Op-Ed 01 | Architechnophilia
Architecture is basking under the lights of the chimerical town of NY-LON. In New York, MoMA has taken on the task of exhibiting the re-birth of pre-fabricated construction with their show Home Delivery – Fabricating the Modern Dwelling meant to be both a historic survey of pre-fab and a life size playground of houses by a new set of pre-fab pioneers. Across the pond in good old blighty, London has just completed hosting the Festival of Architecture with its myriad of themes, events and boat tours.
Optimistically, the central theme at both locations has been the environment - not just a tabula rasa to build from but as a living breathing investment we must take care with. This seems timely with California’s adoption of a state wide Green Building Code aiming among other things to reduce water and energy use in all new construction. The foundation for this will be the standards set by LEED as a minimal objective for state buildings. Additionally China in line with the Beijing Olympics is taking drastic steps to improve their air quality and their environmental reputation.
I believe as architects we have perhaps the biggest opportunity, besides the policy makers, to the limit and potentially reverse the detrimental environmental effects. First as individuals reducing our personal impact, and importantly as professionalswho must be steadfast in our ethical commitment to adopt greener principles in the way we practice.
So in this the first guest opinion editorial, I reach out to the members of archinect – practicing architect, student, planner, et al – to green your practice.
Op-Ed 02 | Quilian Riano
Pre-FAB 2.0: The Promise Not (Yet) Achieved
While walking around during the opening of the latest architecturally-themed MoMA show, Home Delivery,I was awed by how fresh and daring work that is over forty years old still feels today. The work that most stood out to me was done in the 1960s and 1970s when pre-fab moved out of the unit-to-be-built-anywhere mode to the design of systems that create holistic urban environments. These projects include Richard J. Dietrich and Bernd Steigerwald's Metastadt-Bausystem, Archigram's Plug-In City, and Paul Rudolph's Oriental Masonic Gardens. These were projects that sought to radically change the role of the designer from the sole production of objects to the careful manipulation of many already-mades (the humble mobile home in Paul Rudolph's example) to create new social and political spaces.
As architectural designers we know that pre-fab is technically possible and linkinstinctually we feel that in a world of growing populations and diminishing resources pre-fab makes sense. The problem is that many of these urban projects of the 60s and 70s never came to fruition and in more contemporary work (from the 1990s on) seen in the MoMA exhibit, architects are reverting to the pre-60s struggle to technically and aesthetically improve the pre-fab unit, rather than designing the most inhabitable pre-fab city (and all the architectural, infrastructural, and landscape elements necessary to create it). However, a closer look at the exhibit reveals that since the industrial revolution, much of the technical work in pre-fab units coming from the best and brightest in the design field has inadvertently been used to facilitate the sprawling growth of suburbs. Much of this work leads to technologies that allow for faster and cheaper construction, and often the technologies are picked up by a commercial world that is always hungry for expediency, while the lofty ideals behind the technologies are seldom noted.
Yet one cannot shake the feeling that within the almost 200 years worth of work exhibited at the MoMA there is an unachieved promise -- that of a new, inexpensive, socially responsible, and environmentally adequate way of living. In a world where people are asking for increased interactivity with everything from music to politics, designers must lead with new pre-fab thinking that goes well beyond the design of the individual pre-fab house to cause a holistic shift in the way we live.
More on Pre-fab In Archinect: PreFabapalooza shipping containers as housing prefab emergency housing
i found part i and part ii of the exhibit to be very different in their approach to prefabrication...part i was more inspiring in regards to the potential of prefab...part ii felt like refugee/temporary housing.
Op-Ed 03 | Urban Regeneration: the Promise of Past and Future Olympic Games
Much has been written in recent months about the Beijing Olympics which have just concluded. From the new iconographic stadia; the Bird's Nest, Watercube et al., to the massive redevelopment schemes and beautification projects undertaken to make Beijing a fitting host for the international spectacle that is the Olympic Games, the world has watched in awe at Beijing's ability to construct and institute urban change with astonishing speed. Of course it has been noted that this is largely due to the totalitarian/authoritarian nature of Chinese government. However, what has been left out of such discussions is a recognition that massive redevelopment by government fiat is not only a characteristic of the Beijing Olympics. In fact, over the last few decades the hosting of the Olympic Games has increasingly come to be seen as the perfect tool with which a host city can push through and garner "public" and institutional/financial support for massive urban redevelopment plans.
