Clemson University plans to lease space in downtown Charleston to house all of its locally based architecture and historic preservation programs until it decides on a permanent location.
The decision comes about eight months after the university scrubbed plans for a contemporary architecture center at George and Meeting streets. The proposed building’s sleek design sparked a lawsuit by neighborhoods and preservation groups.
— postandcourier.com
Previously: Clemson scraps its modern building plan
69 Comments
Maybe it should be moved outside of Charleston. I'm sure that there are communities nearby that would welcome the investment.
Since the whole purpose of the building is to provide space for students and teachers to study and research the architecture and landscape architecture of Charleston that would not make a lot of sense.
I thought the purpose was to have students engaged in real world projects that are situated in a community.
"The mission of the Clemson Architecture Center in Charleston (CAC.C) is to bridge academia and practice by teaching in a hybrid environment—a cross between academic and professional modes of work."
"The city of Charleston itself is part of the CAC.C learning experience, and studying in Charleston is further enhanced by proximity to the College of Charleston, where CAC.C students may take approved courses for credit."
I wonder if the school sees the anti-contemporary pressures of Charleston as a "real world" learning experience for students, or if they see it as something that will discourage students.
Well since Clemson also has campuses in Barcelona, Spain, and Genoa, Italy, neither of which is widely known for contemporary architecture, I think they really know what they are doing with their Charleston gig.
Thats not exactly right. These cities are not "traditional" in the way that Charleston is. Barcelona has plenty of contemporary architecture. Genoa has perhaps less contemporary architecture, but it has a culture of design that embraces modern and contemporary approaches. Renzo Piano has an office there as does Joseph Grima.
And if they really "knew what they are doing with their Charleston gig" I don't think they would have had this experience of having to retreat from a plan to building a contemporary building. I think the school clearly underestimated Charleston's architectural conservatism.
Clemson University has been in Charleston for years to study Charleston, its architecture, its landscape architecture, its urban fabric. If the people you came to visit respectfully requested that you not build a building they felt did not fit in their environment - the very environment you came to study - are you going to propose ramming it down their throat?
The school is part of the community. Its a stakeholder, not a visitor.
I think its clear by the proposed design and its reception, that there is a contradiction. The school's website phrases the purpose of the Charleston Center in a slightly different way than you do.
Charleston is a very interesting place. But I just wonder if another American city might be less hostile to the school's desire to create a contemporary architectural identity for itself.
It is not my bias or non-bias, it is the people of Charleston speaking. Most civilized, thoughtful, respectful people would listen.
It was approved by the Architecture Review board.
Winslow Hastie, director of Preservation and Museums for the Historic Charleston Foundation was quoted as supporting it.
People who are against it are making it seem as though it was the people vs Clemson.
"I suspect it's only a group of biased people of Charleston that are against the contemporary design. Not deserving of respect."
If "biased" in this context means having a strongly felt position on what kind of architecture is appropriate for Charleston, then I would say you are probably correct. I can't understand why you can't find respect for that position.
EKE,
I can respect a person's view, even if I find it to be illogical. But I can't accept them imposing that view on other people.
No lawsuits about that POS on the right side?
"It was approved by the Architecture Review board."
It was my understanding that the project had received conceptual and preliminary approval from the ARB, but not final approval. Local preservation groups spoke out against it, and the school decided to withdraw their proposal.
"Rick Goodstein, Dean of the College of Architecture, Arts and Humanities, said the move came "in the interest of finding a solution acceptable to all parties."
"We promised from the very beginning that we would be good neighbors," he said. "In the spirit of transparency and being good neighbors, we are going to take a step back and explore our options."
Seems that they have done just that.
"I can respect a person's view, even if I find it to be illogical. But I can't accept them imposing that view on other people."
So, davvid, you must be against Clemson imposing its view of architecture on an unwilling neighborhood?
yeah, let's keep building our cities by citizen committees, maybe we'll get Martha Stewart's endorsement.
Don't think Clemson is "teaching" anything about architecture to Charleston.
Arch3,
You're expressing what I think is an extreme view of preservation that unreasonably limits what people can do with new buildings.
There are reasonable parameters that the design abided by.
There are two assumptions here that are difficult to rationally justify:
The City of Charleston hired Andrés Duany to study the issue of building today in the historic district. Here's are some of his early thoughts, in the Charleston newspaper.
