Clemson University has backed off its plans to build a modern architecture center at Meeting and George streets - a project applauded at first but later bitterly fought by two neighborhoods and preservation groups.
Clemson announced its decision to change course on its $10 million Spaulding Paolozzi Center in the wake of a recent lawsuit filed challenging how the city's Board of Architectural Review handled its approval.
— postandcourier.com
97 Comments
i think there is a lot of competition between styles and materials in the area. This is on the corner of meeting and george, so these street view shots should be pretty close the proposed site, right?
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7859091,-79.9337536,3a,83.2y,232.09h,90.78t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shwwAwls_DlBRBu4M5zGKgQ!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7842593,-79.9351085,3a,75y,86.51h,97.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s26jIqoOcDmoiKTQ3EZL5lw!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7866056,-79.9342483,3a,28y,197.73h,88.54t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sNsWFIn2DcEkXZz6NhtDXWg!2e0!3e5
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.786174,-79.935522,3a,61.8y,205.07h,96.01t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1suZN72byO2YdX0Vs3IGPZ8A!2e0!3e5
i understand some people have to throw a bit of a tantrum whenever someone designs something, but this really should illustrate that the suggestion that this design is bad because it doesn't fit in with it's surroundings is ridiculous. the surroundings don't fit in with the surroundings. they apparently jumped that shark a looooong time ago.
"An architect who specifies brick veneer, styrofoam cornices or other materials intended to disguise the true age of a building (but are the result of thoroughly contemporary engineering) is not working in a "long standing" tradition different from the one that the rest of us are part of. The only tradition you are maintaining is a roughly 50 year old tradition of postmodernism."
This is only true if you buy into the modernist notion that the meaning of our buildings is primarily derived from the technology used to build them. I don't ascribe to that. Nor do I have any interest in disguising the true age of any building I design, although that may be an unintended result.
By the way, the foam cornices, that so many love to point and giggle at, are specified by modernist-trained architects who who have never learned to do it well. They are either people who are genuinely trying to connect with traditions, but don't know how. Or they are modernists who don't really care about what they are doing, but need the money. Either way, they are a product of an education system that has never taught them how to approach traditional architecture in a thoughtful way.
Do modernists know what the function of a cornice is or are they too busy thinking about what this all means in the grand arc of architectrual history? Different priorities, different outcomes.
No you DON'T give them foam cornices, you walk away. Not that that would be a question with the people of Charleston in the first place who have a fierce pride in their beautiful city and would never want plastic crap in the first place. Which puts the people of Charleston waaaay ahead of many architects, as they have been for generations. As for the Aspen Art Museum, what can you say - no relation to the history or site or nearby buildings at all. There is a Colorado stone yard nearby that offers 300 different kinds of stone and the museum architect specifies concrete floors and plastic weave walls?
It would be interesting to know the proposed cost of Allied Works building versus say, something from Robert Stern or Hans Kollhoff. I'm wondering if the use of fisher price cornices and similar schlock is mandatory at this price point.
I wonder how this affects Clemson's goals for the future. Does the conservatism of Charleston keep people from applying to teaching positions?
fwiw, i love disney. Low culture knock offs are pretty much always OK with me. Im country enough to go all in for that sort of thing. Ditto for Universal Studios. But when Freiburg feels like the world of Harry Potter, and not the other way around, then it is time to start rethinking what is going on. Our cities are sick.
Ive been to a lot of them. Some have real problems, like ulanbator in Mongolia or any number of cities in China, where the challenges are still about survival not style. The European classical cities dont have that problem, which is great. What is worrying is how much control is exerted to maintain the right kind of flavor, and what great positive futures are being denied out of fear or dogma. That POV kills cities, slowly and surely. Paris is brilliant. So is Venice. But when I visit either place I do miss the sense of freedom and liveliness that a living city has. London is like that. Its very much a city of our time and its a pleasure to live there, even if it is allowed to be a bit grungier than Venice. Its for humanity not posterity. Thats important.
Tokyo is a bloody mess, but its real. Its as democratic as you can fucking get. NOBODY gets a say about what gets built (no significant reviews here, just building code), so the vibe is simply what the people put up collectively. OK its more libertarian than democratic. But the people sure do speak. Its a hot mess. And its brilliant because it works. Even the Disney-fied areas are cool because they cant compete with the scale of the city as a whole. Maybe its part of the reason 33 million people are comfortable living so close to one another.
