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...]

Lifestyle // The Romanesque Romantic...or Don Juan de Stijl?

Architecture and romance maintain a curious and often tenuous rapport. One would expect, for example, that architects are tremendous lovers. After all, they work extensively with their strong but delicate hands. They have impeccable taste which has been cultivated through a broad and cultured education. They have an artistic sensibility and an appreciation for the sensuous qualities of form (body) and material (skin). And, of course, with an intimate knowledge of construction, they are handy to have around the house at all times of the day - or night. All these facts must have been considered when some Dutch academic journal recently listed "architect" as the world's sexiest profession. So not only are we (architects) great lovers, we're also the sexiest people. As if I didn't have enough already going for me, eh? Hardy har har...Tom-Cruise-lookalike my ass.

[House of the Century by Ant Farm. Is that a building or are you just excited to see me?]

Unfortunately for me, these qualities have not reversed to even a single degree my recent  fabulous failings in the world of love and romantic conquest. They should at least allow me to overcome my ice-cold first impressions, mumbling, constant looks of bitterness, anger, and/or consternation, and lack of emotional openness, right? Well, first I'd have to ask myself if it is even possible to live up to the standards set down by the egghead sociologists in Amsterdam or wherever and what possible misconceptions contribute to these illusory statements.

Place // San Diego, CA

Though there are few truly vital reasons to leave LA's urban soup for San Diego's relative towniness, there are a few compelling ones. Most of them involve fantastic CaliMex food, the insane Tijuana border--for which I had neither the stones nor the time to visit, instead choosing to guide my lovely female companions to relative safety/sanity--and NFL football, SoCal-style. But if you're a student of architecture, conquistadors, or just like the beach, it's worth a look. But first a little history...

The area was first explored by Spanish explorer Sebastian Vizcaino in 1602 and named for a Spanish saint, San Diego de Alcalá. In 1769, a group of Spanish missionaries established a permanent colony on a site now known as "Old Town" San Diego. Later, the colony transformed into a military outpost, displacing the missionaries a few miles to the east, and was the location of a few small skirmishes between Spanish soliders and the indigenous Native American tribe, the Kumeyaay. Mexico gained indepedence from Spain in 1821 and San Diego progressed under Mexican jurisdiction until the resolution of the Mexican-American War in 1850 (known as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) ceded the city to the U.S.

Discussion // Mode & Motives

Here's a little long-delayed hotlist of items that have been occupying my thoughts lately....

1. I have a problem. My confidence in my design talent is evaporating like sweat on 115F Los Angeles days (can you believe that was the actual temperature? I felt like I was swimming in a convection oven). All I want to do is make buildings that are beautiful, sculptural, creatively functional and innovative, but I struggle. I'm asking: is this a problem you also deal with? If so, how did you get over it? And, is it so wrong to struggle in the process of learning? Is it even worth going through this pain if I'm not the best, or even close to it? Some people find the completion of the work rewarding in itself regardless of the outcome, but I destroy myself no matter the process because the result never lives up to my own expectations. I get too caught up in the details. Oh well, you can't change who you are, can you?

2. I've noticed that attitudes about design within the United States aren't simply a function of local popular culture or stylistic preference (though each have plenty of influence), but also of real-life problems that emerge from conditions of geography, politics, and history. Many of these issues are expressed in the technical details most people take for granted (myself included) wherever they live because those are most familiar. Sloped roofs, enclosed 2-hr rated fire stairs, double-loaded corridors (or for that matter, interior enclosed circulation), neoclassicism, stacked masonry, grassy lawns, oak and pine trees, porticoes, horizontal shades, shutters, downspouts, snow cleats are unnecessary or non-existent in LA. On the flip side, I've learned more about earthquake design in just a couple of months than I have in years of east coast training. Architectural language is as different as the weather, terrain, and vegetation, as well as the people - just as it should be. No wonder all those Kieran Timberlake precedent studies I love so much aren't translating so well over here....

[Sorry, KT, I'm not in Kansas anymore...I sure do miss those red & yellow trees though.]

