I saw this statement in another thread - "The construction of big box retail stores and developer housing has nearly wiped away the average person's regular exposure to architecture and, therefore, appreciation of it."
I'm not sure if that is bitterness or indifference (or possibly sarcasm?), but either way I don't agree. The phrase "...is the new architecture" implies that architecture is static and somehow universal - which is the same kind of attitude that allows big boxes to be built in the first place. I won't go into how much the architectural profession can do about it let alone a single architect, but its definitely has to do with the contemporary American culture in general.
From my experience, the general public of the US cares very little about what kind of environment they're in as long as it isn't unpleasant. We are the same people that blast AC so that the room is below 70 degrees in the summer while we blast the heat to above 78 in the winter; yet there is very little preference on the qualities beyond comfort and convenience let alone the effects of wasted energy and resources to achieve the state of being completely neutral. I mean, how else can we concentrate more than 1/3 of our lives on the computer?
half the time, the public demands nostalgic identity-architecture, thanks to demagogues like Kunstler. If you can fit a garrett onto a big box, they'll be happy.
well those aren't big boxes and america is in a nostalgic period as modernism has destroyed the symbols that made america what it is. and here you are preaching to the choir and if you think that new urbanism is a pox on america you better get out there and find out why people respond to it. because if not you are just saying that americans are idiots with no taste.(which is true) but if you can't convince them to change its all a pointless diatribe that needs alcohol to be at interesting. because right now it ain't.
actually, the Celebrations of this country are designed with plenty of room for big boxes at their peripheries, vado. For me, New Urbanism, in its more vicious incarnations (I support Smargrowth, by-the-way) is merely a complement to the big box consumer culture. Look at the vauned site plan for Denver Stapleton if you don't believe me.
I also don't think that Americans are idiots with no taste... heck, I'm not even saying I won't or have not already designed that way. I'm just saying that my personal taste (which I must admit that I have in the past been perfect willing to suspend for clients) does not relate well to nostalgic white-bread wasp architecture-as-ethnic/class oppression/colonization... which is really what Kunstler and the other more rabid TND (stress on the word "traditional") propagandists are all about, if you read between the lines.
In any event, I'm from California. We may like different things there.. fortunately :)
well since american architecture evolved from the architecture of the empire, the fact that these architectures may try to symbolize something in our world today makes total sense, and why just wasp architecture. what about all that spanish COLONIAL architecture out there in california, arizona and nuevo mexico? still your preaching to the choir rather than educating the masses. you should drive out to the mall right now and report back to us on your findings. psychology is important to what we're talking about here.
big box is not architecture. there are very few architects making architecture, and there are even fewer non-architects appreciating architecture. architecture and the people who appreciate it are rare.
that being said, i do not blame big box or mcmansions for any of the above.
vado, point taken, but I thought I made it clear that the form of New Urbanism I'm complaining about is the literal variety being pushed by Kunstler in the pop mags and by DPZ through its TND doctrine.. this literal form is not readily adaptable to any tradition other than the eastern seabord. Calthorpe's work I have less of a problem with, but the DPZ guys seemt o spend much of their time trying to side-line him. As far as malls go, you're not telling me anything I don't know... I just have to draw the aesthetic line somewhere. Like it or not, we're all entitled to our own aesthetic preferences. I'm a resolute modernist.
"The best is the enemy of the good." — Voltaire (1694–1778)
"He who is determined not to be satisfied with anything short of perfection will never do anything to please himself or others." — William Hazlitt (1778–1830)
I've been pondering the difficulties of my beloved profession quite a bit lately. And, in doing so, I've about concluded that the two sentiments quoted above illuminate the root of the problem.
Is it possible that our persistent pursuit of "art" has created conditions such that a) the public neither understands nor appreciates what we can do for them, and b) we, ourselves, are unwilling to pursue "good, competent architecture" because we don't think it upholds the purest form of our own artistic ambitions?
I've been fortunate to have traveled a good deal over the course of my career. As I think about the really nice places I've visited, I am struck by the relative scarcity of "great architecture" in most locations and the strong appeal of many locations that are comprised mostly of buildings that are, at best, quite ordinary and bland.