This is nothing to do with Charleston directly, just a commentary on the value of architecture as part of an urban fabric. From what I have seen when urbanism is turned into a museum its bad enough. When it becomes a massive convention centre, like Venice, its really time to think twice. We SHOULD think twice. Instead there is dogma, which is a bloody useless tool.
Here we are talking about something else. If Charleston were as good as Disney it would be awesome, but if we look at what is actually built, nobody obviously gives that much of a damn. At least in Venice I can see what they are fighting for and sort of support it. The aim for quality is clear. Here it is not and the fight feels fake. What is this even about?
Like the poster above I am really curious to see if they will now build a quality classical building, or if this is really a race towards the lowest common denominator because that is the least offensive...in which case, wtf?
There was a counter-proposal released by the firm Bevan and Liberatos http://bevanandliberatos.com.
From their website:
"We believe in the importance of good manners and that etiquette extends into the design world. We believe most buildings should fit in when necessary, that some should stand when appropriate, and that both kinds should be well-proportioned and beautifully detailed.
We believe that bad design is harmful to the human spirit. Dissonant proportions enter the body through the eyes and cause subconscious irritation and dis-ease just as dissonant sound can. Every effort should be made to ensure that the proportions of a design are in harmony; good proportions cost no more than bad ones."
Notice they took it upon themselves to rename the school. Bless their Hearts.
^ Curtram:
Lay people aren't out there advocating for shitty buildings. It's corporations doing the bare minimum who put up the really tacky stuff - bank branches and drug stores come to mind. Most folks are willing to listen to our ideas, and usually get behind them. Don't be a snob, it's unbecoming.
And - as I said before, the Clemson building wasn't scrapped because of the heavy hand of some overreaching HPC, the plan was opposed by residents. Sometimes we can't blame the gubmint.
RE Bevan & Liberatos, gotta love that contemporary mishmash of traditional styles.
From their web page: "Contemporary Traditional Design". LOL
Clemson has three satellite architectural programs one in Barcelona, Spain, one in Genova, Italy, and one in Charleston. The school also offers a Masters in Historical Restoration and degrees in landscape architecture. Several of these disciplines will use the new Charleston building in place of their current once it can be agreed on.
Charleston and its nearby neighbor, Savannah, Georgia, are highly sought after locations by intelligent, well-educated, and well-travelled people looking for a human-scaled place to live and work. Modern architects decry suburbs; these are not suburbs. Modern architects decry cookie cutter homes; these are not cookie cutter. Modern architects want walkable neighborhoods; these are walkable neighborhoods.
Needless to say if you destroy these neighborhoods by turning Gehry or Singeru Ban loose you will have destroyed the entire fabric of these communities. Isn't it enough of a clue that the majority of the people impacted by the MIT center or the Aspen Art Museum intensely dislike them? Who are we designing the building for if not the users and why do we so often insult their intelligence?
Miles - what do you find amusing about "contemporary traditional design"?
It'a an oxymoron, like pretty ugly or jumbo shrimp.
Will,
There's concept and craft. Conceptually, do we learn from the past and can we appropriate items, whether they be from constructivism, Corbusier, classicism or who knows, but do we infact as a culture carry on forms from our past? Yes.
In terms of craft, are there better and worst techniques and materials with which to build our creations, be they car dealerships, restaurants, or summer homes? Yes.
Based on those two ideas, why can't we agree on the quality of certain work? Dogma.
Percentage wise, if you look at all the build environment in the US, historic districts might account for less than 1% of built land while the rest is a mix if not mostly post war suburban sprawl. The office parks might be corporate modernism while the residential and shopping districts might be a cartoon of historicism. Obviously, there have been great buildings built in a variety of styles, but I don't think it's a mystery why historic districts came into their own after WW2 when before they hardly existed. That's becasue despite our love of the new and improved, the public became accutlely aware that new work was now somehow different in quality to older work. Technologies certainly mproved, but design wise, the whole machine aesthetic has never taken hold the way early modernists had hoped for. Some might chalk it up to nostalgia or even a sickness, but assuming most people are a like, progress wasn't always seen to be better, as had been the case.
So when one of these few historic districts resists the kind of building that (they feel) rejects it's surroundings, why is this such a problem? When they build this kind of building off a highway with no context what so ever, no one cares, even traditionalists. These landscapes are considered throwaway places that aren't intended for habitation the way we have thought about habitat for thousands of years, that is walking around and finding people of our community. But when this happens in the less than 1% of places, modernists say our cities are "sick". Especially strange when you consider that cities are a series of districts, or at least "healthy" cities are seen as a collection of villages, which might vary greatly in character.
