In my own office, for instance, two firms, Synthesis Design + Architecture and Freeland Buck, are carrying out their only major projects in places like China and Thailand. A former office mate, Platform for Architecture and Research (P-A-R), is pursuing most of its work in Europe and Asia. If you move up to LA’s most established design firms, they’re doing the exact same thing. Where are Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne, and Neil Denari doing most of their projects? The Middle East, China, and Europe. — archpaper.com
57 Comments
Look at what most of this country's architecture looks like. Except for a tiny percentage of high profile projects, most of it is either corporate schlock or nostalgic faux historical. Outside of NYC and L.A. there is very little in the way of a critical Architecture culture. Even at Architecture schools across the US, the influence mediocre local corporate firms loom large. I think we really need a way to guide more cultural institutions, universities, government agencies toward hiring the best design firms in the US instead of the most well connected local corporate firms or the top US corporate firms.
davvid, what do you mean by a "critical Architecture culture"? Are you saying that the architecture culture in China and the Middle East is superior to America's?
There are some good things happening in Philadelphia and I'm looking forward to the new library by Snohetta.
But how does this compare to rest of what gets built in the US? Gensler makes over $700m/yr in revenue while a firm like Snohetta makes like $2m/yr. How do we grow 50 more US firms that are achieving the level of quality and innovation that Snohetta achieves? And how do we get that to happen outside of NYC? It should be possible.
what do you mean by a "critical Architecture culture"?
I mean the progressive culture that you can find in most US architecture schools. It involves debate, research, testing ideas, learning new technologies, studying history, traveling, teaching, etc. What we need are US clients that share the values that most architects and designers learn in school.
Are you saying that the architecture culture in China and the Middle East is superior to America's?
I suppose that the scale and speed of work in China could be as attractive to a young architect as criticality and innovation. I'm not sure if these young minds are finding a superior Architecture culture in China or the Middle East or maybe just a less risk averse architecture culture. It really depends on the specific firm and how innovative they are. Its also possible that young architects could be leaving the US to work for international firms that just happens to have large projects in China or the Middle East.
Thanks for your answer. My experience with most "progressive" architecture schools is quite different. I've found the debates to happen with in a very narrow band width, so if you think outside those prevailing notions, you won't find a hospitable environment, all be it, very critical. Quite the opposite from what I associate with the word progressive.
There's a lot of work that dosen't deal with the corporate culture you decry, which by it's nature will be conservative anyway. In fact it might be fair to say that most clients wherever they're on the economic spectrum will strive for work that qualifies as conservative by your measure, and for reasons that will likely never change. For starters, building is expensive, so experimenting with new construction techniques and technologies tends to not be a priority. I've found that clients tend to value both pragmatic and sensual aspects rather than theoretical or intellectual excersizes, which seem to be the priority of many schools. And while I think there's a place for reserch in schools, I question if it should be done on the backs of students who arguably are at the first stages of learning the craft. The adage we must learn to walk before we run comes to mind.
This expectation that clients are somehow to blame for not providing a platform to experiment does a disservice to students, at least when stacked up against the history of architecture. Infact one can point to many instances where great architecture has arrisen directly from dealing with a clients program, site, and budget, rather than sidesteping it. My personal experience is that true innovation tends to come from dealing with problems head on rather than the whole "thinking out of the box". If one truly values innovation, then it seems that understanding the confines of that box first might be the best way to prepare students, and to my mind that comes from understanding human nature first and then looking for the best and possibly innovative way of solving their problems.
As for why the US has trouble keeping design "talent" here, I think the flashy projects that seem to garner the most press attention are sought by countries that want to be seen as first world countries, as large advertisements of their having "arrived". Unfortunatley, having attained a certain material wealth dosen't translate to the values we in America equate with "progressive". Ideas like gender equality, fairness, and the rule of law, while imperfect, are certainly more advanced here, and I'd submit a better measure of the progressive values than the expensive monuments one's wealth can buy.
that's some very well penned nationalism with just the right amount of aesthetic conservatism cum rational anti-intellectual-elitism and a nice patina of "oh the children."
Truly impressive.
The lack of architectural culture is a chicken egg argument. Does culture demand architecture, or does architecture demand culture? For example, if you grow up in a "food desert" where all that is available is cheap processed food you will grow up to like it and your ability to distinguish good food from crap food will be greatly limited. Your food culture will lack compared to a person in a place where fresh food, home cooking, and quality street food is available. Demand is a myth. "Architecture is the will of the epoch" is a problematic statement imo. Architecture is the will of the system and the power structure which is just one facet of the epoch ....the epoch in terms of popular culture and mindset is manipulated to fit into the mold created by this system. The people eat what they get and regardless of how pungent and fake it is they learn to like it. People who grow up eating fermented fish will grow to love it even if its gross to most of us. Nothing is really free choice/will. Same goes for the crapitecture that occupies the majority of the American built environment. Its basically fast food. Same thing. A food desert is the same as an architecture desert. Their pallets are not equipped. Appreciation of food, architecture, art, music, etc...is all about exposure. The architect pushes architectural culture forward, but also relies on a decent platform to jump off from. When the platform is so low as it is in most places, there is only so far one can diverge from that. We need to raise the bar overall and create a higher platform (higher quality norm) We need to work on raising the mean quality imo before we can hope to see more extremes...
Your analogy is interesting. Take someone in a food desert who learns to love crap food as you say. Do they live in a walled ghetto without sight or memory of real food? (Does the innercity kid not know they will get pregnant with out contraception?) How about their body as it begins to deteriorate and their mood swings increase with all the garbage swirling through their veins, are they so stupid as to not understand these things? No, it's simply easier to buy the garbage. Nowadays there are some great programs to inject good food culture back into many of these communities, by going back to the land and learning the rythems of nature and how real food impacts their health and daily life. Farmers markets, the locavore movement, and farm to table are but a few of the reactions to the inevitability of industrial agriculture that was pushed down our throats by mass production.
Back to architecture. Do Americans not see good buildings in the towns they've abandoned or drive through? Why do you think they ape those forms (all be it with the grace of an adolescent)? Becasue the system that produces these buildings has deviated so far from what produced those abandoned communities. There are many reactions to this phenomenon, just not as clearly identifiable as the food analogy. They don't fit into the narrative of academic architecture, but they continue to percolate.
