What does architecture say about culture?

[John Kasaian]

Watching an unmemorable stucco building come down got me thinking about architecture and culture.

I enjoy photographing buildings, but seldom new ones---the older the better, but why?

Styles of architecture come and go, I suppose a lot of it has to do with economic use of materials and technology as well as the envirement, but I'm thinking that where we're at now in terms of design is kind of pathetic when it comes to being a defininng point of one's culture.

I'm going by my own obeservations from my own corner of the Western U.S. Maybe its part of the culture that the earliest buildings here were really temporary---adobe or board and batten sticks or log on mud sills (or teepees, for that matter. ) In a way, the stucco rubble kind of fits in with that idea, only the early architecture I'm talking about had an element of honesty that new buildings rarely exhibit. Going for a walk in an older community I find that I know what building is the train depot, the school, the library, the firehouse, the church, a tank house, a warehouse, a barn, etc... I'm thinking, why wouldn't you want a fire house to be recognized as a firehouse? Why wouldn't you want a church to look like a church? Or a school to look like a school? People can find them easier. People who work in those places can identify with a place, rather than a company logo (or anal boss.) In my own nieghborhood this is an unlikely event. The precinct house looks more like a barbershop. Churches look like indoor roller rinks, and the firehouse like a condo with a RV size garage. Schools would be mistaken for factories except for the atheletic fields.

Oh, there are examples of pretention too---a department store that resembles an air terminal with no runways, a library that looks like a bus terminal, and hospitals that resemble ....well....something.

My criticism of architecture isn't so much a criticism of architecture as it is an observation of my own culture that I find disturbing. If the architecture is dishonest by hiding It's purpose, and that is accepted and widely imitated as being desireable then what about art? What about entertainment and music? What about beauty and all the other things that define the culture of a community like sports (you listening, Barry Bonds?) and education?

What are your thoughts?

[Frank Petronio]

http://static.flickr.com/44/138891658_a9a0ee73f4.jpg?v=0

This happened in Rochester during rush hour. Nobody was hurt because Kodak and Bausch & Lomb laid so many people off beforehand.

I'd just like architecture to work. Buildings have to function first and foremost. I'd like to know where the fricking entrance is half the time.

There is a modern architectural philosophy based around "human scale" and the writings of Christopher Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander). Schools that are big on this stuff include Yale, Univ of Oregon in Eugene, and Univ of California at Bezerkley. You'd probably like it.

I was visiting Ohio University last week and all of their buildings, except for an unfortunate 1970s era library, were classical, modest, and complimentary to the campus.

So there is "honest" architecture being done.

The overall trend is for pomp and technology - Frank Gehry and whatever they eventually build on Ground Zero in NYC. At least Gehry can build an interesting building - the scary part is all the architects who will try to incorporate Gehry style artifice - on the cheap - in lesser projects.

But even Gehry recogonizes that his buildings need an entrance. What is amazing is that thousands of architects don't!

And that applies to the rest of our society too I guess.

[Jonathan_6488]

Your assessment of 'honesty' in architecture is, IMO, fairly sophisticated and sensitive. It's somewhat unusual for people to pick up on this. As an architect and architectural photographer - I have a thing or two to say on the subject. But - in my opinion - the phenomenon you observe is the result of a confluence between a few different forces. Basically the paradigm for design/construction changed dramatically approximately during the industrial revolution - and the drive towards more buildings, more cheaply began - to house the booming populations that were expanding in number beyond precedent due to new advances in medicine and food distribution nearly impossible before this period. The expansion of the architectural project of housing the western world has been largely an un-self-conscious one and one that happened without any really GOOD reflection as to it's role and the culture living within it.

Now- interestingly - the birth of modernism just before the turn of the century created a drive toward simple, beautiful, platonic forms which were more about precision, technology, line and mass. It was, like any medium exploring it's own modernism, all about the materials and questioning what those are and how they interface with technique. Unfortunately, this work (Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier come to mind as dominant examples) had been pillaged only for it's expedient qualities by greedy landowners and developers and created a cancer of poorly-designed, ugly edifices. And so it continues to today. We've made a real science of it. As it stands now - only a VERY small percentage of buildings are architect-designed - which actually doesn't impact building AESTHETICALLY so much as pragmatically.

Unusable, awkward, useless spaces ABOUND. Just look around you. It's the paradigm. Really. I'm not just throwing that word out there. The way it works now - is that the landlord wants something resembling a building for the lowest cost possible. This precludes something being actually DESIGNED. They want it to match a laundry list of saleable features. It's got to have the square footage, the doors, the utilities - if it looks nice to someone it's because of the cheap-ass crown molding someone stapled to the ceilings and the pseudo grecian plaster columns taped (almost!) to the front entry.

It's kinda sick, IMO. But nonetheless... good architecture is still being built. You just have to look for it. Other countries (western europe mostly) still have a foot in the old paradigm though. Quality construction and design/planning is still appreciated and given it's due. Construction workers (most of them) have to spend five years in university - and have pride in what they do. They know all about concrete chemistry - and why building flashing needs to be electrically grounded to prevent corrosion from happening. That just doesn't happen here. We sold ourselves to the dollar. It was our choice and we have to live with the consequences.

[Ed K.]

At one time, great buildings were made to "last forever" as well as be part of a community. While some of it is a reflection of the fading economic power of the U.S. as a whole, other parts of it represent a shift in values as well as methods. Where once teams of artisans laid out details such as the color scheme for tiles at the Griffith Park Observatory using paper and brains, today, few people could do the complicated drafting for that structure by hand. Sure, the computer gives us precision and cost effectiveness, however as a design tool it tends to encourage a stiff, mechanical feel to things -maybe architecture suffers partly from this.

Where once large banks built monuments to their stability and permanence in the community, today we mix the bank with the coffee house or supermarket. It's all transient.

Materials used to cost so much less, and one could build with few restrictions. Plenty of land in most places, and plenty of skilled moderate to low-priced labor in the past.