Does anybody else think we're doing great damage to ourselves by this insistent demand that any building not meeting the standard of "great art" is worthy only of our disdain?
didja ever think that amerika thinks "the modern era" ie post war amerika through the election of ronald raygun (amerika's greatest president) was a failure. why else would the electorate put bonzo in the white house for eight years. modernism itself is a kind of nostalgia isn't it. a nostalgia for a time that never really existed either. memories of relities that never really existed are very powerful.
quizzical, for me it's much more complicated than that. One can't separate popular tastes in design aesthetics and even urban form from the politics of (political/ethnic/class/perhaps even gender) identity. How many gated suburban subdivisions (such as Celebration) are sold not just on its nostalgic architecture and site-planning but its implications for a (largely fictitious) nostalgic 19th/early 20th century lifestyle.. southern (white) ladies of leisure sipping mint juleps on their porches, raising kids to play on manicured lawns supervised by their (colored) attendants? Just look at the imagery from the developers' brochures. I know.. I've helped write more than a few... heck, just take a look at Ralph Lauren ads (the perfect vision of Wasp rurality captured and marketed by a working class Jewish entrepreneur from Brooklyn.. it's awesome!) :)
The problem is.. others, not captured in this stereotyped fiction, take a look at the same and get nauseated by it.. it's not their world. So they go off and try to invent or reinvent different types of communities, with different aesthetics. The "Latino New Urbanism" promoted by Mendes et al is a case of this.. the forms have nothing to do with the WASP New Urbanism.. but they've thought to appropriate its implications in order to promote the idea of a rival architecture of identity.
This is why I think regional vernacular reactions to the consensus of racial rurality are so compelling.. for instance, the explosion in innovative work in housing coming out of Southern California now. But it is also interesting to note that Modernism is a very compelling language for these vernacularists (in repudiation of Modernism's manifesto to be a global vision). Shorn of much of the decoration that speaks so explicitly to the politics of identity, Modernism (or rather regionalized twists on Modernism) becomes a type of common vocabulary that can be appropriated by various groups outside of the majority to promote their own unique visions. It's conceivably more of an architecture of consensus rather than one of oppression. If you will, Postmodern Modernism.
true architecture is art. it's something to strive for, but very few have the talent, let alone the practice, that allows him or her to create great works of art. there is a compromise though that i believe occurs at the level of public engagement with a project. is the project contributing something or is it taking something from the public? is it simply a commodity or does it have a conscience? while these buildings are usually not art, i believe they are what make good cities and ultimately a better built environment.
how can you have consensus if you have "politics of (political/ethnic/class/perhaps even gender) identity." informing all decisions. one cannot really even talk aesthetics because there are no parameters to (in)form the discussion. unless of course we are talking the aesthetics of andre 3000's gatsby look. how does modernism not create a stereotyped fiction for the other? nothing was more white european male than modern architecture.
some modern work is nostalgic, some isn't so much. the impetus to be modern and act accordingly isn't nostalgic at all.
a lot of the grey area in this discussion may be bridged by a recognition and discussion of a critical point-of-view problem: that there are those who believe that the 'modern' was an intentional break with tradition and others of us who believe that to be modern is to be part of a continuum of contemporaneity.
--
i think the perfection/greatness issue is a strawman, quizz. maybe really young architects want everything to be a masterpiece, but most of us in the profession (...ok, oversimplifying...) are happy making good work - if we can get good work made. the problem often is just maintaining a l.c.d. of 'good'. i feel that's my daily fight.
if there is an art in the profession of architecture (separate from the publication of architecture) it's in bringing good design to fruition in such a way that it complements its environment and doesn't get v.e.d to death along the way.
Excellent link, Steven, and I agree. We should be talking about hig-quality quotidian buildings, not focusing so much on signature buildings. The latter are important as part of a field, and if the quality of the field is as lousy as it often is, the whole ensemble is weakened.
Also, quizzical: when you talk about the very unremarkable buildigns that make up the great places you've been, what type of building are they? A very unremarkable Italian hill town street is, in my eyes and those of most Americans, quite beautiful. The fact that it is an authentic historic vernacular doesn't stop my Midwest neighbors from deciding that "Venice-style" is the appropriate appearance for the buildings to be built next year along our downtown canal...$%#&@!!*$
And that to me is indicative of the problem. We seem (Americans) to have no sense of what is appropriate and why, and that is why our public's appreciation of architecture is so low.