3. What's wrong with designing a box and treating the surface as the vessel for your artistry? The "jewel box" as it were. I know I said attitudes don't deal strictly with style, but the academic types here in LA abhor the decorated shed. Vast numbers of European architects, of course, are exceptional at accentuating simple forms, but folks like Rem, Zaha, and Bjarke rule the roost as far as formal (shape making) design process is concerned. The unfortunate aspect of this phenomenon as that their formal investigations as they relate to urban conditions, which are often quite ingenious, are not correlated. This sort of pedagogy, where form, urbanism, and tectonics are treated as separate and ordered steps, leads to exuberant, almost over-developed formal explorations without much concern for program or urban condition and without much systematic relevance. The formal diagram is too isolated, devaluing the weeks spent on site analysis.

This leads to another question - does LA need more modern object buildings in a city where most of the buildings are objects anyway? Is that a crucial component of the LA identity, this architectural melange of formal recklessness that is, in fact, mysterious, fascinating, and utterly unique? The New Urbanists - the dastardly denouncers of daring design - believe object buildings can only stand out in a sea of consistency that must be pre-established. That is the European condition, and it works for them, but we don't have the luxury of density here in America (and ESPECIALLY not in LA), at least in the same sense. So we have to manufacture it from nothing - which is why Seaside makes me wanna barf. So what do we do? What do I do?

One reason I'm a little conflicted is I'm working on an elementary school on a site that demands an urban response. The building is driven by program and there isn't much liberty for wasteful / unused space. I've taken this on as a design direction but my project feels boring compared to the more fanciful efforts of my classmates, though theirs probably aren't as rational. Alas! My sobriety is bringing me down again...

4. LA is a terrible place to go out at night. Sure, there's great food everywhere, and people of all cultures embrace American life and vice versa, but damn everything is so spread out and if you're not a native (like me), trying to find a beer bar at 12:30 am when you're stuck in Arcadia (I still don't know where that is) is like a blind man trying to find Spanish gold on a beach without a metal detector. Developing a "going-out" routine takes incredible effort that I don't have time to put in. In which case, ass = on couch / in studio chair. Blech.

5. But on the bright side, I did find a good place to watch movies in LA. Vista Theater. Check it.

Found: Authentic LA movie place. Cantonese-style grub. Taco stands. Karaoke Bars. Museums.

Not found: Decent beer bar. Dance club. Cheap places to shop. Dumpling house. Good pizza. Companionship. Tennis partner. Parking.

Discussion // Complexity & Contradiction

(This will an evolving post, so don't be alarmed by the length. I will continue to update it as I notice further relationships.)

The rhetoric over theory vs. practice in architecture is tired and worn out, and if you've ever worked in an office you don't need to be told the differences. But for my generation, there are some new wrinkles in this complicated - and often criticized - relationship that are starting to affect the discipline as a whole. In the traditional model of architectural education and practice, the conflict could be modeled simply as a push and pull between design (form, art, sculpture, independence) and reality (economy, gravity, dependence).

Design < >  Reality

[Sant Elia - Futurist, but still with pen, paper, and straight edge. The forms are recognizable as buildings.]

Now I believe there is a third element to this conflict: technology. More specifically, computers and visualization software. For centuries, since the days when Brunelleschi doodled the famous structure of the dome, the methods of architectural representation remained relatively constant: drawing tool, straight edge, and paper. The use of such devices limited our ability to conceive of form beyond what was structurally possible or referential to some previous typology. Computers, on the other hand, have allowed our imaginative powers to far outrun our ability to practically create, because they not only translate what we think but also generate based on complicated sets of parameters or algorithms. As a result, a new style, or field of research (I don't really know what to call it) of "virtual architecture" has emerged, championed by the likes of Zaha Hadid / Patrik Schumacher, Roland Snooks and others, whose bearing on real architecture has yet to be fully explored or even explained clearly by those who profess it.
 

[Diaz Alonso - what in the world is this without context? How was it made?]