It could be generational. The "G.I." generation had some great architects and builders. They cared about building roads, bridges, schools and parks. The current empowered generations don't seem to accomplish great works other than grubbing a few more dollars for that next fancy car or whatever.

I know what you mean about function in architecture too. With huge cost overruns, the Disney Hall in Los Angeles is a pretty amazing piece of sculpture, however the acoustics are so bad that it requires amplifiers for everything, and it still doesn't sound anywhere near as nice as the Dorothy Chandler across the street ( just opinion, you can disagree if you like ). You will find more photographers there - so many, that it is more fun to go photograph people who photograph the building, which I have done from time to time. Frankly, I wish the money had been spent on musicians or something else, however I do toast the team member who came up with the idea to do the fancy cladding on it.

But many an architect often hates function - many, including famous ones such as Philip Johnson have said that architecture is not meant to be practical ( he designed so many beautiful to look at yet impossible to use buildings such as "Glass House" ). Today most firms or individuals simply lack the money or time to commission a work from somebody such as Johnson, or Wright. Wright's Hollyhock house was so impractical to live in that Aline Barnsdall gave it and the surrounding lands up to the city as a monument to Wright's creativity, and also so she could quietly go to live elsewhere in a more comfortable house.

There are ebbs and flows in culture, in fortune and in various arts. While I am no great fan of most current projects because they are cheap and rushed more often than not, there is hope for a new generation of architects who will put things right once again if there is ever money for it.

Architects do have to respond to their tasteless patrons, and also push their own limit and style somehow to make a name. Almost as many people want to be architects as wish to be great photographers. There will be success and failure.

I marvel at how much companies used to spend on their headquarters ( well, they had such a thing too! ). Tour the insides of old funky buildings in Downtown Los Angeles sometime. The Pacific Mutual building next to the Biltmore has a lobby that cost some 21 million dollars to build back in 1914. All hand-carved Italian marble, shipped over from Italy. Some pass by and think of it as an old wreck, but when I first saw it, it took my breath away. Such precision, and no computers or fancy machines to do it. We've lost that sense of craft along with the time, skill and money to make it.

I suspect that you are sentimental, and that part of the beauty is in imagining the history of places. This does give hope. Some marvelous old buildings were never intended to be much of anything, yet with age and the addition of history, they have a soul to them. You may see that soul in a way that speaks louder than the status of the building.

Some of the most interesting buildings were built in the depression. The good news is that if we get another one, there could be some great works once again. The bad news is that well, it won't be a picnic!

Take heart though, as much as it seems that some good old days are gone, these days ARE the good days and whether we like the current style or not, it will find its place too. There are some nice new structures around to photograph too although you might get arrested if you use a tripod or a Sinar P2.

Hmm, why not build a wonderful home, and then invite me over to photograph it? <big grin>

[Frank Petronio]

A couple of years ago I did a big publicity project for the new construction of Frank Lloyd Wright's Blue Sky Mausoleum in Buffalo. I learned more than I ever needed to about FLW and his disciples. Certainly he was a brilliant architect. But I wouldn't live in one of his designs - much less spend eternity in one.

At the site of his largest Buffalo residential design - the Darwin Martin House - they have planned a new modern building to provide museum and admin functions. Hired a famous architect. And she designed it to mirror the Darwin Martin roofline. In reverse. That's right - an inverted, sunken roof. With the lowest point in the center of the structure. IN BUFFALO.

I'm sure they wil spend millions, use painstaking craftsmanship, etc. -- but the form versus function debate comes first doesn't it? As much as I enjoy things like the Lloyds building in London, I wouldn't want to own/maintain the thing.

[Joseph O'Neil]

In addition to shooting 4x5, I'm also chair of the local heritage committee for my city - at least until the end of the year, then somebody else takes thier turn.

One reason I got involved is because so many newer buildings - starting around the 1970s and onwards - are totally deviod of any sense of style, asthetics, beauty, etc. I often use the example of the move "2001: A Space Odyssey" of how a whole generation of architects must of fallen in love witht eh giant black monolith from that movie, because so many office towers and apartment buildings are bascially poured concrete monoliths totaly devoid of any life or inspiration on the outside.

Another telling feature about today's world - one project where I was asking if a contractor could preserve or replace some heritage features on a rebuild of an older building, the architect told me they could "no longer make that moulding". We have thousands of new building materials that architects of 100 years ago could not even dream of, we have CAD programs, we have power machines and power tools (some of those old houses had basements all dug by hand) and yet, we cannot reproduce a moulding that was planed by hand 120 years ago. Maybe this is or is not true, but the point that bothers me is the attitude that it cannot be done.

Another issue I see is the poor quality of some newer building materials used not just today, but starting back int he 1960's. Without exaggeration, i have seen first hand, examples of buildings contructed over 100 years ago in better strutural shape than houses built just 25 or 30 years ago. I am not tlaking about wiring or wall board, but basics like roof trusses, cracks in foundations, etc. Pride in workmanship, pride in quality and beauty of product seems to be a lost art, and laughable attitude amoung modern day thinking.

My point is that 100 years from now, I see very few buildings from our current generation / time period suriving while there will be more buildings from the early 1900 around still. This in itself may be a good or bad thing, but the commentary on our current generation, that we, with all our current technologial advances, cannot produce quality and beauty equal to or better than buildings from 70, 80 or 100 years ago is to me, a very sad commentary on the state of modern society in general.

So yes, when backing in urban settings with my 4x5 feild camera, I find the older residential neighbourhoods - the ones that actually have sidewalks, the ones where the two or three car garage is NOT the most noticeable architectual feature, the ones where even when you have a row of houses all built by the same company around WW One and yet each house still has distinct features and not the "clone" look, yes, I find older buildings still more interesting to photograph.

There are excpetions here, and in every city of modern sites and modern buildings that deserve to be photographed, but that's exactly what they are - exceptions, not the norm.

