Discussion // Rem Koolhaas: Atlanta

Been busy lately, but I came across an old essay written by Rem Koolhaas about Atlanta. Truth be told I'm really surprised I've never read it before, or even heard of it.

You can read it online at Google Books, here. Really recommended.

Theory // Materialism, Paul Rudolph, & Politics

MATERIALISM

I've had the privilege at USC to be exposed for the first time to architecture in terms of philosophy. Not philosophy in terms of architecture, which tends to explain design through top-down, esoteric means while glossing over pragmatic intention, but rather a way of thinking that exposes the root  self-organizing generators of cities and buildings as functions of the behavior of people and their various hierarchical structures (government, regulatory agencies, neighborhood councils, etc.). In other words, in many real cases the question has to be asked, where does architecture come from? As opposed to, what is it, or what is it trying to be, or why does it appear a certain way. This approach to understanding architecture holds great appeal for me, as I am strongly interested in the connection between life, particularly American life, and the built environment.

[Manuel de Landa, trying to communicate his theories to architects...]

Discussion // BOOM & Street Art

BOOM!!!

I was astounded, shocked, appalled, surprised, inspired...a whole host of verbs...to see a proposal on ArchDaily for a new large, low-lying luxurious residential / resort complex in Palm Springs entitled "BOOM." Geared towards retirees from the LGBT community*, the project is a bold and creative approach to the standard American mega-development, and raises some fascinating questions about economy, sustainability, timeliness, sexuality and social living.

[*Palm Springs is a mecca for LGBT's on the West Coast / in LA]

The "fact sheet" is standard for recent models of  high-end, large-scale development in the United States: not-too-densely-packed apartment and condo units; unique internal "neighborhoods" each designed by a different well-known architect, in this case by boundary-breaking contemporary firms including Diller Scofidio + Renfro, J Mayer H, Joel Sanders, Surfacedesign, Lot-Ek, etc; and a variety of amenities including swimming pools, gyms, restaurants, nightclubs, and on and on. I've worked on a similar project, albeit of different scope and style (think: New Urbanist) that has collected dust on the drawing board for the past three years; landmark proposals of this sort are common, but not often built.

Discussion // Contractors, Politicians, Education...and Diversions

Building A Better Education

Is architecture to blame for the decrepit state of American education?

Well, from the position of the designer, no. But the process by which public educational facilities are built, especially on public campuses of all levels of education, is certainly part of the issue. In the LA Times this morning there was a terrific series of thorough and informative exposés revealing wasteful spending, poor planning, potential corruption, hidden agendas, and during a decade of expansion on Los Angeles's community colleges.

[Suits and s***. Hope you kids like a leaky roof!]

Part I - Overview: here

Part II - Case Study: here

Contractor Kickbacks: here

Future Articles: here

Not all educational projects that require the services of an architect run into budget issues (I have had very positive experiences in this regard). Not all contractors are cheapskates (lots are) or incompetent (many are actually very very good) and not all politicians are corrupt (ahem). But when political and financial argy bargy / backroom deals begin to stain the process of building public facilities, which, by their nature, are to be cost-effective, efficient, durable, and well-suited to their tasks, huge problems can arise. Unfortunately, I believe these conflicts are more prevalent than one might imagine. They are damaging to the people who are supposed to benefit from facilities expansion, and damaging to the reputations of all parties involved (architects) no matter how much sway each held in making decisions.

Discussion // Residential Towers

In response to the need for architectural compromise (as directed) and other ideas of scale and aesthetic I enumerated in the previous post, I've diverted my approach to answering the question of urban housing in the United States from the all-encompassing block plan and instead begun to explore the viability of residential towers in relatively low-density neighborhoods. The first order of business, I suppose, is to come up with a sort of ad-hoc list of advantages and disadvantages of the tower typology, and to find ways of enhancing the positive aspects and reversing the negative. I've also listed a wide variety of potential precedents; any suggestions for others would be appreciated.

[Literal translation of the Morphosis model.]