There is definitely more to what we do than subjective things. But they are not quantifiable. And in our contemporary society, unquantifiable means pretty much nonexistant.
Afford? Not to sound naive, but I didn't realize good architecture was expensive. I've seen plenty of great architecture go up without a higher price tag. Great design doesn't necessarily mean expensive materials and methods. Its been my observation that it is usually the will of the public in general rather than the pockets. Maybe one thing we can do is to show that great design IS affordable.
i really wonder if most of you have ever been around the "public." newsflash the public likes walmart, the public likes american idol, the public likes driving their suv/s, the public likes nascar, the public likes white picket fences and high school football. this debate has nothing to do with design and everything to do with the snobbery of the overeducated frustrated out of touch with the public architect.
If the public wants a faux-Tuscan villa in the middle of Indianapolis, constructed of Dryvit and Fypon, with non-operable windows and no climatic site response, huge electricity demands for heating and cooling, a two-story blank wall facing what is supposed to be a lively, pedestrian-filled sidewalk, and poor construction materials that will not age well and will fill a landfill with toxins when demolished because the building has been infiltrated by mold in 10 years, I think it is our duty as professionals to try to explain to them why that is inappropriate.
And what if it's being built with taxpayer-financed tax credits. Don't we owe it to the public to tell them that this building, on many levels, is wrong?
I'm speaking here of quantifiable things. Through looking at the quantifiable - climate, materials, site response - we can get to why a certain aesthetic is inappropriate.
To go to a parallel issue, it would be easy for me to argue why, in my extremely busy lifestyle, eating fast food every day is a good choice. But if you asked a doctor, that professional would advise why I'm making a poor decision. It's up to professionals to look at the big picture.
I think we're talking about different kinds of appropriateness, LB. Yes, you're right it is our duty as professionals to explain to them when designing what can be inappropriate. Most of the public dictates what is "appropriate" to their lifestyles by what they spend their money on - regardless of appropriatness to climate, materials, site response, and impact to the environment (both natural and built) and community.
Lately, through a long, slow education process, the public has begun to see that, for example, organic milk is better than non-organic. It's better for their kids, better for the environment, often supports local farmers, and tastes better (these are opinions straight from the mouths of ladies at my parents' church - fairly conservative deeply suburban folks).
So how do we teach the public that good design is good for everyone?
back to the big box.
i think the replacement of a curated and edited shopping experience (reflected in the object and the space they're presented in) with a warehouse has a pretty direct effect on our perception of the value of considered spatial design.
ever heard of anyone coming back from their 'dream trip' to europe complaining there was no wal-mart? me either.
that would be a thing worth some study, el jeffe. i distinctly remember going to a 'big box' grocery store in valencia, spain, right across the street from calatrava's city of art and science, and that it was a much more sensorily rewarding/pleasing experience than any big box experience i've ever had here.
i couldn't tell you now what was especially different, but something certainly was. maybe the presentation of products? floor arrangement in non-gridded/grouped islands? shortened sight distances? i don't remember enough. it had a sense of being in an interior village square (not in a cutesy way) rather than in a steel box with rows of stuff.
There was an interview on my local NPR station's afternoon call-in show with architect Travis Price about his book "The Archeology of Tomorrow." It has a lot of overlaps with this thread. Callers' comments are kind of lame (but help to illustrate how even people who are plugged in enough to the issue to make the effort to call a radio show aren't looking at the issue in the same way a lot of architects are). Price is one of the few I've seen in recent times writing and speaking to the general public against sprawl without peddaling new urbanist ideas (though he does owe a debt of gratitude to Yi-Fu Tuan).
its a tough pill to swallow...as most of you have whined.
"the general public of the US cares very little about what kind of environment they're in" --and with these kind of statements your arguments are self defeating.
perturbanist, you have a very loose definition of architecture. if walmart is architecture, then any building would be architecture.
i think this discussion fails to distinguish between what is urbanism and what is architecture. while related, they are two separate issues, and each has a different relationship to public and private space.
the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings...