What all this leads to, at least with me since I feel like I'm not brilliant enough to decipher it all, is an incredible confusion as to what architecture - especially in this country - actually is and where I should focus myself in school. Should I look into parametric design simply because it's new and innovative, to broaden my horizons? Should I avoid it if I think it's irrelevant to my own interests? Should I even bother looking at history if the tools of the trade have evolved so much? These are questions I have to deal with even as I'm forced to struggle to catch up with learning new software (I've found out so far I'm very much behind). So now the conflicts in architecture look like this:

Design (Practical) < > Design (Virtual) < > Technology < > Reality < > Generational

Sometimes it's all a bit too much to handle, I'll admit. Now with the conflicts mapped out, I'm going to start keeping a list of contradictions in architectural practice vs. education, the purpose of which is not to completely discount what I learn, but simply to refer it to my ultimate goal of becoming an architect who builds buildings. Sure it's been done before many times, but I think it's healthy for every student of architecture to develop his or her own. I'll start off with a few, feel free to add, contribute, suggest, refute, etc.

1. The Role of the Architect in the Realization of Projects

This one is obvious. In school, you are taught ways of making cities better one building or project at a time, as if you are the spontaneous generator of the need.

Photo // More Mobile Munchies

Where else is one supposed to eat at 2:30am after having an unnamed quantity of beverages at the local establishment? A Mexican taco truck, that's where. Restaurant on wheels = awesome. I mentioned before that food trucks, a form of "mobile architecture," were introduced in Atlanta but they are all the rage in Los Angeles. Here, food trucks are also cultural institutions, dishing out a taste of home for immigrants and providing a place where people of different ethnic backgrounds can gather and find togetherness through food.

And the bounty...mmmmmmmmm...

...and now, indigestion. I'm not used to eating Mexican food intended for Mexicans...can a white boy get some watered down chilies, please? Also, 3am Food coma / spice stupor is not good for writing, so apologies for the quality of the post ;)

School updates and other fun stuff to come soon once I have a bit more mental capacity, so stay tuned.

Lifestyle // Traffic Jam Theater

Stumbled across this story on NPR about Los Angeles artist Joel Kyack, who stages puppet shows from the back of his truck amidst the city's worst traffic snarls.

[All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances.]

 This article is fascinating for a few reasons; firstly, it touches again on the topic of mobile, or dynamic, architecture in which the paradigm of certain traditional cultural institutions - in this case, theater - has evolved to include transiency, improvisation and whimsy [see the previous post about food trucks]. Additionally, Kyack's ideas about the nature of performance, the choreography of movement and patterns of behavior are strikingly architectural. A few of my favorite quotes:

"I like chaos," Kyack observes. "I like things that are moving in and out of control, like negotiations of agency and resignation. And for me, the traffic jam is that."  

Wow, that sounds like it came straight out of architecture school. It nearly refers to "swarm intelligence," a trendy topic in many futurist / avant garde design programs about uncontrolled systems and one that I've mentioned before on this blog.

"How you navigate, how you make the world that you want around you, and how you compromise with what the world's giving you," Kyack explains. "And I think that formally, the traffic jam is sort of the perfect metaphor to explore that."

Compromise is an important facet of architecture that is often ignored in theory but appears again and again in practice; it sometimes leads so much frustration during the design process that it leads one to question the viability or usefulness of the architectural profession. But what Kyack says here, quite optimistically, is that compromise is an opportunity. It is a means by which we can explore the constraints of life, add to them, and freely enrich ourselves. The constraint of traffic, for example, could lend to compelling studies about the various layers of architecture contained within (the car environment, the road as a form of architecture that contains "inhabitants" and performs living functions, or, as shown here, the traffic jam as a staging area, etc.). After all, we spend so much time in automotive purgatory, yet traffic is very underutilized in a practical sense. Radio shows and the like are sufficient entertainment but lack context - there's no element of "now" or "here."

Lastly, my absolute favorite snippet:

He doesn't get in trouble. But then again, the cops don't quite buy his academic theories about offering a space of engagement for drivers to reflect on the chaotic structures of their daily routine.

Is this the author taking a little potshot at dullard cops? Could be...but there it is again, the conflict between academia and real life that often gets smarty types in trouble. More compromising is in order!

Place // Santa Monica, CA

Posts may be sporadic as I get into the thick of the semester, but I'll try to get on here as often as possible. I mean, I accept the fact that my readers love me and demand more, but I'm a tease and that's just the way it's gonna be. I think you like it that way. Mmhm.