Architects like to think of themselves as progressives, and architecture is a public art. If you can't respect the public, you are doing anti-social work—and that's not progressive.
Here's a quote from the article about Duany's talk:
Duany criticized Clemson University’s proposed architecture center — a design by architect Brad Cloepfil that the university scrapped in the wake of public opposition. Duany said the center should have been rejected not because its proposed design was incompatible with the city, but because the school’s philosophy is incompatible with Charleston.
He noted Clemson has been in the city for 27 years. “Why is the architectural situation here after 27 years so hostile that I have to come in and clean up the mess?” he asked.
Ray Huff, director of Clemson’s Charleston Architecture Center, met with Duany during the week and attended his Friday talk. Huff noted that Duany’s barbs at Clemson drew chuckles and likened them to “throwing red meat.”
“When he suggests that the mission of the university is bankrupt, it’s really unfair,” Huff said. “He knows nothing about what we really do. ... We all care for this place.”
///// If they all care for Charleston, why do the citizens feel like the city is being raped? "This place" has to include the residents.
glass and steel are regional building materials. so are gypsum, concrete, and wood studs. they are a hell of a lot more regional than shipping in marble from italy or granite from mexico.
it could be said glass and steel are more regional to charleston, sc than the design styles copied from the people and cultures who transplanted themselves into the area from europe.
"If they all care for Charleston, why do the citizens feel like the city is being raped?"
Raped? Get a fucking grip on reality!
Between Duany and Clemson, my money is on Clemson. The people of Charleston are not going to put up with Duany's rude bullshit for long.
What some may be failing to account for is the economic benefits Charleston gets from looking like Charleston. This fact isn't lost on many European cities who rely on tourists for a great deal of their income. I just don't see how designing an infill building that is in keeping with a historic city should be so challenging. If anything, it could have been a teachable moment for the students who presumably chose to study in a place with such a rich and identifiable character.
"it could be said glass and steel are more regional to charleston, sc than the design styles copied from the people and cultures who transplanted themselves into the area from Europe."
This is the kind of thinking that shows a complete ignorance of how cultures transform themselves and yet retain strong connections to their roots. Could not this be said of modernism or any other style? Rather than seeing everything in socio-political terms, we'd do better to look at the here and now aesthetics of the built reality of Charleston, regardless of what materials are used. Design isn't stuck to materials.
* A glass wall facing west in the climate of Charleston is just bad design.
i don't think it's ignorance thayer. charlseton making money by looking like charleston is the same thing as disney making money because people like the disney castle/disney princesses and vegas making money because people like whatever it is that happened to vegas. there's nothing cultural or authentic about making shit look like it was built 200 years ago, other than the disneyfication aspect.
you're not advocating good architecture or even traditional design. you're advocating preservation of an amusement park, which is fine, but at least be honest about it.
" there's nothing cultural or authentic about making shit look like it was built 200 years ago"
By that logic, the whole Renaissance right up to the 20th century is in inauthentic. Shit looks like previous shit because that's how we learn and that's what constitutes culture, like it or not. What's your cut off date, 20, 50, 150 years? The only reason these places are becoming more precious is because we refuse to learn from them, and the only reason we refuse to learn from them is because we are told to design "for our time". In case you hadn't noticed, our time is telling the future to fuck off. You can have all the petroleum guzzling cars and office parks with zippy glass shells. Give me a natural material structure that doesn't look like yesterday's tech toy, and meet me at the corner bar for some artisanal (read:traditional) sausage and beer.
Thayer-D is advocating contextual design. To say that is automatically indistinguishable from Disneyland is a sad commentary on the state of architecture today.
Until Modernism, all urban design and all design of urban buildings was contextual. That is why we have cities where people want to be.
As Rem Koolhaas has pointed out about his own work, Starchitecture / WOW factor buildings do not add up to the making of cities.
Architecturally, if the center is built in its current form, it will enter the canon of the Charleston's architectural history as a direct manifestation of the cultural shift that is currently in motion, an appeal to the next generation and its vision for success in Charleston. The building seeks a deeper significance in the city than merely the superficiality of style, or gable roofs or multi-paned wood windows. It is, first and foremost, a suitably scaled building linked to the historic context by its ability to connect interior spaces with outdoor ones, to provide engagement at the street level, and to respond in a remarkable, physical manner with the natural energies of our locale. More importantly, it should inspire even more appropriate contemporary buildings in our city."