Perhaps the best known example of this is the 1992 Barcelona Games. A key element of Barcelona's bid was their plan to use the Games as the driver for major redevelopment of the urban docklands and in doing so to re-establish a connection between the city and it's oceanfront. Following Barcelona's example, cities like Sydney, Salt Lake City and Athens have all taken advantage of the ""Regneration Games"" to push through massive infrastructural development. It has also become clear however, that a key issue for any host city post-Olympics revolves around the twin issues of a legacy and sustainability. To often huge sums are spent on developing and then maintaining the Olympic Parks with little long term benefit to the city. This helps to explain why Sydney touted it's desire to be the "first green Games". In fact they have used the Sydney Olympic Park as a foundation for a new master planned "sustainable" suburb on the site of a former industrial park at Homebush Bay.
The website for the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics has a prominent section on their front page which lists all the various ways in which their Games will manage the "social, economic and environmental impacts as well produce lasting benefits, locally and globally." Yet, already news agencies and watchdog groups have decried the games early effects on Vancouver's homeless population and their negative environmental impact (here and here). Meanwhile London's Game's have also drawn criticism of their large scale urban regeneration plans for the Lower Lea Valley and Thames Gateway. Critics contend that costs continue to soar and the original plans for the iconographic stadia have undergone significant revision. Moreover, they charge that there is no real public consultation or democratic transparency in the planning process wherein the Olympic Delivery Authority is both developer and planning body (George Monbiot). Indeed the Olympics are portrayed as nothing more that another neoliberal regeneration scheme which ultimately serves no other purpose than to legitimize the removal and relocation of the poor as part of a government sponsored corporate land grab (here and here).
If even some of the criticism of these "Regeneration Games" proves true what is the solution to creating a more equitable Games? Well, within the context of the London Games a number of London specific as well as more general solutions have been proposed. David Mackay architect for Barcelona's Olympic Village and Port and co-author of the pre-Olympic masterplan for the Lower Lea Valley has pointed out that a key injustice in the London redevelopment plan is the planned removal of hectares of productive agricultural land currently used by Londoners in the form allotments. If London truly wants the Games to be sustainable they should adjust the master plan to promote the continued use of these lands for urban agriculture. Such a move could help to reduce the food miles of the meals served at the London Olympics, would provide economic opportunities for local residents as well as ensure the protection of vital open, productive green space in the heart of urban London (Feeding the Olympics). HOK Sport and Peter Cook designers of the London 2012 Olympic Stadium have emphasized the "sustainable" elements of the stadium in their proposal. Their design seeks to minimize the quantity of material resulting in a lean, compact and lightweight stadium. The goal being to reduce the amount of materials and the associated embodied energy used in the construction. They have also designed the stadium in two pieces so that the top 55,000 seats can later be dismantled and used at another sporting venue within the UK (See here). Arup Associates have actually taken the concept one step further. Later this year they will officially unveil their new Olympic Stadium concept. Recognizing that with their focus on urban regeneration and iconographic stadia, the Olympics have become too costly for non-developed countries to stage, they have designed a fully transportable stadium that would be owned by the IOC. Rather than having to invest hundreds of millions a country in Africa or South America could rent the stadia from the IOC. All the host country would have to do is invest in the necessary infrastructure. They argue it is not the actual buildings but the reclaimed land, infrastructure investment and Olympic Park which are the necessary urban catalysts. If they had their way the Olympics will become, "the world-touring Olympics, the caravanserai Olympics, the Olympics that pitch up and have a party on Mombasa beach or the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Imagine fully demountable stadiums, and a 50m Olympic swimming pool pulled around the world by supertankers. The relocatable Olympics would regenerate a region and put it under the world spotlight, energize the local economy, and demonstrate that governments need neither state communism nor rampant capitalism to join the Olympic party."Arup Associates gets ahead of the game on the Olympic stadium of the future
Urban generation has longed been charged with the sin of gentrification, of being too authoritarian and of not equitably distributing the benefits of a region or neighborhood's new success. The Olympics are especially open to such criticism because they are such short term events and too often after the Games have moved on the regeneration plan has not. Olympic committees are becoming more aware of these concerns hence the new focus on sustainability and legacy. Hopefully, the continued focus of media and watchdog groups on such problems will encourage the development of new design initiatives and processes which reduce cost, improve transparency and create a greater role for the local within the happenings of the global.
