so, i'm reading through a little book by adam caruso (of caruso st. john) called 'the feeling of things". for those of you familiar with zumthor's 'thinking architecture', it's very similar - a collection of essays written over a number of years.
for my tastes, though, he's more analytic than most and certainly quite an accomplished writer. an excerpt that just resonates more and more the longer i practice:
"It is curious that in a world of increasing specialisation, where artists and scientists are making dynamic new work from within their disciplines, architects have followed the lead of the management consultant, the ultimate example of the empty generalist. Rather than rise to the technical and artistic challenges of today, within the discipline of architecture, mainstream practice has embraced the rhetoric of the market to make work that is infused with brand recognition. Strategies of cybernetics, phylogenics, parametrics, mapping - each strive to generate completely original forms, unusual shapes, in plan, in section, sometimes both. These bold profiles can amplify or even replace corporate logos. Lacking the complexities and ambiguities that are held within the tradition of architectural form, these shapes quickly lose their shiny novelty and achieve a condition of not new, but also not old or ordinary enough to become a part of the urban background. This inability to grow old is all too resonant with an era of rebranding and cosmetic surgery. Architecture is now practiced at an unprecedented global scale, and the major players seem to be egging each other on. Who will produce the largest, and most formally outlandish project? Who will finally say stop?
Never has so much construction been based on so few ideas.
Our practice has always made work that is related to things that we have seen before. We are interested in the emotional effect that buildings can have. We are interested in how buildings have been built in the past and how new constructions can achieve an equivalent formal and material presence. We are confused by the laissez faire state of contemporary architecture. In this environment of excess we have found ourselves attracted to the more intimate artistic ambitions of past architectural traditions. We feel more comfortable than we once did to follow these traditions quite closely. Anything that can contribute to the fragile continuities between the contemporary situation and past architectures is worth the effort. It is only by understanding and reflecting on the past that architecture can continue to be a relevant social and artistic discipline."
point about following the lead of the management consultant...being an empty generalist is debatable. There seem to be at least two key differences between what we are doing and what they are doing.
1) The first is that management consults' services are more in demand than architects' services and are rewarded with significantly higher compensation. it is not clear that architects have 'followed the lead' of management consultants or presumably our services would also be valued more highly. i could be wrong, but my impression, at this point in my career, is that there is no strategic reason why architects offer the services they do, other than some byproduct of tradition-meets-current-realities, which to some extent meets a market need, though maybe not as closely as they could/should, and therefore are not valued as much as the services offered by management consultants.
2) though both are generalists (also debatable for architects now, other than perhaps our educational model), management consultants offer something that architects do not --- a concrete, quantitative set of technical skills --- usually related to statistical analysis of market forces, trends and the management of people and organizations. --- imo, it is the lack of some essential technical skill (as perceived by clients) that is one of the biggest reasons architects may/often have lower perceived value than engineers, computer scientists, business consultants, etc. I intentionally say as perceived by clients because i readily acknowledge that often their (the technically equipped consultants) technical tools break down when confronting the complexities of real challenges, at which point they rely on experience, intuition and educated guessing, just as architects do. Still, they at least are able to offer the pretense during sales of their services that the services are based on some object, quantitative set of tools.
-------------------------
with regard to author's comments about parametricism, cybernetics, etc., i half agree. while yes, the use of these tools at this point is often sophomoric, I think it is important to consider these trends in a historical context. use of these tools is probably at a similar stage now to where the development of personal computers was in the 1970's. the technology is emerging. there is a hazy recognition that it will in fact serve a large market need, though how exactly is widely debated. there are a lot of people and organizations tinkering with it, doing some things well, some not so well. and really what is needed is to arrive at a point where there are some broadly accepted industry standards and methods for use of the tools and for their use to become ubiquitous. imo, there is no question that use of these tools to marshall data are key to being able to accurately model (and eventually predict) building energy performance and how a given environment will likely effect human performance and well-being.
So on the one hand, i am defending these technologies from the author's tone, which is dismissive of the tools. On the other hand, I agree with the author that so far, use of these tools can be a bit silly and superfluous and is not serving any great need more often than not. That does not mean however, that they are not integral to the future of designing high-performance buildings. To understand this point, it helps to think of parametricism, cybernetics, etc, as generally indicative of a trend in architecture toward more advanced information modeling, and less as novel form generators. These are in fact early efforts to validate form based upon the aggregation and analysis of vast amounts of data.