There will always be a mass market culture with-in our food and building industry, that is both the nature of our economic system and our human selfish nature. The forces that give us the lowest denomenator are part of our human family, but there has been a reaction to both the plastic food and building culture that seemed inevitable only 20 years ago. A new sub-culture is reacting to the inevitability of dross, just don't expect change to come in the form of manifestos and revolution. That's just marketing.
Thayer-D,
"I've found the debates to happen with in a very narrow band width, so if you think outside those prevailing notions, you won't find a hospitable environment, all be it, very critical. Quite the opposite from what I associate with the word progressive."
In what way were you thinking outside of prevailing notions? Were you proposing neoclassical architecture or feng shui? Schools tend to change with the times and the personalities on faculty. If you're way out of step, you'll know it. Criticality doesn't necessarily lead to open-mindedness. Its actually about encouraging fierce debate that could certainly end up feeling inhospitable.
" If one truly values innovation, then it seems that understanding the confines of that box first might be the best way to prepare students, and to my mind that comes from understanding human nature first and then looking for the best and possibly innovative way of solving their problems."
My experience has been that learning architecture doesn't happen one step at a time. It happens on multiple levels at the same time. Major realizations come to different people at different stages in a process. A student or a young architect is learning fundamentals and innovation at the same time. If they're lucky they're in a position to also learn about clients, project management and business as well.
Were you proposing neoclassical architecture or feng shui?
Actually I was thinking about neomodernism, oh, never mind. Seriously, how about not worrying about style for a change studying architecture as if you might have a client, a context, or an artistic proclivity? How about teaching the art of architecture rather than creative writting or computer lab 401?
Criticality doesn't necessarily lead to open-mindedness. Its actually about encouraging fierce debate that could certainly end up feeling inhospitable.
No but open-mindedness is essential to meaningful criticism. It's not about winning the debate but allowing for the plurality to make their case, whether it convinces or not. Your version of debate sounds more like pure Darwinism.
A student or a young architect is learning fundamentals and innovation at the same time. If they're lucky they're in a position to also learn about clients, project management and business as well.
Learning to walk and run at the same time, cool!. That's like studying music learning the scales, harmonies, and progressions while exploring Stravinsky, nice in theory, but what you end up with is mostly poseurs. Have you heard Steven Holl talking about intuition with his postcard concept water colors? And they shouldn't have to rely on luck to learn about clients and thier human nature. Who else do you think they will be designing for?
Thayer I agree!
there seems to be a backlash...a growing sub-culture that rejects the paradigm of the last 40-50 years....A huge uproar about GMO's, etc....I think it will be a while before the debate addresses architecture and urbanism...like maybe when the polar bears start floating into the L.I sound.
Thayer,
The issue of style is unavoidable. Style is a big part of architecture and it really should be addressed head on by architects. There should be a strong reason behind style other than that it matches what a client ripped out of magazine.
Fierce criticism might seem like Darwinism if you ignore it and resist it. If you embrace it and use it to test your ideas against the ideas of your peers it could help you to refine your positions.
Learning to walk and run at the same time, cool!.
Students are intelligent adults with life experience, knowledge of architecture and talent. Some of them already have degrees in other fields. The school is enabling their growth, they're not plucking someone randomly from a crowd and transforming them into an architect.
And recent grads often have knowledge about new technologies and methods that more experienced architects do not have. So it becomes more about a two-way exchange of knowledge between older and younger team-members instead of just a top down apprenticeship.
and they shouldn't have to rely on luck to learn about clients and thier human nature.
Depending on the firm, a young grad may or may not have much interaction with a client.
"The issue of style is unavoidable. Style is a big part of architecture and it really should be addressed head on by architects."
I couldn't agree with you more, but it's hard to deal openly with the subject when one stifle the discussion with the broad brush characterizations you've displayed, "most of it (American architecture) is either corporate schlock or nostalgic faux historical". I've worked in several historic styles, including modernism, and what communicates are the fundamentals of architecture, not the specific aesthetic mode, or 'formal language' if you prefer. For all the talk about being "critical", the work you reference looks remarkably similar. Take Snohetta, how does that kind of grandiose object building style fit into a good urban street? Maybe at a monumental location, but there are only so many of those in each city. Doing good urban infill requires more humility and subtlety than is evident in Snohetta's work, it also requires a facility with many styles which is hard to do when one draws arbitrary lines between what's legitimate and what's not based (ironically) on 100 year old dogma.
"There should be a strong reason behind style other than that it matches what a client ripped out of magazine. " Agreed.
So what do many architects do? Pretend they are above style, mimic the next foray into phenomenological formalism ( ripped out of a magazine or web site), and write a bunch of crap to justify some simplistic 'concept' sketch. Do you object to a client showing you images of what they have in mind? Does that make you feel like a short order cook rather than the grand chef you really are? You don't often get to pick the ingredients, but if you've avoided dealing with the recipes "head on", then good luck finding the right blend of flavors. But who needs flavor when you have so many beautiful words?
"And recent grads often have knowledge about new technologies and methods that more experienced architects do not have" Agreed.
I recently saw some stuff about 10 story wood buildings, looked very interesting. When and how the average architect might run into that technology...who knows, but you'd better be conversant on what people do on the street, or the contractor will eat your lunch. And let me know when you find a boss who's all ears for the whip smart cal-tech grad and their computer modeling skills, I'd love to believe.
"Depending on the firm, a young grad may or may not have much interaction with a client" I agree once again.
But luck is about being prepared for when opportunity strikes. And if you've taken the client's perspective seriously while you're in school, then chances are you might be better prepared when opportunity strikes. In the meantime, selling students on the fantasy that experienced architects are waiting with open arms to risk their business's reputation on a quick talking grad is delusional. Great architects have always managed on their own, but to deny the majority of students the basic skills to succeed right out of school, in this kind of market? I don't think that makes sense.
"There should be a strong reason behind style other than that it matches what a client ripped out of magazine."