I recall reading an interview with a singer/guitarist in the grunge era, a small local band, who said after a performance he was typically surrounded by people telling him it was a great show, but inevitably one person would say something flippantly negative, and sadly that was the only comment he could ever remember as he laid awake at night.
Architecture comes with criticism intact. One cannot put their work out into the world without expecting to be criticized. But we should, as a community of professionals, be able to expect respectful commentary, considered and generous. That last word I use intentionally, as Orhan Ayyuce has used it often with regard to how much knowledge exists on Archinect, and howwillingpeopleare to give of their knowledge when asked. I think "generous" is a beautiful term for the type of criticism I would like to see more of here.
This isn't about not hurting people's feelings or giving the praise of a parent ("Good job, buddy!" about every damn thing). It's about elevating the discourse for all of us, so the entire discipline benefits from intelligent, and fair criticism - which would make praise more meaningful. Simply being called pretty, or not, isn't meaningful, as it takes no skill by either party; having your skills and efforts recognized and acknowledged along with helpful criticism that challenges you to improve even more: that is the level of conversation we all deserve.
This issue comes up this week as I have to embarrassingly admit to and retract some comments I made about Bjarke Ingals Group's REN Building. It's painful for me to read the criticism I lobbed at BIG, especially the use of the word "stupid". Stupid is a lazy word. Stupid shows an unwillingness to thoughtfully consider the work, just an unthinking drop of the first dismissive word that comes to mind. I must have been in a nasty frame of mind that day. In the interim 18 months, I saw their VM Housing apartment project (on their website, icon VM), which I like very much, and the Mountain Dwellings project, which I unreservedly adore. The Mountain Dwellings (website icon: MTN) project blows me away with its bizarre but totally resolved and humane subversion of program relationships.
In my defense, after the grumpy laziness of my initial commenting, when called to task by Jill from Inhabitat, I did put some effort into both commenting and actually looking at the project - I did say that it's graceful, which it is. It's a lovely form, with a whimsical application of circles as structure, and is even sufficiently resolved technically for a schematic proposal (BIG's ability to get the Mountain built inspires absolute confidence that the elevators and other technical issues in this building, should it come to reality, would be easily managed.). My biggest criticism at the time was about what I saw as a cynical marketing-driven overlay of feng shui iconography onto a project that had initially been proposed for a port city in Copenhagen. That's one way to spin it, to be sure. But after hearing about the project in the context of BIG's other work, I don't think it's cynical. The firm's work seems to revel in the fluidity of cultural iconography, and each of their projects is deeply concerned with how humans live. A more generous criticism would allow that people, designers or not, will read into buildings whatever most resonates with their personal geography anyway, and that loss of control of how people view and use our buildings is part of the reality of building anything in the world. Ed Bacon loved the fact that skateboarders appropriated Love Park - it was a mediocrity-loving (and liability-fearing) city government that "redesigned" Love Park to disallow skateboarding, thus destroying a cultural icon. The REN building is beautiful to look at. It may have complexities that can be criticized functionally, urbanistically, even politically, but as compared to other, excessive, contemporary towers, it is beautiful.
And what's more: putting together a proposal this big requires serious effort, economically, creatively, personally. Typing some words and hitting "submit" is really too easy. It's a gift to us armchair critics to be able to have access to such a bounty of building ideas on which to comment, even as we do our own work to the best of our ability, typically without recognition. I've actually heard from other architects about whose work I have spoken positively on Archinect that they appreciated the praise - it's a tough world out there, and being bold, trying something new, is a risk. Significant effort and initiative is best acknowledged, I'd say, by giving a generous, considered, respectful comment - even if it's a criticism.
Clay Shirky on Gothamist put forth an attitude toward criticism which I have always considered a touchstone (except on my grumpy days, when I forget, obviously.) The entire piece is worth reading, if you follow the link; it's fun. Specific to criticism, when asked what would he do to change New York?
