During my freshman year at the University of Cincinnati (1979?) I had the opportunity to visit the Hanselman House in Fort Wayne Indiana with (my professor at the time,) Peter Waldman, who (if I remember correctly,) had worked for both Meiers and Graves while attending Princeton. During that trip, among other projects, we visited both the Hanselman House and the Sniderman House in the rain. The design of projects were monumental to the development of all residential architecture when they were included in the NEW YORK FIVE exhibition at MOMA, New York, in 1969 and the following book “FIVE ARCHITECTS,” published in 1975. To say these projects (and this book,) rocked the architectural world is an understatement. It was our bible at college. To study the drawings of the Hansleman House, even today as I flip through the book again, is about as thought provoking as architectural experimentation gets. Furthermore, to experience this object in real life was even more exhilarating…it was breathtaking genius. That said…the Hanselman House, 15 years old at the time, was literally falling apart. It was rotted and leaking all over. There were buckets (literally,) catching the rain all over the house, and there was an elderly couple talking to Peter about whether they should restore the object and sell it…or rip it down and sell the land. Think about that! This couple did not seem like some philanthropic family “doing it” for the good of architecture as a whole, rather they went to an Architect for a home…and their nest egg, or equity, to me, had rotted away in 15 years because they asked for architecture (which includes firmness,) and they were given cardboard architecture and glory. Commodity, Firmness, and Delight is Vituvious's recipe for good architecture. This project experimented with this formula for the betterment of architecture…and the experiment failed. Ironically, and to prove my point, the architectural genius is as fresh in the pages of that book today as it was when it was published. Pawning experimentation off on a family…is a sad commentary of what our responsibilities are as architects.
These cutting edge experiments are celebrated throughout out world, from academia through national AIA awards and architectural periodicals, year after year. I have seen more code violations, included the most egregious, illegal stairways, in the last twenty years, as something that we should be celebrating as perfect architecture. Its like a cute joke among geeky architects at award ceremonies. The reality is that this is not architecture, (more analogous to using steroids in sports,) and cheats all the architects that follow the rules. These images do not fulfill the definition of architecture according to Vitrivious, and frankly we should all be ashamed for allowing ourselves celebrate this as architecture to the outside world as such. Call it what it is, cardboard architecture…next. It is exactly this moon bat system that has allowed our role as architect to become irrelevant….because the outside world knows better. Builders know we should build in common sense construction techniques, and owner's should rely on an inherent resale value when they decide to cash out. Architects have been taught to build monuments to ourselves for an award and fame. This reality is so far awry, one wonders how many decades of relearning it will take to change the paradigm from the classrooms to the board rooms. The students learn from us, we have been tragic role models....we need to change.
NOTE: This is NOT intended to a a commentary on any singular type of architecture...all styles of architecture can be good. This is a commentary about the architects that don’t study the science of the envelope and architects that simple ignore the envelope in order to push it. This is a disservice to architecture as a whole.
I agree with Greg that you have alienated most of your audience with this one. In a way you are asking to celebrate the sort of quiet competent architect whose buildings function superbly, are built on time and under budget, and largely go unnoticed by the architectural media. Sort of like People magazine giving a citizen of the year award to some guy no one has ever heard of who does a good job at work, gives freely of his time in the community, is supportive of his family and spouse, etc. It's hard to celebrate the ordinary. Easy to celebrate the spectacular.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the New York 5 was about presenting architecture as an idea, not necessarily as a construct. For me, Graves early work is no less distinguished for being leaky. Just as Wright's work was often similarly afflicted.
I think we need a few rock stars to help us conceptualize and define our goals. But I agree that it would be good to also promote a more quiet kind of competence. I'm just not sure how to express it.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI am not fighting for safe mediocrity. I am sorry if thats how it sounds.
Personally, I feel like we are pushing the envelope all the time, even within in my traditional idiom. I will show you custom made crown moldings and columns made by commercial fiberglass manufactures, etc.
To me, if we are willing to accept pushing unproved experimentation upon our clients in the name of pushing the envelope, then maybe I really dont get, then perhaps I understand why we are looked at the way we are. Hopefully that is not the case.
Peace.
I agree that in the long run, Wright's and other extreme pushing of the envelope has produced an overall negative image of modern architecture but even the safest traditional design is often generally perceived as being impractical in cost and that is also part of the triad.
ReplyDeleteI don't think architecture can grow without making mistakes. I think the key is do we learn from these mistakes, and as David pointed out -do the clients know when they are taking a risk?
Perhaps the Hanselman house should have been considered an experiment or as Greg compared over at CORA (a concept house)
The purpose of this blog is to be critical and so I think it is proper to acknowledge past mistakes. It is also perfectly true that if we never built anything new we would never get new problems. I think the best you could do in this case is to find something about traditional architecture you can be critical about and in so doing achieve balance. (this I think would be better than a disclaimer at the bottom)
I don't think an architect whose work functions superbly and is built on time and under budget should be considered to be mediocre in any way, safe or otherwise. Going back to your 1st statement, the first sentence says exactly what you mean- a perfect balance of firmness commodity and delight- not one or the other of three legs hyper extended at the expense of the others. Its the second sentence that leads you astray. Just say something that reinforces the intent of the 1st sentence without taking a pot shot at a big constituency.
ReplyDeleteThat is also a good strategy -skip negativity all together:
ReplyDelete1. Promote and demand that architecture is taught and celebrated as a perfect balance of commodity, firmness, and delight from our colleges to the AIA national award ceremonies.
We need to make sure we are rewarding more than just innovation.