January 5, 2017 § Leave a comment
Winter break hasn’t been all detective work in classic postwar skyscrapers and picking on morally challenged partners at international design firms. Iowa State’s annual CSI Prize Jury closed out a great studio semester by awarding Catie Mcclurg and Connor Yocum first place in this year’s competition. They were in the interdisciplinary Panama Hospitality Studio that I taught with Interior Design Chair Lee Cagley, and deserved the recognition. Our project, for an ecologically-oriented hotel along the entry to the Canal on the Amador Peninsula, was intentionally tough–how do you create a comfortable, international quality hotel that engages a rainforest reclamation project, is low embodied and life cycle energy, and makes a statement about urbanism in one of the fastest growing cities in the hemisphere? Catie and Connor took all aspects of the challenge on board, starting with a section based on the varied flora and fauna in the rainforest canopy. This idea came from our tours of Gamboa, the forest just outside the city, where towers give visitors access to the incredibly diversity that changes every few vertical feet. This project oriented rooms and public areas according to the heights of various trees, including a restaurant and bar at treetop level, and upper stories that took advantage of views back to the main bulk of the city, to the north.
(Anastasia Sysoeva and Weicheng Chan)
Collaborative teams are one of the hallmarks of our approach to the NAAB Integrated Design requirement, and I jumped at the chance to expand on this by having Lee’s students join us. Almost every team in our studio combined architecture and interior design students, and the results were impressive–we’re used to seeing architectural schemes that take structure, circulation, environmental response, and cladding seriously, but these dovetailed with space designs that focused on guests’ experiences and the fine-grained functionality of a complex program. Any worries we might have had about adding too much range to the teams’ plates were pretty well dashed in the final review, where we saw projects that fluently pulled together all of these requirements. Glad that the CSI Jury agreed…congrats to C+C, and to all of our students, for a great semester. I’m hoping we’ll be able to do it again next Fall. This time, I’ll know my way around the freeways well enough that we maybe won’t miss an exit and end up on the wrong continent…
(Britt Schenck, Melissa Brooks, Allie Shindoll)
December 28, 2016 § 3 Comments
Late to this fray, but the Patrik Schumacher debacle from last month can’t pass without comment…especially given that we’ve tangled before.
Schumacher, either still a partner or an ex-partner with Zaha Hadid Architects, depending on which gossip mill you believe, used the podium at last month’s World Architecture Forum in Berlin to declaim eight ‘points’ that would, he argued, revitalize London and help alleviate the city’s affordable housing crisis. His plan, which dezeen helpfully published in full, amounted to scrapping public housing, eliminating planning regulations, and privatizing public spaces in the city. These suggestions, to put it mildly, caused a bit of a stir.
Surely, the Forum knew exactly what it was getting. Schumacher has been throwing these sorts of ideas around for several years, pointing out that if the poor and middle classes were gentrified out of cities, then the urban housing crisis would be solved. This sort of jaw-dropping tautology is a key tenet of the fringe economic theory known as Anarcho-Capitalism, a free-market fundamentalism that, among other things, argues for a privatized justice system, so that the market can then sort out which forms of justice are most efficient. In celebrating that sort of optimization it doesn’t worry about what happens to those who, for instance, can’t afford premium justice plans, or a subscription to private police or fire departments—one way or another the market will ‘take care’ of them. It’s the sort of disingenuous philosophy that makes even hard-right critics blush—“Marxism of the Right,” as one journal put it. When a movement’s devotees point to Somalia in the 1990s as a model you should, maybe, be skeptical, but Schumacher has become one of Anarcho-Capitalism’s leading voices, speaking earlier this month at a forum in London devoted to socially Darwinian ideas that resonate with his urban theory—calls to deregulate genetic engineering of humans and the sale of organs, and to rely on IQ testing for social and economic benefits among them.
So, how does this trans-Randian world view square with his architecture? In his writings, he’s called for a paradoxical—and anything but anarchic—“hegemonic parametricism” that would do away with the “garbage spill” of existing cities’ architectural, urban, and (one assumes) social diversity by imposing a parametrically-controlled optimization of urban form. The market, “determined by architecture’s private clients within a market process that allocates land resources to the most valued uses,” would clean up “garbage spill” cities, rationalizing uses and massing into a “legible urban order and identity;” great, swooping curves and smoothly-surfaced structures that would produce a “variegated, information-rich urban order.” This new urban order would reduce the neural strain that diverse cities impose on their residents, who would now be able to apply the cognitive energy thus saved to be more efficient and productive. It’s a strange combination of social and economic Darwinism with the sort of stylistic authoritarianism that Anarcho-Capitalists might revolt against—his images of antiseptic, gleaming white, ‘gradient swarm’ urban formations suggest nothing less than sets from an ill-conceived remake of Logan’s Run.