I've been to a lot of cities also, and I know what you mean about disney cities. I spent a year in Florence getting a masters and there where times I'd have given anything to see an ugly parking garage. But that was a feeling more than a real desire. All these places that have been saved would be gone forever if the modernists where indeed allowed to erase history as was their intention. You feel Paris is not a living city, I might disagree, but London is many cities and indeed the restrictions you decry exist in many of its districts. As to why 33 million people are comfortable living so close to one another, I guess the same could have been said of the Lower East Side in NYC, 100 years ago. Necessity.
Should we think twice becasue Venice is a tourist town? If you had such a massive employment center in the area, would you be so quick to tear it down just for the sake of what you see as messy vitality? My guess is if they let Venice's character slowly be degraded by architects unable to design sympathetically, then it truly be a dead city, becasue there would be no reason to go there. All the industry is inland now. So things aren't as simple as you suggest with ideas about nostalgia which, I've found to my surprise, even modernists are known to poses. Ah, the radicalism of my youth!
Somehow what happens in Charleston, Beacon Hill is different than in Venice? BTW, Charleston is infinately better than Disney, but then again I'm clutching my pearls right now! Who knows what they'll build now. If it's a traditional building, I hope it's done by someone without the cynicism so prevelant on this site rather than by some postmodernist still battling the deamons of historicism. Some places are valued more than others, and to do so isn't a sickness. It's called affection, and if you allowed yourself to feel it and understand it in others, you wouldn't be having this false debates about how disney or not someplace is or how high or low brow people are. Somehow I thought being modern was to be free of these artificial boundries.
It's not an oxymoron at all. Contemporary in this case means the dictionary definition, "occurring in the present day". Architecture built now, designed to be in alignment with the continuum of a tradition, is contemporary traditional architecture, as opposed to historical traditional architecture.
Pluralism
Every oxymoron is pluralistic.
Thayer,
The problem is with affectation, not affection.
Historic Districts are not only preserving a collection of authentic historic buildings. They are going beyond that to impose unreasonable restrictions on new construction. You do not see the reverse. You do not see the rest of us (or modernists, if you prefer) forcing "contemporary traditionalist" firms to design buildings with more glass, steel, roof gardens, solar panels etc.
Why is that? Because architectural traditionalists, like social traditionalists with their etiquette, are extremely concerned with appearances and formality. And any architectural charade, like any deceit, is under constant threat of being revealed. A cell tower, a satellite dish, a glass wall etc could spoil the illusion.
EKE and Miles,
Oxymorons have the appearance of contradiction but still make sense. In the phrase "contemporary traditionalist" I detect at least some acknowledgment of a historical dissonance. They're not just "contemporary" (like everyone living now), They are contemporary BUT they choose to deny it.
EKE, what your image calls "true pluralism", I would call segregation.
Also, it arbitrarily decides that pluralism happens at the scale of a city and not at the scale of a building. Go back and read how Venturi describes pluralism in Complexity and Contradiction.
In the case of Charleston, there is a preservation zoning ordinance (the first in the country) addressing construction in the historic styles:
"In order to promote the economic and general welfare of the city and of the public generally, and to insure the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and development of the municipality, it is deemed essential by the city council of the city that the qualities relating to the history of the city and a harmonious outward appearance of structures which preserve property values and attract tourist and residents alike be preserved; some of these qualities being the continued existence and preservation of historic areas and structures; continued construction of structures in the historic styles . . . ." (Emphasis added.)
Classical architects have to be contemporary because of the building codes. It doesn't mean they don't use traditional materials at every opportunity.
"They're not just "contemporary" (like everyone living now), They are contemporary BUT they choose to deny it."
This is nonsense. I deny nothing. Modernism is not only valid form of architectural expression. I don't design period buildings. That kind of nostalgia couldn't be further from my mind. I'm interested in designing contemporary buildings, carefully fine-tuned to the way people live today, and doing that within the context of long standing traditions.
