No, but I hope it contains the Abu Ghraib pictures......

so who should accept the commission?

I think the library as a building is a much less politically charged commission than say, the exhibit design for it. The library is a space to house records, and the architect is not in charge of what sort of records will be placed there. The library absolutely will be built- so would you have every decent architect reject the commission to ensure that it would be crap? What would that achieve?

rationalist ... I like your logic.

"...the most partisan Republican president this nation has ever had."

And this is based on, what, your credentials as a presidential historian? What about Grant, or Garfield? How about Harrison, or Roosevelt, or Coolidge? Harding? Hoover? Nixon?

Go ahead and dislike, even hate, GWB, or the president of your choosing. That's fine, and part of the process. Protest work on the library, too; it's your right. But try to stay away from hyperbole that doesn't serve your case. Virtually every president--even those now revered in history--even (gasp!) Democrats--has had opponents in both the government and the citizenry who wish that president had never been born.

History didn't start last week, or last year, or even the year you were born. People did stuff before that. Amazing, but true.

Isn't any architect who accepts the commission tacitly approving of the legacy of the Bush administration? As architects, we can't naively believe that the business decisions we make aren't political, or aren't influencing the world.

For all I know, Stern loves Bush. Hey, good for him if he does. But that doesn't mean that I have to condone (or not criticize) Stern's decision--on the basis that SOMEBODY has to design Bush's library.

Did it ever occur to you that your opinions on George Bush should'nt have anything to do with another man's business decisions? That the freedom to conduct business and relationships regardless of political affiliations is one of the cornerstones of a free society that prevents us from being bound to an ideological state? Or did they just teach you to be ignorant, blind and shallow reactionists at Yale. I'd ask for my money back.

Re: the arguement that somebody has to design it-

Are you protesting that the commission was taken, or that it was taken i]by Stern[/i]? Would you be ok with Gehry doing the library, or Morphosis, or SOM? Is this a personal thing about Stern's-too-good-for-this because of his Yaleness, or a commentary on how architects in general should not accedo this sort of project?

Thank you for your words of praise, evilplatypus. I do consider myself ignorant, blind, and also shallow. I'll refrain from criticizing anyone else's business decisions. After all, the cornerstone of a free society is to be free from criticism, right?

If we should chastise Stern for this commission what do we say of all the countless architects doing Wal-Marts, McMansions, oceans of parking, etc.

So far as the built environment goes, I think there are other projects we should spend our time criticizing.

Rationalist:
Well, I don't much like Stern's designs. But stylistically they seem appropriate for the Bush administration.

Do you agree that to accept this commission to design the one permanent, dedicated landmark of the Bush administration is in some form a tacit endorsement of the administration itself? I do believe this, but I understand if others don't.

If a friend of mine, for instance, were designing an informational center praising, say, the practice of mountaintop-removal mining, I would advise him or her against it. And criticize the decision to take the job. That's also my right in a free society.

No - freedom from ideological and emotional consignment based on personal politics. Your advocating going beyond criticizing and advocating a position of alumni action against Stern's right to conduct business in hopes of making a political statement is just dangerous.

criticism is one thing, ideological forced action is a hole different game

The same could be asked about Koolhaas' CCTV project, a building for government controlled propaganda.

As architects, by building do we show support in the beliefs/values of the client that we build for?

For me, the architect is separate from the client. Our beliefs and value systems we have aren't always the same. Why not look at this project as a way of documenting history. It is a building which will remember the last 8 years of American history under the leadership of GWB.

I'd agree with evilplatypus, its a business decision, not a political one.

wouldn't declining the comission be an example of partisanship itself? the continued division of just about everything in america into red or blue? how would declining this comission be fundamentally different from the pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control pills?

I do not agree. When we design homes, do we choose to only design homes for people who agree not to put crappy furniture, or children in them because we do not like those things? Is designing a home for a large family endorsing the practice of procreation? No. We design a home, and the clients are responsible for what they put in it. Stern designs a library, and someone else is responsible for what goes into that library. Of course we all have a broad topical idea of what is going in, but for all we know it could actually end up being a very complete representation of what's happened in the years that Bush has been president- scandals, hearings, war, low approval ratings and all. He could even take a chance and build in some subtle references to those architects and buildings that have previously housed propaganda, to provide his own level of commentary. So, he actually has more of an opportunity to make a statement about it if he does the work than if he doesn't.