This statement stand out more than any as what's wrong with most architecture schools. On the surface, it sounds right, but I'd ask you to dig a bit. Think about what's called "folk art" and how it becomes all the rage in the art world whenever they want to take a break from the conceptual work that tends to dominate. What motivates a "folk" artist is the same thing that motivates a client to rip a page out of a magazine, something about an image speaks to them for better of for worse. An academic approach would be to suppress a chuckle and try to steer the client towards something "deeper", ie. something the architect might have actually studied becasue they didn't ever deal with this very common scenario.
Another analogy. Let's say you get a superficial hollywood star client (if only!) with a Travel and Lesiure photo of a Castillian villa. Sure, you might think Justin Beiber hit the zirrup that morning, but what if that person was your mother. Take my mother, who was an immigrant from Venezuela. She grew up dirt poor, but was smarter than most people I've met, I mean human smart. She used to say that the oil money destroyed her Caracas of red tiled roofs. Is she speaking out of nostalgia, is she stuck in some "faux historical" past, or is she speaking of something deeper? I don't really know, but being my mother, I wouldn't question her motives, or push a glass box on her becasue I know she's super smart. So why not give others the same benefit of the doubt?
Lastly, I just got a book from a ram-shackle book store in Baltimore. It's calles "Ideal Homes in Garden Communities" copyright 1916. Basically one of those lushly illustrated plan books that the real estate industry put out, but one that was responsible for a lot of the character in many southern Californian towns. I just want to quote the first paragraph of the book, not to proclaim the superiority of spanish revival, but for the feel of thought.
"The adobe houses of California and Mexico, widely known becasue of their great age, offer much of interest. Simply built of rude materials, they derive their beauty from their proportions and coloring and the deep reveals to doors and windows, the walls being sometimes three feet thick. Very little detail is found in these houses."
Do you think that the person who wrote this is somehow less evolved than someone today? Sure times change, and our tools and gadgets with them, but does this person's psychology/human nature differ dramatically from ours?
If this debate would have taken place in most any architecture school, I would have been laughed off the stage long ago, so I appreciate you letting me make my points without the kind of pithy put-downs all too common here. And maybe we will never find common ground, I certainly think our cities are big enough for Gehry's houses as they are for Justin Beiber's McMansions. My point is that the Gehry's will always be with us, thank goodness, but what if the next client you have is an old Venezuelan lady who's clutching a photo of some spanish tiled roof thing from her past. Are you going to laugh at her?
nope.
we'll have some tea, talk about barragan and she'll get the lovely white modernist sunlit earthy cube that she deserves.
I only read the last line.... couldn't get past beiber.
Buenas noches, amigo.
she'll get the lovely white modernist sunlit earthy cube that she deserves.
Maybe that's where the design will evolve, who knows, the point is if you approach her with a pre-concieved idea, it'll be "what she deserves" and not what she loves. BTW, in the mid-Atlantic I'd pitch the flat roof a healthy 1/2 per foot, you good with that? We do get snow now and then.
you gotta beilib!
Heres the problem with architecture in this country (the US): It is too much talk (also fueled by fear of litigation), followed with very less substance. Add to it a complete averseness to good design (because it is expensive) and a celebrity fueled dominant culture, and you got the makings of dross.
@Thayer
I couldn't agree with you more, but it's hard to deal openly with the subject when one stifle the discussion with the broad brush characterizations you've displayed,
I think we're both using a broad brush here. I'm generalizing weak American architecture as corporate schlock and faux historical. You're generalizing about object buildings by superficial architects that lack humility.
" I wouldn't question her motives, or push a glass box on her becasue I know she's super smart."
Personally, I think there is a lot of nostalgia in American culture. I don't think its healthy. And I think that when architects reproduce historical styles they are enabling those delusions. I think its fair for an architect to lead a conversation about style, history and function. This knowledge is part of what an architect has to offer.
I've worked for some firms that primarily do high-end residential. This kind of work often meant that we had to meld contemporary conveniences and historical styles. We also had to placate the egos of our clients who were often very wealthy older women living in Manhattan and playing in the Hamptons. At times the design process was more about making these women feel as though they were stewards of history and good taste than it was about creating serious architecture. We never once discussed what we were actually doing, which was creating an expression of wealth and status. It really was a farce. We were not stewards of history. We selected moldings from catalogs and did a lot of copying from magazines and books. I remember my boss handing me a mckim mead and white book, pointing to a picture and saying something like "just make it look more like this". In reality, were were not being subtle or respectful of history. The materials were very nice and the craftsmanship was great but the design was essentially an urban McMansion.
I'm happy to say that I have not spec'd a crown molding in 5 years. It seems to me that when you drop the constraint of a historical style, the conversations between architect and client about function, history, taste and values are much more honest and precise. You're suddenly permitted to speak about designers and artists working today or the latest advancement in material technology and best available solutions. And we are more likely to openly discuss motives and agendas because the designs are often about advancing a client's 21st century agenda.
And maybe we will never find common ground, I certainly think our cities are big enough for Gehry's houses as they are for Justin Beiber's McMansions.
Sure there's space for both but that doesn't mean they are equally valuable to our culture. As architects we are allowed to make these kinds of judgements. I wonder if this "to each his own" non-value is why American architecture is so weak at the moment. I think architects are too unwilling to make qualitative distinctions when it comes to Architecture and history out of fear of being called an elitist or a snob. The result is that even the well-educated and well-connected in America are pretty much oblivious about how today's architecture is linked to this historical moment.
I think that link between architecture and the present is clearest to the American public when we see images of unfamiliar buildings rising in Asia as our economy languishes.
This picture was on the cover of the NY Times in July of 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13build.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
You're generalizing about object buildings by superficial architects that lack humility.
I don't dispute the importance of this type, but that seems like the predominant excersize of architectural studios, rather than the reality most architects deal with.
"Personally, I think there is a lot of nostalgia in American culture. I don't think its healthy."
I think nostalgia is the least our problems. Actually, I think it's a natural condition of human nature, like joy, depression, boredom, etc., not some disease as modernists think.
"I think that when architects reproduce historical styles they are enabling those delusions"
And I think everything before the present is history, so where's the cut off?
"I think its fair for an architect to lead a conversation about style, history and function. This knowledge is part of what an architect has to offer."
I'm with you on all those things besides style. I think when it comes to personal tastes, it's should be more of a dialogue, a back and forth.