Go to any party -- architects, fashion designers, mathematicians -- and you'll hear the same thing, and usually so subtle, so sophisticated: "Well, I enjoyed the piece, but I thought it was a little derivative", "The building is interesting on its own terms, but it isn't very well integrated with the neighborhood." Tiny sprinklings of corrosive doubt, offer by people gnawed by envy, and seized on by those made sick by over-exposure to quality.
So when my turn with the magic wand comes around, I'll use it to turn the snarkiness dial down, way down. Criticize, sure -- if something's bullshit, say so, and if you have an insight about how something might be better, sing it, and sing it loud...But when you feel yourself about to criticize something because you just can't stand how good it is (and you know you do this, we all do), at that moment, stop.
Stop, because it will turn you into the kind of small-minded champion of mediocrity we all came here to escape. Every day, you've got a choice -- am I gonna be one of the 45, or am I gonna be one of the 7 million. And being snarky about other people's good work ain't gonna help you with that.
I don't want to be too Pollyanna about this. As Shirky says, if something is bullshit, SAY SO (American presidential campaign strategies, anyone?). If someone is skating by on laziness, call them out and challenge them - positively - to make a better effort. And challenge yourself, in every critique, to be generous: reflect on what you're seeing in the bigger context of architectural discourse, identify the elements that are good, apply the logic of the good parts to the overall scheme to see where improvements can be made. Think about how much effort you would want a critic to put into a comment made to you.
Snarkiness is fun, yes, but can be like too much candy without a good meal - stomachaches all around. Being generous in speaking of another's work doesn't mean "heaping praise". It means delivering the critique from a place deeper than the insignificant nitpicking that comes so easily, deeper still from a place that harbors no envy, and even further down where the critique is offered in a genuine effort to improve the project, to the benefit of the discipline as a whole. Everyone wins.
Archinect Op-Ed 05 | A green lining to our financial crisis clouds
Beyond the Malthusian gloom and doom that pervades most of the discussion about climate change and the current economic outlook, I am optimistic about the unique opportunity we have to change our behavior to preserve the environment and our future. Our consumer culture needs to shift towards living off of nature’s income and not nature’s capital. Read the rest in the Op-Ed's new location in the features section
Over the past year, many offices in the profession have seen their projects shrink. Institutions are moving away from the all-at-once construction of a single new building. They are instead asking architects for ideas about phased, long-term master-planning - with an emphasis on step-by-step reuse, renovation, and optimization of existing space, structures, and resources.... Read the rest here
In the last few years, architecture programs have started offering more courses that address current problems. I’m referring specifically to sustainability classes and social housing studios. This may be partly because of a general move in education to accommodate a growing market and student demand for green practice. Although this is great news, and there is still work to be done, I’d like to take this opportunity to issue some warnings on the subject. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 08: The Public Image(s) of Architecture
Architecture and politics have a long and sordid relationship. It has been said that all architecture is political. Typically architecture serves a subservient role in this relationship by merely representing the politics of the building’s patron—what Deyan Sudjic has described as the Edifice Complex. Nevertheless, at times throughout history architects themselves take on a political agenda and use their projects as rhetorical devices for the elucidation of these views. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 9: Global Systems vs. Local Platforms
We are in the midst of radical social and economic change brought on by the emergence of a global system that is completely and utterly uncontrollable -- it is too big, too fast, and too complex to control. Unfortunately, the lack of a global control system means that we face a long series of increasingly severe shocks. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 10: Big Bangs, Slums, and Suburbia
This is not a scientific statement by any means, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that every universe pretty much gets just one big bang. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 10: The Acropolis Museum; An Unhappy Fit
Last June, after three decades of competitions and debate, the Acropolis Museum in Athens opened to the public. It was designed by internationally re-known architect Bernard Tschumi, and it houses nearly 4000 ancient Greek artifacts, including the great stones of the parthenon's frieze. I first visited the Acropolis 15 years ago as an undergraduate student of architecture. Last month I had the opportunity to visit the site again, now with the eyes of an experienced architect. Read the rest here
Jul 31, 09 1:13 pm ·
·
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.
OP-ED Archive
This will be a place to collate all Archinect New section OP-EDs in one place..
Also if any one wants to discuss, comment or suggest ideas etc please use this as the forum to do so...
