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 // 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 // Potpurrtecture

Wide range of topics on tap for today, starting with some links...

How Skyscrapers Can Save the City (The Atlantic)

A sociocultural look at the benefits of high-density living, the article makes some interesting points about the perceived economic influence of scale and provides a counterpoint to the timeless cries of Jane Jacobs for preserving the scale of the street. The author is correct in his assertion that "historic districts," though they acknowledge the sanctity of heritage, actually become completely unaffordable in comparison to more dense models. The authors suggestions are not so helpful - if neighborhoods are allowed to determine the extent to which their individual characters are maintained, the status quo will unquestionably be maintained - but they at least make for stimulating debate. The article also ignores the technical aspects of tall buildings - production, fabrication, transportation of materials, assembly, carbon footprint vs. sprawl, etc. I'm not an expert on the science so it's not my place to critique tall buildings on it.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. First, it's obvious and irrefutable that our current use of land is wasteful and destructive. LA, naturally, is the poster child for a decaying ecology as a result of sprawl. Second, it's impossible to ignore that there are problems with housing of any typology without adequate transportation infrastructure. Skyscrapers demand a high-speed, 3d mass transit system of multiple levels. Unfortunately, these types of systems are fading away in the United States, leading to more and more surface sprawl - it's difficult to blame someone for destructiveness when there are so few alternatives, but our thinking definitely needs to change fast.

[Wouldn't be so bad to live here, don't you say? PSFS, Philadelphia, Howe + Lecaze, 1932. Can we update this model to fit our needs? Interesting that this pathfinding building is also in one of the most historical and traditional cities in the U.S.]

There are, of course, examples of good residential density at the skyscraper scale - Hong Kong, Singapore, New York (somewhat) - but also a lot of bad examples. And, tragically, there's no good way to hide a poor skyscraper as opposed to say, a cheaply-built Type-5 courtyard box. So who gets to design these things? How can we be sure that the design will (1) address urban and human scale on the ground level, (2) be as sustainable as possible, to whatever extent technology will allow, (3) be sensitive to surrounding urban fabric, (4) be affordable to a large sample of the population and (5) respond to the future to the degree that the building will initiate positive changes in infrastructure and land use? A tough task, indeed.

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.

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 // Mode & Motives

Strikingly similar quotes:

The vision is an answer to the fundamental question: what shall we build in any given place, where a project is to be undertaken. This question does not ask how it is organized, how it is designed, what character the architecture has…but simply the most fundamental question of all: what is it? What is going to be there?

In today’s development, this question is asked, and answered, almost exclusively in economic terms. What can pay for itself there? What can make money there?

Of course the projects which are built, in answer to this question, and after the necessary consumer surveys, are machine-like, abstract, lifeless. They are uninteresting, not vivid. They are incapable of exciting us, or moving us, because they are not human in their quality. 

-Christopher Alexander, A New Theory of Urban Design (1987)

The discovery of building as a new paradigm in our work happened at the same time as a change in the situation of the western city, which involved the extensive reformulation of conditions affecting contemporary architecture as a whole : the gradual privatization of the public space of the city. Faced with a complete lack of public funds, cities and local authorities found themselves increasingly unable to play an active role in urban planning developments, and instead sold out to investors, who helped themselves to the biggest and best pieces of the city. It was a game whose end could be predicted: architecture would end up as infrastructure built to maximize the profits of a global economy.

-Wolf D. Prix, Coop Himmelblau - Philosophy

Both of these statements address the following phenomenon: the end of the era of master planning and a renewed interest in the piecemeal / naturally evolving urbanism that preceded the Modern Movement. Just through observation, one can recognize the the traces of corporate interest inhabit nearly every piece of American architecture [which encompasses all building construction] over the last fifty years, save a few exceptional examples. It will be fascinating to see how the relationship between economics and architecture - which at the moment is strained to the breaking point - changes over the next few years.

[Even existing innovative / experimental / controversial buildings like this (Buckhead Library, Scogin Elam & Bray, 1989) are under threat of demolition for economic concerns. Is there room for a shift in values for exceptional cases?]

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.

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.

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 // 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.]

Film // Inception

Even without prolonged consideration, I can say with certainty that Inception is truly one of the most remarkable films ever made. If you are an architect and are passionate about your craft, the philosophical questions posed in the film about the nature of creativity should resonate to the very core of what drives you. I mentioned in a comment on the previous post, which is also about architecture in film and whose content bears relevance to this post, that I have recently been interested in only the visceral qualities of buildings - material, texture, shape, form, aesthetic - but I'm finding that view to be incredibly short-sighted in light of the words of respected colleagues and the works of genius artist/philosophers like Christopher Nolan. I have learned that dreaming, sensuality, and the creative subconscious are all just as important as we interpret our world through our mind. 

I don't want to discuss particular points of the movie here, but I am really curious to hear insight from the rest of you. For myself, I can already tell grad school will be a rewarding venture - I can't wait to put some of these notions to the test!