"We selected moldings from catalogs and did a lot of copying from magazines and books."
That's too bad, but how you chose to interpret history, be it modernism or Beaux-Arts has to do with your artistic sensibility. That's where school's let students down, by filling thier heads with the "link between architecture and the present". It's self-evident.
"The result is that even the well-educated and well-connected in America are pretty much oblivious about how today's architecture is linked to this historical moment."
I hate to tell you, but unless you force every rich bastard into GDS or any other "critical" architectural program of your choosing, the elite will always want what they want. That's the way it's been through history, and that's the way it'll continue. I agree there's a lot of bad taste out there, but if you started from an empathetic stance and not a confrontational one, you might be able to guide your clients. You have to develope some level of trust before you get to dictate anything from someone who's paying you. Granted, that's not always possible, but if your shooting for celebrity status, then the current school culture is the best training you can find, assuming you hit the jackpot.
"I think architects are too unwilling to make qualitative distinctions when it comes to Architecture and history out of fear of being called an elitist or a snob."
I don't see any reticence by architects personally, I just think you're mistaking Chinese wealth (and their desire for status) for "progressive culture" much like the robber barrons of 100 years ago mistook those magnificent limestone piles on 5th avenue for class. At least we have some nicely ornamented piles to show for it. As for the Chinese and these monstrocities like the CCTV, I don't think there will be much love lost when the wrecking ball come to take them down.
"I think that link between architecture and the present is clearest to the American public when we see images of unfamiliar buildings rising in Asia as our economy languishes."
Asia's cheap labor economy isn't as strong as you might think. And this link between architecture and the present is what you make of it. Architects are "allowed to make these kinds of judgements", it's whether anyone cares about them that I think you are mislead.
Sounds like you subscribe to the "to each his own" idea only when it comes to style. As if style exists outside of the professional purview of Architecture. But then again you seem to use style as your primary way of describing architecture.
Its interesting to see what about the state of Architecture you accept and what you resist. You resist the prevailing views among academic elites. You accept the traditional tastes of the elite on the client side. You resist the buildings ("monstrosities") of Chinese companies but you accept the buildings ("magnificent") of American robber barons of a century ago.
When I take out the issue of style, I don't see any consistency in your opinions. When I paint you with the broad brush of NeoTraditionalism it all adds up. You are trying to claim that style doesn't matter but it seems like it matters quite a lot to you actually.
Going back to the state of Architecture in America. I think that nostalgia holds us back. Instead of embracing the new, we're hemming and hawing about historical styles.
Question is, why the F is this news now? Its been happening for a while, and if anything, work is coming back to the US now...
The architectural condition of the United States is a sensitive issue that needs to be addressed aggressively.
Within in the boundaries of the United States, from East to West, the preference of "style" and inclinations based on culture and taste differ greatly based on where you live. Thus whether you design in Los Angeles, Green Bay, or New York City, major difference of "style" and taste would be presented; now just imagine at a global scale – style is important.
There was a time (Yes- I am being nostalgic) in the United States where we had some of the most innovative and progressive architectural thinkers. This country was a canvas of different ideas from different cultures and backgrounds in relation to architecture (It still is, but to a lesser degree). So many different minds during the early and mid 20th century were overlapping and collaborating: Wright, Mies, Schindler, Neutra, The Eames, The Saarinens, Lautner, Koenig, etc.
Lautner would use boat builders to construct the framework of some of his homes; The Eames built their house in a matter of weeks; Koenig truly understood the architectural context of the US, he would make his details dumb and clean because he knew that the contractors and construction workers were not able to construct sophisticated details, yet if you have ever entered into any of Koenigs homes, they are some of the most impeccably detailed homes; Neutra was a master of small spaces and embracing the "small" instead of "bigger the better"; Schindler was coined for designing the first modern house. And as a side note about the cultural difference within the US, Schindler's work was outright dismissed and was regarded as something unsubstantial during the era of "international Style", thanks to mr. Philip Johnson and his east coast crony attitude.
There is a reason why I am bringing up this specific era in the US; we are experiencing its consequences to this day. After World War II, there were two elements that really defined the United States: Efficiency and Innovation. The Eames house is both Efficient AND Innovative, however, the Eames House repeated 1000 times is the Levittown, extremely efficient, but relentlessly conventional. Slowly but surely, our sense of efficiency triumphed over our desire of innovation. Thus, what do we see today? The US has the most efficient labor force in the world – we know how to get our work done – but to what degree of quality? Look at our car industry. We can whip out millions of cars, but what is the quality of those cars? Would you rather own a 2014 Mustang or a 1967 Mustang? Look at our entertainment industry of sequels, prequels, and trilogies, but what about the content? I would invite everyone to compare "Koko the Clown sings "St. James Infirmary Blues" (clip on youtube) to any clip of Spongebob, and tell me which one screams quality and which one screams form but no content (that being said, Adventure Time is a great cartoon). Look at our contractors, how many of you have gotten into an argument with the contractor because the contractor wants to build something the conventional way, and not the intended method specified on the drawings. I have been practicing internationally; I have worked in Asia and it is the complete opposite, it is quality driven but extremely inefficient, but at the same time, how many CURRENT projects can you name by a Japanese architect? They're doing something right. How many Japanese cars do you see on the road in the US?
If the US really wants to be taken seriously in the architectural realm of the 21st century, we need to find a balance between being efficient and innovative, sometimes delivering a quality product demands extra time and effort. Look at the cell phone industry, why are so many phones starting emphasize the material and design of the body? Mobile phone industries are starting to realize that consumers truly desire a high quality product versus a product that can do everything. What saved HTC was because they made a high quality product (HTC One), but now they are near bankruptcy AGAIN because they stuck to the model of the HTC One; they relied on mass producing the same thing but with slight tweaks versus creating a newer and more innovative design. I think Joan Ockman said it best with the phrase of "Planned Obsolescence."
Obviously, there are still some stellar practices in the United States which are practicing architecture to a very high degree of quality, but they are far between. I will let you, the architect, define the word "quality."
The times are different.
davvid,
What I find interesting about your analysis is how you seem to paraphrase my words to suite your argument. Even more interesting is how you've studiously avoid the holes in your logic I've been pointing out while changing the nature of the debate. I can see why you've been frustrated in your professional career, but at this point you're starting to trip over your own words. Rather than another round of point for point, let me take you back...