Op-Ed 01 | Architechnophilia
Architecture is basking under the lights of the chimerical town of NY-LON. In New York, MoMA has taken on the task of exhibiting the re-birth of pre-fabricated construction with their show Home Delivery – Fabricating the Modern Dwelling meant to be both a historic survey of pre-fab and a life size playground of houses by a new set of pre-fab pioneers. Across the pond in good old blighty, London has just completed hosting the Festival of Architecture with its myriad of themes, events and boat tours.
Optimistically, the central theme at both locations has been the environment - not just a tabula rasa to build from but as a living breathing investment we must take care with. This seems timely with California’s adoption of a state wide Green Building Code aiming among other things to reduce water and energy use in all new construction. The foundation for this will be the standards set by LEED as a minimal objective for state buildings. Additionally China in line with the Beijing Olympics is taking drastic steps to improve their air quality and their environmental reputation.
I believe as architects we have perhaps the biggest opportunity, besides the policy makers, to the limit and potentially reverse the detrimental environmental effects. First as individuals reducing our personal impact, and importantly as professionalswho must be steadfast in our ethical commitment to adopt greener principles in the way we practice.
So in this the first guest opinion editorial, I reach out to the members of archinect – practicing architect, student, planner, et al – to green your practice.
Op-Ed 02 | Quilian Riano
Pre-FAB 2.0: The Promise Not (Yet) Achieved
While walking around during the opening of the latest architecturally-themed MoMA show, Home Delivery,I was awed by how fresh and daring work that is over forty years old still feels today. The work that most stood out to me was done in the 1960s and 1970s when pre-fab moved out of the unit-to-be-built-anywhere mode to the design of systems that create holistic urban environments. These projects include Richard J. Dietrich and Bernd Steigerwald's Metastadt-Bausystem, Archigram's Plug-In City, and Paul Rudolph's Oriental Masonic Gardens. These were projects that sought to radically change the role of the designer from the sole production of objects to the careful manipulation of many already-mades (the humble mobile home in Paul Rudolph's example) to create new social and political spaces.
As architectural designers we know that pre-fab is technically possible and linkinstinctually we feel that in a world of growing populations and diminishing resources pre-fab makes sense. The problem is that many of these urban projects of the 60s and 70s never came to fruition and in more contemporary work (from the 1990s on) seen in the MoMA exhibit, architects are reverting to the pre-60s struggle to technically and aesthetically improve the pre-fab unit, rather than designing the most inhabitable pre-fab city (and all the architectural, infrastructural, and landscape elements necessary to create it). However, a closer look at the exhibit reveals that since the industrial revolution, much of the technical work in pre-fab units coming from the best and brightest in the design field has inadvertently been used to facilitate the sprawling growth of suburbs. Much of this work leads to technologies that allow for faster and cheaper construction, and often the technologies are picked up by a commercial world that is always hungry for expediency, while the lofty ideals behind the technologies are seldom noted.
Yet one cannot shake the feeling that within the almost 200 years worth of work exhibited at the MoMA there is an unachieved promise -- that of a new, inexpensive, socially responsible, and environmentally adequate way of living. In a world where people are asking for increased interactivity with everything from music to politics, designers must lead with new pre-fab thinking that goes well beyond the design of the individual pre-fab house to cause a holistic shift in the way we live.
More on Pre-fab In Archinect:
PreFabapalooza
shipping containers as housing
prefab
emergency housing
i found part i and part ii of the exhibit to be very different in their approach to prefabrication...part i was more inspiring in regards to the potential of prefab...part ii felt like refugee/temporary housing.
Op-Ed 03 | Urban Regeneration: the Promise of Past and Future Olympic Games
Much has been written in recent months about the Beijing Olympics which have just concluded. From the new iconographic stadia; the Bird's Nest, Watercube et al., to the massive redevelopment schemes and beautification projects undertaken to make Beijing a fitting host for the international spectacle that is the Olympic Games, the world has watched in awe at Beijing's ability to construct and institute urban change with astonishing speed. Of course it has been noted that this is largely due to the totalitarian/authoritarian nature of Chinese government. However, what has been left out of such discussions is a recognition that massive redevelopment by government fiat is not only a characteristic of the Beijing Olympics. In fact, over the last few decades the hosting of the Olympic Games has increasingly come to be seen as the perfect tool with which a host city can push through and garner "public" and institutional/financial support for massive urban redevelopment plans.