I think big box fits somewhere in the realms of this...its a pity, but i'm not living with the delusion that it is not there, it is not constructed, or it isn't part of American culture and communities.
Let's not become complete elitists and say, big boxes aren't architecture, because then we might as well say...oh Mr. client, you can't afford travertine? well, huh, it's not art, its not architecture. In fact, the architecture you drool over represents probably around less than 1% of the built environment.
I'd say big boxes are also a kind of urbanism also,...interior urbanism.
I was more interested in trying to get at "should it be" or "will it be." I stand by my statements. I disagreed with your statment in that it doesn't really go into the dynamics of what the "American vernacular" is.
while not architecture, i think walmart has a lot to say about how we design and build cities. urban design in general is a great discussion to engage public opinion.
outside of a few public building types, though, i'm not sure what the point is of educating the public about good architecture. it's one of those things; you get it or you don't. it's like trying to convince the "public" how great jane austen is when they would rather just read O. call me an elitist.
we might think that the general public likes walmart but witness what happens when one tries to move into the neighborhood. huge public outcry, attempts to disallow and leverage planning and zoning regs in their favor.
people know what's good for THEM; they just don't necessarily always care about what's good (or not good) for other neighborhoods.
okay fill me in,...what about big boxes is not architecture? is it the bigness? the shit they sell inside? the fact that someone told you it was no good? the fact that it leaves behind scraped landscapes? the materials? the fact that it is not published in some shitty elitist magazine? the brutal efficiency? the fact that it is only a box?
going back to vitruvius's seminal definition of architecture - utilitas, firmitas, and venustas - walmart fares well in the utilitas, is indifferent towards firmitas, and definitely fails venustas. if i had to give it a letter grade, i'd give it a grade inflated C-.
but in all seriousness, i'm not indifferent towards what walmart means for the design of cities. it's an important player that should not be overlooked. in that respect, i think we're on the same page.
One thing that Kunstler points out about big box retail is that it is a business model. A model that relies heavily on cheap transportation - complex interstate highways and cheap fuel. Although this could change, I'd bet on seeing more of it as it contributes an incredible amount to the local tax base.
As professionals, I think it is more important to contribute to the public dialog concerning the early issues to help decide on the local impact and what 'rules' could be placed on big box projects to reduce the negative impact.... otherwise our input will be brick color and adding "bump-outs to breakup the large mass of facade." - which is exactly where the important people want us to be.
We need to be able to ask good questions. Good questions that other people can understand when they are printed in the local newspaper.
So far the only things that have held any ground is driving out local small business and the environment. All other issues are dismissed by the claims of new jobs, lower taxes, and a closer place to shop.
Let me go back to the original question: has the proliferation of big box stores and developer housing minimized the general public's regular exposure to architecture?
I'm going to throw this out there: inasmuch as sprawl has made people less likely to go into historic downtown cores and thus be exposed to a co-existing and broad range of building types, styles, and vernaculars from 150+ years ago right up to today, yes.
Can people appreciate architecture of any era if all they know of "historic" architecture is various Greek and Roman Revival buildings, typically governmental in use, and Brutalist/High Modern buildings, typically not only governmental in use but also frustratingly bureaucratic in experience, and Main Street USA (Disney tm)? Of those options, which are they most likely to want to live in?
Public Appreciation of Architecture
I saw this statement in another thread - "The construction of big box retail stores and developer housing has nearly wiped away the average person's regular exposure to architecture and, therefore, appreciation of it."
Do you think this is true?
big box is the new architecture...live with it
"big box is the new architecture...live with it"
I'm not sure if that is bitterness or indifference (or possibly sarcasm?), but either way I don't agree. The phrase "...is the new architecture" implies that architecture is static and somehow universal - which is the same kind of attitude that allows big boxes to be built in the first place. I won't go into how much the architectural profession can do about it let alone a single architect, but its definitely has to do with the contemporary American culture in general.