"The issue of style is unavoidable. Style is a big part of architecture and it really should be addressed head on by architects."
"Going back to the state of Architecture in America. I think that nostalgia holds us back. Instead of embracing the new, we're hemming and hawing about historical styles."
Remember how much sense I was making to you on the Folk Art discussion?
"The real problem with Thayer's FAM posts is that he's making too much sense"
I'm guessing that's the last time you'll say that now that you've branded me as a Neotraditionalist, even though I've won an AIA award for modernist work. Maybe it's my eclectic approach that doesn't fit into the neat timeline of history ideologues seem to rely on to make sense of what might simply be understood as artistic proclivities and regional culture. Take out the issue of style (for real), and we'd probably have a lot in common, but due to the tribal nature of our profession, we'll play adversaries. Oh well, I guess it's human nature for better or for worse.
Thayer-D
I think your intentions are pure, but I really do not believe that you can make the judgement that "... it's my eclectic approach that doesn't fit into the neat timeline of history ideologues seem to rely on to make sense of what might simply be understood as artistic proclivities and regional culture. "
I think only history will decide if you work is truly eclectic and timeless because it never fit into any "neat timelines of history." For now, your work will be marginalized as something that looks "modern" (style) - you are willingly or unwillingly accepting that marginalization - or you would denounce that AIA award for "Modernist Work."
Stonehenge does not fit into any neat timeline of history even though they were built 3000 years ago. The Pyramids don't fit into any neat timeline of history even though they were 2000 years ago. The lay out of Machu Pichu is timeless even though it's only 550 years old.
We still have not reached a great schism where we can look back at modernism, there are works of architecture that are modern and more daring and innovative than what we see by Gehry, Zaha, or other architects living today.
Its your view that this is tribal, not mine. I labeled you a neotraditionalist only because you seemed to choose that as your role in this discussion. I pointed all of this out in my last comment. I can't really know for sure what you actually make until I see your work.
I do think you made more sense in the FAM discussion. You're eclectic that way. I don't see why that would mean we won't ever agree again. I thought this was a good discussion.
"what communicates are the fundamentals of architecture,
not the specific aesthetic mode, or 'formal language' if you prefer"
what a wad of ill-imitated poorly conceived theoretical gobbedlygook.
what is an aesthetic mode?
its more likely the 'specific aesthetic mode' ,which is not a formal language, that in fact communicates to most.
and what do the fundamentals communicate that in fact the formal couldn't communicate better if it werent so difficult to access (generically speaking) and derided as elitism?
'Simply built of rude materials, they derive their beauty from their proportions and coloring'
- that sounds a lot like your derided 'phenomenological formalism'
say hi to your mom. I hope she's well.
davvid, this whole back and forth started with me asking you what you meant by a "critical Architecture culture", to which you answered "I mean the progressive culture that you can find in most US architecture schools."
My definition of progressive means open-minded and inclusive, even of those opinions one dosen't share. I've come to see the way that you use it it's more of a branding lable under which a specific agenda is promoted. Not a surprise of course, words have always been used politically. Infact the early modernists where excellent at this, with thier coopting the word "modern" to designate a style rather than how it is commonly understood. Abstract, minimalist, and anti-traditional, it was supposed to be above the very notion of style, a kind of eternal aesthetic, but people are stubornly human and crave language, richness, and a connection with the past, so modernism's theoretical ballet continues in search of the right words to endear itself to a public that continues to be ambivilant about modernism's charms. Before we go off the deep end, modernism is a valid and at times beautiful style, what ever theoretical backing one choses, but it seems to be relegated to permanent minority status becasue it remains trapped in the semantic straight jackets of the early manifestos. Infact they tried to banish the word 'style' itself which in every other art form continues to be employed, resisting the scarlet letter modernists have given it. What truly transends style is beauty, which was another concept they tried to discredit as "bourgoise" or some such nonsense.
From recent neurological studies on the brain and bio-evolutionary studies on human nature, we now know what many of us intuitively knew all along, that it's insane to divorce us from these concepts. Infact some of the most loved (all thought not always respected at the time) modernists understood this also and gave us some of our greatest buildings. You hear it nowadays in the new emphasis on emotive and sensual aspects of work from people like Zaha, Gehry, and Holl, a far cry from modernism's puritanical roots. Corb himself rocked the establishment in his last years to produce unappologetically beautiful masterpieces such as Rohchamp. Yet the establishment still can't wrap itself around the fact that different people will have differing tastes. Some will like neo-classical and some will like minimalism. Some will like it warm and some will like it cool, in either style or combination. If the architectural establishment really wanted to be progressive, it would embrace the plurality of our modern world and look beyond the style of people, place and time to address the eternal truths of architecture. That humans are moved by light and space and rythem and poetry etc. regardless of what style is employed. This is what's holding back architecture, not evil corporations, nostalgic hedgefund managers, and conservative suburbanites. These things have always been and always will. We need to get back to designing for humans regardless of what lable you give them of what style they prefer. Unfortunatley, emotions are a sticky subject for many who'd rather hide their artistic efforts for fear of being rejected and instead wrap themselves in archispeak.
LosAngeles, "For now, your work will be marginalized as something that looks "modern" (style) - you are willingly or unwillingly accepting that marginalization - or you would denounce that AIA award for "Modernist Work."
Like davvid said, you can't really judge until you've seen my work, but if winning an AIA award among others is what you consider "being marginalized" then we'll have to agree to disagree on yet another all to common word. Language, like architecture should be able to communicateto others and not just be a vehicle for self expression. If you are speaking to an exclusive audience, your work will be marginalized by the larger society, something you seem to be willing to accept. Like I said before, semantics seems to be one of the principle obstacles to understanding.
boy in a well, sounds like your also lost in the jungle of architectural semantics, but I appreciate your less than frat boy tone. My mom's dead, but I will say hi to her for you anyway as I suspect if you had met her, you'd have treat her with respect. Who knows, you might have even talked her into a modernist cube, she was a people pleaser type.
Toward a suum cuique (to each his own) style of American Architecture.