-----------------
"never has so much construction been based on so few ideas." a bit hyperbolic, but i see author's point. it resonates. reminds me of gideon, in Mechanization Takes Command, saying we are living in an age of 'technological barberism' i think there is some truth to this.
------------------
lastly, the author's point about newness, about design that fits context, that understands context, that becomes part of context, of things that only work because they are new and as they age cannot become old ---- i have two thoughts
1) this is a criticism that has been leveled at Modernist architecture, as well. so in some ways, this may be read as sympathetic to a range of arguments perceiving of the current/just ending period, which some see as baroque-esq, some see as a return to the formalisms of Modernism, as one of obsessive interest in form without due regard for context, livability, practicality, etc. I think there is some truth to this. Certainly, perhaps, for those just following the trend for fame and fortune. But for those pioneering these approaches to design, i think there is a recognition that achieving great design requires more than just trusting in the infallibility of their algorithms. So I would say that though a valid criticism of much of the product of this past generation, it is important to remember that the fault is with designers blindly relying on imperfect tools and methods, and not with the tools and methods themselves, as i do think this author you cite likes conflating the two, which is misleading.
2) this criticism of exotic new forms somehow lacking the depth of understanding and nuance of response of more traditional practice, especially in that the author frames the dilemma as one of /*NEW FORMS = CYBERNETICISM/PARAMETRICISM/ETC)))*/ harkens to an ongoing debate in the broader design community, especially as played out in the journal, Interactions, on the subject of data-driven design versus design-driven design (aka, designer-driven design). Can we collect and enter data and use it to specify a design or must it pass through some designer's filter of amassed design knowledge? Google is an example of a company that has been described as leaning more toward data-driven design. Google is described as dominated by engineers, scientists and MBA's for whom focus groups, interviews, user testing and statistical analysis guides all decisions about the design of the interfaces. On the other hand, Apple is described as dominated by designers' visions for how products should feel, look and operate, with the science, engineering and statistical market analysis performing a supplemental role. Sometimes this is debated as an either/or debate between the two strategies. I think most see the future though as a both/and proposition. So I would say the same of the argument being advanced by the author you are citing. This author has framed his inquiry as an either/or proposition. In reality, I think we are headed for a both/and incorporation of traditional "designerly ways of knowing" context, market and intent and supplementing that knowledge, for the purpose of being able to model and predict performance, with data-driven understanding of context, market and intent.
2) this criticism of exotic new forms somehow lacking the depth of understanding and nuance of response of more traditional practice, especially in that the author frames the dilemma as one of /*NEW FORMS = CYBERNETICISM/PARAMETRICISM/ETC)))*/ harkens to an ongoing debate in the broader design community, especially as played out in the journal, Interactions, on the subject of data-driven design versus design-driven design (aka, designer-driven design). Can we collect and enter data and use it to specify a design or must it pass through some designer's filter of amassed design knowledge?
The trouble with data-driven design is that it is largely meaningless, despite its usefulness in creating new forms in my opinion. To me, its a little like an abstract joke in which you have to explain the punchline i.e. its worth is lost in the explanation.
The fact that you can rationally create a design system based on the mathematics of a live environment, and extract a shape or diagram that you can then extrapolate into a form, is no reason for doing so.
Is there value in investigating the results and what they might mean for architecture? Sometimes. Often, as Caruso says, the repetitiveness of mathematics/data-driven processes just ends up contributing to a commodification of form.
Having said all that, I am certainly not of the opinion that context is king. Not all context's are equal.
parametric design is still too much a new thing to say it is not worth pursuing. as intimate and intuitive as most parametric work actually is am not sure why the argument of the disconnect with those things is taken so readily on face value.
anyway, CSJ is a good architect, some very nice stuff. his writings do seem a bit wistful, longing for a past that is long gone. For myself i felt that zumthor spoke more about what he thought was good and made a practice out if it. these snippets sound more about what CSJ does not like. which is not as fun to read nor really much to move forward with.
the conclusion he seems to be making is that he is forced to run into the past because the present makes him upset. it would be nice if he could get to the future as well since that is where most of us will be living.
jump - this is just one snippet (which probably is more pessimistic than the bulk of their writing). i wouldn't at all say, based on the whole of their work, that they are running into the past or are somehow afraid of the present. what probably does concern him is that, for a large part of contemporary architectural discourse, the 'future' is some cartoonish, diagrammatic nightmare that he, you, and i will have to actually live in. 'parametric design' was probably at its zenith when the article was first written - it was definitely the rage at the aa.
