i actually got to work with a team that was architect of record for a stern building. this isn't the gilded age, and to try to reproduce those types of details ultimately just looks a bit shabby.
out of curiousity, what kind of work do you do farwest?
i understand what you are saying, with the honesty in materials and form
I think it can be a little idealistic and not entirely practical
It can be done in a way that doesnt look fake and like its trying to copy the past with cheaper materials
True, marmkid. But Stern does it generally to look fake and trying to copy the past with cheaper materials (not in all his buildings, but in many.) That's dishonest.
I do modern work. I've bee lucky to work for architects, too, who do modern work. I've had my share of clients who want some historical hodge-podge, but I generally try to guide them away from it and toward "honest" solutions.
I've had situations where either I or the person I've worked for has told clients to consider another architect when they could not be convinced that the historical hodge-podge they wanted was bad design. (But I've also taken or been involved in some of these jobs--depends on the situation. There are no absolutes in life.)
People always say it's idealistic and not practical to do modern, honest work. I think they're fooling themselves. It is possible--you just may have to work harder to find your clients and to guide them toward good decisions.
i can't say i like the design work of stern's office in general, but i do have a certain begrudging respect for how they follow-through to give their client the best construction that client is willing to bankroll.
i'll vouch for the fact that the stern project in louisville is both handsome and well-made. it's got a strange scale relationship to its surrounding structures which, since stern is often considered a context-attentive office, is a little odd. maybe there is an attempt at mannerism through scale-manipulation or something.
the office was very particular about the red sandstone and where it was from. the materials selections in general were very considered.
i expect that their projects are only made as well as the person on client-side directing the project allows them to be.
And, I heard from a reliable source that RM Stern charges exceptionally high architectural fees. IMO, this means he should easily be able to convince his clients to pay for a real brick arch and other real materials, because they are clients who appreciate quality and understand the need to pay for it.
That said, I can't imagine a more appropriate building in which to use simulated materials masquerading as honesty than in the Bush2 library.
i never said it was impossible, but not necessary or practical to do in every situation
if taken at an extreme level, then yes, it is better to tell the client to consider another architect
but on smaller scale issues, you have to draw the line somewhere to where you make your stand
even if you cant convince your client to change
i have not yet worked on anything where they are looking for something blatantly dishonest, like you are refering to
but it cant all be dismissed. if a client wants that, and is shown all other options and isnt convinced, i think you chaulk that one up to a situation where there was nothing else you could have done
then you try to salvage something out of a lost situation, as opposed to having the client go off to some hack architect who will do anything
sometimes it might be better overall to make the best out of a project, as opposed to having it be a complete disaster in someone else's hands
(clearly not all of the time, as some clients are beyond help, and just want something as cheap as possible, etc, and those you are right, you should advise them to go elsewhere. but many times, a client might honestly not know any better)
I dont know much of sterns work, so i cant comment on it
i think people worry too much about "integrity" when addressing the issue of things like structures and whether or not the way they look is the way they work. while i'll agree that the best use of stone for example is in a compression condition instead of as a panel clipped onto a steel stud wall that looks like a stone bearing wall, in the end i think it is the experience that we architects are most concerned with than what happens behind the curtain. i'm not defending cheesyness, but this is just where our technology is. no one can afford to make a stone bearing wall when the technology is there to do it cheaper with something else. i for one would never use a stone arch anywhere anyway. but it does take some skill to make something which is purely simulated look and feel like it's doing something. lick and stick brick is another thing entirely.
i also don't think a lot of the things like arches and cornices that often are not "functional" are still used for symbolism alone. our culture clearly values certain architectonic forms over their structural function, probably for psychological reasons. i would argue that in the case of arches, domes, and barrel vaults that regardless of their structural or cultural value, their is a scalar and proportional value to them relative to how they frame openings and enforce things like compression effects in rooms. i just don't think that all of these things are purely structural in their benefit or purpose. true that physics gave us the dome, but psycology is the only reason why we still use them, function or no function. there is a serendipity in architecture which allows us to modify the function of just about anything if we notice something else happening beyond the original intention. i'm not defending "pomo" or stern, but i think there is a pendanticism in the field that is obsessed with maintaining a philosophical honesty in how things work that are never even seen or understood by our audience when so much of our job is purely experiential. just my .02$.