From my experience, the general public of the US cares very little about what kind of environment they're in as long as it isn't unpleasant. We are the same people that blast AC so that the room is below 70 degrees in the summer while we blast the heat to above 78 in the winter; yet there is very little preference on the qualities beyond comfort and convenience let alone the effects of wasted energy and resources to achieve the state of being completely neutral. I mean, how else can we concentrate more than 1/3 of our lives on the computer?
Sorry. Recently watched Fight Club again.
whats the public done for us?
(having just watched the life of brian again)
half the time, the public demands nostalgic identity-architecture, thanks to demagogues like Kunstler. If you can fit a garrett onto a big box, they'll be happy.
maybe the public does appreciate architecture. its just not the kind of architecture that you appreciate.
That's precisely my point. They want Celebration Florida, which ascetic Duany et al are trying to virally proliferate across this country:
I want Maki's Hillside Terrace:
It's a problem.
aesthetic even
well those aren't big boxes and america is in a nostalgic period as modernism has destroyed the symbols that made america what it is. and here you are preaching to the choir and if you think that new urbanism is a pox on america you better get out there and find out why people respond to it. because if not you are just saying that americans are idiots with no taste.(which is true) but if you can't convince them to change its all a pointless diatribe that needs alcohol to be at interesting. because right now it ain't.
actually, the Celebrations of this country are designed with plenty of room for big boxes at their peripheries, vado. For me, New Urbanism, in its more vicious incarnations (I support Smargrowth, by-the-way) is merely a complement to the big box consumer culture. Look at the vauned site plan for Denver Stapleton if you don't believe me.
I also don't think that Americans are idiots with no taste... heck, I'm not even saying I won't or have not already designed that way. I'm just saying that my personal taste (which I must admit that I have in the past been perfect willing to suspend for clients) does not relate well to nostalgic white-bread wasp architecture-as-ethnic/class oppression/colonization... which is really what Kunstler and the other more rabid TND (stress on the word "traditional") propagandists are all about, if you read between the lines.
In any event, I'm from California. We may like different things there.. fortunately :)
well since american architecture evolved from the architecture of the empire, the fact that these architectures may try to symbolize something in our world today makes total sense, and why just wasp architecture. what about all that spanish COLONIAL architecture out there in california, arizona and nuevo mexico? still your preaching to the choir rather than educating the masses. you should drive out to the mall right now and report back to us on your findings. psychology is important to what we're talking about here.
big box is not architecture. there are very few architects making architecture, and there are even fewer non-architects appreciating architecture. architecture and the people who appreciate it are rare.
that being said, i do not blame big box or mcmansions for any of the above.
vado, point taken, but I thought I made it clear that the form of New Urbanism I'm complaining about is the literal variety being pushed by Kunstler in the pop mags and by DPZ through its TND doctrine.. this literal form is not readily adaptable to any tradition other than the eastern seabord. Calthorpe's work I have less of a problem with, but the DPZ guys seemt o spend much of their time trying to side-line him. As far as malls go, you're not telling me anything I don't know... I just have to draw the aesthetic line somewhere. Like it or not, we're all entitled to our own aesthetic preferences. I'm a resolute modernist.
let me suggest why I started this thread.
"The best is the enemy of the good." — Voltaire (1694–1778)
"He who is determined not to be satisfied with anything short of perfection will never do anything to please himself or others." — William Hazlitt (1778–1830)
I've been pondering the difficulties of my beloved profession quite a bit lately. And, in doing so, I've about concluded that the two sentiments quoted above illuminate the root of the problem.
Is it possible that our persistent pursuit of "art" has created conditions such that a) the public neither understands nor appreciates what we can do for them, and b) we, ourselves, are unwilling to pursue "good, competent architecture" because we don't think it upholds the purest form of our own artistic ambitions?
I've been fortunate to have traveled a good deal over the course of my career. As I think about the really nice places I've visited, I am struck by the relative scarcity of "great architecture" in most locations and the strong appeal of many locations that are comprised mostly of buildings that are, at best, quite ordinary and bland.