Schumacher’s most telling quote, however, comes not from his voluminous writing, but rather from an interview done in the wake of his Forum talk with Phineas Harper, Deputy Director of London’s Architecture Foundation. Stung by the backlash his comments brought, he seemed to not exactly backtrack, but to cloak his long-held beliefs in what has become a standard social media apologia: “I’m not certain about what I’m saying…but I think these arguments are worth floating.” Americans will recognize this as a strategy borrowed from the Trump campaign—“I’m not sure, but some are saying…” This formulation succeeded in disseminating damaging, wildly untrue rumors while keeping its speaker at an apparent critical distance, damaging opponents while elevating Trump above the fray. The campaign used it to the point of self-parody, but with devastating effect on an electorate more gullible than anyone thought possible. Schumacher has used it, somewhat less successfully, to propagate a caustic socio-economic theory in which he clearly believes while presenting himself as intellectually disciplined, disinterested, and open to all possible solutions. (Hint: he hasn’t written extensively on any others).
“I’m not certain, but these arguments are worth floating” is, in the sense that Harry Frankfurt defined the term, pure bullshit. Frankfurt’s 1986 essay on the topic saw a surge in popularity when it was released as a short book in 2005. “On Bullshit” bears continued reading in an age where, as he says in his opening, a “salient feature of our culture” is that “there is so much” of it. Frankfurt distinguished “bullshit” from outright lying, or making statements that are intentionally false. Bullshit, for Frankfurt, requires instead a total disregard for factuality. Whereas lying requires “falsity,” bullshit requires “fakery.” It’s deployed not to deceive someone about a fact, but rather to deceive someone about the speaker; either that speaker’s qualifications, intentions, or “enterprise.” Bullshit is, in other words, self-serving, without even the attention paid to truth by liars. The bullshitter seeks to convince us not of their “correctness,” but rather of their “sincerity.” Schumacher’s writing parses in these terms, and Frankfurt’s further discussion of bullshit as something “produced in a careless or self-indulgent manner…never finely crafted” applies to much else that passes for urban and architectural theory—heavy with undefined but arcane buzzwords, run-on sentences, and errors evidencing a complete lack of care or editing, keen to give the appearance of evidentiary strength and rhetorical depth on the part of the author, while unbothered by the disciplined research and craft needed to actually achieve these.
Frankfurt’s comments on craft as an antidote to bullshit are, I think, the crux of his argument for architects. Like any good philosopher, he pulls in an architectural metaphor (via Longfellow and Wittgenstein) to make his point:
“In the elder days of art
Builders wrought with greatest care
Each minute and unseen part,
For the Gods are everywhere.”
For Frankfurt, the values associated with craft in art’s ‘elder days’—self-discipline, thoughtfulness, care—aren’t necessarily antithetical to bullshit. There is, after all, the “finely wrought” and sophisticated bullshit of advertising, public relations, and politics (not to mention social media—remember that Frankfurt is here writing in 1986). It is, instead, the laxity that accompanies bullshit, the sense of a “slovenly craftsman” who is “trying to get away with something,” that rings true when we think about the bulk of work produced in what Schumacher calls the “parametric style.” For as much as this could be defined by its compelling, digitally-generated forms, such a style could also be identified by the lack of care dedicated to its execution, (engineers and contractors are usually the ones to pick up the slack of making the ‘parametric style’ stand and keep out the rain). The bluffing that comes with staged and composed digital renderings—finely wrought, to be sure—will do the job of convincing the public that the buildings in question are as impressively built as they are conceived. But ‘calling bullshit’ on them by showing up and experiencing them firsthand calls that bluff in extraordinary fashion. In this sense, Calatrava’s designs might be the paradigm of architectural bullshit, in that their histrionic structural forms have nothing to do with how buildings are stand up—I’ve flogged this horse enough elsewhere. What links Calatrava and Schumacher—and, for that matter, OMA, BIG, and any number of other digitally-savvy firms producing visually captivating and experientially disappointing work is the bluff of architectural sincerity.