i agree bossman
if you do it right, it doesnt have to be cheesy
taking a stand saying you wont do something just because it isnt honest, that can be taken too far on principle alone
and it can lead to a pompous attitude about how things should be done, which architects tend to have
you should work creatively to find a solution that fits your client
an arch can be made by many things, and still be an arch that functions and is beautiful
the only people who tend to worry about those things are other architects
that cant be the only conern
Of course there are exceptions. But I personally appreciate work that is structurally and materially honest, more than I do work that is formal and stylistic.
I believe that we have an obligation as architects to make our work as good as possible. Not just as good as it can be by Friday. But I understand that my idea of good differs from the next person's.
Most of us architects, when asked to name the people we most admire as architects, wouldn't name designers who use materials in cheap or inauthentic ways.
By the way, Marmkid, you're wrong when you say that architects are the only people who care about honesty of materials. If you look at buildings that are widely loved by entire populations, they're some of our best architectural examples (i.e. the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, the Pompidou, the Pyramids, etc etc.) Buildings that are cheaply made or inauthentic usually rot away, unnoticed.
Even nonarchitects subliminally understand the value of good architecture.
so a building needs to be expensive in order to be good?
a building can be inexpensive and still be good architecture.
to say it cant is a little ridiculous
if all we are worried about is impressing you, then yes, we should make sure that we use our materials honestly
if you were my client, that is something i would make sure of
but just because you dont agree that something is good architecture, doesnt mean that is the case
dont put words in my mouth farwest, i'm just having a discussion
i said the only people that care are "usually" architects
in my experience, when non-architects say they dont like a building, they arent concerned that that archway isnt structurally honest
an arch can be made of steel or wood, amazingly enough
clients care about the integrity of their closet spaces, the roominess of their garages, the honesty of the wall that will host their plasma t.v. down in the media room.
i started this conversation as a fun-maker, but farwest is convincing me to fall in favor of stern. the empire state building (granite veneer over steel substructure) is certainly a favorite of stern's, i'd guess. the sort of stripped classical / deco is something that he does often.
the pompidou is ALL about technical expression and not much about what was really necessary. those huge vent stacks?! come on. pure designer desire.
...and no one who has been around them will ever accuse stern's as a 'done by friday' sort of office.
did you ever think that perhaps Stern is being "honest' and displaying determined "integrity" by taking the commission for the Bush Library because he in fact agrees (in general) with the Republican president.
you can disagree. you can voice your displeasure. you can denounce the Bush legacy. but you cannot impugn someone for making a decision that is not the same as yours.
farwest 1 - if you find this such an egregious act by the dean of architecture at Yale, than as an alumnus, you should have the courage of your conviction to write the letter that states your position and see what response you get.
and while you're at it, perhaps you can give us examples of the projects you have turned down for "moral reasons".
Just trying to engage in a conversation. I didn't mean to disrespect anyone. I think these conversations about the values that underlie our profession are really interesting....but I'm apparently rubbing a few people the wrong way.
Should Stern be Chastised for taking the Bush Library job?
like farwest said.
i actually got to work with a team that was architect of record for a stern building. this isn't the gilded age, and to try to reproduce those types of details ultimately just looks a bit shabby.
out of curiousity, what kind of work do you do farwest?
i understand what you are saying, with the honesty in materials and form
I think it can be a little idealistic and not entirely practical
It can be done in a way that doesnt look fake and like its trying to copy the past with cheaper materials
True, marmkid. But Stern does it generally to look fake and trying to copy the past with cheaper materials (not in all his buildings, but in many.) That's dishonest.