Keep shooting guys, given the horrific archival quality of most forms of modern media (remember, I am looking at this from the point of view as a historian/preservationist - something that will last 100 or 200 years, not 10-20 years) , your B&W prints and negatives might be the only thing around 100 years from now to remind a people of a lost generation.

joe

[jj_4045]

A book that might interest you:

How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built (Paperback)
by Stewart Brand

[Henry Ambrose]

I thought I was about the only one who noticed.

"They want it to match a laundry list of saleable features. It's got to have the square footage, the doors, the utilities - if it looks nice to someone it's because of the cheap-ass crown molding someone stapled to the ceilings and the pseudo grecian plaster columns taped (almost!) to the front entry."

Commercial buildings clad in fake stucco panels are rampant, complete with the stapled on moldings and columns. They just make me want to scream.

The absolute low point for me are false details that echo or try to replicate the look of structural elements - that aren't structural anymore. Fake brackets under a roof overhang or fake ceiling beams for example. Ornamenting is one thing but there's nothing as tacky as a faked up Victorian or Craftsman style house showing what used to be examples of craft or structure but are now molded plastic.

And then there are the ubiquitous power lines strung through the air and transformers positioned on the only good sight line to the building. Anything to save a dollar. I had one job where they put the dumpster enclosure out front in the parking area. Plenty of room around back but noooo.........

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Just a thought,

They took the dollar off the gold standard in 1973, didn't they. Before this a group of investors could pool their money, build the building to last forever, take the tax deductions for the life of the building, then sell it back to themselves for a dollar and still have a building that was worth the original price to rent or sell.

They took the dollar off the gold standard and major building STOPPED in the US in 1973, didn't it. There was noway to know the final cost of the project, the tax benefits or the final sale price with a floating dollar so the investment money stayed invested elsewhere. This forced a new, false economy onto building and architecture. Choices had to be made and it's the bottom line that counts.

Looking at floor plans it is suprising much wasted space and bad traffic flow has ALWAYS been employed in designs. The only excuse for 'strip malls' I can think of would be 'smoke and mirrors' with the financing, no one can actually have ALL their taste in their mouth, can they?

[Michael Alpert]

John,

Some would say that architecture and culture are two sides of the same coin. Your question about form and function has been central to architecture for a long time, as I am sure you know. The specific problem of look-alike buildings has a long and sordid history. There is a book of Louis Kahn's written (and/or spoken) work, entitled "Writings, Lectures, Interviews," in which he addresses this issue with great intelligence. The book is repetitious, reproducing Kahn's words without much editing. With that caveat, Kahn's perspective on architecture and life is well worth reading.

[Oren Grad]

...un</b>bold?

[Oren Grad]

bold unbold

[Oren Grad]

<big> big </big> unbig

[Oren Grad]

Sorry for the random entertainment, folks - trying to figure out what tag needs to be undone...

[tim atherton]

a majority of the design the the modern generic city is based on the financial expediency and "beige vinyl siding, atria and the architectural possibilities of silicon adhesive"

There are some good architects out there - in fact many wonderful ones - they are often not given the chance to do what they do best, and most people certainly don't want to pay a decent price for a good building.

(btw - there were also a lot of really bad old buildings too - it's just that thankfully a good many of them were pulled down)

[tim atherton]

too many the's...

[Oren Grad]

</big> more unbig?

[tim atherton]

you can always click back through the Eyesores of the Month at Kunstlers Clusterfuck Nation:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html

[tim atherton]

"They took the dollar off the gold standard in 1973, didn't they. Before this a group of investors could pool their money, build the building to last forever, take the tax deductions for the life of the building, then sell it back to themselves for a dollar and still have a building that was worth the original price to rent or sell."

or. alternatively:

"When did attention to architecture go into the toilet? About the time of the advent of television, which became our new visual stimulation."

[Marko]

Sorry for the random entertainment, folks - trying to figure out what tag needs to be undone...

Ed finished his post with <big grin>. It needs an </big>

[Oren Grad]

OK, for anyone who's curious, what happened was that Ed Keck inserted a "big grin" within angle brackets at the end of his post. Rather than being displayed as text, it was interpreted as an HTML "big" tag.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Terence McDonagh]

Joe,
Keep in mind that we don't see the 100 year-old buildings that didn't make it. I also deal with preservation from the engienering side. There always was, and always will be, shoddy construction. It's not around in 100 years to compare though, because it fell down, etc 50 years ago. "Money talks," was probably a phrase thrown around by Babylonian contractors. I've worked on enough old shoddy construction to see that modern building codes HAVE improved some things. But the quality of wood available has gone down dramatically.

That said, there's plenty of shoddy construction today.

[Marko]

tim: a majority of the design the the modern generic city is based on the financial expediency and "beige vinyl siding, atria and the architectural possibilities of silicon adhesive"

...

There are some good architects out there - in fact many wonderful ones - they are often not given the chance to do what they do best, and most people certainly don't want to pay a decent price for a good building.

Tim, I think you got the essence of it. It's not just in architecture, it's in everything around us. Various people call it different names - mass culture, pop culture, mass consumption, etc. - but the central principle is the same. It all starts with the dollar and ends at the bottom line.

It's the culture which does not recognize emotion (past the desire to "shop 'till you drop", of course!), esthetics, design or anything else for that matter that does not directly contribute to the bottom line.

Just look at your local store, any store - home electronics, toys, bookstore, grocery store even... - and you'll see that the real choice, the one between the top and bottom quality tier, of any product has been narrowed down significantly, mostly eliminating the top. At the same time, the superficial choce has greatly expanded. This is the "choice" between a gazillion different names and packaging offering basically the same mediocre product at similar, bottom line prices.

In computer terms, a generic beige box, a cookie cutter. They are affordable, they are profitable and they are utterly boring.

Where does grocery store I mentioned figure here? Well, packaging. That's another design area that's mostly gone down the drain. Most of it is employing screaming colors, huge and ridiculously looking fonts, cartoonish characters... And they have to - the competition for the space shelf is fierce and they need to grab attention among dozens of the same mediocre products sitting on the same shelf. Today's jaded, overworked and underpaid consumer (who works for the same corporations for whom the bottom line is the king) has no time, no inclination and frequently no education to even notice those things.

