It’s among the worst clichés of architectural writing: towers are phallic; stadiums (or just any project by a certain recently-deceased icon) are vulval. But what about when the architects themselves describe their project in genital terms? And, in particular, when they take inspiration not from some heroic idea of rigidity, but rather acceptance of a more prosaic state of flaccidity?
In “Soft Architecture,” an essay from Harvard Design Magazine’s latest issue “Family Planning”, Eva Díaz looks at the “Limp Penis House” designed by Mark Mills, a rare project that “admits that sometimes the dick is just limp.”
“Family Planning” is the forty-first issue of Harvard Design Magazine, a journal relaunched in 2014 by the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Including both “preeminent and unexpected voices” from the wider world of architecture and design, the publication “probes beyond the reaches of the established design disciplines to enrich and challenge current design discourse.”
In the contemporary era, the form of the family is under revision, changing to accommodate new (or newly accepted) configurations: queer, divorced, cooperative, childless, migrant, transnational, multigenerational, single-parent, etc. Yet the domestic sphere remains largely molded around outdated and exclusionary ideals of the family as straight, nuclear, and childbearing. “Family Planning” investigates evolving notions of the family with the premise that “we need to imagine new, different spaces for living together.” Looking at alternatives from the past and future, the issue considers ways for the built environment to accommodate diverse familial configurations.We need to imagine new, different spaces for living together
Our featured excerpt for Screen/Print is “Soft Architecture” by Eva Díaz, Assistant Professor of the History of Art and Design at Pratt. This irreverent essay considers a project by Mark Mills that the architect himself related to the form of a “limp dick”. Counterposing the anxieties a woman faces in relationship to the phrase “family planning” with male worries over impotency, Díaz appreciates the architect’s willing expression of his influence in “words [not] previously combined in the history of architecture” (as far as she knows).
"Soft Architecture"
By Eva Díaz
I experience a slight to moderate sense of alarm when the phrase “family planning” is mentioned.
Family planning sounds like … taking the fun out of sex. Planning. Not hot. High school sex-ed classes. “Do you have a condom?” A late period. Stress. Republicans rolling back abortion rights. Ugh. False alarm. Relief!
If, like me, you’re a heterosexual woman in your 30s and you hear “family planning,” it gets worse. Anxiety.Family planning sounds like … taking the fun out of sex
Should I have kids? How many? Does he want to have kids? And when will it be too late to have another? Can we afford two? Do I have the stamina to nurse a child for a year and a half (pumping, pumping, pumping)? Will I be able to maintain my career? Will my partner be sexist when it comes to the needs of a small child and the associated housekeeping? What kind of world will we be bringing a child into? Aren’t there too many children in this world already? Will I become a slave to motherhood? How will I rear a child (in a decent school district!) given New York City’s “sky’s the limit” real estate market?!
Men may be asking themselves some of these questions. But not all of them. Family planning for a man involves other apprehensions, and especially this one: “Can I get it up?”
In 1969 the architect Mark Mills completed a single-family home (begun in 1960) for June Foster Hass, a sculptor recently widowed at the time of the commission. The residence perches on a rugged cliff overlooking Yankee Point in Carmel, California. The dramatic sunken lounge with picture windows faces a spectacular view of a tide pool and the ocean beyond, the cylindrical room literally draping over the crags of the hillside. The cruciform structure includes three low-slung groin-vault window bays facing the water, while the home’s longer axis extends perpendicularly away from the Pacific. The house hugs the cliff tightly, never reaching a height of more than 14 feet above grade.
On numerous occasions Mills referred to the project as the Limp Penis House. Limp penis. Let that sink in a sec. Not words previously combined in the history of architecture, to my knowledge.Erect structures are phallic and penetrative, and cavernous containers are womb-like and receptive … blah, blah, blah.