I think as architects we have ethical obligations. They may be more nuanced or abstract than those of, say, a doctor but they're still there.

The article on environmental degradation in China in the NYTimes this weekend made me think about all the architects who are building there. They're adding to the environmental degradation. Can they be criticized for it, or is it just a business decision (and therefore, by evilplatypus's logic, unable to be criticized.)

Business decisions have consequence just like political ones.

From his buildings I would assume he shares similar views as the Bush Administration....CONSERVATIVE.

I always think that architects should take on more projects not less. If you feel that your school's reputation is somehow compromised I would bring it up to others. Stern will probably have to answer some questions (like Koolhaas is trying to do about the CCTV) so he may as well start with you and those you can convince to join you. My personal hope is that the architecture itself somehow reacts to the controversy.

business is business...architects are full of shit thinking that they have morals

As architects we are directly involved in the environment, we work with the built environment. We help to shape that.

As architects, we are not politicians. We do/did not shape GWB presidency or his legacy. You are comparing apples with oranges.

"business is business...architects are full of shit thinking that they have morals."

This comment depresses me. As human beings, we have morals and/or ethics. We're architects second.

farwest, I agree with you, but perhaps the morals/ethics are expressed not by which projects you take on, but how they are designed.

just to toss this out there...

let's just say, hypothetically speaking of course, that bush and cheney face impeachment before their terms are over.

does that change anything?

Quilian, I agree. I don't know whether Stern is the type of architect to criticize through architectural moves, however.

farwest - is your morality a higher standard than what the Bush presidency represents? Is this presidency honestly so vile that it deserves complete boycott by the architecture profesion? This is getting absurd. What would you have proposed we did with Nixon, lynch him?

I would just like to add my thoughts....HUM BUG!

stern is a good architect and i'm sure he'll do a nice job.

for me, the bigger question is why do we even have presidential libraries? admittedly, i've never been to one and have never had the desire to visit one either because althought they might be called "libraries" i can't help but feel that they're just little shrines to the individual presidents and are just another indicator of the absurdity of our celebrity culture. i can understand the need for an archive but an exhibit filled mini-museum seems unnecessary to me.

actually, this might make for a decent typology study. how many presidential libraries are there? when was the first? and how have they evolved over the years?

i thought karl rove was bush's architect?

[begin rant]

sure, business is business...but there is something to be said about not working with clients whose agendas you don't support.

i don't know who the real client is here between stern and the bush library. i doubt that it's GWB himself. in fact, at the end of the day...aren't we the american people the client?


on a bit of a tangent...i would not choose to take a commission from wal-mart, i don't particularly have any interest in working for halliburton, and i sure as heck don't want any work from exxon.

that being said, why shouldn't a professional (in ANY field) choose what commissions to take based at least in PART by their personal political/ideological beliefs?

given what we know now, would you have done design work on a new Reichstag for the NAZI's? or designed a series of armored bunkers for the french to use in their occupation of algeria if you didn't support the occupation?

stern may love gwb for all i know.

as a counter to j's comment, i think it would be dangerous for groups like the aia/iida//idsa/iagp/smacna/etc to put out political agendas for all of their members to blindly follow, whereas i feel that individual professionals making decisions based on their personal beliefs is one of the most important things we can do as both conscientious consumers and designers.

WE ARE NOT SOULLESS WHORES AVAILABLE TO DESIGN YOUR ____ ___ _____ SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING US TO DO SO!

i think the idea that we should NOT choose our clients based on some element of personal belief and integrity is inherently dangerous not only to architecture (from my outsider's vantage that is...) but to humanity as well.

this isn't a comment directly on the stern/gwb library issue, but if anything, the shameless accepting of conspicuous commissions does in my view tacitly support the endeavors of your client...be they the united states congress, the CCTV, or brown & root.

there.