This is a state of affairs in which images can be staged, enhanced, or even digitally altered (i.e., to remove inconvenient mechanical plant in one notorious recent example). Ideas about urban planning can be floated purely for their page views without regard for their political and social consequences. Revolutionary constructivist aesthetics can be deployed for a (decidedly reactionary) spa and health club for plutrocrats. When Frankfurt wrote about “so much bullshit” being a “salient feature of our culture” in 1986 he was dealing with amateurs. Thirty years has increased the torrent and the pace of it exponentially, and architecture has done more its part. Does Schumacher think that creating millions of economic refugees and clearing the world’s urban centers of their messy diversity is a viable way of revitalizing (already vital) cities? That ‘hegemonic parametricism’ is the messianic optimization tool that will best serve his fellow genetically engineered, IQ-tested, capitalist ultra-elite? Who knows, and who cares? Schumacher isn’t a fascist, as some have argued. He’s a textbook bullshit artist. And, I’d argue that, as with any of Frankfurt’s ‘bullshit artists,’ we ought to ignore the content of his statements and focus instead on his delivery. “Since,” Frankfurt concludes, “it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts,” the bullshitter “must therefore try instead to be true to himself,” i.e., immune to the veracity or consequences of whatever he says, as long as it serves his interests. Anarcho-capitalism? More like the first marketing salvo in the 2021 Trump Presidential Library competition.
That argument is “worth floating,” anyway.
December 21, 2016 § Leave a comment
Finishing off the semester with a great couple of days in Chicago with Iowa State’s entire CHRG (Construction History Research Group)–all two of them.
Since receiving the CTBUH’s first Student Research Award, Shawn Barron (far L) and Saranya Panchaseelan (far R) have been working to build digital models of key mid-century high rises, focusing on the relationships between skin, structure, and environmental response. While most of this era’s structures are interpreted as a dialogue between cladding and structure, we’re trying to show how mechanical and environmental systems–air conditioning and lighting in particular–were part of the mix. And, how cladding technologies had to go beyond simple advances in connections and fabrication. Skins had to achieve fairly good performance in terms of insulation and heat absorption before they became reasonable solutions to skyscraper exteriors.
So of particular interest is the brief appearance of the solid curtain wall, represented in particular by the 1953-54 Alcoa Building in Pittsburgh, which came just after Solex heat absorbing glass came on the market. Harrison and Abramowitz opted not to use it, possibly because of negative publicity about cracking that occurred in early applications at the U.N. and Portland’s Equitable Building.
SOM was at the forefront, of course, of much of this development. Lever House (1952) is often thought of as the paradigmatic curtain wall, but it has a couple of details that make this claim a bit suspect. I’m going to hold back for now on what our research has shown, but it’s more in the Alcoa tradition than it appears, and the glass skin is really only slightly more transparent, in terms of percentage of actual clear glass in the facade, than Alcoa’s.
What our work is heading toward is an understanding of Chicago’s Inland Steel Building as a key moment in the successful architectural combination of insulated, heat-rejecting glass with air conditioning and fluorescent lighting in creating a truly deep plan, thin-skinned high rise, what we think is the first to do this without recourse to solid fireproofing or insulating elements between floors and ceilings. To figure out whether this is the case or not, of course, the CHRG team is going to tackle Inland and several contemporary ‘glass boxes’ this spring, looking in particular at the interface between floor plates, mechanical systems, and cladding.
To do this, SOM has very generously let us look through original construction drawings for these structures. Thanks to the hard work of their librarian and archivist, we spent a day poring over ductwork plans, lighting layouts, and cladding details, all the while trying not to get distracted by the view of a wintry Grant Park outside their offices in the Railway Exchange Building. (The architectural history there is so thick you can slice it…). We presented some preliminary work to the office over happy hour, and were happy to be invited to see a floor of Inland Steel that’s being renovated. To go from drawing to actual building was priceless, and we were able to establish that we were looking at original ductwork, cabling, etc., from what we’d seen in the archives.
Throw in dinner at Harry Caray’s with some of SOM’s designers and ISU alums, and it made for a solid weekend. Lots of work to do once the team gets back together in January, and undoubtedly some surprises ahead as we unpack the drawings and figure out some of what made these buildings tick.
A million thanks to Karen Widi, Jen Masengarb at CAF who helped make connections, Bill Baker, Neil Katz, Michael Jividen, and ISU alums Kyle Vansice and Scott Steffes for a memorable and productive couple of days.