Moving on...not much to report about Santa Monica except that it's a gorgeous beach community with sky-high property values and high-rollers on every corner. It was there I also had my first celebrity sighting (Nick Cannon). Not high on the list, I'll admit, but it's a start. I'm just waiting for the day I meet Tom Cruise. Mr. Tommy C. I wonder, if I shake his hand, does the universe implode? Because you know, the same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time. [If you don't understand what I'm talking about, that's okay - just watch Timecop.] So far that makes for a celebrity sighting, a party at which I was asked if I was in the porn biz, an exclusive Hollywood club outing, a trip to the Getty, a Dodgers game, a few tours, my first kind of exposure to the entertainment industry...pretty crazy first few weeks amongst the sheer wackiness of Los Angeles.

Eventually I'll get all these pics on the Flickr album...I've just got to wait until those (nice people) give me more storage space.

[Parking Deck. I always forget the architect...]

[Store. Pugh + Scarpa I believe?]

[Yes, it always looks like this here.]

[Excellent 80's mod!]

[Getty. Of course.]

Discussion // "Lucky" Buildings

Just a little link here as I wind down for the weekend...I'll start posting some LA experiences here pretty soon.

I wonder what is it about a particular building that makes it lucky for tech businesses. Sure, there's the old adage of "location, location, location," but that applies more to marketability of real estate relative to local amenities and proximity to potential customers. Software companies, who themselves deal in the "virtual architecture" of computer programming, need neither retail nor on-site storage space to market their products. 

When successful tech companies, like Google and Pixar, do commission real architecture, the typical model of commercial construction, where businesses stay close to exposed and accessible city centers, seems not to apply. This is partly a result of the evolution of commodity to include transactable goods that are imaginary, i.e. data-only, and which impose no logistical demands of any kind, save bandwidth. [Hmm, that's an idea for a study of the economic geography of virtual infrastructure. Is that already a field of interest? I don't know.] Hence, many campuses of tech companies tend to first focus on catering to the health and welfare of the corporate employee (gasp!) to foster innovation. Yet, in doing so, they have already done something innovative  by shaking up the paradigm of corporate architecture. Some examples are even whimsical or theme-parkish in the ways they differ from or reject traditional American corporatism. Check out "Ebay Park" and "Googleplex" and "Pixar Headquarters," the last of which I've already posted a little bit about.

[eBay Park: the tech-bubble era funland]

I would say the one critique of "corporate utopianism" [to coin a new term] is that it is too suburban; it doesn't engage the city, as some might suggest architecture must for the benefit of our posterity. Though both Google's and Pixar's HQs are constructed "sustainably" using similar methods, and house suitably happy employees, there is a question over whether their isolation is an irresponsible rejection of urbanity. Maybe, maybe not. There is not enough information about the  long-term influence of the variable in the future equation: the substance-less commodity. As it is I'm in the process of learning a bit more of the philosophy behind urban design so I might be able to tell you in the near future. Until then, it's up for discussion.

I also can't tell you why that one building is so good at producing business blockbusters. The landlord did start his career selling Persian rugs, maybe there's a magic lamp hidden in the attic, who knows.

Project // Street Mapping

We were assigned a project on due on the first real day of studio (!!!) which required that we walk a street, in this case Hoover Street north of campus, and abstractly document the nature of the urban geography through our own individual perceptions. I chose to focus on graffiti, which plays a large role as a means of communication in urban subculture in Los Angeles. The graphics are themed to that effect. I assigned single words to images based on the intent or construct of the graffiti, and posed questions seeking additional insight.

The major critique of this sort of diagram, whose focus is primarily artistic, personal, and social, is that it doesn't convey in useful statistical or demographic data. Granted. I didn't put in the effort to truly "map" each occurrence, but in a sense my professor was right in another comment that he made, that each project is highly autobiographical. I am more interested in the personal. What are the people like? What is the "vibe" of the space? That's more the focus of this blog and my work. So I'll take the criticism.

I could write a lot about the neighborhood but I'll save that for another time. I can say that Hoover Street from USC to Wilshere Blvd consists primarily of low-income immigrant communities from Korea and Central America above the 110 and USC housing/buildings below. The northern section is also notorious for its high incidence of crime. Here's the location if you're curious.

View Larger Map

Discussion // What's In It For Me?

Sorry to interrupt, for those of you who are following, my highly entertaining tour of the good ol' U.S. of A., but I discovered a few debates taking place in Los Angeles and New York about the value of architecture in terms of economy and context.