We live in a culture that largely glorifies physical ability and denigrates intelectual one. It's only natural that architecture follows the trend.

[Frank Petronio]

Wasn't it Best Buy whose first stores used avant garde architectural facades and sight gags? Now they have simply tilted their logo and become another big box.

Target seems to have an awareness of design, at least for its identity and braded products. Not for the store's architecture though.

As a real estate newb, I get the point about building to last. Most retail spaces are built for 20 years and then torn down... maybe even shorter in California and high income areas. At $500+ a sq foot!

[fred arnold]

Regarding the Moulding:

When I was in Chicago, I heard it discussed that some of that moulding, even if you could get it made, wouldn't be allowed now because of the amount of it that comes crashing down on pedestrians in the winter. A combination of price-sensitve thinking (just do it cheap and quick), coupled with safety rules (do you know what kind of damage a 50lb gargoyle falling from 30 stories would do), helps promote our modern bland architecture. As for things being better before 1973, I give you Technological Institute at Northwestern as a rebuttal. Built in the 20s or 30s, and the kind of monolithic horror normally associated with central planning. It is, however, built to last.

Of course, I could be all wet, and in fact architecture schools are turning out a generation of minimalists who would put up a glass office building with lucite furniture and invisible employees, if they could get away with it.

[tim atherton]

bear in mind as well, that while more than a good few of those commissioning such architecture have the business acumen of Donald Trump, they also have his taste as well...

[Glenn Thoreson]

As a retired contractor/carpenter/ heavy equipment operator, ad infinitum, I do agree with the original post. However, the cost of labor, materials and just about everything else you can think of seems to be the big reason we see so many "boxes" being built. At the risk of criticism, I'll say that the lack of pride in workmanship these days is also having a big impact on what we see. I have worked on many, many buildings that were over 100 years old. The old buildings do have a distinct personality that I am drawn to and admire. However, most were built pretty badly by today's standards and I have often wondered how some of them managed to survive as well as they did. They are very hard to work on, I can tell you that. If modern construction methods could be combined with the old school view of what is beautiful, wouldn't it be a more pleasant sight? I am a life long western U.S. resident and my view is that even the most temporary and crudely built mining camp buildings had more aesthetic value that the ticky tacky crap we have to look at now. I choose to live in an old house for that very reason. BTW - that old "it isn't made any more" excuse is a load of garbage. There is always someone out there that will make anything you need.

[jnanian]

you are right john
architecture is not about honesty of materials or workmanship now, it is
about economics - the best for the least amount of money. its about
turning a building into a piece of sculpture or a statement.

they dont' build'em like they used, because they can't! the artisans aren't there,
and the money isn't there either. besides, buildings these days aren't really supposed to last,
they tend to have about a 20 or 30 year lifespan and then they knock them down and building another in its place ( building was as useless inside as it was ugly outside).

my wife and i were just talking about this same sort of thing. they knock one hidious building down and put one even more hidious in its place. disposable society, disposable culture, and it helps that we all have add, and memory-loss so we can't remember what was there, 3 weeks after it was razed.

[Kirk Gittings]

I cannot be so cynical. I actually think we are living in a great period of architecture. Technology has freed architecture from many earlier constraints and is simply soaring. Much contemporary architecture will be forgotten as it should but the best will be remembered and preserved. Look at this by Calatrava (images by Jeff Millies/Hedrich-Blessing).

www.hedrichblessing.com/Images/photographers/millies/3series/G_60809_G.jpg (http://www.hedrichblessing.com/Images/photographers/millies/3series/G_60809_G.jpg)

www.hedrichblessing.com/Images/photographers/millies/3series/A_60809_J2.jpg (http://www.hedrichblessing.com/Images/photographers/millies/3series/A_60809_J2.jpg)

If this doesn't move you we are speaking a different language.

[Matthew Magruder]

I think one of the key factors missing in alot of present architecture is "art and soul".
there are diamonds amongst the charcoal... some astoundingly gorgeous ones. but sadly its rare.

[tim atherton]

Not that rare Matthew - but as always, you get what you pay for - and most people are cheap

Kirk - Calatrava is up there in my top two or three favourites - the simplicity of the Alamillo bridge

http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek04/tw1203/1203gold_3alamillo_b.jpg

and for Matthew - the art and soul of the Tenerife Opera House

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Calatrava-tenerife_opera_house_04.jpg

(and a most charming and engaging conversationalist as well)

[Kirk Gittings]

But I think in all honesty that the real gems have always been rare.

[Matthew Magruder]

Tim I think you are spot on with this comment
"- but as always, you get what you pay for - and most people are cheap"
I studied architecture in college... and worked in the field after school. the saying "wanting 101 ft from a 10'x10' room" seems fitting.
I have alot of admiration for alot of the gorgeous architecture out there but the concept of this "art and soul" carrying over into every facet of architecture, from the park bench to the homes of the common man, that is hardly the norm. I think most can agree upon this. The idea of designing a home/space/office/building/structure around the inhabitants and their needs, habits, environment, purpose ... their existance, this just doesnt seem like its as common as I think it could be. I agree with you Kirk... a diamond wouldnt be as special if it were surrounded by other diamonds. But then again even a diamond among a thousand diamonds is still just as gorgeous :)

[John Kasaian]

Very interesting thoughts! I didn't mean to paint all new(er) architecture as awful, but I'm thinking a lot of it is if not awful, then culturally bankrupt.

I'm going to be shooting a small chinese church thats nearly 100 years old and I'm struck by the feelings the place causes me to have. Even though I can't read chinese I'm very aware that its a church and holds great meaning for the small congregation. Like the old cathedrals, it is also a museum of the history of the congregation---important events are memorialized(in chinese) so the building is a repository for the micro culture that has seen the church as a spiritual home for nearly a century. While very small and modest, it is thick with serenity and fosters contemplation amid the light from the stained glass, the woodcarvings and artwork.