The Queen of Versailles
Quondam,
Not sure exactly. The rise of exurbia and McMansion-style luxury have seemed to coincide with a change in the relationship between architecture and personal lifestyle.
David Brooks wrote "At the same time the suburbs were sprawling, they were getting more complicated and more interesting, and they were going quietly berserk. When you move through suburbia -- from the old inner-ring suburbs out through the most distant exurbs -- you see the most unexpected things: lesbian dentists, Iranian McMansions, Korean megachurches, outlaw-biker subdevelopments, Orthodox shtetls with Hasidic families walking past strip malls on their way to shul." "Society becomes more segmented, and everything that was once hierarchical turns granular."
McMansion architecture has also become linked to lifestyle extremes through reality tv programs like Real Housewives and MTV Cribs, real-estate and home makeover shows and celebrity/lifestyle-focused spreads in Architectural Digest and the NY Times. This is all happening without any push-back from the world of Architecture. The state of architecture criticism is...um...changing and for the most part, sticks to talking about big-A Architecture in big cities.
im actually not lost in any form of semantics, which is why their abuses and misuses are so glaring. half our architectural culture decries what they aren't sure how to use. is that 144 characters yet?
In developing countries - there is much more interest in creating CITIES that advertise to the world that they have arrived on the global scene - and this means creating signature statement buildings. These governments (and the elite merchant class) are taking great pains to show the world that this country is cosmopolitan. The US is more culturally and physically low-density sprawl, and as a result we've become much more insular and self-absorbed, and aside from a handful of global cities, there's very little interest in pushing architectural boundaries because who would these buildings impress? Buildings here are largely utilitarian, or about selling something (identity, products) to very local populations - not for a global audience.
This probably will change once Americans realize they can't keep subsidizing sprawl and our car culture, and as many cities really start looking outward to attract the global elite - but our "architectural glory days" essentially reflected the moment we finally arrived as a global super power.
no - what will make the state of architecture in the US "better" is the shift toward placing a greater value on our cities and urban environments than on the automobile and auto-centric environments.
pushing architectural boundaries unfortunately relies very heavily on the client - and while small "patrons" can allow up-and-coming architects to start pushing boundaries on smaller projects - it's the big money patrons - those who want to exhibit global power, yet are particularly tied to "place" - are the ones who create opportunities to push these ideas into a greater cultural consciousness. If you think about important buildings throughout history, they more often than not reflect both a country's and/or city's rise into international prominence - or at least this desire among it's populace.
Quondam,
Honestly, I'd like to to see more of a documentary or gonzo style of architecture journalism. I'd like to close some of the distance between the public and the world of architecture practice by exposing it in great detail. Thayer emphasized the role of personal choice in determining architectural style. I want to know more about the personalities that make these choices and what they are basing their choices on. Are they educated, insightful, noble etc? How do they interact with their architects? How do the schlockiest architects work? I'd like the world to see what happens when an entire building of people are immediately vacated because of a building violation. I'd also like to see criticism reveal more about cultural elites and their relationship to high-profile architecture. The video of Rogers, Koolhaas, Hadid and Foster pitching their designs for a new Park Ave tower was incredibly revealing. I think if we can expose more the criticism will emerge naturally.
the criticism is all there, its just confined to academia and not part of the public debate. The public in the US is a sort of "selfish herd." A scattering of many axis mundi...The center has become dispersed in most places. I don't think that this will change. Urban decentralization seems to be a result of technology and a shifting economy (away from production). The problem is not decentralization, but rather the fact that as places have become decentralized with regard to the urban form, the marketplace/economy has become centralized. The smaller ownership class has led to homogenization. What we are left with is a dispersed decentralized urbanism with a centralized power/economic structure. A central marketplace that is removed from the place. As a result, the human and communitarian connection has been removed. We no longer buy bread from Bob the baker who lives on main street, we buy bread from Fry's grocery. The names and faces of the marketplace have been replaced with logos and brands. Traditionally, the marketplace has been the public forum and community center. That's long gone. Suburbia is a Disneyland - an imaginary image of the "town." A broad acre city imo wouldn't be so bad, but when the "farm" is replaced with a cartoon image of the farm while the real farm is 1000 miles away then there is a problem.
The problem with density and classic centralized cities is that they have transformed from a thing of necessity to a thing of novelty. The city of 2014 (in the US) is a Disneyland too in some ways. Cities evolved around trade, production, etc....not around a desire to live more densely...That was just the inevitable nature of it. The city imo is a phase of social evolution. Suburbia is also only a phase. Technology will make it unnecessary to leave the "home." We will live and work in a virtual reality..."place" will be more about virtual place, while the physical places around us will be more infrastructural/production based. I don't think this is good or bad, but it seems pretty inevitable considering the advances/direction of technology and the insatiable appetite for convenience.
Architecture will become machine like on the outside (real world) and fantastical on the inside (virtual)...Without the laws of gravity in the virtual, there will be a new architecture like nothing we have ever seen. Its just a matter of time...When a virtual "brick" feels and smells like a real brick....then we will cross into a new era of architecture...For the better or worse...
virtual reality has no limits...A solid gold mansion with a 50000 pound pet flying tiger, sure no problem....weird stuff will come....Too bad I wont live long enough to see it....
Technology will make it unnecessary to leave the "home."
quite the opposite - technology is actually fueling this increased desire for density and human contact.
desire by the powerless. The city is not a result of desire, its a result of money. As a city becomes a commodity of desire absent of any real functional need it will become gentrified and will cease to be a real functional city. It will be nothing more than a Disneyland. No realer a "city" than suburbia is a "town." The rich poor gap will 100% widen. Robotics, advances in production, computer advances, etc...will make most of us obsolete in the next 50-100 years. Because of this our ability to affect the urban realm will be reduced even more (and its pretty low already). The desire for human contact will be met once the virtual world is indistinguishable from the real world. Its not too far off. Its naïve to think that cities will become the trend because "they are more sustainable" or they are "better" or "desired." Architecture does not happen at the will of the people. "Architecture is not by the people it is for the people." Cities will exist as novelty only. NY is a good example of this. The functional and economic infrastructure of NY is no longer attached to the urban infrastructure of NY other than with regards to transportation. There is no more garment district with a stratification of production, sale, trade, etc....Because of this, there is no longer any real need to have a district that sells garments other than the fact that the district is known to sell garments. The place is now only made relevant by its history...Its being held together by tradition not function. This will eventually dissipate .