if you look at their work, it's anything but nostalgic. grounded in the kind of disciplinary traditions, yes. twisting those, yes. throwing them wholesale out the window, no.
which is probably what intrigues me about them, given my own predilections towards finding models of inquiry and practice which can be sustained by larger swaths of the profession than others. yes, parametrics on a certain scale (for me, more at the component or detail level) is absolutely a tool which can be skilfully deployed within the framework suggested above. it can also be used as a crutch to avoid any sense of responsibility beyond one's own ego (but so can a ton of things). one of the central questions caruso's line of thinking (and you can put moneo in here as well) is where are the limits of what defines architecture's internal boundaries and how hard should that edge be. i think caruso would argue, in the broad sense, it should be pretty hard because there's way more than enough room inside to accommodate variations of expression that would satisfy the ego needs. so, in some ways, it's really a question of degree - there's a kind of overall structure that has been built up over eons that should be respected and learned from, but the degree of movement should happen at a scale which corresponds to the degree of formal invention.
overall, it's much more of a continental european line of thought than an american university one.
A pessimistic view; I wouldn't like architects to get caught in this new epidemic of nostalgia. First because we can't afford to let you (sorry, a lot rides on your shoulders). Second, because the nostalgia espoused by Caruso has an accidental falsehood at its heart.
Caruso is embracing a past that may well be mythical. We have seen where this leads; will we next mourn the past so much that we sit around talking about buildings that only giants or Gods could have built? Caruso's deep longing is a metaphorical (and maybe literal, given time) call to calculate the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon.
The present is manufactured, he suggests, and architects are shadows of their predecessors. Because like every romantic (or maybe Greek) tale of the past, it was a time of "firsts" and "greatests". Except that time of colossal genius is as ultimately fictional as the Odyssey or Iliad. At best, there are kernels of truth in the myth.
Yes, architects today may balk at the ancients, who designed cathedrals, castles, temples, etc. without the aid of a computer. Just as, being a writer, I balk at Stendhal who wrote The Charterhouse of Parma by hand in 52 days. Just as a journalists gapes at his predecessors, who ran a newspaper without mobile phones, portable cameras, and the internet.
But that kind of awe, that reverence for the past, is only useful as examples of ingenuity and will. It doesn't mean we've lost any of it, it just shows how far we can go. Nor does it mean we haven't made progress. We are having to revisit the past for ideas, yes, but we can treat old ideas in new ways. There's no shame in reinvention. Where Caruso sees an age of exhaustion, I see an age of renewal.
One thing that has changed, and which I agree with Caruso on is the commodification of architecture:
Rather than rise to the technical and artistic challenges of today, within the discipline of architecture, mainstream practice has embraced the rhetoric of the market to make work that is infused with brand recognition.
so, in some ways, it's really a question of degree - there's a kind of overall structure that has been built up over eons that should be respected and learned from, but the degree of movement should happen at a scale which corresponds to the degree of formal invention.
I very much agree with this point. but so far in my career, my experience is almost the opposite of this. i suppose you could say it is the tail wagging the dog. technology does not seem to be the tool in service of the profession. rather the profession seems to be trying to keep up with the tools.
hm, no idea about that technology thing. i don't feel particularly abused by it. it is easy to ignore still. it is probably not a good idea to do so, but you know if all we are building is boxes (like CSJ, and usually myself as well) technology is barely required to get construction right.
good to hear CSJ is not so pessimistic Gregory. It is hard to find anything wring with what he says but i find it not so inspiring. That is a failure on my part most likely. Then again i am not inspired by much architectural writing these days. luckily the buildings themselves are enough.
if i were critical of Caruso I guess i would say his work is not particular grounded in anything that i find worth hanging on to. It seems he is trying to be ageless which is cool, and he certainly is not being bland, and yet there is nothing there to grasp as a direction for others. He is a fine craftsman clearly but for me not so much a leader.
imo, it is the lack of some essential technical skill (as perceived by clients) that is one of the biggest reasons architects may/often have lower perceived value than engineers, computer scientists, business consultants, etc.
agreed - I've also encountered this even among architects who specialize in project management and CA - that you aren't valuable if you do not have very specific technical knowledge and an ability to recall vast amounts of facts and figures. for many people it seems like having a good understanding various programming/construction concepts is much less valuable than knowing off-hand the dead-load of an extensive green roof system when wet - or memorizing the occupancy requirements of all use types. if it isn't on the list of things to check off or something I can plug into a spreadsheet then it isn't important.