Does anybody else think we're doing great damage to ourselves by this insistent demand that any building not meeting the standard of "great art" is worthy only of our disdain?
didja ever think that amerika thinks "the modern era" ie post war amerika through the election of ronald raygun (amerika's greatest president) was a failure. why else would the electorate put bonzo in the white house for eight years. modernism itself is a kind of nostalgia isn't it. a nostalgia for a time that never really existed either. memories of relities that never really existed are very powerful.
quizzical, for me it's much more complicated than that. One can't separate popular tastes in design aesthetics and even urban form from the politics of (political/ethnic/class/perhaps even gender) identity. How many gated suburban subdivisions (such as Celebration) are sold not just on its nostalgic architecture and site-planning but its implications for a (largely fictitious) nostalgic 19th/early 20th century lifestyle.. southern (white) ladies of leisure sipping mint juleps on their porches, raising kids to play on manicured lawns supervised by their (colored) attendants? Just look at the imagery from the developers' brochures. I know.. I've helped write more than a few... heck, just take a look at Ralph Lauren ads (the perfect vision of Wasp rurality captured and marketed by a working class Jewish entrepreneur from Brooklyn.. it's awesome!) :)
The problem is.. others, not captured in this stereotyped fiction, take a look at the same and get nauseated by it.. it's not their world. So they go off and try to invent or reinvent different types of communities, with different aesthetics. The "Latino New Urbanism" promoted by Mendes et al is a case of this.. the forms have nothing to do with the WASP New Urbanism.. but they've thought to appropriate its implications in order to promote the idea of a rival architecture of identity.
This is why I think regional vernacular reactions to the consensus of racial rurality are so compelling.. for instance, the explosion in innovative work in housing coming out of Southern California now. But it is also interesting to note that Modernism is a very compelling language for these vernacularists (in repudiation of Modernism's manifesto to be a global vision). Shorn of much of the decoration that speaks so explicitly to the politics of identity, Modernism (or rather regionalized twists on Modernism) becomes a type of common vocabulary that can be appropriated by various groups outside of the majority to promote their own unique visions. It's conceivably more of an architecture of consensus rather than one of oppression. If you will, Postmodern Modernism.
true architecture is art. it's something to strive for, but very few have the talent, let alone the practice, that allows him or her to create great works of art. there is a compromise though that i believe occurs at the level of public engagement with a project. is the project contributing something or is it taking something from the public? is it simply a commodity or does it have a conscience? while these buildings are usually not art, i believe they are what make good cities and ultimately a better built environment.
how can you have consensus if you have "politics of (political/ethnic/class/perhaps even gender) identity." informing all decisions. one cannot really even talk aesthetics because there are no parameters to (in)form the discussion. unless of course we are talking the aesthetics of andre 3000's gatsby look. how does modernism not create a stereotyped fiction for the other? nothing was more white european male than modern architecture.
I've always felt modernism was the most democratic design language, even though it emerged from imperialist Europe.
just curious vado, what symbols did modernism destroy? when I think of america, all the symbols that I am aware of are modernist.
some modern work is nostalgic, some isn't so much. the impetus to be modern and act accordingly isn't nostalgic at all.
a lot of the grey area in this discussion may be bridged by a recognition and discussion of a critical point-of-view problem: that there are those who believe that the 'modern' was an intentional break with tradition and others of us who believe that to be modern is to be part of a continuum of contemporaneity.
--
i think the perfection/greatness issue is a strawman, quizz. maybe really young architects want everything to be a masterpiece, but most of us in the profession (...ok, oversimplifying...) are happy making good work - if we can get good work made. the problem often is just maintaining a l.c.d. of 'good'. i feel that's my daily fight.
if there is an art in the profession of architecture (separate from the publication of architecture) it's in bringing good design to fruition in such a way that it complements its environment and doesn't get v.e.d to death along the way.
we should be talking about this more.
Excellent link, Steven, and I agree. We should be talking about hig-quality quotidian buildings, not focusing so much on signature buildings. The latter are important as part of a field, and if the quality of the field is as lousy as it often is, the whole ensemble is weakened.
Also, quizzical: when you talk about the very unremarkable buildigns that make up the great places you've been, what type of building are they? A very unremarkable Italian hill town street is, in my eyes and those of most Americans, quite beautiful. The fact that it is an authentic historic vernacular doesn't stop my Midwest neighbors from deciding that "Venice-style" is the appropriate appearance for the buildings to be built next year along our downtown canal...$%#&@!!*$
And that to me is indicative of the problem. We seem (Americans) to have no sense of what is appropriate and why, and that is why our public's appreciation of architecture is so low.