OK, the chinese had 100 years head start, but another church down the street and around the corner from me looks like an indoor roller rink from both the inside and out. Actually roller rinks from the art deco period are far and away more interesting. I know the arguements offered by the good pastor--its big, its cost effective, its the faith of the patrons that makes a church viable not the architecture. OK point well taken, but its not the type of building anyone would want to spend time in by ones self to meditate, pray or escape the din of a modern city. It just ain't gonna happen (and it dosen't) An empty airplane hanger would make a better photograph (well the huge wood cross suspended above whatever it is thats not an altar looks like an earthquake hazard waiting to "el-ka-bong" any unfortunate individuals caught underneath---so I guess that adds a little bit of drama!) Whatever history that the young congregation has witnessed isn't memorialized inside, but rather mentioned on a plaque attached to a barbaque or drinking fountain out by the parking lot or pre-school.

Interesting. ...Hmmm...I think I'd rather hang with the 100 year old Chinese. They have something that passes for culture. The holy roller rink isn't even in the same cosmos.

Downtown, the great old bank buildings with gilt teller's cages, architectural embellishments symbolizing strength, security, trust and stability are empty and unused while modern branches are sprouting up in supermarkets, next to the diet pepsi display.

My five year old son and I went for a bike ride today. We stopped at a high end, brand new shopping center out by the river that looks great---arched covered walkways, fountains, palm trees and lots of architectural details. I put the kickstand down on my bike and told my son to lean his bike (with no kick stand) up against one of the arched columns while we went into a shoe store since I blew out my New Balance 991s and maybe they'd have a pair(on sale, I had hoped) To get to the point, the little kid's bike slipped and took out a chunk of stucco and styrofoam out of the collonade. The place wasn't much more than an illusion of architecture. That shopping center was comfortable on the eyes(much like my New Balance were to my feet) but the construction was about as durable, which dosen't say much about either product. I don't see any shame in temporary buildings, but even they can be designed to reflect what it is they are being used for. Consider the California Missions, built of adobe and never intended to last any great length of time, eventually to be replaced by more permanent materials like the stone churches of europe which have withstood the centuries. The little mission church in Santa Ynez is quite modest compared to Carmel or Bonaventure but the artistry of the native artisans with terra cotta and paint and sculpture give evidence to the importance given the building by the faithful waay back. Even today I think I get the same sense of reverence at Santa Ynez as I have at Westminster Abbey or Notre Dame, though of course it is made from, well...mud.

I agree that there are some great buildings still being built, but not here, where I live. There is not much recent that contributes to the culture of my community (certainly not the new federal court house, whose "skin" resmbles the space shuttle re-entering the atmosphere and shedding random tiles!) The poverty is that my community needs some form of culture to foster some kind of identity for the children growing up here(as does every community, IMHO).

The styrofoam and stucco Orwellian nightmares don't reflect culture(well maybe "bottom line" culture---sheesh!), nor do the big corporate/government "abstractions" that symbolize the abstract and leave everyone else scratching thier heads. FWIW, I like abstractions, but the best ones have an element of the familiar that is unrecognizable at first (or third) glance IMHO. A school that looks just like a space ship can niether fly like a space ship nor function as a school

I think the best looking structures built in recent years in my area have been the SaveMart Center and Grizzly Stadium---not that they are any great examples of architecture in themselves, but at least they look like what they were meant to used for, a concert and sports hall, and a AAA baseball field. At least these building say something about my community's culture---a fondness for college basketball, music and watching baseball while fortifying ourselves with garlic fries and beer.

Hey, maybe that is great architecture after all!

[Henry Ambrose]

Its not the gems like Kirk and Tim referenced, its the general run of the mill buildings that make up the larger environment that I object to. Somehow it seems they're not even "average" these days.

But I guess they're like photographs - lots of not very good ones and a few great ones.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Good morning,

I don't know how this fits but it does:

Last year the radio announcer was happy, happy, happy that the median price for a house in Seattle/King county hit $300,000. Happy, happy, happy.

Two weeks ago they announced the median price for a house was $407,000.

Why does that matter, because 25% of new house construction cost here is for permits. $100,000 of new house construction going to permits does put a crimp in the design choices. Check the numbers where you are to see how they match because here this has already gotten obscene.

Just a thought.

[tim atherton]

It's the market-populist consensus - essentially we get the product we (as a society) want - whether it's movies, buildings, cars or clothing.

The majority seem quite happy with monster homes in the extra-burbs where the dominant features are a two or three car garage facing the street, tiny lots and fake pillars, with shopping in malls, with big box stores and with office buildings designed for expediency not people or imaginations.

[John Kasaian]

I wouldn't want to make the character of affordable housing too big of an issue (but I don't live in Seattle!) We've got a district thats 100% craftsman style homes built shortly after WWI which has a splendid nieghborhood 'feel' and other districts built of 100% stucco ranch styles built after WWII that have a very different feel, but they all look like homes where people live, children play, and collectively as nieghborhoods that foster as well as represent the culture of the people living there. These weren't expensive homes when they were built---many of the Craftsmens were Sears & Roebuck catalog homes---and the chicken wire and stucco ranches were GI financing. OTOH we have several new areas where the homes look like copies of either a tuscan country estates or victorians. Nothing wrong with that except the lots are too small to even remotely resemble a tuscan country estate and the victorians sit right on the ground on a cement slab which makes them look very unvictoran. The effect is that they look less like houses and more like pretentious copies of track homes. And of course they are outrageously expensive. In housing, I think culture is reflected more in the interior and less on the exterior, though I find I personally enjoy seeing relics of culture adorning a home. It says a lot about who lives inside...honesty once again.

BTW---are garden gnomes considered cultural icons? ;-)

The greater offenders, IMHO aregovernment and public buildings, commercial and retail, offices and houses of worship. These are places where a community governs, educates, shops, works, and maintains it's moral traditions and how these elements of life and culture are expressed architecturally are for the most part, disappointing.