November 30, 2016 § Leave a comment
Catching up after a busy month, highlighted by a symposium on the forthcoming re-issue of Aesthetics and Technology in Building that featured almost all of the authors contributing essays to the project in Venice. Hosted by Venice International University, we were also fortunate to have Francesco Dal Co, from IUAV, offer some remarks on Nervi and the culture of technology and architecture prevalent in the postwar era.
The book is scheduled for publication in Fall, 2017, so this was the first in what we’re hoping will be something of a world tour over the next year. We’ve just submitted the final final texts and illustrations, and couldn’t be more excited about bringing a classic text back to the bookshelves–or, at least, the affordable bookshelves. My own first edition set me back $300 or so about 20 years ago.
The roster of authors is a construction history and Nervi scholarship list of all stars. It’s also nicely international. Alberto Bologna has contributed an essay on Nervi’s relationship with America, which was a uniquely apropos market and also a source of great inspiration. Gabriele Neri has written a biographical essay that will reintroduce Nervi and his career to the English-speaking world, and Jo Abram has written a concluding essay that places Nervi in the context of postwar progressive thought and technology. Elisabetta Margiotta Nervi, president of the PLN Foundation, Cristiana Chorino from the Polytechnic University of Turin, and I have essays that frame the project and the original Aesthetics and Technology in Building, the results of Nervi’s invitation to deliver the Charles Eliot Norton Lectures in Poetry at Harvard in 1961.
But I think we’re all in agreement that the centerpiece of the new book (aside, of course, from Nervi’s brilliant four chapters) will be Roberto Einaudi’s historical essay on how the Norton Lectures and the book came to be. Einaudi was an undergraduate student at Cornell when he took a semester off to travel to Rome and to sit in on Nervi’s lecture classes (this after spending a summer working for Louis Kahn. He and I have had a lot to discuss). His transcriptions of those lectures have been published in Italy and give a rare insight into Nervi’s philosophy–and standing as a teacher. For this project, Einaudi has written about being drafted into translating Nervi’s lectures (as a graduate student at MIT in 1961, Einaudi was again in the right place at the right time) and then working with him to refine those into ATB’s essays. This will be an important document in its own right, but it’s also a great story, and very much a portrait of the sophisticated but very down-to-earth person that Nervi was.
The day was highlighted by a visit to the Cassa di Risparmio, a branch bank designed by Nervi and Scottolino that features a large isostatic-shaped slab (top photo in the post) over the banking hall. It’s a building that’s practically hidden in plain sight–just a short walk from St. Mark’s but deeply embedded in the daily life of the city and not on any obvious tourist trail. Seeing it in such esteemed company was a rare treat, but of course the chance to travel to Venice is its own reward, especially at moon high tide.
October 31, 2016 § Leave a comment
Here at APT’s annual conference in San Antonio presenting progress on what we’re now calling “Deep Plan, Thin Skins,” on the evolution of the glass box, to a friendly crowd of preservationists. Today was tour day, in particular of the 1928 Milan Building, the first fully air conditioned high rise. Pleased to report that a trip to the basement confirmed that bits of Willis Carrier’s original equipment are still there and still churning away. Sacred ground…
October 25, 2016 § Leave a comment
The Art Institute lions look pretty good in Cubbie blue, don’t they?
I could go into great detail about Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge’s building behind those be-capped cats, or about Zachary Taylor Davis’ riveted steel masterpiece at the corner of Addison and Clark (he, by the way, is going to be recognized by the new hotel being planned for Wrigleyville…well deserved), or about how Kyle Hendricks, hero pitcher of Game 6, played college ball for Dartmouth and thus spent winters practicing that pennant-winning changeup under a rather nice Nervi roof in Hanover.
But I’ll just leave it at this: I’ll be radically unavailable for the next few evenings, hoping for an outcome that last happened the year this Loop landmark opened for business:
October 19, 2016 § Leave a comment
Happy to announce the first pre-publication event for both Beauty’s Rigor and the 50th anniversary reprint of Aesthetics and Technology in Building. Both book projects will be the subject of a day-long presentation associated with the Venice Biennale on Friday, 11 November at Isola di San Servolo. I’ll be helping to moderate and to place Nervi and these projects in context, but the day will be highlighted by presentations by scholars and architects who have contributed critical essays to the ATB reprint. If you’re in Venice, or anywhere nearby, this should be a great day of Nervi scholarship, the first in a series of events that will surround the books’ hitting the street sometime next Fall.