Perhaps the best known example of this is the 1992 Barcelona Games. A key element of Barcelona's bid was their plan to use the Games as the driver for major redevelopment of the urban docklands and in doing so to re-establish a connection between the city and it's oceanfront. Following Barcelona's example, cities like Sydney, Salt Lake City and Athens have all taken advantage of the ""Regneration Games"" to push through massive infrastructural development. It has also become clear however, that a key issue for any host city post-Olympics revolves around the twin issues of a legacy and sustainability. To often huge sums are spent on developing and then maintaining the Olympic Parks with little long term benefit to the city. This helps to explain why Sydney touted it's desire to be the "first green Games". In fact they have used the Sydney Olympic Park as a foundation for a new master planned "sustainable" suburb on the site of a former industrial park at Homebush Bay.
The website for the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics has a prominent section on their front page which lists all the various ways in which their Games will manage the "social, economic and environmental impacts as well produce lasting benefits, locally and globally." Yet, already news agencies and watchdog groups have decried the games early effects on Vancouver's homeless population and their negative environmental impact (here and here). Meanwhile London's Game's have also drawn criticism of their large scale urban regeneration plans for the Lower Lea Valley and Thames Gateway. Critics contend that costs continue to soar and the original plans for the iconographic stadia have undergone significant revision. Moreover, they charge that there is no real public consultation or democratic transparency in the planning process wherein the Olympic Delivery Authority is both developer and planning body (George Monbiot). Indeed the Olympics are portrayed as nothing more that another neoliberal regeneration scheme which ultimately serves no other purpose than to legitimize the removal and relocation of the poor as part of a government sponsored corporate land grab (here and here).
If even some of the criticism of these "Regeneration Games" proves true what is the solution to creating a more equitable Games? Well, within the context of the London Games a number of London specific as well as more general solutions have been proposed. David Mackay architect for Barcelona's Olympic Village and Port and co-author of the pre-Olympic masterplan for the Lower Lea Valley has pointed out that a key injustice in the London redevelopment plan is the planned removal of hectares of productive agricultural land currently used by Londoners in the form allotments. If London truly wants the Games to be sustainable they should adjust the master plan to promote the continued use of these lands for urban agriculture. Such a move could help to reduce the food miles of the meals served at the London Olympics, would provide economic opportunities for local residents as well as ensure the protection of vital open, productive green space in the heart of urban London (Feeding the Olympics). HOK Sport and Peter Cook designers of the London 2012 Olympic Stadium have emphasized the "sustainable" elements of the stadium in their proposal. Their design seeks to minimize the quantity of material resulting in a lean, compact and lightweight stadium. The goal being to reduce the amount of materials and the associated embodied energy used in the construction. They have also designed the stadium in two pieces so that the top 55,000 seats can later be dismantled and used at another sporting venue within the UK (See here). Arup Associates have actually taken the concept one step further. Later this year they will officially unveil their new Olympic Stadium concept. Recognizing that with their focus on urban regeneration and iconographic stadia, the Olympics have become too costly for non-developed countries to stage, they have designed a fully transportable stadium that would be owned by the IOC. Rather than having to invest hundreds of millions a country in Africa or South America could rent the stadia from the IOC. All the host country would have to do is invest in the necessary infrastructure. They argue it is not the actual buildings but the reclaimed land, infrastructure investment and Olympic Park which are the necessary urban catalysts. If they had their way the Olympics will become, "the world-touring Olympics, the caravanserai Olympics, the Olympics that pitch up and have a party on Mombasa beach or the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Imagine fully demountable stadiums, and a 50m Olympic swimming pool pulled around the world by supertankers. The relocatable Olympics would regenerate a region and put it under the world spotlight, energize the local economy, and demonstrate that governments need neither state communism nor rampant capitalism to join the Olympic party." Arup Associates gets ahead of the game on the Olympic stadium of the future
Urban generation has longed been charged with the sin of gentrification, of being too authoritarian and of not equitably distributing the benefits of a region or neighborhood's new success. The Olympics are especially open to such criticism because they are such short term events and too often after the Games have moved on the regeneration plan has not. Olympic committees are becoming more aware of these concerns hence the new focus on sustainability and legacy. Hopefully, the continued focus of media and watchdog groups on such problems will encourage the development of new design initiatives and processes which reduce cost, improve transparency and create a greater role for the local within the happenings of the global.