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/praising-the-proposed-clemson-architecture-center/Content?oid=4226639
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/charleston-needs-more-contemporary-buildings/Content?oid=4787058
that was written by an educated resident of charleston, and thus represents the view of the public of charleston as much as anyone else. this was designed with respect to the context, it's just not a dressed up caricature of the theme park you want charleston to be. "context" does not mean glue on out of scale wood shutters.
if you want historic, go to silver dollar city in branson.
Charleston is lucky it has any historic buildings. They were bypassed by Sherman's Army which just cut all access to the city and its smallish group of defenders. Columbia, on the other hand, didn't fare too good.
Just found this headline: "Charleston peninsular projects could pump $1 billion into downtown economy."
Guess what Clemson was missing was a “B” word, because with one of those they’ll let you build anything.
Check out the First Citizens Bank, Courtyard Marriott and Circle K gas station just down the street. Low quality suburban schlock is apparently fine, but a well designed high profile building becomes a lightning rod for anti-modern/contemporary fervor.
davvid, that is really true...I believe beige stucco has powers beyond our comprehension...It seems to act like some kind of invisibility cloak...Like if we made a huge statue in the center of town of a lesbian orgy out of beige stucco no one would complain...It behaves in ways that seem to defy logic...If Mosques were all faced with beige stucco no one would protest...peace on earth...Church of Satan in downtown SLC? sure as long as it's covered in beige stucco...Beige stucco is like BBQ sauce because it makes anything edible...I am always amazed that there is zero resistance to these shitty developments that pop up everywhere...My conclusion is that Beige stucco is magical...
jla-x, Its the Muzak of architecture. It works because the goal isn't to create great architecture. The goal is to create a cultural landscape without highs and lows. Its all about blending. No surprises. No wit. No ambition.
In case it's not obvious, the need to push the boundaries isn't what everyone with artistic aspirations strives for. Some actually prefer harmony and beauty. Is it too much to admit to that without feeling like you're betraying the cause?
> written by an educated resident of charleston, and thus represents the
> view of the public of charleston as much as anyone else
This is one of many points that show how pointless this discussion has become if you’re not a willing Kool Aid victim who thinks ego-driven Modernism trumps everything else.
Whitney Powers is on the Clemson architecture faculty. We’re supposed to think that when she supports the design of her employer and her good friend and contradicts the majority opinion that somehow makes the majority opinion evaporate? That’s just dumb.
Contrary to what is said here and by the architects on the Charleston review board, we are in a time when more and more architects want a less esoteric discussion, and when for similar reasons the public are revolting. Maybe that’s why architects have become so dogmatic and close-minded.
Open your minds. Allow a diversity of opinion. Don’t call yourself a “progressive” if you treat the public as ignorant idiots who don’t understand what good architecture is.
http://pluralityinarchitecture.us/links.htm
but the public isn't revolting. i showed you a clear example of a member of the public who is not revolting, and your response was to say that people who don't agree with you don't count.
is it true that whitney powers is on the clemson architecture faculty? i'm having trouble verifying that
http://www.clemson.edu/caah/architecture/faculty/
"Check out the First Citizens Bank, Courtyard Marriott and Circle K gas station just down the street. Low quality suburban schlock is apparently fine, but a well designed high profile building becomes a lightning rod for anti-modern/contemporary fervor."
This is a straw-man argument, not liking the proposed Clemson building does not equal liking those buildings. Those who are seriously advocating for traditional architecture and contextual materials/design also hate suburban schlock. We can agree on disliking that.
curtkram, i think you're trolling. i said "We’re supposed to think that when she supports the design of her employer and her good friend and contradicts the majority opinion that somehow makes the majority opinion evaporate?" that does not equal "and your response was to say that people who don't agree with you don't count." To exaggerate, To exaggerate, if 99 people revolt and 1 doesn't, that doesn't mean the public isn't revolting.
and from the post & courier, "Powers, too, moved from Tennessee to Jackson, Miss., and, in 1988, to Charleston where she joined the faculty of the Clemson Architecture Center.
“She taught for two years, and we never could get rid of her,” said the center’s director Ray Huff with a wink. “She has a confidence about her. She is someone who has a very keen critical mind and is comfortable, in her own way, of expressing (ideas) in a way one cannot simply ignore.”