jump - i'm tied up the next couple of days on a proposal, but there's quite a few of his writings that you can download from their website: http://www.carusostjohn.com/downloads/
and just to reiterate - that one snippet isn't, at all, a full spectrum of their work. it's just that - a snippet. his book, as a whole, is more optimistic and progressive. adam's also written another book called 'gardens of experience' which is good as well, although it's really an extended, illustrated essay.
agree with the "following the lead of the management consultant" point, though I'm not sure there was another path open. the (vast) majority of billable architectural work is facilitating the construction of foregone conclusions, with minimal degrees of freedom left for steering by the architect -- largely predetermined by site, client preferences, typology and program, code, consultants, local trades, suppliers, proprietary systems ad nauseum, etc. it's not cynical lamenting, but factual: in the absence of a designer 85% of the decisions composing most projects could be concluded just coasting on the momentum of these "outside office" forces... the value added by the profession is in offering a legally liable organizational node ( i.e. process management) at the intersection of all these forces, and only secondarily anything that could be called design judgement -- unless, as mentioned, they are a brand. for firms that are not global brands, they either embrace this role, providing this service, or skirt professional implosion by stacking their chips on finding the exceptional cases.
on the issue of branding, this is from a recent archinect link:
"Developers value architects like never before— the “value-add” of name brand design is more tangible in the Condo Age—but this may have the ironic effect of further reducing architecture to just another consultant specialty. Skyline connoisseurs rejoiced when Rem Koolhaas, the architecture-speak icon who wrote Delirious New York, received his first Manhattan commission in 2007, for a whimsical, inverted-ziggurat on 22nd Street. By 2009, scandal-plagued developer Slazer Enterprises had quietly cancelled Mr. Koolhaas’s tower but was still touting his interior-design work on neighboring 1 Madison Park, the hubristic obelisk since foreclosed and still unfinished. Here was, literally, the architect as window dressing."
subtect, given your comments, what do you think of IPD, particularly how it restructures billing so that billable hours are concentrated on the upfront design decisions, not the construction documentation?
I've never worked on an IPD project, and to be honest, I'd never heard of it, so I've been catching up and I'm very curious about it in practice. Looks like the AIA has released standard contract docs for IPD projects (IPDP?), but the AIA guide mentions complications about incompatibilities between current project insurance products and the liability/risk distribution with IDP. do you know how this has been addressed?
Have you worked with IPD?
from what I can understand, the fee structure is based on a project specific set of sequential targets, along with an agreed upon set of criteria to evaluate where the project falls in relation to the target, with fees beyond direct costs tied to performance in meeting these targets. but from what I can gather, these targets are distributed throughout the process -- so it's not clear to me how the hours are concentrated upfront, I must be missing something -- unless the participants choose to pack the targets closer to the front end...
the concept of re-structuring the contract/fees to reverse the dynamic from conflicting-interests-incentivizing-antagonism to common-interests-incentivizing-cooperation seems really powerful on paper, but I'm left with more questions than answers about it in practice.
e.g., including contractors from the beginning (though the point applies to just about any of the participants other than the owner) -- different contractors have different strengths. some are more comfortable with steel structures, others conc., others specialize in heavy timber, etc. if the structure of the building is settled well after determining the IPD participants which include the contractor -- how is the decision made about who are the best-suited participants are in the first place?
I suspect it would create a design process selection pressure toward the most standard solution. when a contractor is thrown something that falls outside of their comfort zone, they routinely throw a lot of extra money at it in the budget -- one, to cover the unknowns, and/or two, to increase the likelihood of it being VE'd out so they won't have to worry about it after all... with enough coddling, explaining, clarifying, perseverance etc this can usually be brought down to a realistic figure with a clear path for execution -- but it takes a fight, specifically from the design side, and premised on a clear design intent that necessitates the innovation. it seems like the structure of the relationships would make it difficult to fight that fight against the tried, true and tested comfort zones of the IPD participants, steering the process toward the options least likely to impede hitting the targets and maximizing the fee payouts... thoughts?
thanks for the lead.
did this thread just get hijacked? sorry GW...