I think this has wider implications, especially for the West and the US in particular. In dealing with 'entrenched' cultures, especially in the middle east and asia more often than not there is an honesty I've come to appreciate. A tinker in Calcutta dosen't pretend to be anything he's not---niether does a cab driver in Aleppo.Likewise buildings resemble on the outside what it is thats going on on the inside. When these cultures interact with my own one of these blatant elements of seperation is architecture---not the style, which is both a product of tradition, materials, culture and climate, but of what these buidings say about how we view our civilization.

Of course maybe I'm just full of beans.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Have any of you ever tried to build an architect designed residence?

[Ed K.]

Aside from whether something has craft, soul or quality, there are the issues of modesty, justice and equality.

Many great buildings were built to serve the people as opposed to the giclee style egos of their designers. Materials and plans reflected the intended use in a long term sense as well as the symbols uttered by the building in its setting.

So many government buildings are immodest. On the outside, millions and millions are spent expressing some great ego trip and status, while inside the buildings are little more than prisons. Where there is some great and wastful exterior jutting out into the community and sucking its very blood with taxes and debt to pay for it, across the street there are beggars and the hovels of the poor covered in filthy tire and diesel dust. Even the streets are filled with potholes because these great buildings often escape appropriate taxation - they get breaks and to build such monsters.

The modern government building is immodest, and often injust because it shows the great economic gap while usually functioning not as a direct service to the people, but a center to process those people in some orwellian manner.

I cannot help but thing of the good those billions spent could do the educate more people and prevent them from being the targets of such human processing centers with their substandard wages. A bit of modesty in design can still have style and grace. Titanium cladding is not the only good looking substance to wrap a building with.

In the past, the government structure was meant to be a beacon of hope and a symbol of what the collective will of society could offer. While the older city halls and service buildings were often built with materials far beyond the reach of most individuals, the main intent was for them to function and last, which justified their materials.

Walk around in downtown Los Angleles sometime. The contrast between rich and poor, and the chilling feeling of hundreds of video cameras tracking one's every move is often a set of the most depressing statements all in one view. Yes, there are beautiful buildings and great works, however they seem to belong to some alien parasites whose large expressions are so much like ticks ready to burst. It is difficult to celebrate the greatness of those buildings in view of what some of their occupants have done to the quality of life - this is the dishonesty and the injustice.

Perhaps more than anything, modern architecture is a statement about the value of human beings, and possibly the manifestation of overpopulation. We have so many people on this planet competing for reasonable places to live that the value of each life seems to be going away. When we no longer value the human life and the dignity of the human experience, our works will surely reflect that point of view.

[John Kasaian]

Well said, EK!

[Matt Magruder]

grump wrote: Have any of you ever tried to build an architect designed residence?

Ive been on both ends to some extent, both the construction side and the architect side. however, nothing worth doing is simple.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Have any of you ever tried to build an architect designed residence?"

Have you ever tried to print for a picky photographer?

Have you ever tried to photograph for an interior designer?

Have you ever done copy work for a successful painter?

Have you ever....................I think you get my point.

[Kevin Kemner]

Wow, great post!

Ok, up front let me say that I'm an architect and architectural educator and a sometime scholar.

A long time ago I was a student under Peter Eisenmann who has been both reviled and hailed for his architectural works. Peter's position was that of the architecture that gets built today 90% is crap and 10% is good. Of that 10%, 90% is ok and 10% is memorable. And of that 10%, only 10% can be considered lasting. This ratio has been constant for as long as people have built architecture and if you read popular criticism from different eras going back to the Greeks you will find criticism remarkably similar to the criticism of architecture today. Basically, people writing about architecture in their respective period, whether Rome or the Renaissence, felt that most of what got built was crap and they don't build them like they used to. One of my favorites is a critique of St Peter's in Rome as being too flashy, cheap materials and a big waste of money.

So, whats my point? Architecture today is no better or worse than at any other point in time. People like older architecture because it has been weeded out by society from architecture that was deemed inferior. Whats left is what was best. American cities are young, especially west of the Mississippi and so have been weeded out less. European cities are old and have been weeded out for a long time. Older the city, the more good architecture.

Architecture has ALWAYS been about economics. As a significant pooling of capital, buildings have never been built without the expectation of some kind of return or gain. It is also a truism that whoever was building a structure that individual sought ways to build the most with the least. Today, when we say that buildings aren't built to last remember that up until the late 19th century the only options for building large structures was either brick or stone. However, brick and stone buildings require as much or more maintenance as a stucco box and many of our most beloved buildings have come perilously (sp?) close to failure because either the construction or material (brick and stone) was failing.

Adding all this up and maybe we and our architecture is modern in a way that architecture and society was modern in the 1500's. In 400 years or so someone may complain about the state of architecture and lament that they don't build them like today's version of Guarino Guarini.... Frank Gehry.

[Ed K.]

Ah, give me the dozer right now - I have a few Gehry buildings in mind that don't need 400 years for the decision! Check out the eyesore by the the 134 Freeway in Burbank. And I'd bet it cost way more than a decent building that at least didn't look like a shack.

[Craig Wactor]

I miss the days of form-follows-function. Deconstructionist architecture is so lame and un-interesting! If I see another glass and metal structure with lots of 30 degree angles and cables with no apparent function, my brain may jump out of my ear and go build a log cabin, Lincoln style.

[Kirk Gittings]

My favorite architect of the modernist era is Mies van der Rohe.

www.farnsworthhouse.org/images/fh_splash_graphic_3h.jpg (http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/images/fh_splash_graphic_3h.jpg)

Having said that I am really glad there is not more of it than there is, because too much of it would be boring. But really the same is true of all important art. We need change, revolution. evolution or it all becomes mind numbing. We may not like the current direction but wait a minute and it will probably evolve into something you do. I loved Post-Moderism at first, but it quickly became a cliche and I came to despise it. Some of what has evolved since is stupendous.