Doesn't the public dictate what is appropriate?
does the public have enough information to do so? is it all opinion, or is there something more to what we do?
oh lord, do we need to educate the public again on what is good architecture?
There is definitely more to what we do than subjective things. But they are not quantifiable. And in our contemporary society, unquantifiable means pretty much nonexistant.
for the most part, the "public' cannot afford to pay for architecture. whether they appreciate it or not is practically irrelevent.
Afford? Not to sound naive, but I didn't realize good architecture was expensive. I've seen plenty of great architecture go up without a higher price tag. Great design doesn't necessarily mean expensive materials and methods. Its been my observation that it is usually the will of the public in general rather than the pockets. Maybe one thing we can do is to show that great design IS affordable.
these schools i've been doing aren't great architecture. but they're GOOD architecture, and affordable, and appreciated. i think that's ok.
i really wonder if most of you have ever been around the "public." newsflash the public likes walmart, the public likes american idol, the public likes driving their suv/s, the public likes nascar, the public likes white picket fences and high school football. this debate has nothing to do with design and everything to do with the snobbery of the overeducated frustrated out of touch with the public architect.
i don't think that walmart, american idol, suvs, nascar, picket fences, high school football and good design are mutually exclusive.
except the overeducated snobs certainly feel that way.
If the public wants a faux-Tuscan villa in the middle of Indianapolis, constructed of Dryvit and Fypon, with non-operable windows and no climatic site response, huge electricity demands for heating and cooling, a two-story blank wall facing what is supposed to be a lively, pedestrian-filled sidewalk, and poor construction materials that will not age well and will fill a landfill with toxins when demolished because the building has been infiltrated by mold in 10 years, I think it is our duty as professionals to try to explain to them why that is inappropriate.
And what if it's being built with taxpayer-financed tax credits. Don't we owe it to the public to tell them that this building, on many levels, is wrong?
I'm speaking here of quantifiable things. Through looking at the quantifiable - climate, materials, site response - we can get to why a certain aesthetic is inappropriate.
To go to a parallel issue, it would be easy for me to argue why, in my extremely busy lifestyle, eating fast food every day is a good choice. But if you asked a doctor, that professional would advise why I'm making a poor decision. It's up to professionals to look at the big picture.
I think we're talking about different kinds of appropriateness, LB. Yes, you're right it is our duty as professionals to explain to them when designing what can be inappropriate. Most of the public dictates what is "appropriate" to their lifestyles by what they spend their money on - regardless of appropriatness to climate, materials, site response, and impact to the environment (both natural and built) and community.
Again, an example from the food world:
Lately, through a long, slow education process, the public has begun to see that, for example, organic milk is better than non-organic. It's better for their kids, better for the environment, often supports local farmers, and tastes better (these are opinions straight from the mouths of ladies at my parents' church - fairly conservative deeply suburban folks).
So how do we teach the public that good design is good for everyone?
back to the big box.
i think the replacement of a curated and edited shopping experience (reflected in the object and the space they're presented in) with a warehouse has a pretty direct effect on our perception of the value of considered spatial design.
ever heard of anyone coming back from their 'dream trip' to europe complaining there was no wal-mart? me either.
that would be a thing worth some study, el jeffe. i distinctly remember going to a 'big box' grocery store in valencia, spain, right across the street from calatrava's city of art and science, and that it was a much more sensorily rewarding/pleasing experience than any big box experience i've ever had here.
i couldn't tell you now what was especially different, but something certainly was. maybe the presentation of products? floor arrangement in non-gridded/grouped islands? shortened sight distances? i don't remember enough. it had a sense of being in an interior village square (not in a cutesy way) rather than in a steel box with rows of stuff.
There was an interview on my local NPR station's afternoon call-in show with architect Travis Price about his book "The Archeology of Tomorrow." It has a lot of overlaps with this thread. Callers' comments are kind of lame (but help to illustrate how even people who are plugged in enough to the issue to make the effort to call a radio show aren't looking at the issue in the same way a lot of architects are). Price is one of the few I've seen in recent times writing and speaking to the general public against sprawl without peddaling new urbanist ideas (though he does owe a debt of gratitude to Yi-Fu Tuan).
streaming mp3 here
That was reality speaking...
big box is the American vernacular...architecture
its a tough pill to swallow...as most of you have whined.
