding that Pei, who was subject to a massive lawsuit and was almost driven out of business, later built the East Building of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., which was also a functional failure. A mere 27 years after it was completed in 1978, the exterior marble panels that clad the entire structure were tilting outward and were in danger of falling. Every single panel had to be replaced at a cost of $85 million."
If anyone bothered to read the linked WSJ article, one would find that Pei's oversight, while his to own, is a bit of 20/20 hindsight and not completely his fault. We try things, and sometimes those methods don't always work. I mean I can't imagine the scrutiny we have in America today on experimentation, if it were placed in history, with need of buttresses added on to several cathedrals in Europe.
This quote is rich:
"So much for an allegedly great American architect. Of course, Pei received the AIA’s Gold Medal, the organization’s highest prize. The American Medical Association, by contrast, does not hand out awards to doctors who nearly killed their patients through repeat negligence."
Please, any one of us can point to the innumerable cases of the starts and stops of medicine, the use of eugenics, the use of experimental techniques, x-rays - Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, Marie Curie, just to name a few, pioneered techniques and medicine that harmed many, but they won Nobels, not quite as esteemed as AIA's Gold Medal, but I think I made my point. Architecture, and those designing these buildings, are far from perfection, but I dare say if you're looking for perfection, medicine is not the place to start looking.
Now we get to Gehry.
"Modernists architects love the building, which resembles a Cubist haunted house. But, as Gehry notes in the video, his neighbors hated the rude structure. He says he was drawn to the chain-link aesthetic “because it was so universally hated” [emphasis added]. No one would want to live in a neighborhood of houses like that. It is an experimental art object incongruously situated among ordinary houses. It is a work of in-your-face sculpture, not architecture. Tourist buses swing by to gawk at the freakshow."
First, is anyone going to point out to this asshat, that "Modernism" is not the same as "Contemporary"?
Again, Shubow does a brilliant job, brilliant, of selecting quotes that proves his narrative. I mean did anyone watch the video? There are a whole boatload of instances where any one of you, myself included, would grab at the chance to take a material that no one likes, and re-contextualize in a way that makes it wonderful. To move from one idea, to the idea no one would want to live in a neighborhood with that, makes a mockery of Sambo, and Rural Studio, and their efforts at bringing design to the masses, or to Rockwood and Studio 801 in Kansas. Again, this fucking, fucktard knows jack shit.
I mean, what tour bus, or tour group, goes to rubber neck at a "freakshow"? No, they go, like other people, to see things out of the ordinary, and unexpected.
"In the video, a chuckling Gehry reminisces that when a neighbor complained about the house, the architect pointed to the neighbor’s trailers, corrugated metal fence, and car on his lawn and said, “I’m just relating to you.” In other words, Gehry was telling him, “My house is no uglier than yours.” Read between the lines and Gehry is revealing his passive-aggression."
Again, if you didn't watch the video, you take the above comment as fact, when nothing could be further from the truth. And nothing like reading someones mind, or putting words in their mouth. I mean really, given the shit that the architect in Raleigh, N.C. has had to deal with, does the supposed "legal expert" Shubow really expect me to believe, that one of Gehry's neighbors, who by the way is an attorney, really hated his house so much, that she still let it go up without so much as a hint of legal proceedings? Really?
So let's look at the company Shubow keeps. A veritable who's who in architecture, I mean the Chairman is one of the idiots responsible for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and the memorial in Canada. Right.
If you think that's funny, here's another tid-bit:
Harold Laski
Was the inspiration for Ellsworth Toohey, yeah, that Toohey.
and here's our contemporary version, notice I did not use "Modern".
Notice ANY similarities?
So, is Shubow masquerading as a Socialist? Or is he in fact the new-old breed of the Neo-Conservative?
In either case, rank amateur is an understatement. What we all know is this; opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but it doesn't mean we should listen, or take it.
well damn Beta, all rational and shit...If this ass-hat-clown worked he would know what an Architect does and what an Engineer does...but he use Wikipedia for basis of arguments.
neo-classical can you do this?