[Marko]

Check out the eyesore by the the 134 Freeway in Burbank.

Did you have a particular one in mind? ;)

[Ed K.]

Hey Marko!

Sorry for the mistake - in my thoughts, I mistakenly mentioned the Disney Feature Animation Building, by Robert M. Stern as a Gehry, in part because of the look of corrugated siding. The side it shows the freeway is not the best. I regret my previous post slamming Gehry, whose work doesn't usually please me, however I still toast anyone that can get away with what he does. And in this case, I don't know of Stern's work otherwise. I had somehow grouped Edsel=Gehry=corrugated siding=ugly buildings together in the back of my mind somewhere.

In my silly passion to dislike the Gehry House and others like it, I made a mistake. As to Gehry, I start by thinking of Gehry House ("http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Gehry_House.html" target = _blank) and others.

Meanwhile, back to your regular programming. I'm going to leave discussion of architecture to others who know more about it. Thanks for the question Marko.

[Frank Petronio]

I think the best modern architecture is coming from architects that are thinking about the people and the impact of their designs on the entire community. Rather than the egocentric, wealthy, or hucksters who impose a single building without context or place their "ism" onto their neighbors.

I like things like what Mockbee is doing in the rural south, or the non-Disney New Urbanists, or the people who refurbish shipping containers into inexpensive housing. Even things like Maya Lin's barn restoration where she raised it and built underneath. All of which are fairly under the radar, with the photography being done for free or for very little money (i.e. editorial work.)

What you see in the magazines is more the result of having a good publicist than merit, in many cases... and we now have architectural publicists as a bonafide profession.

[Marko]

Hey EK,

Yes, that building is what I thought you had in mind, and it does have that Gehry look and the point of my post was definitely not aimed at you but at that particular "ego stretch" of the Media City. Only after reading your response did I realize how barbed my comment came across! While sarcasm was deliberate, it definitely wasn't meant for you.

And I agree with you, both about Gehry's style and this particular building. It was ugly even before the makeover, but in a different, art-deco kind of way and in all its ugliness it was very much Disney. But apparently, it wasn't ugly enough for Eisner...

Speaking of Gehry, there is one particular quality I have to give him and even respect, and that's his boldness. Take this as an extreme example:

http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/GAlLery/PraHA/tgehry.html

It definitely takes chutzpah to build something like that in a city that old! I'm just glad it's not my city, so I don't have to look at that every day...

Regards,

[Marko]

I think the best modern architecture is coming from architects that are thinking about the people and the impact of their designs on the entire community. Rather than the egocentric, wealthy, or hucksters who impose a single building without context or place their "ism" onto their neighbors.

...

What you see in the magazines is more the result of having a good publicist than merit, in many cases... and we now have architectural publicists as a bonafide profession.

Frank, you got it absolutely right. That's what's happening with just about any creative acitivity in a society whose most acclaimed quality is ability to sell, sell, sell. After all, if it was "good" for books, paintings, acting, poetry and such, it must also be good for architecture, even more so, because more money is involved.

IMHO, it is no accident that scandinavian design and architecture are both pleasant to use and to look at, while remaining absolutely unintrusive. Their culture equates bold with garish and values modesty as a top quality.

How many people could remember Eero Saarinen, for example, or give an example of his work, as opposed to Gehry? And yet his style is, in my opinion at least, incomparably more human, and simply nice by any standards. It's a design, not a statement.

[Mark Sampson]

Saarinen? The St.Louis Arch, Dulles airport, CBS' "Black Rock", JFK's TWA terminal... any one a masterpiece to define any architect's career. I was fascinated by the book "Eero Saarinen on his work" as a child, and it is still a prized possession. I've enjoyed visiting the buildings listed above and the photographs in that book have served as an education.

[Oren Grad]

How many people could remember Eero Saarinen, for example, or give an example of his work, as opposed to Gehry? And yet his style is, in my opinion at least, incomparably more human, and simply nice by any standards. It's a design, not a statement.

Sure. Kresge Auditorium and Chapel at MIT, which are most definitely statements as well as designs. (It's hard for a major public building not to be.) These buildings are low-key and still fit comfortably in their (evolving) setting 50 years after they were built. OTOH, modesty is not the first word that Dulles airport brings to mind. I don't think that one has worn well with time - even if one imagines it without the crude changes forced on it in later years by operational requirements, it strikes me as a somewhat contrived period piece.

Gehry's gotten into the act at MIT as well with the new Stata Center, certainly a very different kind of statement. It will be interesting to see how that holds up 50 years from now.

As for the New Urbanists, Disney or otherwise, if you want to talk about academic theorists getting carried away with their own cleverness at the expense of the people who actually have to live in the places they design... but that's a discussion for another time.

[Kevin Kemner]

It's ironic to bring up Eero Saarinen in the context of this posting. In his day, his work occupied a cultural role not unlike that of Frank Gehry in its polarization of public taste. Much of his work as well suffered technically and required major renovations well before it was expected. He was accused of being more concerned with form than function and like most strong architectural work fell well out of public favor not long after his death. If I recall correctly, his work was also used in Tom Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House", the seminal attack on modern architecture.

But, like most architecture of such public presence, society's taste has come around to realize his work's merits and identified some as cherished icons. The same will be true for Gehry. At some point after his career is over, public taste will move away from his work and it will be aesthetically condemned. During this period, lesser works will fall from his ouevre, and when his work is "rediscovered" only the strongest of projects will remain. In all likelihhod this will happen the generation after next and is a pattern that has existed in architecture since the Renaissence.

BTW, in the context of this post there are remarkable artistic similarities between Eero Saarinen and Brett Weston. Both were sons of pioneers of their respective disciplines. Both enjoyed greater professional success than their parents and both were hailed as exceeding their parents artistic accomplishments. Both lives were also cut short prior to achieving the level of achievement promised by their young careers.