Cooking is a good analogy. If I make a seafood jambalaya, I am creating a dish today, for my guests, for their enjoyment NOW. But that dish is part of a long-standing, beloved regional tradition of creole cuisine. I'm not creating a museum exhibit. Nobody would accuse me of creating Disneyland, faux-period food. Nobody would accuse me of creating a false pastiche of cuisine, with no real relevance to today. I'm simply creating something within a great tradition, and my guests can enjoy it in a full sense, right now. I may add my own twist to it. I may embellish it, add unique ingredients, make it have special appeal to someone who enjoys a particular flavor or color. But it's still in the tradition, and continuum that has existed since the 18th century.
Cooking would be very confusing and dreary if the only approved way to create serious food is to invent a new dish, from scratch, each time I create a meal.
EKE, everyone operates within context. Allied Works went to great lengths to connect with and relate to context. What they did not do is produce a "period" building. They didn't give in to the delusions of people in the community.
Architects who try to conceal or obscure the true age of their work are intentionally denying the reality of time and history. There is no context, except for maybe a theme park or a stage set, where that is appropriate. It is one thing to make reference to history to create a particular symbolism through the juxtaposition of elements as many of the first postmodernists did. Its quite another thing to try and match the style of historical buildings and pretend like you are somehow continuing that period's tradition.
Architecture is not cooking. Its an inappropriate analogy. The fact that you need to use analogies like that should tell you something. Stick to Architecture.
Of course architecture is not cooking, but it's a perfectly appropriate analogy. Architecture is in fact very much like cooking, in the sense that it is an art form that is a part of culture, one that has long standing traditions. One that is often regional in character, one that has traditional and avant-garde approaches, etc. Think a bit out of your self-referential box.
davvid,
Traditional architects aren't the ones who've passed these preservation ordinances, it's the local populations. Infact, I've been told to make my additions more modern to distinguish them better from the originals, allthough that dosen't seem to be the case here.
And if it where only traditionalists concerned with appearances and formality, why do so many modernists insist on glass and steel? I've designed modernists stuff around Modernism and traditional stuff in historic districts, it really more about context.
Speaking about architectural charades and deciet (sounds so illicit!), they exist everywhere, should one view the world that way. From stone clad Roman concrete to plastered brickwork of Rennaisance palaces made to resemble stone work. Or from SOHO cast iron warehouses made to look like stone to LeCorbusier's plastered masonry, to say nothing about the hidden structure in many a modernist formalism, materials are used as an artist might, for the sake of effect. What does the brick want to be? I don't know, but I know what I'd like the brick to be!
So the problem isn't with affectation unless you buy into the insane rules of some 100 year old modernist masters. The problem is when you deny history, you've denied yourself the very tool to see things with your own eyes rather than what some half wit meglomaniac would like you to see. And that's why it's non-architects who decide on historic districts, unlike your previous assertion. Becasue they haven't been brainwashed.
"Architects who try to conceal or obscure the true age of their work are intentionally denying the reality of time and history."
It sounds like you have no conception or familiarity with the history of architecture or for that matter human nature. Better not catch you in any period attire, das ist verbotten!!!
Architecture is not cooking. Its an inappropriate analogy. The fact that you need to use analogies like that should tell you something. Stick to Architecture.
davvid - Please explain how the analogy is inappropriate. It seems spot-on for me.
Cooking happens in the privacy of your home or restaurant. Its relatively inexpensive and doesn't occupy much space and its gone within hours. The stakes are extremely low. It doesn't shape our cities and public spaces. The only community connection might have to do food availability, food safety, food allergies, protected species of animals etc.
I'm in the appropriate box. I'm talking Architecture, you're talking cooking.
The international globalist architecture that is so pervasive these days is no more "foreign" to SC than the "classical" architecture was when it was imported onto the American colonial landscape. There is nothing inherently more appropriate about any style. To me, regionalism means respecting scale, local materials, local craftsman, local climate, and local social dynamics....This is really about undermining "southern charm" (which to some means being sprayed with fire hoses and bitten by german shepards.)
The classical architecture that was imported into Charleston was been heavily modified over the years and decades to fit the locale and climate of the region, not to mention the associated landscape architecture as well. They have merged into a single entity that is uniquely Charleston. The internationalist style is certainly "foreign" to the architecture that has developed in the Charleston and that is so agreeable to its residents.
Davvid said: "Cooking happens in the privacy of your home or restaurant. Its relatively inexpensive and doesn't occupy much space and its gone within hours. The stakes are extremely low. It doesn't shape our cities and public spaces. The only community connection might have to do food availability, food safety, food allergies, protected species of animals etc."