Op-Ed 04 |Generous Criticism: Don't Be Lazy
I recall reading an interview with a singer/guitarist in the grunge era, a small local band, who said after a performance he was typically surrounded by people telling him it was a great show, but inevitably one person would say something flippantly negative, and sadly that was the only comment he could ever remember as he laid awake at night.
Architecture comes with criticism intact. One cannot put their work out into the world without expecting to be criticized. But we should, as a community of professionals, be able to expect respectful commentary, considered and generous. That last word I use intentionally, as Orhan Ayyuce has used it often with regard to how much knowledge exists on Archinect, and how willing people are to give of their knowledge when asked. I think "generous" is a beautiful term for the type of criticism I would like to see more of here.
This isn't about not hurting people's feelings or giving the praise of a parent ("Good job, buddy!" about every damn thing). It's about elevating the discourse for all of us, so the entire discipline benefits from intelligent, and fair criticism - which would make praise more meaningful. Simply being called pretty, or not, isn't meaningful, as it takes no skill by either party; having your skills and efforts recognized and acknowledged along with helpful criticism that challenges you to improve even more: that is the level of conversation we all deserve.
This issue comes up this week as I have to embarrassingly admit to and retract some comments I made about Bjarke Ingals Group's REN Building. It's painful for me to read the criticism I lobbed at BIG, especially the use of the word "stupid". Stupid is a lazy word. Stupid shows an unwillingness to thoughtfully consider the work, just an unthinking drop of the first dismissive word that comes to mind. I must have been in a nasty frame of mind that day. In the interim 18 months, I saw their VM Housing apartment project (on their website, icon VM), which I like very much, and the Mountain Dwellings project, which I unreservedly adore. The Mountain Dwellings (website icon: MTN) project blows me away with its bizarre but totally resolved and humane subversion of program relationships.
In my defense, after the grumpy laziness of my initial commenting, when called to task by Jill from Inhabitat, I did put some effort into both commenting and actually looking at the project - I did say that it's graceful, which it is. It's a lovely form, with a whimsical application of circles as structure, and is even sufficiently resolved technically for a schematic proposal (BIG's ability to get the Mountain built inspires absolute confidence that the elevators and other technical issues in this building, should it come to reality, would be easily managed.). My biggest criticism at the time was about what I saw as a cynical marketing-driven overlay of feng shui iconography onto a project that had initially been proposed for a port city in Copenhagen. That's one way to spin it, to be sure. But after hearing about the project in the context of BIG's other work, I don't think it's cynical. The firm's work seems to revel in the fluidity of cultural iconography, and each of their projects is deeply concerned with how humans live. A more generous criticism would allow that people, designers or not, will read into buildings whatever most resonates with their personal geography anyway, and that loss of control of how people view and use our buildings is part of the reality of building anything in the world. Ed Bacon loved the fact that skateboarders appropriated Love Park - it was a mediocrity-loving (and liability-fearing) city government that "redesigned" Love Park to disallow skateboarding, thus destroying a cultural icon. The REN building is beautiful to look at. It may have complexities that can be criticized functionally, urbanistically, even politically, but as compared to other, excessive, contemporary towers, it is beautiful.
And what's more: putting together a proposal this big requires serious effort, economically, creatively, personally. Typing some words and hitting "submit" is really too easy. It's a gift to us armchair critics to be able to have access to such a bounty of building ideas on which to comment, even as we do our own work to the best of our ability, typically without recognition. I've actually heard from other architects about whose work I have spoken positively on Archinect that they appreciated the praise - it's a tough world out there, and being bold, trying something new, is a risk. Significant effort and initiative is best acknowledged, I'd say, by giving a generous, considered, respectful comment - even if it's a criticism.
Clay Shirky on Gothamist put forth an attitude toward criticism which I have always considered a touchstone (except on my grumpy days, when I forget, obviously.) The entire piece is worth reading, if you follow the link; it's fun. Specific to criticism, when asked what would he do to change New York?