Our first reading for an urban design seminar postulates the theory that we as architects only remodel what is existing, whether it be the landscape, site ecology, urban context, infrastructure, or existing buildings, and can include such things as local economy, cultural traditions and values. The latter more intangible principles tend to incite more debate and outrage among the general public than the former, because they involve sentimentality and the preservation of those aspects of life that are irreplaceable (home, family, career). Design becomes less important.

The New York example is a simpler issue of that sentimental attachment to identity, but the one here in Los Angeles questions why the school system would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on what it called "Taj Mahal" schools; there are currently in the city, each with a cost of over $200 million and the latest at a cost of over $500 million, the costliest in the nation. The article goes into thorough detail about the process through which these projects get built, and the reactions within the community. Many aspects are viewed negatively, and with good reason, because an honest assessment of the benefits can hardly convince anyone that 3 buildings-which few can access in one of the most overcrowded districts in the nation-justify the expenditures. 

[I visited one of these schools today. More to follow on this...]

One example, though, touches on an important aspect of the already fragile relationship between architects and the public. A spokesman for an urban school construction group in D.C. states rather dismissively that "architects and builders love this stuff, but there's a bit of a lack of discipline here." The discipline she refers to, of course, involves the distribution of funds to a select amount of schools, the extravagant use of taxpayer money to fund huge building projects, and the lack of proper administration within the school district to run the new schools. In other words, these projects are for and by the people that control the funding, and are NOT the direct result of architectural irresponsibility or lack of restraint. They highlight the critical disjuncture in public perception of the commission of design versus the result. The commission comes from the city; its provide the budget, the program, and the freedom by which the architects can synthesize a solution. They also choose architects based on past work so the end results can hardly come as a surprise. In a down economy, architects are neither obligated nor motivated to reduce fees or change their design style if the city is willing to accommodate both...or should we be? Do we really have the power to fight money? It's a tough question.

Enough musings for today. Probably didn't make much sense. First day of class tomorrow...

Lifestyle // Mobile Munchies...Modern!

To continue on the topic of gastronomic delights, we bring you the exciting news (at least among foodies) that the City of Atlanta has, at long last, granted its first mobile food truck permit to an outfit called Yumbii. Food trucks, which generally dish out local and ethnic specialties like tacos in Los Angeles or cheesesteaks in Philadelphia, are the hot trend in American culinary circles; the Atlanta variation serves southern-style Korean tacos (huh??).

The phenomenon of the food truck represents some ideas about architecture and urbanism that have been floating around in my head the past few days. The following little doodles sum them up pretty well. By no means are these ideas original, they simply illustrate the evolution of the archetypal American lifestyle over the past 150 years, with watershed changes occurring in increments of about 50 years or so with the introduction of a new tool - the car, the computer, etc. I'm channelling my inner Roger Lewis here...

1900: A New Century.

1950: Baby Boomers.

2010: The Internet Age.

 The first image shows urban life at around 1900: high density, near the urban core, with food, entertainment, and other necessities in close proximity. Your own two feet were your primary means of locomotion. By 1950, automobile and suburban culture had taken hold. The single-family detached house became the desired dwelling unit, and people traveled from their home in their cars to achieve their necessities - a "destination" culture. Today, the personal computer, along with a complex delivery infrastructure, allows us to summon our necessities directly to our McMansions, where we also work and find entertainment. The arrows represent the behavior of the consumer in relation to the flow of goods, and commodities; first, goods and consumers revolved closely around the home, then consumers extended directly outward from the home, and now goods come directly inward.

Food trucks are, in essence, symbols of the inward lifestyle. They become units of mobile architecture that bring goods (in this case wacky tacos) to wherever people request them. Social media websites like Twitter and Facebook facilitate this interaction.

It would be a good exercise to try and draw a diagram for the year 2050, the next step in the series.