In the near future People will seek other outlets of spatial control, because the physical is too unattainable. The virtual matrix to come will be so real, free of consequence, disease, fantasy.....It will make the physical world obsolete in many of its traditional roles. Why build a 10 million dollar mansion when in the virtual matrix you can have a 100 billion dollar mansion for free. The physical need to live closely and produce locally has been reducing steadily for the last 150 years. The steamengine, car, highway, internet, etc....It will continue. Any "desire" to live more densely will be like swimming against the tide. Other outlets will be sought to satisfy our desires. The path of least resistance will be followed.
Density also relies on an expensive infrastructure. Who pays? The people? Nope they are all poor. The rich? Nope they don't give a fuck. Uncle sam? He relies on the people and they are all broke.
The "city" of the future is a stupid assumption.
Why do we assume that the city is a timeless thing.
It already exists to a degree. It's called the Internet. To think this is the ultimate final manifestation of computer technology is silly. Those things will still exist. Not saying all built environment will be obsolete just saying it will become increasingly irrelevant. Yes we will always need hair cuts. Supermarkets maybe. But just think about all the places that have been replaced by the virtual already. Also, our generation grew up without it. In 5-6 more generations it will be so integral to life and things like playing outside will be rare. It's areasy happening just multiple by 100 and that's what the future looks like unless we blow ourselves back to the Stone Age.
Quondam ,
So what? What you're saying is akin to what our grandparents use to say about buying a piece of candy for a nickel. Yes, we all remember when we use to pay gas in the CENTS (.90, the earliest I remember) , but times have changed. We are paying 2 - 3 dollars per gallon of gas now, but are we living in cardboard boxes because the world seems to be more 'expensive?' The world is changing, but people either change with the times or get changed by time.
jla-x, your concept of cities seems stuck in the era of Buck Rodgers. I can't believe this kind of thinking even exists, but then again, old ways die hard.
"The center has become dispersed in most places. I don't think that this will change." It's already changing. Here's the UN's prediction as of 2011
Between 2011 and 2050, the world population is expected to increase by 2.3 billion, passing from 7.0 billion to 9.3 billion (United Nations, 2011).At the same time, the population living in urban areas is projected to gain 2.6 billion, passing from 3.6 billion in 2011 to 6.3 billion 2050. Thus, the urban areas of the world are expected to absorb all the population growth expected over the next four decades while at the same time drawing in some of the rural population.
"Suburbia is a Disneyland - an imaginary image of the "town." I think your image of a town is what needs to evolve. The fact that they don't function similarly to towns of 100 years ago dosen't disqualify them as towns.
The problem with density and classic centralized cities is that they have transformed from a thing of necessity to a thing of novelty. You might call the desire to live around others a novelty, but it's a necessity for those of us that crave society. Like our desire for beauty, it's been hard wired in us from milenia of evolution.
The city of 2014 (in the US) is a Disneyland too in some ways. Cities evolved around trade, production, etc....not around a desire to live more densely...Technology will make it unnecessary to leave the "home." And yet companies like yahoo recognize the need to create society. We are social animals who can't live in isolation. While the internet has helped connect people incredibly, it's but a cheap substitute for actual human contact. Another reason we will need to leave home...to live. If you don't actually move physically and get some sun, you rot. And what's with everything being disneyland?
We will live and work in a virtual reality..."place" will be more about virtual place, while the physical places around us will be more infrastructural/production based. Speak for yourself kemosabe, I live in the physical world and no digital simulacrum will ever replace the feel of a breezy day in the spring.
The whole obsolescence of our physical world meme reminds me of the information age talk when I was in school in the late 80's. Just becasue factories in America close shop dosen't mean the industrial revolution died. It's called the third world, and they're fast becoming first worlders, pushing some of this manufacturing back to the 1st world. Why do we constantly need to upgrade our technology when we'll never use 1/100th of it's computational powers? How convenient is looking everything up in a flash when you haven't taken the time to distill information into actual knowledge, or dare I say, wisdom?
Sure times are changing, and it'll only speed up, but our model of life form evolved over an excrutiatingly slow timeline. To confuse our evolution for technology's evolution, or the speed of the market place is to have bought into the marketing that want's you to believe you will be left behind if you don't buy the latest i-phone or whatever else they are selling. It's just not backed up by actual science.
Thayer, Ill respond in the order of your post....
that UN prediction is including developing countries. Of course they will grow, they have industry. I was talking long term. 500-1000 years in the future and more specifically the US. Countries with land scarcity will always be urbanized. Unfortunatly, development follows the path of least resistance. Its easier and cheaper to sprawl.
Suburbia was created on an image of the "town." It was marketed to satisfy the nostalgia of small town life with all the convenience of a city. It has become more than that over time, but still being marketed as such in some areas. Usually what they do is destroy something and then name the new development after it...bulldoze goodyear farm....call the subdivision goodyear farms...Suburbia is based on fantasy.
humans have not been hard wired to live in cities. Urban life is a fairly recent thing. a few thousand years.... Our hard wiring has not changed much since then. We are hardwired to live in small tribes as we did for nearly 1 million years as humans, as well as prior to that as apes. Our desire for beauty is a different question.
The virtual is becoming more integral to life. I personally hate it but its not changing. We resist because we grew up without it. In a few generations it will be different. I think you are mistaking my analysis as some kind of position. It is not. I don't like or agree with the direction things are going, but it seems fairly obvious that technology will continue to advance and as it does, the cosequences of technology will also continue to "worsen."
Robotics will advance unless you think that we are at the height of technology. As it does, it will continue to replace us as it has been already. Go look at a pic from a factory circa 1950 and circa 2014. count the workers.
As for the virtual matrix....When we cross the singularity, the possibilities are endless. Everything you sense is nothing more than input. It can be replicated. Look at a video game from 1985 and one from today. In such a short time we went from Atari to online role playing games where our avatar exist in a virtual world...In 1985 you would laugh at that idea. Its real now. Not saying its good or bad, but it just is the nature of humans to push technology.
