What does architecture say about culture?

[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 - 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.