[/end rant]

why the fuck not?
it is a great comission for an architect to design a presidential library. do you think if president pick up the phone and say to thom mayne "i want you to do me a library", tm would say "no thanks"?

but, if he called me i would say, ahem,
"no thanks sir, i am heavily involved as one man office, designing the courthouse where you and your cabinet will be tried for war crimes"... hehe...

in addition to 'business is business'...should be 'architecture is architecture'.


ever since the other thread where smacna was mentioned...now everytime i see 'SMACNA' in a post, i start singing "SMACNA BITCH UP!" in my head.

easily one of the best acronyms out there...yo.

I think it would be different if the building in question were housing the actual goings on of something objectable. The fact that the library is essentially an architectural storage place, I believe, takes much of the negative association out of it. He isn't designing and building the headquarters for an evil organazation, nor a place where evil descisions are being made. I don't think people are going to associate the architect with the President.

so, you guys are surprised that Stern is a tool?

mightylittle said it far better in his rant than i could have.

I guess the point is that I personally would not have taken Bush's library as a project. But then, I'm not as in a position to have rejected it anyway. I guess my own morals/ethics can only extend as far as the tip of my nose.

There are certainly architects out there who would have rejected this job on principle (Steven Holl probably would have, for instance.)

But Stern is fundamentally a businessman. He probably didn't need the project. And I personally I think it ties both his practice and the school where he is dean to (what I find to he) a bad administration. But then Yale was already tied to this administration anyway.....

let's be honest and realistic. which star architect is not a businessman? they all are and they have many many compromised and hypocritical situations behind the closed doors.
1 thing to bob sterns credit, he has never tried to look like somebody who he is not.

1. this clearly wasn't a business decision. afterall this is GWB's library. Seriously - how bit could that job be? waka waka.

2. I heard the stern was gay - is that true? that could add wrinkles to the discussion.

3. anyone who thinks that business decisions are apolitical or above moral scrutiny are reprehensible.

4. "perhaps the morals/ethics are expressed not by which projects you take on, but how they are designed." - your moral are expressed by who you take money from. period.

in this case you'd be taking money from the federal gov't right? well i'm doing jobs that fall in that category.

it would have been funny if (completely hypothetical, of course) they couldn't have come up with a willing architect. they could have spent the money on so many other things!

they would hire a general contractor to design it...

I have heard that Stern was gay too. One of my studiomates worked in his office and confirmed it. He said it was common knowledge in the office that he divorced his wife because he came to terms with his sexuality later in life.

from what I heard they were beggin folks to take that job. His people called our office more than once.

"you're no different then those raving right wing republicans who put their beliefs above normal professional behavior."

Thanks for that. But I do feel like I'm different from them in a number of fundamental ways.

"if it wasn't for the filthy rich who more than likely if you traced their past made money on exploitation and war, there wouldn't be Architecture with a capital A...."

Brilliant move, to use exploitation and war as a justification for architecture. We should wage more wars in the name of architecture.

so that fact that the filthy rich, exploitative war mongerers are the ones responsible for Architecture with a capital A makes it okay to take commissions that are antithetical to your personal pedagogy?

interesting thought.

Nonetheless, we should wage more wars in the name of architecture.

look ... where do you draw the line here ?

if "decent" architects turn down every commission where there is some question about the morals, ethics, honesty, environmental sensitivity, political-correctness of the client, everything that got built would get built by a hack.

hell -- if we're going to follow that standard, none of us would ever work for a developer, much less a multi-national corporation.

in this scenario, all the "decent" architects would spend all of their time without commissions and without income, doing paper-architecture. i'm much more interested in getting some decent buildings constructed.

if Stern has to hold his nose in order to do a decent project down in Texas, I say "go for it" -- you know it'll be better than if it's done by some no-name design firm that Bush and his staff have to settle for 'cause all the starchitects turned him down.

I actually hope that the Bush library looks like a Walmart with cedar shingles. So I'm glad Stern is doing it.

you s'pose stern's ofc was chosen on the strength of this project in dallas?:


this one at texas christian u?:




think we'd be lucky enough that they'd do one like this?:

(trinity university)