------------------------------
Actually, cooking is among the most public and social of human endeavors. And think about this: if, even in an arena like cuisine, where, as you say, it's relatively inexpensive, is transient, and the stakes are low, people still consider alignment with regional traditions to be desirable, why wouldn't they feel the same about architecture, or even more so, where the stakes are so much higher?
Of course, you completely ignored the most important community connection of all - the cultural connection of an important and beloved regional culinary tradition.
Can we please stop with the "architecture of oppression" stuff?
Let's also acknowledge the sneering denigration of the American South underpinning some of the posts in this thread.
EKE, I think you have a much narrower definition of context than I have. I think architecture should absorb and reflect as much as possible about the circumstances in which it will be situated. If you take cooking as your analogy. I'll take documentary film as mine. Like a doc film, everything about the situation is potentially relevant and nothing gets swept under the rug until the editing process begins. Lingering racism and power structures in the south could and should be folded into the design process, for example. The global nature of the Clemson community should be considered, for example. Local building and craft traditions should be pulled into the process, for example. I think it's obvious that style itself needs to be addressed.
I agree that you do have a broader definition of context than I do - and I don't think that's a good thing. I think that your definition is so broad as be be almost meaningless, or if it has meaning, its become so abstract as to be unreadable by the average person.
Out of curiosity, how might one fold "lingering racism and power structures in the south" and the "global nature of the Clemson community" into the design process?
But I am an average person.
You are an architect.
:)
Matt, Im not exactly sure. One possibility is looking into the ways that class is coded into architecture and style. Another possibility is looking into craft and building traditions in the area. I remember the women selling their baskets at the market in Charleston. I wonder if there are any craft traditions like that that could be used to create part of the building. Just a thought off the top of my head.
EKE, architects are people too.
That would be an awesome bumper sticker. :)
architects design buildings. cooks make food.
one of the primary differences lies in the materials each discipline uses, and the methods of assembling those materials. now sure, a cook can add heat to an egg to make a fried egg just as an architect can design a steel connection where heat is added to make a weld, but more than likely the egg will taste better than the steel, and the steel will be able to support a structure better than an egg.
perhaps if you focused more on the materials and methods available to an architect working in the world today, you would become a modernist?
if you consider architects different than people, is that because we're better than people or below people? I'm curious because i was the called a snob, but it sounds like maybe 'traditionalists' could be far more snobby.
Kudos to Clemson for recognizing public dislike of the plan and moving on. Too bad it took a lawsuit to get them to that point.
Trump would have lawyers fighting tooth and nail to defend his economic interests as property rights.
"architects design buildings. cooks make food."
Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, I was making an analogy.
"one of the primary differences lies in the materials each discipline uses, and the methods of assembling those materials. now sure, a cook can add heat to an egg to make a fried egg just as an architect can design a steel connection where heat is added to make a weld, but more than likely the egg will taste better than the steel, and the steel will be able to support a structure better than an egg."
I have no idea what your point is here, other than pointing out that buildings can be made of steel, and food can be made with eggs, and eggs and steel are different things. Is that supposed to invalidate my analogy?
"perhaps if you focused more on the materials and methods available to an architect working in the world today, you would become a modernist?"
That's only valid if you believe that building technology should be the primary determinator of aesthetics. I don't. Anyway, all of the primary building materials used to build the historic houses in Charleston are available to contemporary architects.
"if you consider architects different than people, is that because we're better than people or below people?"
I didn't say that architects are "different than people", I said that when discussing the philosophy of architecture, they are not average people. The are practitioners in the field that is being discussed. They couldn't be less average.
davvid,
I like how you want to include everything under the sun in the design process, but when asked how you might do that you don't know. It dosen't matter though because you sound intelligent and considerate. I am an architect, and I'll call you an architect too.
"perhaps if you focused more on the materials and methods available to an architect working in the world today, you would become a modernist?"
Becasue modernism was born of a time and place where their materials and methods where identical to ours? One could go on forever with this stuff, but suffice it to day that we won't come to any kind of understanding becasue of the different starting points to our thinking. This is where davvid's inclusivness would come in really handy. We might see the world differently but can we allow for both perspectives to co-exist? This is the sticky point. Imagine Sci-Arc, Harvard, or another one of these convents allowing an architectural hedonist in thier midst. Funny to imagine but watch heads explode.
Happy Thanksgiving y'all!
Happy Thanksgiving Thayer
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.