"
not liking the proposed Clemson building does not equal liking those buildings.
not liking the proposed clemson building doesn't make it bad either, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to build it. there's no accounting for bad taste. i don't care if you have bad taste, it just upsets me that you're trying to push it on others.
nurbie, your use of statistics is just much hyperbole as what you're accusing me of. are there 99 people opposed and only 1 supporter? the city's board of review approved the design right before backing down right, so doesn't it seem that your assertion sounds a lot like bullshit?
so clemson was once ms. power's employer, but they no longer are? as i said, i was unable to verify either way, though i didn't look hard. sounds like your statement that she is supporting her employer is, in fact, not the case? rather she is supporting a former employer that she no longer has an interest in, or perhaps, as the quote you included above suggests, she's just a confident, critical person with an opinion of her own?
curtkram, I said, "to exaggerate"
Two, you and most of the people in this thread are trying to push your taste on others. Do as I say, not as I do?
I continue to think you're trolling.
you could take the position of 'live and let live,' which would be the position of not pushing your tastes on other people, and would also be the position of allowing people to design buildings without getting your permission first.
or, you could take the position of pushing your taste on others, which is to excite the rabble to brandish their pitchforks (that's exaggeration, and probably a good example of hyperbole too) to tell others what they are and are not allowed to design. i'm not telling you to stop designing in a 'historic' style. in fact, i'm not telling you to do anything. i would just prefer it if people like you would stop complaining about people who are trying to do a good job and trying to be good designers.
"Open your minds. Allow a diversity of opinion"
Unless of course that diversity of opinion includes modern, or contemporary.
I do allow Modernist, including Starchitecture in the right context, like Bilbao (a great building). This particular Junior Starchitect building in this particular place, no. Most, not all, of the articles in the link I sent are about pluralism in architecture.
Many on this list, on the other hand, are saying that traditional does not belong in Charleston. That is the architect cliche of the last 15 years among architects who get lots of publicity (not among the profession as a whole). That's also the point of the link I sent.
the articles you linked included justin shubow.
'plurality' is not supposed to mean you're going to pout when people do things you don't want them to do.
Do you do this intentionally?
I said, "Most, not all, of the articles in the link I sent are about pluralism in architecture."
You say, "the articles you linked included justin shubow."
I included Shubow because he responded to Bingler and Pedersen.
You're pouting.
Close-minded would be to NOT include Shubow in a list of all sorts of reactions to Bingler.
I reject on it's face, this notion that the building in question is first, junior anything, and second, a starchitect building. This can't ever be said about this building, or this architect.
What a horseshit statement. Are you Ellsworth Toohey?
I'm sorry including that fucking, mindless, shithead, Shitbow, in any conversation about architecture, is like asking Adolph Hitler to comment on Jackson Pollock; a fucking waste of time.
so i visited this place called Charleston on a cloudy day with the wife and kids and took a horse and carriage tour..................... the guide was not only very knowledgeable of Charleston's many many churches and the various historic buildings, he had also done lots and lots of carpentry in them and participated in many Carolopolis(i think) awarded buildings.............from what I remember the preservation started with government economic incentives to renovate and refurbish old buildings. eventually tourism boomed and Charleston started making good money which went back into promoting historic preservation etc......new condos selling at $150k in the 90's are now valued close to a million.............i was there on a Sunday and it felt like an old town in Germany or Switzerland on a Sunday - just about everything was closed and a bit slow (was cloudy)............the old era stuff I liked and it was the closest to Europe to me for any US city, especially at the bend in a major thoroughfare around an old church across from a gated cemetary...........the NEW buildings which were trying to look traditional were a joke. take a Hampton Inn off some interstate, add some brick and molding and boom you got traditional............given the hodge podge of eras saved in Charleston it actually seems quite counter to this little museum of historical architectural styles to deny the existence of a few modern buildings. I think Chipperfield, Holl, or Tado Ando would be more appropriate than what was presented. make some moden contextual shit........ not sure why everyone gets so cranky.
"I think Chipperfield, Holl, or Tado Ando would be more appropriate than what was presented. make some moden contextual shit........ not sure why everyone gets so cranky."
????????????????..........
Curtkram: not liking the Clemson building = bad taste
:)
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.