I do modern work. I've bee lucky to work for architects, too, who do modern work. I've had my share of clients who want some historical hodge-podge, but I generally try to guide them away from it and toward "honest" solutions.
I've had situations where either I or the person I've worked for has told clients to consider another architect when they could not be convinced that the historical hodge-podge they wanted was bad design. (But I've also taken or been involved in some of these jobs--depends on the situation. There are no absolutes in life.)
People always say it's idealistic and not practical to do modern, honest work. I think they're fooling themselves. It is possible--you just may have to work harder to find your clients and to guide them toward good decisions.
i can't say i like the design work of stern's office in general, but i do have a certain begrudging respect for how they follow-through to give their client the best construction that client is willing to bankroll.
i'll vouch for the fact that the stern project in louisville is both handsome and well-made. it's got a strange scale relationship to its surrounding structures which, since stern is often considered a context-attentive office, is a little odd. maybe there is an attempt at mannerism through scale-manipulation or something.
the office was very particular about the red sandstone and where it was from. the materials selections in general were very considered.
i expect that their projects are only made as well as the person on client-side directing the project allows them to be.
Yeah, what farwest said. I'm in total agreement.
And, I heard from a reliable source that RM Stern charges exceptionally high architectural fees. IMO, this means he should easily be able to convince his clients to pay for a real brick arch and other real materials, because they are clients who appreciate quality and understand the need to pay for it.
That said, I can't imagine a more appropriate building in which to use simulated materials masquerading as honesty than in the Bush2 library.
i never said it was impossible, but not necessary or practical to do in every situation
if taken at an extreme level, then yes, it is better to tell the client to consider another architect
but on smaller scale issues, you have to draw the line somewhere to where you make your stand
even if you cant convince your client to change
i have not yet worked on anything where they are looking for something blatantly dishonest, like you are refering to
but it cant all be dismissed. if a client wants that, and is shown all other options and isnt convinced, i think you chaulk that one up to a situation where there was nothing else you could have done
then you try to salvage something out of a lost situation, as opposed to having the client go off to some hack architect who will do anything
sometimes it might be better overall to make the best out of a project, as opposed to having it be a complete disaster in someone else's hands
(clearly not all of the time, as some clients are beyond help, and just want something as cheap as possible, etc, and those you are right, you should advise them to go elsewhere. but many times, a client might honestly not know any better)
I dont know much of sterns work, so i cant comment on it
i think people worry too much about "integrity" when addressing the issue of things like structures and whether or not the way they look is the way they work. while i'll agree that the best use of stone for example is in a compression condition instead of as a panel clipped onto a steel stud wall that looks like a stone bearing wall, in the end i think it is the experience that we architects are most concerned with than what happens behind the curtain. i'm not defending cheesyness, but this is just where our technology is. no one can afford to make a stone bearing wall when the technology is there to do it cheaper with something else. i for one would never use a stone arch anywhere anyway. but it does take some skill to make something which is purely simulated look and feel like it's doing something. lick and stick brick is another thing entirely.
i also don't think a lot of the things like arches and cornices that often are not "functional" are still used for symbolism alone. our culture clearly values certain architectonic forms over their structural function, probably for psychological reasons. i would argue that in the case of arches, domes, and barrel vaults that regardless of their structural or cultural value, their is a scalar and proportional value to them relative to how they frame openings and enforce things like compression effects in rooms. i just don't think that all of these things are purely structural in their benefit or purpose. true that physics gave us the dome, but psycology is the only reason why we still use them, function or no function. there is a serendipity in architecture which allows us to modify the function of just about anything if we notice something else happening beyond the original intention. i'm not defending "pomo" or stern, but i think there is a pendanticism in the field that is obsessed with maintaining a philosophical honesty in how things work that are never even seen or understood by our audience when so much of our job is purely experiential. just my .02$.
i agree bossman
if you do it right, it doesnt have to be cheesy
taking a stand saying you wont do something just because it isnt honest, that can be taken too far on principle alone
and it can lead to a pompous attitude about how things should be done, which architects tend to have
you should work creatively to find a solution that fits your client
an arch can be made by many things, and still be an arch that functions and is beautiful
the only people who tend to worry about those things are other architects
that cant be the only conern
do you guys think that veneers have not been used since like the roman times?
there are reasons to pick on stern's work but the honesty argument doesn't really work for me.
