The Revitalist

Does architecture define our own personal views? As Pogrebin argues in his article, “I’m the Designer. My Client’s the Autocrat”, all architecture has ulterior motives in many spheres—be it financial, political, religious—architecture is not architecture without contextual purpose.

Still, many architects believe they can separate themselves from the context and design simply for the sake of design. Consider many of the great buildings throughout history—most encompassed some political or religious ideal. Even within the movement of humanism, powerful merchants used the archetypes of the time to raise their status and power. We could even argue that much of significant architecture, which remains, is such because of its surrounding context. Perhaps it even remains because of its context—consider the basis of preservation initiatives.

But, the ethics of designing for a nation or person whose actions or beliefs you are fully against still remains. As China and Dubai suck in many of the major architects of our day, few architects remain who stand for national ideals through refusing to accept enticing international commissions. The reward is too great and the loss of integrity undervalued.  (Image: CCTV in Beijing, Rem Koolhaas; This is where China will screen and censor the Olympics before they're broadcast to the world.)

So, what do ethics mean in design? Is it more ethical to design in the hope of engaging societies through architecture to help them move in the right direction, or should architects refuse services to nations who are not in accordance with their own nation’s values? But perhaps design transcends ethical boundaries. Just consider the following:  if Bernini had refused to design for the Vatican or Postnik for Ivan IV, would architecture have progressed to where it is today?

Read more in the July issue of Architectural Record about China and building ethics. 

In Philadelphia, Walnut Street Capital, a development company, has commissioned Kohn Pedersen Fox architects to build the Center City Tower, what could be the tallest building in America and the second tallest in the world. Amidst fierce competition, cities such as Shanghai and Hong Kong threaten to strip Philadelphia of this title though. Currently, Dubai is building a structure which will surpass even Taipei’s 1,670 ft. tower--the tallest in the world.

In the new modernist equation, height seems to equal strength, solidarity, fortitude—everything that symbolizes power. As China tries to compete on the world stage, their buildings are becoming taller and more eye-catching, be it good or bad. Everywhere, cities are crawling up into the sky and claiming “unlimited” vertical real estate.

Still, Philadelphia may have one claim to fame. Their 1,500 ft tower will attempt LEED Gold Certification. With gardens on two floors, this megalith may be somewhat livable. The structure will house offices, retail space, and a hotel.

It seems like the question of whether a particular structure is worth preserving will always be addressed as the thirty-year mark approaches and it becomes eligible for the lists. Though some buildings are recognized as being eligible for and needing preservation even prior to this milestone, many buildings are not even considered until many years later.

Post-war structures face quite a bit of opposition as many of them are not viewed in a pleasurable light by the general public. Perhaps the reason for this distaste relates to our relatively calm current state—contrasting the origin of Brutalist design in period when society found the appearance of defensive strength and fortitude beautiful and comforting. The head of the Columbia University preservation department provided this as an argument for the preservation of Boston’s City Hall in his keynote address at the Campus Heritage Symposium in Boston in October 2007.

The United States is about to open up their embassy in Berlin—a project highly contested by the Germans for several reasons. First and foremost is the controversial site, but the Germans are offended greatly by the way the new US embassy on the Pariser Platz engages or refuses to engage in dialogue with the Brandenburg Gate and other important historic German buildings surrounding the site. It comes as a slap in the face for the US Embassy building to “fold its arms” against Germany though the US refutes this interpretation of its intention.

Brutalist buildings were accepted during their period and many even loved for a short amount of time. Now, it seems the US is responding to bombings at the Kenya and Tanzania embassies and the September 11 attacks (follow this link to read about new guidelines which were considered during the building of the German Embassy), so its defensive stance is not without reason from an American standpoint. Still, the building was not built on American soil, so the German interpretation has validity as they are the people directly affected by the solid placement of the US embassy.
Ironically, the US has now erected a wall which stands against the same site where Reagan declared to Gorbachev, “tear down this wall”.

Now, with added energy, “The Revitalist” is back from vacation and ready to go. With pleasure, we welcome five new editors who will bring great new insight to “The Revitalist”. Please check back weekly for updates.

The kettle, attached above the entry to a Starbucks near Boston City Hall and steaming gently most days, seems, according to the sellers actions(and the Boston Globe), to be the deal closer in advancing his badly timed sales efforts. The kettle itself has moved about a bit, lending wit and charm to other real estate efforts, and maybe the occasional salvaged deal. It surely should signal a good pot o' tea.

The headline says it all: "'Green' Buildings Don't Have to Be New." The NY Times catches on to all the green renovations of existing buildings that are going on across the country using the US Green Building Council's LEED for Existing Buildings program—revised standards were released last October.

An ad from The National Trust's Sustainability Initiative

The PreservationNation blog points out a new Embodied Energy Calculator that is available at thegreenestbuilding.org website. You select your building type, put in your square feet, and the calculator spits out an estimate on the number of MBTUs per square foot that it took to build your building. The idea is to reinforce the concept that preservation is an inherently sustainable style of development because it capitalizes on the energy already expended to build our existing structures. The site also includes a Teardown Calculator that attempts to sum the lost embodied energy, the energy expended in the demolition and the energy investment in the new construction.

To take this one step further, the National Trust is working on a methodology for Life Cycle Assessment for historic structures, as part of their Sustainability Initiative. An LCA seeks to encompass all the energy and materials consumed throughout a building's lifecycle, including resource extraction, energy consumed in manufacturing, use and disposal, etc. That, of course, is a much bigger project, but it could make a compelling case for reuse over demo.

The US Conference of Mayors met last week in Washington DC. A couple of the mayors took a few minutes to sit in on a discussion on the Diane Rehm Show about the challenges that mid-size cities face today. It was a very interesting discussion about the effects that the housing decline is having on city revenues and their plans to take their cities into the 21st century.

A Venice waterbus.

Venice has too many tourists, and they are making life hard for the city's full-time residents. So, the city has just opened a new waterbus line that caters to residents; it only takes those with a Carta Venezia pass (the pass is discounted for residents, a kind of long-term subway pass). Residents had complained that the waterbuses were so jammed with tourists and their big suitcases that there was little room for regular riders. The mayor said, "If people want to come to Venice they can come, but we have to allow residents to live better." Can you imagine Bloomberg or Daley saying something like that?

The H.H. Richardson House in Brookline has a new owner. The house was listed on the National Trust's 11 Most Endangered Places 2007 list because it had been left unsecured against the elements for several years and then acquired by two concerned neighbors who were anxious to sell. The new owner is the H.H. Richardson Trust, whose spokesman is Michael Minkoff, who is also owner of National Development Corp, a D.C. based adative reuse developer. He says that his plans are to preserve the facade, several of the front rooms, Richardson's highly customized master bedroom, and other features. He will build an addition to the rear of the building. He did not say what use he plans for the house.