Go to any party -- architects, fashion designers, mathematicians -- and you'll hear the same thing, and usually so subtle, so sophisticated: "Well, I enjoyed the piece, but I thought it was a little derivative", "The building is interesting on its own terms, but it isn't very well integrated with the neighborhood." Tiny sprinklings of corrosive doubt, offer by people gnawed by envy, and seized on by those made sick by over-exposure to quality.
So when my turn with the magic wand comes around, I'll use it to turn the snarkiness dial down, way down. Criticize, sure -- if something's bullshit, say so, and if you have an insight about how something might be better, sing it, and sing it loud...But when you feel yourself about to criticize something because you just can't stand how good it is (and you know you do this, we all do), at that moment, stop.
Stop, because it will turn you into the kind of small-minded champion of mediocrity we all came here to escape. Every day, you've got a choice -- am I gonna be one of the 45, or am I gonna be one of the 7 million. And being snarky about other people's good work ain't gonna help you with that.
I don't want to be too Pollyanna about this. As Shirky says, if something is bullshit, SAY SO (American presidential campaign strategies, anyone?). If someone is skating by on laziness, call them out and challenge them - positively - to make a better effort. And challenge yourself, in every critique, to be generous: reflect on what you're seeing in the bigger context of architectural discourse, identify the elements that are good, apply the logic of the good parts to the overall scheme to see where improvements can be made. Think about how much effort you would want a critic to put into a comment made to you.
Snarkiness is fun, yes, but can be like too much candy without a good meal - stomachaches all around. Being generous in speaking of another's work doesn't mean "heaping praise". It means delivering the critique from a place deeper than the insignificant nitpicking that comes so easily, deeper still from a place that harbors no envy, and even further down where the critique is offered in a genuine effort to improve the project, to the benefit of the discipline as a whole. Everyone wins.
Brought to you by Liberty Bell
how should someone feel after visiting a museum?
Archinect Op-Ed 05 | A green lining to our financial crisis clouds
Beyond the Malthusian gloom and doom that pervades most of the discussion about climate change and the current economic outlook, I am optimistic about the unique opportunity we have to change our behavior to preserve the environment and our future. Our consumer culture needs to shift towards living off of nature’s income and not nature’s capital.
Read the rest in the Op-Ed's new location in the features section
Archinect Op-Ed 06: Let's Get Small
Over the past year, many offices in the profession have seen their projects shrink. Institutions are moving away from the all-at-once construction of a single new building. They are instead asking architects for ideas about phased, long-term master-planning - with an emphasis on step-by-step reuse, renovation, and optimization of existing space, structures, and resources....
Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 07: The Academy Transformed?
In the last few years, architecture programs have started offering more courses that address current problems. I’m referring specifically to sustainability classes and social housing studios. This may be partly because of a general move in education to accommodate a growing market and student demand for green practice. Although this is great news, and there is still work to be done, I’d like to take this opportunity to issue some warnings on the subject. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 08: The Public Image(s) of Architecture
Architecture and politics have a long and sordid relationship. It has been said that all architecture is political. Typically architecture serves a subservient role in this relationship by merely representing the politics of the building’s patron—what Deyan Sudjic has described as the Edifice Complex. Nevertheless, at times throughout history architects themselves take on a political agenda and use their projects as rhetorical devices for the elucidation of these views. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 9: Global Systems vs. Local Platforms
We are in the midst of radical social and economic change brought on by the emergence of a global system that is completely and utterly uncontrollable -- it is too big, too fast, and too complex to control. Unfortunately, the lack of a global control system means that we face a long series of increasingly severe shocks. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 10: Big Bangs, Slums, and Suburbia
This is not a scientific statement by any means, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that every universe pretty much gets just one big bang. Read the rest here
Archinect Op-Ed 10: The Acropolis Museum; An Unhappy Fit
Last June, after three decades of competitions and debate, the Acropolis Museum in Athens opened to the public. It was designed by internationally re-known architect Bernard Tschumi, and it houses nearly 4000 ancient Greek artifacts, including the great stones of the parthenon's frieze. I first visited the Acropolis 15 years ago as an undergraduate student of architecture. Last month I had the opportunity to visit the site again, now with the eyes of an experienced architect. Read the rest here
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.