(Top photo Christiane Lauterbach / Carson Young / Atlanta Food Carts blog)

Film // Visual Acoustics: The Modernism of Julius Shulman

Visual Acoustics tells the story of California Modernism through the eyes and camera of Julius Shulman (1910-2009), a man whose humility, kind temperament and infectious humor belie his standing as the preeminent American architectural photographer of the past century. His lens was the conduit through which many of this country’s most famous and brilliant designers became publicly known; Richard Neutra, Rudolf Schindler, Frank Lloyd Wright, Albert Frey and John Lautner all owe some measure of their professional success to the elegant way Shulman represented their work. His role as the anonymous herald of American Modernism, helping to foster an appreciation for the movement both domestically and abroad, is a fascinating subject for this whimsical but streamlined documentary from director Eric Bricker.

Historically, Julius Shulman’s opera completa successfully captures the essence of the pioneer spirit that drove disciples of Wright and Louis Sullivan from the Chicago area (Lautner, E. Stewart Williams) and students of the Bauhaus (Neutra, Schindler) from central Europe to Los Angeles in the early 1930s. At that time, Los Angeles was experiencing an unprecedented building boom, having grown from the 36th largest city in the US in 1900 to the 5th by 1930. Sprawling urban conditions and an unrefined surrounding natural landscape provided designers with an irresistibly clean slate on which they could test new designs and construction techniques. Los Angeles became a locus of creative expression. Much of the work that followed in the region featured a trademark exuberance that came to represent a new California-based architectural vernacular. Shulman translated this language into images; his most iconic, a night scene of Pierre Koenig’s Case Study House #22, combines the grace of modern architecture, the vitality of west coast living and the hopeful glow of progress exuded by the evolving American city into one frame. The house itself, now regarded as a masterpiece of domestic construction, became, as a result of Shulman’s photography, a symbolic representation of the goals of an entire age of architects and designers.

From a visual standpoint, the film seems to direct itself; Shulman has already provided the story in his photographs. What differentiates this film from other architectural documentaries, however, is its focus on the means by which public perception and interest in architecture is generated rather than the individual architect or building. The ideal experience of architecture, of course, occurs in situ, where in the presence of context we are able to understand the nuances of space and detail; unfortunately, by circumstances of economy, logistics, or geography, the opportunity for such an experience is as rare as the buildings we deem worthy of our attention. We rely accordingly on the literate, sensible eye of the traveling professional photographer to translate these characteristics and convey them in single images. Through his own interpretations, the photographer controls our response to the subject matter. Shulman—a staunch environmentalist and outspoken critic of Postmodern reactionaries—did so with his work.

Shulman was in the unique position by virtue of his craft of having some involvement with nearly every great work of American Modernism. While architects are isolated practitioners who devote themselves for years to one project in one place, Shulman with his many clients functioned as the sociocultural link between architects, developers, and tenants scattered across the country. He knew everyone and seemed to share a common language even when architects disagreed amongst themselves. He developed long-lasting personal friendships—particularly with Neutra, his early mentor, Schindler and Lautner—that transcended professional practice or esotericism. His life binds the entire history of American Modernism and the lives of the people involved into one neat package, providing the perfect human perspective for a film on the subject.

Lately I’ve had the good fortune of seeing two very disparate yet inspiring films rooted in architecture; first, Inception, which appeals to my as-yet-undeveloped creative futurist side, and this film, which reinforces my modernist romanticism. Each has strengthened the thrust of the pioneer spirit that is fueling my west coast odyssey. In short, I can’t wait to go! Sandy beaches, palm trees and Cali style here I come…

Notes

-During the few minutes of the film devoted to Shulman’s criticism of Postmodernism, two buildings in Atlanta (photographed by Shulman, naturally) were shown as examples of architecture he disliked…Can anyone guess what they are? Bonus points or other miscellaneous favors for the winner. You can find both of the buildings in my Flickr album….;)

-If you want to see originals prints of Shulman’s photographs, they are currently on display on at the Getty Center in Santa Monica, CA.

-Arts & Architecture Magazine was the venue where many of Shulman’s photos were first published, especially those featuring the Case Study Houses. This magazine was instrumental in spreading the work of Shulman and the architects he photographed, but its importance constitutes a whole set of posts on its own…so I’ll get to it later haha

Icons of Modernism // Lustron

I didn't know anything about the Lustron Corporation until I came across a featurette in the AJC about an Atlanta woman who owns and has installed some period decor in one of their 1940's pre-fab houses. From my own limited knowledge about the history of the type, this must have been one of the first mass-produced pre-fabricated homes in American history, manufactured from spare metal leftover from the war effort. The houses are very modern but modest, well-designed and easily disassembled and moved. The Wiki article above lists some of the various model configurations from which consumers had to choose, and goes into a bit of detail about the downfall of the company in the early 1950s, which occurred even during a period of great demand for affordable and efficient housing. Below is an image of the refurbished model in Atlanta; bottom is an audio clip from MOMA about the inventor of the Lustron, Carl Strandlund.