Jul 21, 11 1:31 am ·
·
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.
let's talk about architecture again...
so, i'm reading through a little book by adam caruso (of caruso st. john) called 'the feeling of things". for those of you familiar with zumthor's 'thinking architecture', it's very similar - a collection of essays written over a number of years.
for my tastes, though, he's more analytic than most and certainly quite an accomplished writer. an excerpt that just resonates more and more the longer i practice:
"It is curious that in a world of increasing specialisation, where artists and scientists are making dynamic new work from within their disciplines, architects have followed the lead of the management consultant, the ultimate example of the empty generalist. Rather than rise to the technical and artistic challenges of today, within the discipline of architecture, mainstream practice has embraced the rhetoric of the market to make work that is infused with brand recognition. Strategies of cybernetics, phylogenics, parametrics, mapping - each strive to generate completely original forms, unusual shapes, in plan, in section, sometimes both. These bold profiles can amplify or even replace corporate logos. Lacking the complexities and ambiguities that are held within the tradition of architectural form, these shapes quickly lose their shiny novelty and achieve a condition of not new, but also not old or ordinary enough to become a part of the urban background. This inability to grow old is all too resonant with an era of rebranding and cosmetic surgery. Architecture is now practiced at an unprecedented global scale, and the major players seem to be egging each other on. Who will produce the largest, and most formally outlandish project? Who will finally say stop?
Never has so much construction been based on so few ideas.
Our practice has always made work that is related to things that we have seen before. We are interested in the emotional effect that buildings can have. We are interested in how buildings have been built in the past and how new constructions can achieve an equivalent formal and material presence. We are confused by the laissez faire state of contemporary architecture. In this environment of excess we have found ourselves attracted to the more intimate artistic ambitions of past architectural traditions. We feel more comfortable than we once did to follow these traditions quite closely. Anything that can contribute to the fragile continuities between the contemporary situation and past architectures is worth the effort. It is only by understanding and reflecting on the past that architecture can continue to be a relevant social and artistic discipline."
good stuff.... any thoughts?
interesting excerpt. several thoughts.
point about following the lead of the management consultant...being an empty generalist is debatable. There seem to be at least two key differences between what we are doing and what they are doing.
1) The first is that management consults' services are more in demand than architects' services and are rewarded with significantly higher compensation. it is not clear that architects have 'followed the lead' of management consultants or presumably our services would also be valued more highly. i could be wrong, but my impression, at this point in my career, is that there is no strategic reason why architects offer the services they do, other than some byproduct of tradition-meets-current-realities, which to some extent meets a market need, though maybe not as closely as they could/should, and therefore are not valued as much as the services offered by management consultants.
2) though both are generalists (also debatable for architects now, other than perhaps our educational model), management consultants offer something that architects do not --- a concrete, quantitative set of technical skills --- usually related to statistical analysis of market forces, trends and the management of people and organizations. --- imo, it is the lack of some essential technical skill (as perceived by clients) that is one of the biggest reasons architects may/often have lower perceived value than engineers, computer scientists, business consultants, etc. I intentionally say as perceived by clients because i readily acknowledge that often their (the technically equipped consultants) technical tools break down when confronting the complexities of real challenges, at which point they rely on experience, intuition and educated guessing, just as architects do. Still, they at least are able to offer the pretense during sales of their services that the services are based on some object, quantitative set of tools.
-------------------------
with regard to author's comments about parametricism, cybernetics, etc., i half agree. while yes, the use of these tools at this point is often sophomoric, I think it is important to consider these trends in a historical context. use of these tools is probably at a similar stage now to where the development of personal computers was in the 1970's. the technology is emerging. there is a hazy recognition that it will in fact serve a large market need, though how exactly is widely debated. there are a lot of people and organizations tinkering with it, doing some things well, some not so well. and really what is needed is to arrive at a point where there are some broadly accepted industry standards and methods for use of the tools and for their use to become ubiquitous. imo, there is no question that use of these tools to marshall data are key to being able to accurately model (and eventually predict) building energy performance and how a given environment will likely effect human performance and well-being.
So on the one hand, i am defending these technologies from the author's tone, which is dismissive of the tools. On the other hand, I agree with the author that so far, use of these tools can be a bit silly and superfluous and is not serving any great need more often than not. That does not mean however, that they are not integral to the future of designing high-performance buildings. To understand this point, it helps to think of parametricism, cybernetics, etc, as generally indicative of a trend in architecture toward more advanced information modeling, and less as novel form generators. These are in fact early efforts to validate form based upon the aggregation and analysis of vast amounts of data.
-----------------
"never has so much construction been based on so few ideas." a bit hyperbolic, but i see author's point. it resonates. reminds me of gideon, in Mechanization Takes Command, saying we are living in an age of 'technological barberism' i think there is some truth to this.