1. solid planar walls between the floor slabs of villa savoye?: brick, covered with plaster to look like concrete.
2. mies' structural expression at seagram's?: applied non-structural i-sections (bronze, no less!)
3. kahn's 'what a brick wants to be'?: at philips exeter library, apparently it wanted to be veneer.
the only people who really care about honesty of materials are usually architects, who use that as a reason to rip on another architect's work
i am not defending stern at all, i just hear that all the time, and it gets a little blown out of proportion
what about symbolism?
Of course there are exceptions. But I personally appreciate work that is structurally and materially honest, more than I do work that is formal and stylistic.
I believe that we have an obligation as architects to make our work as good as possible. Not just as good as it can be by Friday. But I understand that my idea of good differs from the next person's.
Most of us architects, when asked to name the people we most admire as architects, wouldn't name designers who use materials in cheap or inauthentic ways.
By the way, Marmkid, you're wrong when you say that architects are the only people who care about honesty of materials. If you look at buildings that are widely loved by entire populations, they're some of our best architectural examples (i.e. the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, the Pompidou, the Pyramids, etc etc.) Buildings that are cheaply made or inauthentic usually rot away, unnoticed.
Even nonarchitects subliminally understand the value of good architecture.
structural and material honesty don't guarantee quality.
so a building needs to be expensive in order to be good?
a building can be inexpensive and still be good architecture.
to say it cant is a little ridiculous
if all we are worried about is impressing you, then yes, we should make sure that we use our materials honestly
if you were my client, that is something i would make sure of
but just because you dont agree that something is good architecture, doesnt mean that is the case
dont put words in my mouth farwest, i'm just having a discussion
i said the only people that care are "usually" architects
in my experience, when non-architects say they dont like a building, they arent concerned that that archway isnt structurally honest
an arch can be made of steel or wood, amazingly enough
preaching gets a little old after a while
okay okay guys.
my point was just that architects get a little short sighted with their concerns. it isn't that big of a deal. i have to get back to work now.
clients care about the integrity of their closet spaces, the roominess of their garages, the honesty of the wall that will host their plasma t.v. down in the media room.
i started this conversation as a fun-maker, but farwest is convincing me to fall in favor of stern. the empire state building (granite veneer over steel substructure) is certainly a favorite of stern's, i'd guess. the sort of stripped classical / deco is something that he does often.
the pompidou is ALL about technical expression and not much about what was really necessary. those huge vent stacks?! come on. pure designer desire.
...and no one who has been around them will ever accuse stern's as a 'done by friday' sort of office.
do supergraphics count as veneer or is that honest?
did you ever think that perhaps Stern is being "honest' and displaying determined "integrity" by taking the commission for the Bush Library because he in fact agrees (in general) with the Republican president.
you can disagree. you can voice your displeasure. you can denounce the Bush legacy. but you cannot impugn someone for making a decision that is not the same as yours.
farwest 1 - if you find this such an egregious act by the dean of architecture at Yale, than as an alumnus, you should have the courage of your conviction to write the letter that states your position and see what response you get.
and while you're at it, perhaps you can give us examples of the projects you have turned down for "moral reasons".
Just trying to engage in a conversation. I didn't mean to disrespect anyone. I think these conversations about the values that underlie our profession are really interesting....but I'm apparently rubbing a few people the wrong way.
i wouldn't lose any sleep over it farwest. it's just archinect as usual.
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.