I walked around that building, did not get lifted off my feet, went to a restaurant with my wife and me and all the Bostonian tourist gazed in amazement...wasn't that windy.
Olaf! Exactly.
Hell, I never even mentioned "Nazi medicine", and how modern medicine is still grappling with what to do with that data.
You are criticizing him for looking like Harold Laski? :) :). Good lord.
What is it that you found amazing about that building? The mirrored curtain wall? Really?
No. I. Am. Not.
I am criticizing him for being that thing Ayn Rand warned against; a hater of excellence and innovation. I find it ironic, that Shitbow, would in all likelihood, agree with Rand, yet he clearly occupies the space of Toohey, and represents the those values very well.
Irony, is not criticism, I think, because I am tired..
EKE, try taking a critical analysis if you know how to do one or are you Mr. Shubow.
Lets be honest with ourselves, just because he points out some problems doesn't mean he has any credibility to speak on this subject. He doesn't even do anything architecture so what is his credibility. Why should we care about his opinion not to mention he probably ripped off his points from us either here on this forum or any of the numerous architecture related forums. The bottom line is he done no real research let alone has no skin in the game or credible credentials in any form to have any clue about what he is talking about. He takes a cluster of opinions which we have, compiled it and basically regurgitated but what does he know on the matters of architecture. Zip nada. So although he points out some issues, he doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe his original sources do but I rather here from them then someone who doesn't understand architecture as a profession and the layers of issues and challenges we deal with.
He has at least one thing right, architects are defensive!
(Pretty please someone make a gif of this guy squatting on the lawn of Villa Savoye!)
tintt, where does he state that?
so there I was roaming the streets of Boston with my wife...dum dee dum dee dooo....
nothing like NYC I tell wife, all these cute short buildings....
wait, what's that? - I says
what's what? - she says.
that - that highly reflective almost disappearing building on the horizon . WOW, that's a skyscaper, it's like it disappeared to respect the context. London needs a few of those.
-
you walk up to the facade and go, wow, look at the flat plane of glass, how does it perform like that when it is the only tall building fully exposed to the high winds...
(well we know the history)
tintt - I wouldn't call it defensive just shitting on a person whose method of opinion is shitting on one group of people because deep down he has some serious pscyhological hate issues, hence the Nazi analogy I don't think is too out of align.
I thought he was trying to be Dominique francon. He just wants to get laid by an architect like she did. Tabloid journalists aren't as smart as Harold Laski.
It's all tabloid journalism if you disagree with it. He does cite Blake, and the Mayne quotes sum it up perfectly - architecture for other architects, in other words, trying to one-up the competition. Like the writing of Schumacher, which is simply a thinly veiled attack on competitors styles ("philosophies").
But as much as you want to disagree with his specific points, the perception of architects today is largely correct. I see it in the clients, many of whom don't trust us to care for their concerns - especially their budget. I see it as a builder with ego-driven and often unbuildable, stupid guaranteed-to-fail designs that negate the very basic premise of both architecture and construction. I also see it in my father's reputation and how that has been spun for various purposes.
Once again, dismissing the messenger does not invalidate the message. Understanding that the guy is trying to make his rep, that he's writing for an audience (and dough), etc., makes it easy to dismiss any valid points that he makes. But let's face it, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
The AIA campaign does nothing to address these issues, it is essentially a sales pitch to high schoolers. Look what YOU can do when YOU become an architect! Unless of course you look at it as an architect, like Mayne, as directed at architects. Then it is self-congratulatory, which makes it even more emptier.
"you walk up to the facade and go, wow, look at the flat plane of glass, how does it perform like that when it is the only tall building fully exposed to the high winds..."
Actually it could have been much worse if other tall buildings were in the immediate vicinity due to the Bernoulli effect that channels winds between the buildings and accelerates them.
Your point is? Somehow relevant? Wow what an argument this Volunteer makes.
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.