------------------
lastly, the author's point about newness, about design that fits context, that understands context, that becomes part of context, of things that only work because they are new and as they age cannot become old ---- i have two thoughts
1) this is a criticism that has been leveled at Modernist architecture, as well. so in some ways, this may be read as sympathetic to a range of arguments perceiving of the current/just ending period, which some see as baroque-esq, some see as a return to the formalisms of Modernism, as one of obsessive interest in form without due regard for context, livability, practicality, etc. I think there is some truth to this. Certainly, perhaps, for those just following the trend for fame and fortune. But for those pioneering these approaches to design, i think there is a recognition that achieving great design requires more than just trusting in the infallibility of their algorithms. So I would say that though a valid criticism of much of the product of this past generation, it is important to remember that the fault is with designers blindly relying on imperfect tools and methods, and not with the tools and methods themselves, as i do think this author you cite likes conflating the two, which is misleading.
2) this criticism of exotic new forms somehow lacking the depth of understanding and nuance of response of more traditional practice, especially in that the author frames the dilemma as one of /*NEW FORMS = CYBERNETICISM/PARAMETRICISM/ETC)))*/ harkens to an ongoing debate in the broader design community, especially as played out in the journal, Interactions, on the subject of data-driven design versus design-driven design (aka, designer-driven design). Can we collect and enter data and use it to specify a design or must it pass through some designer's filter of amassed design knowledge? Google is an example of a company that has been described as leaning more toward data-driven design. Google is described as dominated by engineers, scientists and MBA's for whom focus groups, interviews, user testing and statistical analysis guides all decisions about the design of the interfaces. On the other hand, Apple is described as dominated by designers' visions for how products should feel, look and operate, with the science, engineering and statistical market analysis performing a supplemental role. Sometimes this is debated as an either/or debate between the two strategies. I think most see the future though as a both/and proposition. So I would say the same of the argument being advanced by the author you are citing. This author has framed his inquiry as an either/or proposition. In reality, I think we are headed for a both/and incorporation of traditional "designerly ways of knowing" context, market and intent and supplementing that knowledge, for the purpose of being able to model and predict performance, with data-driven understanding of context, market and intent.
"past, tradition, parametrics makes for funny shapes"
Thats an old mans argument, In essence, i dont find what Caruso stands for to be that interesting, there is little to no risk. he is too cautious
2) this criticism of exotic new forms somehow lacking the depth of understanding and nuance of response of more traditional practice, especially in that the author frames the dilemma as one of /*NEW FORMS = CYBERNETICISM/PARAMETRICISM/ETC)))*/ harkens to an ongoing debate in the broader design community, especially as played out in the journal, Interactions, on the subject of data-driven design versus design-driven design (aka, designer-driven design). Can we collect and enter data and use it to specify a design or must it pass through some designer's filter of amassed design knowledge?
The trouble with data-driven design is that it is largely meaningless, despite its usefulness in creating new forms in my opinion. To me, its a little like an abstract joke in which you have to explain the punchline i.e. its worth is lost in the explanation.
The fact that you can rationally create a design system based on the mathematics of a live environment, and extract a shape or diagram that you can then extrapolate into a form, is no reason for doing so.
Is there value in investigating the results and what they might mean for architecture? Sometimes. Often, as Caruso says, the repetitiveness of mathematics/data-driven processes just ends up contributing to a commodification of form.
Having said all that, I am certainly not of the opinion that context is king. Not all context's are equal.
parametric design is still too much a new thing to say it is not worth pursuing. as intimate and intuitive as most parametric work actually is am not sure why the argument of the disconnect with those things is taken so readily on face value.
anyway, CSJ is a good architect, some very nice stuff. his writings do seem a bit wistful, longing for a past that is long gone. For myself i felt that zumthor spoke more about what he thought was good and made a practice out if it. these snippets sound more about what CSJ does not like. which is not as fun to read nor really much to move forward with.
the conclusion he seems to be making is that he is forced to run into the past because the present makes him upset. it would be nice if he could get to the future as well since that is where most of us will be living.
jump - this is just one snippet (which probably is more pessimistic than the bulk of their writing). i wouldn't at all say, based on the whole of their work, that they are running into the past or are somehow afraid of the present. what probably does concern him is that, for a large part of contemporary architectural discourse, the 'future' is some cartoonish, diagrammatic nightmare that he, you, and i will have to actually live in. 'parametric design' was probably at its zenith when the article was first written - it was definitely the rage at the aa.
if you look at their work, it's anything but nostalgic. grounded in the kind of disciplinary traditions, yes. twisting those, yes. throwing them wholesale out the window, no.