The lounge in particular does look quite flaccid, drooping over the bluffs. It even has a foreskin-like hood over its bay window, which, in exterior shots, reveals the interior orifice of the room to be a urethra-like channel of the home’s longer axis. In plan, the entry of the home tucks visitors behind what seems like a testicle. Though the lounge appears to be the limp penis in question, the plan shows the longer axis that terminates in the study, the room farthest from the ocean and the lounge, itself seeming quite penile, with a little pouch at the end of its sheath like a condom tip. So the Limp Penis House may have two penises, one evident in plan (emerging from the driveway, ending in the study) and one in elevation (the lounge’s front appendage, lying over the cliff).
Skyscrapers are from Mars; amphitheaters (or is it tunnels?) are from Venus. Erect structures are phallic and penetrative, and cavernous containers are womb-like and receptive … blah, blah, blah.
Is it cruel to design a saggy penis house for a widow? Better questions might be, why construct a biomorphic structure mimicking human genitalia? What does it mean to occupy a building designed on the morphology of reproductive organs?What does it mean to occupy a building designed on the morphology of reproductive organs?
Friedrich Kiesler’s ovoid-like Endless House (1947–1960) was intended to be a kind of adaptable microcosm of human development based on the metaphor of the womb. As the artist Jean Arp wrote of Kiesler’s project, “in these spheroid, egg-shaped structures, a human being can now take shelter and live as in his mother’s womb.” A more recent version of womb literalism is Atelier Van Lieshout’s Wombhouse (2004), a proposed extension to a retired male gynecologist’s existing home. As Joep van Lieshout notes, the uterus in fetal gestation “is not only every human being’s first dwelling, but also the only human body part that can be inhabited by another individual”—the only organ that ever functions as human shelter and is therefore emblematic of the nurturing, protective environment that architecture can provide. His structure looks like an enlarged medical model of female reproductive organs, featuring a vaginal canal entryway that takes you to a bedroom uterus, and fallopian tubes that connect to a small bar and bathroom in the ovaries.
The implication of a house design that jokingly refers to an unerect penis is quite different than those inspired by the uterus. Skyscrapers can be envisioned as erect structures teeming with inhabitants, sperm-like masses stored in cellular compartments, busying themselves with whatever corporate tasks they do all day. In contrast, Mills’s Hass House is a squat, curvilinear residential structure designed to integrate itself with the cliff. It interpenetrates, one might say, the human-made with nature, rather than thrusting itself vertically into its surroundings. The Hass House refuses to “get hard.” It is not in a procreative relationship to its environment—human procreation being a form of domination, of Homo sapiens’ DNA imposing itself on the universe.
Then again, most of the time penises are not hard.So much anxiety about getting it up.
There is something deflating about unveiling the phallus, culturally imagined in a patriarchy to be perpetually in its virile, priapic hard-cock state, to be a limp penis. That, a wilted little worm, that is the foundation of eons of male power? In a video accompanying the 2012 real estate listing for the Hass House, the agent repeatedly refers to the shell-like qualities of the house; the architect’s comparison of the structure to a limp penis may not be the best selling point. I, however, am charmed.
So much anxiety about getting it up. Viagra. Penis pumps.
I love that Mills’s design admits that sometimes the dick is just limp. Not everything is about sex and procreation. However great women’s anxieties about the vulnerability of family planning to biological imperatives, for men the impotent penis is undoubtedly a big bummer. Mills’s sort of architectural biomorphism allows for a zone of receptivity that in some ways hearkens to the oceanic plenitude of the womb as Kiesler and Van Lieshout imagined it for the fetus. But you don’t need to go back to the uterus to experience it. You can dangle a limp penis at a tide pool instead.
Contributors to "Family Planning" include:
and others
Screen/Print is an experiment in translation across media, featuring a close-up digital look at printed architectural writing. Divorcing content from the physical page, the series lends a new perspective to nuanced architectural thought.
For this issue, we featured Harvard Design Magazine's forty-first issue, "Family Planning."
Do you run an architectural publication? If you’d like to submit a piece of writing to Screen/Print, please send us a message.
Interested in more on the relationships between the built environment and sex/sexuality? Find more titillating (or not) features here, as part of our special April coverage on Sex.
Writer and fake architect, among other feints. Principal at Adjustments Agency. Co-founder of Encyclopedia Inc. Get in touch: nicholas@archinect.com
No Comments
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.