Technology allows for spatial separation. Our desires may resist this, but our desires do not build cities. Cities are built for economic reasons whether it be land scarcity, trade, or production. Trade and production no longer requires the urban form of a city and we do not have land scarcity in the US.
As I said before, I think there will be 2 fates for American cities.
1. They will depopulate like Detroit
2. They will become playgrounds for the wealthy.
As for suburbia, I think it will become the slum of the future. It has already.
I don't pretend to know what urban form will be scattered across the US in the year 2400. Some people swear that the city is the ultimate form of human habitation. They never even question it. As the walled kingdom became irrelevant so will the city as we know it. My quess would be that we will see something between suburbia and urban with much more infrastructural/production integrated.
My main point was that the outside world will continue to lose relevance in the lives of people not that we will completely abandon it. The degree is up for debate, but you cant possibly argue that a library will have the same function in the year 2100 as it does today. Many architectural roles/ typologies will become obsolete. Will people still want to smell the roses? Of course. Will they still need haircuts and hospitals? Most likely. Will we need office buildings? Probably much less then we do now.
Quondam, quantum computing will make it cheap as dirt. Its coming soon.
sim city would be sci-fi in 1970...only 40 years ago...imagine in the year 2200 or 3000 what we will have.
Why think ahead? Because many building will live that long.
study the past, design for the present, anticipate the future.
Meh. Your opinion. I did answer. Quantum computing. Coming in the near future whether you like it or not. Information is not energy. It doesn't cost any more to run a ps4 than am Atari 2600. Who will pay for it? The consumers. It will be a money maker like facebook and everything else. Who pays for porn, video games, etc. All I'm saying is that the Internet/computer realm will become increasingly experiential and spatial. It will continuously advance as it has. Nothing controversial about that observation. To deny that is to think that we are at the height of technology. That's ridiculous. All I was saying is that technology has consequences. As it becomes more advanced the consequences will become greater.
The less and less control over the real world the more we will seek control elsewhere. People like to control their environments. They like to have their "spaces" be it virtual or physical. Physical space is much harder to obtain and much more expensive. Hypothetically, once the virtual becomes indistinguishable from the physical (which is probably 100-300 years away) we will likely chose to get our experiential fixes in the virtual because its easier, safer, and cheaper. So where does that leave architecture. The architecture of the physical world would still be there to serve us. Yes we still need haircuts. However, many typologies will become obsolete, and the glorious expensive Bilbaos would probably lose their relevance because things more amazing could be experienced in the virtual realm and built with some sort of sensory pixels rather than steel. Anyway, point is architecture in the US is losing its relevance because physical space is losing its relevance, and cities are losing their functional relevance. Architectures role has been evolving. Buildings used to communicate messages through imagery, that's no longer a function of buildings. Buildings used to act as way finders, not so necessary any more as we can simply use a digital map on our phones to navigate. Buildings used to shield is from enemies. Well that worked against arrows and canons but useless against bunker busters and drones. The current function of architecture will too become obsolete in time.
May too.
@toasteroven + jla-x et al.
re: the discussion about - technology fueling an increased desire for density and human contact
see a recent essay in Sunday NYT magazine which started with examination of William Whyte's Street Life Projct data then gathered new data from same locations and found that Technology Is Not Driving Us Apart After All
Interesting article Nam. Counter-intuitive until you understand how the various ways we define community change over time, but still provide a sense, like this forum. To the point of actual physical space, this quote stands out.
"For example, he discovered that city people don’t actually like wide-open, uncluttered spaces. Despite the Modernist assumption that what harried urban people need are oases of nature in the city, if you bother to watch people, you see that they tend to prefer narrow streets, hustle and bustle, crowdedness. Build a high-rise with an acre of empty plaza around it, and the plaza may seem desolate, even dangerous. People will avoid it. If you want people to linger, he wrote, give them seating — but not just benches, which make it impossible for people to face one another."
"if you bother to watch people" in real space, not in virtual space. It would be good to take architecture students to watch people, instead of putting them down and speaking for them.
nam - I'm experiencing that first hand - I work in a neighborhood and city where many people are highly connected and not only early adopters, but drivers and creators of new technologies - the fact that places like this are quickly expanding and that demand for office space has completely shifted away from the suburban "tech corridor" and into the central city is a testament that increased "virtual" connectivity is definitely fueling this demand for, at the very least, "medium" density and walkable environments.
The issues jla-x raises are entirely about bad policy - not some weird nebulous sci-fi "matrix" - what irks me is that the way his (or her) argument is presented is in absolutes - it seems very helpless, inevitable, but if you're on the ground you know that there is an increasing awareness and need to provide space where people can be "tech-free" and interact with people and/or the built or "natural" environment - at least for a time. My argument about cars is that we know that this form of mobility is a big part of this increasing social and environmental isolation, and there is a definite push toward moving ourselves around in different ways. Policy makers and community activists are also very aware of urban affordability issues - which is another reason why we're seeing a big push toward better bike facilities.
You are all missing my point. I agree with you all about preference. I prefer narrow streets and density as well, however preference is not enough to guide the development of cities. Cities are built on industry and land scarcity. Once industry is removed, and when land scarcity is absent, the city shifts its role from an economically stratified heterogenous order to a homogenous one. It becomes held together by "preference" alone. This leads to homogenization both economically and socially. The city shifts its purpose from necessity to novelty. A city built around a desire to be a city (around the experiential and qualitative aspects of a city without the functional necessity) becomes a Disneyland of sorts. As suburbia is an image of the "town" the new city is basically just an image of the "city" Because of this, the prices will be driven up and the poor will be driven out. The city becomes a commodity like a beach front view. In the short term, our desires may keep this afloat for a while, but over time, the city will lose its relevance entirely. My opinion only. The city will be no different than those small towns that rely on their image of the "small town" of yesterday. They will be functionally obsolete and their value will be embodied in their past and their qualitative aspects only. My point is that the forces, be it economic, technological, etc are working against cities and transforming their role from specific function to specific lifestyle. My absolute tone may be too much, nothing is certain, but IMO without a counter force that is greater than personal preference alone the city as we know it is doomed. The sci-fi matrix is a hypothetical to illustrate the fragility of things. It is quite likely however that technology will advance to a point beyond our wildest dreams/nightmares. This will have consequences. T
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.