which is probably what intrigues me about them, given my own predilections towards finding models of inquiry and practice which can be sustained by larger swaths of the profession than others. yes, parametrics on a certain scale (for me, more at the component or detail level) is absolutely a tool which can be skilfully deployed within the framework suggested above. it can also be used as a crutch to avoid any sense of responsibility beyond one's own ego (but so can a ton of things). one of the central questions caruso's line of thinking (and you can put moneo in here as well) is where are the limits of what defines architecture's internal boundaries and how hard should that edge be. i think caruso would argue, in the broad sense, it should be pretty hard because there's way more than enough room inside to accommodate variations of expression that would satisfy the ego needs. so, in some ways, it's really a question of degree - there's a kind of overall structure that has been built up over eons that should be respected and learned from, but the degree of movement should happen at a scale which corresponds to the degree of formal invention.
overall, it's much more of a continental european line of thought than an american university one.
A pessimistic view; I wouldn't like architects to get caught in this new epidemic of nostalgia. First because we can't afford to let you (sorry, a lot rides on your shoulders). Second, because the nostalgia espoused by Caruso has an accidental falsehood at its heart.
Caruso is embracing a past that may well be mythical. We have seen where this leads; will we next mourn the past so much that we sit around talking about buildings that only giants or Gods could have built? Caruso's deep longing is a metaphorical (and maybe literal, given time) call to calculate the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon.
The present is manufactured, he suggests, and architects are shadows of their predecessors. Because like every romantic (or maybe Greek) tale of the past, it was a time of "firsts" and "greatests". Except that time of colossal genius is as ultimately fictional as the Odyssey or Iliad. At best, there are kernels of truth in the myth.
Yes, architects today may balk at the ancients, who designed cathedrals, castles, temples, etc. without the aid of a computer. Just as, being a writer, I balk at Stendhal who wrote The Charterhouse of Parma by hand in 52 days. Just as a journalists gapes at his predecessors, who ran a newspaper without mobile phones, portable cameras, and the internet.
But that kind of awe, that reverence for the past, is only useful as examples of ingenuity and will. It doesn't mean we've lost any of it, it just shows how far we can go. Nor does it mean we haven't made progress. We are having to revisit the past for ideas, yes, but we can treat old ideas in new ways. There's no shame in reinvention. Where Caruso sees an age of exhaustion, I see an age of renewal.
"Where Caruso sees an age of exhaustion, I see an age of renewal. " great turn of phrase
One thing that has changed, and which I agree with Caruso on is the commodification of architecture:
Rather than rise to the technical and artistic challenges of today, within the discipline of architecture, mainstream practice has embraced the rhetoric of the market to make work that is infused with brand recognition.
The Situationist's were right...
so, in some ways, it's really a question of degree - there's a kind of overall structure that has been built up over eons that should be respected and learned from, but the degree of movement should happen at a scale which corresponds to the degree of formal invention.
I very much agree with this point. but so far in my career, my experience is almost the opposite of this. i suppose you could say it is the tail wagging the dog. technology does not seem to be the tool in service of the profession. rather the profession seems to be trying to keep up with the tools.
hm, no idea about that technology thing. i don't feel particularly abused by it. it is easy to ignore still. it is probably not a good idea to do so, but you know if all we are building is boxes (like CSJ, and usually myself as well) technology is barely required to get construction right.
good to hear CSJ is not so pessimistic Gregory. It is hard to find anything wring with what he says but i find it not so inspiring. That is a failure on my part most likely. Then again i am not inspired by much architectural writing these days. luckily the buildings themselves are enough.
if i were critical of Caruso I guess i would say his work is not particular grounded in anything that i find worth hanging on to. It seems he is trying to be ageless which is cool, and he certainly is not being bland, and yet there is nothing there to grasp as a direction for others. He is a fine craftsman clearly but for me not so much a leader.
any other good bits of text?
imo, it is the lack of some essential technical skill (as perceived by clients) that is one of the biggest reasons architects may/often have lower perceived value than engineers, computer scientists, business consultants, etc.
agreed - I've also encountered this even among architects who specialize in project management and CA - that you aren't valuable if you do not have very specific technical knowledge and an ability to recall vast amounts of facts and figures. for many people it seems like having a good understanding various programming/construction concepts is much less valuable than knowing off-hand the dead-load of an extensive green roof system when wet - or memorizing the occupancy requirements of all use types. if it isn't on the list of things to check off or something I can plug into a spreadsheet then it isn't important.
jump - i'm tied up the next couple of days on a proposal, but there's quite a few of his writings that you can download from their website: http://www.carusostjohn.com/downloads/
and just to reiterate - that one snippet isn't, at all, a full spectrum of their work. it's just that - a snippet. his book, as a whole, is more optimistic and progressive. adam's also written another book called 'gardens of experience' which is good as well, although it's really an extended, illustrated essay.
thanks gregory. will look into it.
love this. had always hoped to find a place where this level of discussion was happening offline, and haven't yet -- so thanks be to the internet.