[Phillip Smith]

"I'm thinking, why wouldn't you want a fire house to be recognized as a firehouse? Why wouldn't you want a church to look like a church? Or a school to look like a school?"

Who's to say what a firehouse, a church, or a school should look like? Imagine if firehouses had always looked different than they do...if churches had always looked different than they do, if schools never looked the way they do. IMO, what you're really arguing for is the status quo.

[tim atherton]

""I'm thinking, why wouldn't you want a fire house to be recognized as a firehouse? Why wouldn't you want a church to look like a church? Or a school to look like a school?" Who's to say what a firehouse, a church, or a school should look like? "

I wonder, what exactly does this "church that looks like a church" supposed to look like?

An medieval English country church? An anglo saxon church? a renaissance cathedral? a round Armenian church? and Ethiopian one dug into the ground? An Irish dark ages Celtic one? A fortified crusader church? A wooden Puritan church, a Spanish adobe church, a Victorian brick pile with a steeple? Does it have a tower? A steeple? none? - there's plenty more where they came from, even within the N American tradition - and most looking rather different from any other - which one is the "church"

I think you are talking more about enshrining nostalgia - in line with some of the new urbanists

[Oren Grad]

Much of his work as well suffered technically and required major renovations well before it was expected.

Kresge has certainly had its problems - interesting story here (http://www.arche.psu.edu/thinshells/module%20III/case_study_3.htm) - but that's often true of designs that push the envelope of contemporary engineering capability.

[John Kasaian]

Airport terminals are an interesting topic. As for saying something about a buildings purpose, large airports are a work in progress---about the only thing a person can rely on to affirm that an airport is in fact and airport(major airpost anyway) are the control tower, runways, approach rabbits and hangars(oh yeah, rental car agencys) Despite not being as steeped in history as firehouses and train depots, I see them as very cultural icons and for the most part not at all pleasant. The "time tunnel' at the United terminal in Chicago was cool the first seventeen times I rode it, but now its a source of irritation. LAX is simply an extension of the 405 for pedestrians and perhaps one of the finest airports I've ever been through---Augusta Georgia(if it is still the same as it was in 1984) will likely never be duplicated with todays high tech security issues. I can;t remember who it was that said something to the efect that airport terminals are like toilets, they want you to keep flowing through so they don't put anything in there that would make you want to stick around. The trouble is with delays and connections, people do stick around. The mega terminals instead seem to make a statement about pretention---soaring ceilings mimmick cathedrals but the diety de jure is something else. As an antidote for pretention I love the baggage pick up at Sacramento---the columns supporting the roof are diquised as heaps of piled luggage on old baggage carts soaring up to the ceiling! :-) San Jose has a playground on one side of the terminal with a play airport children love.

I've heard architectural critics remark about airport terminals representing the granduer of "flight." Now I'm a pilot. I breathe the excitement of "flight" To me its cool. That seldom is the case for passengers. Some are terrified, most are bored or stressed about getting there and back, which indicates that the supposed subliminal "flight" themes haven't worked. The buildings themselves are often elegant to look at in the distance, maybe almost kind of like the cathedral at Chartes really, but walking through one isn't my idea of fun and as for what they say about my culture-----its confusing-----which might be the most profound statement of all.

[John Kasaian]

Tim,

A building that performs a function shouldn't disguise its self unless theres good reason. A firehouse that dosen't call attention to its self as a place where you'll find a fire truck and firefighters dosen't make sense to me.

A church building in the Christian tradition (catacombs and monk holes aside) I think should reflect the constructs of Christianity just as a Buddust temple or a mosque identifies itsself as being just that. If it dosen't, it sends a subliminal signal to its own members and a very clear signal to people passing by that as an institution it unwilling to set its self apart as a community of faithful. Of course some congregations don't have the financial means for anything other than a store front or rented school cafeteria, thats OK but when a multi million dollar building is designed I think the contributors should expect more opportunities for contemplation and of course less urban blight is usually always appreciated within a community.

What makes a church churchy? You gave many examples yourself. None resemble something which they aren't. Churches that resembles a roller rink or big box discount mart aren't exactly "churchy" if one feels obliged to whip out a Costco membership card or rent a pair of roller skates upon entering.

Once again my criticism isn't aimed so much at architects, but what bad design says about the culture(s) we live in. It might seem very clever to disguise the functiois of buildings at the cost of one not being able to find the entrance easily or in disregard for the climate or surroundings, but after the first few buildings 'clever' gets boring and downright coyote ugly. With buildings that don't value their place within the community by identifying themselves as such are for most people I think, an irritation at best and a grim reality at worse.

[Emre Yildirim]

Schools that are big on this stuff include Yale, Univ of Oregon in Eugene, and Univ of California at Bezerkley.

Frank - as a student at the UO, I agree that the architecture school here is big on the concept of human scale. This seems to be a popular trend on the Bay Area and the Northwest in general. For example, the people who planned this campus decided that it had to be compact, without noise and cars. You can walk from one class to another (anywhere on campus) within 9 minutes, and the main road that goes through campus is off-limits to cars (only bikes and pedestrians are allowed). Most of the newer buildings were designed to be very accessible and energy efficient, for example the business school:

http://www.eyildirim.com/misc/uo/19.jpg

http://www.eyildirim.com/misc/uo/21.jpg

has a giant solar panel and is mostly glass to lower the use of electricity for lighting. I personally don't find it very pretty, but it does the job. There are also a big ugly "box" building, like this one:

http://www.eyildirim.com/misc/uo/27.jpg

that was constructed in the 70s. Obviously, no one likes it but it's so big that it can't be replaced without displacing students and faculty. We also have a couple of buildings from the 19th century and I find those to be the most interesting ones. I think society is getting more used to box buildings and architects don't think it's a big deal anymore to create something that is appealing visually and functional at the same time.

[Frank Petronio]

I love the U of Zero campus and it is worth a visit for anyone in the NW starving to see some older buildings. When I went there I loved the landscape but missed seeing anything more than 100 years old...

Never went to a football game but "Go Ducks" or whatever!