Intro // A Particular Brand of Building

Here I intend to showcase the best and most interesting American commercial architecture with particular emphasis on corporate retail. In many ways this series of posts will be an ode to Venturian postmodern ideologies, but many companies are eschewing the “decorated shed” for a more integrated, design-oriented approach to edificial marketing that constitutes a more thoughtful response to urban conditions than the traditional American strip-mall, fast-food restaurant, etc. The posts about urban spas and garage reuse can be thought of as precursors to this topic.

^^^Target, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA. The actual Target logo is tiny, but the architecture is successful in conveying the brand image. Below, some Green features - plantings, trees, outdoor furniture, permeable surfaces.

The iconography of American commerce in a historical sense is tied to our automotive culture. Rather than acting as agents of restraint, bureaucrats, city planners and architects yielded to, and in several instances created, the changes in lifestyle brought about by the car’s popularity. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the interstate highway system, replacing the train as the primary means of long-distance ground transportation and connecting major cities to satellite towns called suburbs, which became the new standard of American urbanism. With the expansion of infrastructure, the Modern movement, which had taken hold in Europe decades earlier, began to flourish in American art and architecture.

Circumstance, meanwhile, forced businesses to adapt to these changes. Centers of American commerce shifted from town squares to mega-malls. Brand imagery became increasingly important as companies sought new ways of attracting transient suburban customers. Billboards, marquees, and other forms of signage, whose exaggerated scale and aggressive graphics were necessary persuasive devices, came to represent the physical division between businesses and the fast-moving traveling consumer. Cities that embraced the shift, like Las Vegas, a mere rail stopover before the construction of nearby Hoover Dam in 1935, seemed to emerge overnight and attract immediate attention.

Discussion // World Architecture Survey

Vanity Fair just published a survey of 52 highly-acclaimed architects (some of whom are my own favorites), authors, and academicians, to determine the 5 most influential works of architecture of the past 30 years. The overwhelming winner, according to the story, was Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum - Bilbao. American buildings named in survey responses include the Cooper Union building by Morphosis and the Seattle Public Library, Central by Rem Koolhaas.

See the article here.

Listen to the NPR interview with the story's editor here.

And who was the only architect to pick his own work as the most influential? Wolf Prix of Coop Himmelblau....figures. ;)

Lifestyle // Where I Lived, and What I Lived For

Title of this post refers to a chapter of Thoreau's Walden Pond that describes what man can learn from a simpler existence tied to a more direct connection with nature. Is this the next modern home - or is it anti-modern? Can we make cities and communities of this type of home? Will these communities be mobile? 

[Thanks to Vasu Abhiraman for the link.]

Lifestyle // Modern American Parenting Techniques

Sigh.

"Sounds like...brainwashing to me!" - Dr. McCoy

Idea // American Bathhouse

^^^The new American Bathhouse?

In ancient cultures blessed with geothermal springs and other natural heat sources, the bathhouse was as ubiquitous as any other structure within the city. Greeks and Romans founded many of the practices we now associate with modern western spas in buildings called balneums and thermae, which, as time progressed, became centers for relaxation and socialization. These were also some of the first attempts in the Western world to create public facilities, open to both men and women, for the practice of personal hygiene.

Discussion // Is there room for religion in Modernism?

I came across some interesting quotes in the local county newspaper this week from a young playwright, Olgethorpe University student Will Carter, who recently won first prize in the Agnes Scott College Writer's Festival. He describes his winning play "Line Please" as "an absurdist comedic critique of modernity," sourcing Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground as his literary inspiration. Carter goes on, "I hate that in the modern world, we have to know everything; we must have a manual for life. I think mystery is a beautiful thing. As a Christian, I believe in a mysterious God, which I think is absolutely fantastic."