@ jmanganelli -- I can't find the journal you mention, Interactions. could you post a link? did find this though, which had some interesting points:
http://design2-0.com/articles/in-defense-of-data-driven-design/
agree with the "following the lead of the management consultant" point, though I'm not sure there was another path open. the (vast) majority of billable architectural work is facilitating the construction of foregone conclusions, with minimal degrees of freedom left for steering by the architect -- largely predetermined by site, client preferences, typology and program, code, consultants, local trades, suppliers, proprietary systems ad nauseum, etc. it's not cynical lamenting, but factual: in the absence of a designer 85% of the decisions composing most projects could be concluded just coasting on the momentum of these "outside office" forces... the value added by the profession is in offering a legally liable organizational node ( i.e. process management) at the intersection of all these forces, and only secondarily anything that could be called design judgement -- unless, as mentioned, they are a brand. for firms that are not global brands, they either embrace this role, providing this service, or skirt professional implosion by stacking their chips on finding the exceptional cases.
on the issue of branding, this is from a recent archinect link:
"Developers value architects like never before— the “value-add” of name brand design is more tangible in the Condo Age—but this may have the ironic effect of further reducing architecture to just another consultant specialty. Skyline connoisseurs rejoiced when Rem Koolhaas, the architecture-speak icon who wrote Delirious New York, received his first Manhattan commission in 2007, for a whimsical, inverted-ziggurat on 22nd Street. By 2009, scandal-plagued developer Slazer Enterprises had quietly cancelled Mr. Koolhaas’s tower but was still touting his interior-design work on neighboring 1 Madison Park, the hubristic obelisk since foreclosed and still unfinished. Here was, literally, the architect as window dressing."
http://www.observer.com/2011/07/are-architects-performance-artists-a-conference-addresses-performativity/
great comments, subtect
http://interactions.acm.org/
subtect, given your comments, what do you think of IPD, particularly how it restructures billing so that billable hours are concentrated on the upfront design decisions, not the construction documentation?
I've never worked on an IPD project, and to be honest, I'd never heard of it, so I've been catching up and I'm very curious about it in practice. Looks like the AIA has released standard contract docs for IPD projects (IPDP?), but the AIA guide mentions complications about incompatibilities between current project insurance products and the liability/risk distribution with IDP. do you know how this has been addressed?
Have you worked with IPD?
from what I can understand, the fee structure is based on a project specific set of sequential targets, along with an agreed upon set of criteria to evaluate where the project falls in relation to the target, with fees beyond direct costs tied to performance in meeting these targets. but from what I can gather, these targets are distributed throughout the process -- so it's not clear to me how the hours are concentrated upfront, I must be missing something -- unless the participants choose to pack the targets closer to the front end...
the concept of re-structuring the contract/fees to reverse the dynamic from conflicting-interests-incentivizing-antagonism to common-interests-incentivizing-cooperation seems really powerful on paper, but I'm left with more questions than answers about it in practice.
e.g., including contractors from the beginning (though the point applies to just about any of the participants other than the owner) -- different contractors have different strengths. some are more comfortable with steel structures, others conc., others specialize in heavy timber, etc. if the structure of the building is settled well after determining the IPD participants which include the contractor -- how is the decision made about who are the best-suited participants are in the first place?
I suspect it would create a design process selection pressure toward the most standard solution. when a contractor is thrown something that falls outside of their comfort zone, they routinely throw a lot of extra money at it in the budget -- one, to cover the unknowns, and/or two, to increase the likelihood of it being VE'd out so they won't have to worry about it after all... with enough coddling, explaining, clarifying, perseverance etc this can usually be brought down to a realistic figure with a clear path for execution -- but it takes a fight, specifically from the design side, and premised on a clear design intent that necessitates the innovation. it seems like the structure of the relationships would make it difficult to fight that fight against the tried, true and tested comfort zones of the IPD participants, steering the process toward the options least likely to impede hitting the targets and maximizing the fee payouts... thoughts?
thanks for the lead.
did this thread just get hijacked? sorry GW...
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.