"the general public of the US cares very little about what kind of environment they're in" --and with these kind of statements your arguments are self defeating.
perturbanist, you have a very loose definition of architecture. if walmart is architecture, then any building would be architecture.
i think this discussion fails to distinguish between what is urbanism and what is architecture. while related, they are two separate issues, and each has a different relationship to public and private space.
architecture...its your profession, you tell me
the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings...
I think big box fits somewhere in the realms of this...its a pity, but i'm not living with the delusion that it is not there, it is not constructed, or it isn't part of American culture and communities.
Let's not become complete elitists and say, big boxes aren't architecture, because then we might as well say...oh Mr. client, you can't afford travertine? well, huh, it's not art, its not architecture. In fact, the architecture you drool over represents probably around less than 1% of the built environment.
I'd say big boxes are also a kind of urbanism also,...interior urbanism.
Again..."big box IS the American vernacular"
I was more interested in trying to get at "should it be" or "will it be." I stand by my statements. I disagreed with your statment in that it doesn't really go into the dynamics of what the "American vernacular" is.
while not architecture, i think walmart has a lot to say about how we design and build cities. urban design in general is a great discussion to engage public opinion.
outside of a few public building types, though, i'm not sure what the point is of educating the public about good architecture. it's one of those things; you get it or you don't. it's like trying to convince the "public" how great jane austen is when they would rather just read O. call me an elitist.
we might think that the general public likes walmart but witness what happens when one tries to move into the neighborhood. huge public outcry, attempts to disallow and leverage planning and zoning regs in their favor.
people know what's good for THEM; they just don't necessarily always care about what's good (or not good) for other neighborhoods.
okay fill me in,...what about big boxes is not architecture? is it the bigness? the shit they sell inside? the fact that someone told you it was no good? the fact that it leaves behind scraped landscapes? the materials? the fact that it is not published in some shitty elitist magazine? the brutal efficiency? the fact that it is only a box?
going back to vitruvius's seminal definition of architecture - utilitas, firmitas, and venustas - walmart fares well in the utilitas, is indifferent towards firmitas, and definitely fails venustas. if i had to give it a letter grade, i'd give it a grade inflated C-.
but in all seriousness, i'm not indifferent towards what walmart means for the design of cities. it's an important player that should not be overlooked. in that respect, i think we're on the same page.
One thing that Kunstler points out about big box retail is that it is a business model. A model that relies heavily on cheap transportation - complex interstate highways and cheap fuel. Although this could change, I'd bet on seeing more of it as it contributes an incredible amount to the local tax base.
As professionals, I think it is more important to contribute to the public dialog concerning the early issues to help decide on the local impact and what 'rules' could be placed on big box projects to reduce the negative impact.... otherwise our input will be brick color and adding "bump-outs to breakup the large mass of facade." - which is exactly where the important people want us to be.
We need to be able to ask good questions. Good questions that other people can understand when they are printed in the local newspaper.
So far the only things that have held any ground is driving out local small business and the environment. All other issues are dismissed by the claims of new jobs, lower taxes, and a closer place to shop.
Let me go back to the original question: has the proliferation of big box stores and developer housing minimized the general public's regular exposure to architecture?
I'm going to throw this out there: inasmuch as sprawl has made people less likely to go into historic downtown cores and thus be exposed to a co-existing and broad range of building types, styles, and vernaculars from 150+ years ago right up to today, yes.
Can people appreciate architecture of any era if all they know of "historic" architecture is various Greek and Roman Revival buildings, typically governmental in use, and Brutalist/High Modern buildings, typically not only governmental in use but also frustratingly bureaucratic in experience, and Main Street USA (Disney tm)? Of those options, which are they most likely to want to live in?
or they think of this douche bag when they think of architecture...
mdler,
at least you didn't put up Frank Gehry's visage :P ...or Brad Pitt's for that matter
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.