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.

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.

Place // Palm Springs, CA

I was more excited about visiting Palm Springs than any other city on our tour because it contains the greatest concentration of mid-century modern buildings in the country. The town's development as an isolated resort community paralleled the growth of nearby metropolises Los Angeles and San Diego and provided architects with a playground to test new design and construction techniques. The rise of Hollywood in the 1930's attracted tourists and illustrious clients to the Coachella Valley, including Frank Sinatra and Elvis, and made life in Palm Springs a lucrative and fashionable venture. Revised zoning laws, meanwhile, along with the support and foresight of ambitious developers like the Alexander Construction Company, accommodated the rapid expansion in concordance with the influx of new residents. The result is a regional architectural vernacular that is uniquely American and at the same time, uniquely Californian, and which functions like a dynamic exhibit, where the city itself is a museum, and the buildings works of art. Visiting this place is like stepping into a decades-old lab experiment whose instigators have long since passed but whose tubes and cauldrons are still bubbling with purpose. It is tangible history that is not so foreign to our perception of everyday life that we're unable to understand it. Palm Springs is glamorous, beautiful, and I love it...if only it wasn't 115 degrees when I was there, I may have stayed.

Some of the architects who practiced in Palm Springs are some of the most well-known American modernists: RM Schindler, Richard Neutra, Albert Frey, E. Stewart Williams, Palmer & Krisel, John Lautner and more. I will be posting all my images on Flickr soon, but bear in mind that many of the most famous buildings are private residences and thus inaccessible. So you'll have to live with just a taste. 

Also, check out this website dedicated to the preservation of Palm Springs Modern for more information.

[House, Albert Frey]

["House of Tomorrow" for Elvis Presley, Palmer + Krisel]

[Tramway Station / Visitors Center, Albert Frey]

[Palm Springs City Hall, Albert Frey]

[Kauffman House, Richard Neutra]

[Palm Springs Art Museum, E. Stewart Williams]

[Retail/Office Building, E. Stewart Williams]

[Bank, E. Stewart Williams]

[Tramway Hub, Base, E. Stewart Williams]

Icons of Modernism // Atlanta-Fulton Public Library, Central Branch

Atlanta-Fulton Public Library, Central Branch
Location: Atlanta, GA [map]
Architect: Marcel Breuer
Year Built: 1980
Related Works: Whitney Museum, NY

 Amazingly, this work by Breuer - one of the last of his lifetime, as he died one year after the building's completion - remains largely anonymous even though its origins in the International Style distinguish it from almost any work in the Southeast outside of Florida. The building is wonderfully integrated into the complicated and often disjointed block layouts of downtown, and is yet another showcase of Breuer's lifelong affinity for cast-in-place concrete as a material that plays the dual role of dictating both structure and form. From a philosophical standpoint, the work reflects Breuer's pragmatic attitudes towards civic buildings (especially those that house books and art) in dense urban areas.

We in Atlanta are privileged to have a building of this quality in our architectural heritage, yet our government's unforunate and rather pathetic disengagement from the art & design community - Georgia, for example, almost became the first state to disband its Arts Council - has once again placed a modern masterpiece in jeopardy of demolition. Thankfully, with the help of generous donors and grassroots support, the building stands and remains as it should - a testament to the talents of one of America's truly great architects.