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. 

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 that we have just finished the major shopping season of the year (perhaps some of you are still plumbing the depths of the after-Christmas sales), it seems like a good time to reflect on the good, old American shopping mall. The Economist has a rather chatty history of the mall's birth, death and rebirth as a "lifestyle center" (via Planetizen). The mall helped to shape the culture of the suburbs, which has defined more than one generation of Americans. But as traditional indoor malls decline and open air lifestyle centers replace them (as happened right around the corner from me at North Hills in Raleigh), don't you wonder how the suburban experience overall will change? Will it change at all? The lifestyle center crowd would, I think, like to argue that their creations offer a more "authentic" urban experience, but that's a whole other conversation. Think back over your holiday shopping experience, was it very different shopping in at an outdoor mall versus an indoor one?

Bamboo will fill the red gates to create a hedge that isolates this park from the bustling city.

The Globe's architecture critic Robert Campbell takes a pre-winter walk through the Rose Kennedy Greeway and comes out largely disappointed. He loved the simplicity of the North End park and enjoyed the naturalistic pathways of the Chinatown park but left cold by the largest of the parks, the Wharf District parks. He points out that sections remain unfinished and the several buildings that were to be on the Greenway have yet to be realized, or even imagined. Even though the Greenway is behind schedule, we have yet to see how some of its most significant features will be impact the whole. As Campbell puts it, with an air of resignation, "it's helpful to remember that even great cities don't always get things right for the first few centuries. It took half a millennium to finish the Piazza San Marco, in Venice." Hardly inspiring, but while we're waiting for the evolution of a century, perhaps we could bask in some winter sun on one of the North End benches anyway.

MIT's Stata Center. Should MIT have expected leaks and other problems, or is Gehry responsible for flawed design?

MIT is suing Frank Gehry. They allege that flaws in the design of the Stata Center have led to leaks and cracks in the amphitheater, snow and ice falling from roof overhangs onto pedestrian ways, mold growing on the building's exterior, and persistent leaks throughout the building. The suit names Gehry Partners and Beacon Skanska Construction (now Skanska USA) for breach of contract and is seeking to recover the multi-million costs of repairs.

The discussion in the Globe article gets to the heart of the issue: is it worth it? Is having a truly unique piece of signature architecture worth the expense, hassle and inevitable snafus? Former BU president John Silber says no: "[Gehry] thinks of himself as an artist, as a sculptor. But the trouble is you don't live in a sculpture and users have to live in this building." Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell says yes: "'You know if you hire Frank Gehry there are going to be new kinds of problems.' But he said clients accept the risks because 'they'll get a building like no other building.'"

This photograph from the WBUR Flickr pool demonstrates the striking beauty possible in City Hall. Kallmann, McKinnell & Wood Architects.

WBUR had a piece this morning on the BSA's campaign to reimagine and preserve City Hall. This month's issue of Architecture Boston focuses on the Modernist hulk and features concepts from six young architecture teams that work with the building's assets and rework its flaws. The teams put out some interesting ideas. One offers to bring the Waterfront to City Hall, instead of the other way around, and convert the Plaza into a wading pool/ice rink. Another proposes to wrap the structure in a way that brings the public to the building with a new interface off the plaza. These proposals worked off the same set of "sins" that need to be addressed: too opaque, too big, too mute, too ugly, too dark, too empty, too costly, too aloof.

The Plaza as wading pool. Studio Luz and c2|studio.

The wrap concept. Howeler+Yoon.

But what I find more interesting are the similarities that point to today's architectural trends. (I suppose it's inevitable.) There are a lot of rooftop gardens and "green-ness," sweeping ramps that funnel pedestrian traffic, undulating and faceted forms, large windows/walls with sheets of open glass, and canopies/wraps/sleeves galore. It's kind of like every dish on Top Chef featuring some unexpected vegetable prepared in a "confit" – everyone is speaking in the same vernacular. Even the renderings all have the same mash-up style of photography, CAD and those weird semi-cartoon people (I have to confess that those people leave me cold).

The fountain in Washington Square Park is popular for its people watching.

The New York Times has a fascinating discussion with urban anthropologist Fred Kent about what makes a successful public space. The article notes that Kent is a somewhat controversial figure, but he had some very interesting things to say. The reporter took him to four parks in NYC to talk about what works and what doesn't. His primary point seems to be that the planners and designers should look to the users for their inspiration – how people use a space tells you how to build it. As an example, he uses Washington Square Park where people were squatting on a narrow strip of grass watching dogs play in the dog run. He suggests that the City widen the grass area and install benches to better meet the needs of the users. Rather than carefully controlled and, as he would suggest, over-designed spaces, he argues that people are drawn to lively spaces with lots of interaction (with nature and with each other) and with flexible uses. The article quotes William H. Whyte, Kent's mentor, "what attracts people most, it would appear, is other people."

It's interesting to consider this idea when it comes places like Government Center. People use the spaces around the edges of the brick plaza. How could you learn from the elements are successfully attracting people and use them to draw people into the space? For example, the city put cafe tables and chairs in the plaza this summer. There were some people out there eating lunch and having coffee together, myself included. More people used them when they had table umbrellas up to provide some shade in the brick expanse. But when the tables and chairs remained chained together through out the day, they had few takers.

When I was a kid there was a house in my neighborhood that had two small windows with awnings facing out on the main street. It looked so much like a building with eyes and white aluminum eyebrows. I always liked that house – it seemed so friendly.

See the eyes?

Apparently lots of other people see faces in buildings, too. They have been contributing their photos of these faces to a Flickr group Faces In Places, which also shows up at a blog of the same name. This is definitely one for the blog roll.

Found this through Swiss Miss, which is, by the way, a fantastic design blog. 

The new WGBH Building projects over the Turnpike.

The Times reviews the new WGBH Building in Brighton. The station had previously been housed in a collection of unassuming buildings near the Harvard Business School campus. They have now moved to a dramatic new location alongside the MassTurnpike at the corner of Market and N. Beacon Streets. In an effort to reach a wider audience with their media, the outside of the building features a giant screen. "You can see the thing from two miles away," says the architect. They won't have text, or presumably ads for their programs, but will mostly project images that catch the commuters on the Turnpike. The example given is having a bright blue sky with fluffy white clouds on a gray New England day. I bet palm trees on a warm sandy beach will be popular in February. The success of the "digital skin" will likely hinge on how well the images are programmed. If they can keep it fresh and relevant, then maybe commuters will think "What is WGBH going to throw at me today," as the architect hopes.

From left, Freedom Tower, Norman Foster-designed Tower Two, Richard Rogers-designed Tower Three, and Fumihiko Maki-designed Tower Four.

The final designs for the new buildings at the World Trade Center site have been unveiled. The ever-clever bloggers at Curbed have dubbed the three Larry Silverstein-developed towers "Freedom's Friends" after the taller and more famous Freedom Tower next door. Towers Two ("Bling!"), Three ("Skeletal!") and Four ("Blah!") have each been designed by different starchitects but are meant to be a cohesive grouping on the east side of the plaza, offering a vibrant commercial counterpoint to the more somber west side that is dominated by the memorial.