I believe in buildings. I believe they can change lives, and that they will make a human future possible in light of the serious challenges we face. I believe they are one of the essential conditions of civilization, like agriculture, politics and medicine. Sadly, I also fear contemporary architecture, especially as it is taught in schools, has strayed far from this calling.
In mainline academic architecture, budget, logistics, and even ecological concerns (yes), in short, everything pragmatic and real, are subjugated in the name of the "concept" or "idea" which is pursued without compromise. This single-minded focus makes the architecture "stronger" and, arguably, allows the work to be classified as a type of art. Ignoring the fact that from the public's perspective the results are often obnoxious, which could be a matter of taste, there are two sizable issues.
First, since the value of these ideas themselves goes untested, the arguments are tautological; in other words, a work is judged to be good simply if it demonstrates the designer's intent. This is bizarre, but true. Shouldn't we measure it by real metrics? Shouldn't we at least ask whether the idea is any good? Second, the way design awards are structured and the way feedback is given, in general, disproportionately reward designers who impress professional architects instead of actual users. Not only do most architects never come into contact with most buildings, but more worryingly, this attitude treats architecture as a form of entertainment to be "enjoyed" by connoisseurs when it is anything but. The combined effect is to invert the real value of a building, placing its most superficial, photographic qualities at the forefront and neglecting the parts which matter most (e.g. cost, durability) to the people who rely on these buildings every day for their livelihood and security.
While there are pockets of people doing important work in the field, they are isolated: in "sustainable," "public interest," or "urban" design, for architects are very careful to label and otherize whatever is not Architecture with that capital A. The mainline position is powerfully hegemonic, and also strangely threatened and fragile. My suspicion is that this fear is based in the realization there is not a large market for this type of design. It can be afforded by relatively few elite institutions (e.g. colleges and museums) and by wealthy individuals. That's it. What is more, buildings last a long time. Consequently, there are thousands of firms competing for a handful of contracts, while at the same time a collective aversion to expanding into new markets if it means sacrificing artistic control or integrity (e.g. through commoditization).
The flip-side of this predicament, however, as architecture has become increasingly irrelevant in the process of building production, is that there is now more room than ever to design and build in non-traditional ways — in a word, to innovate — as most other industries already have. We can serve the population more effectively, more economically than we are right now, all while enabling healthier living in body, mind and spirit. I am completely convinced this is possible. We simply have to design with these goals from the outset.* Accordingly, we will need different tools, such as leveraging economies of scale, developing close relationships with finance and construction in the early design phase, as well as prototyping and post-occupancy analysis which mitigate risk and continually refine the outcome. Again, all non-standard in the typical architect's toolkit.
It doesn't matter what a building says, or worse yet, what an architect wants it to say. It only matters what it does. And the bottom line is that 99% of buildings have more important things to do than express ideas that matter to architects. That this even needs to be said I find rather tragic. A good building is many things, but it need not be profound or spectacular in any way. It doesn't need to win awards or look interesting or even attract attention at all. In fact, the opposite is more often the case. More often than not, a good building goes without notice, operating in shadows of consciousness, quietly supportive — a balance to the chaos and shock of modern life. Whatever beauty or drama that is added to this baseline is warranted only insofar as it serves this fundamental mission: to enable those who visit, live, and work therein to thrive.
— AHR
Austin, TX
January 2021
In mainline academic architecture, budget, logistics, and even ecological concerns (yes), in short, everything pragmatic and real, are subjugated in the name of the "concept" or "idea" which is pursued without compromise. This single-minded focus makes the architecture "stronger" and, arguably, allows the work to be classified as a type of art. Ignoring the fact that from the public's perspective the results are often obnoxious, which could be a matter of taste, there are two sizable issues.
First, since the value of these ideas themselves goes untested, the arguments are tautological; in other words, a work is judged to be good simply if it demonstrates the designer's intent. This is bizarre, but true. Shouldn't we measure it by real metrics? Shouldn't we at least ask whether the idea is any good? Second, the way design awards are structured and the way feedback is given, in general, disproportionately reward designers who impress professional architects instead of actual users. Not only do most architects never come into contact with most buildings, but more worryingly, this attitude treats architecture as a form of entertainment to be "enjoyed" by connoisseurs when it is anything but. The combined effect is to invert the real value of a building, placing its most superficial, photographic qualities at the forefront and neglecting the parts which matter most (e.g. cost, durability) to the people who rely on these buildings every day for their livelihood and security.
While there are pockets of people doing important work in the field, they are isolated: in "sustainable," "public interest," or "urban" design, for architects are very careful to label and otherize whatever is not Architecture with that capital A. The mainline position is powerfully hegemonic, and also strangely threatened and fragile. My suspicion is that this fear is based in the realization there is not a large market for this type of design. It can be afforded by relatively few elite institutions (e.g. colleges and museums) and by wealthy individuals. That's it. What is more, buildings last a long time. Consequently, there are thousands of firms competing for a handful of contracts, while at the same time a collective aversion to expanding into new markets if it means sacrificing artistic control or integrity (e.g. through commoditization).
The flip-side of this predicament, however, as architecture has become increasingly irrelevant in the process of building production, is that there is now more room than ever to design and build in non-traditional ways — in a word, to innovate — as most other industries already have. We can serve the population more effectively, more economically than we are right now, all while enabling healthier living in body, mind and spirit. I am completely convinced this is possible. We simply have to design with these goals from the outset.* Accordingly, we will need different tools, such as leveraging economies of scale, developing close relationships with finance and construction in the early design phase, as well as prototyping and post-occupancy analysis which mitigate risk and continually refine the outcome. Again, all non-standard in the typical architect's toolkit.
It doesn't matter what a building says, or worse yet, what an architect wants it to say. It only matters what it does. And the bottom line is that 99% of buildings have more important things to do than express ideas that matter to architects. That this even needs to be said I find rather tragic. A good building is many things, but it need not be profound or spectacular in any way. It doesn't need to win awards or look interesting or even attract attention at all. In fact, the opposite is more often the case. More often than not, a good building goes without notice, operating in shadows of consciousness, quietly supportive — a balance to the chaos and shock of modern life. Whatever beauty or drama that is added to this baseline is warranted only insofar as it serves this fundamental mission: to enable those who visit, live, and work therein to thrive.
— AHR
Austin, TX
January 2021
Read More:
better architecture:
|
A good building
|
architecture
|
SEE MORE:
CarpentrySelect projects form 2011 - 2016
|
Architecture SchoolSelect projects from 2016 - 2020
|
photographySelect 35mm Photography
|
*The examples to the contrary, such as Christopher Alexander and Walter Gropius, have been largely forgotten. The others, like Kahn, Gehry, Koolhaas and Corb, cast a long shadow. While the arrogance of architects comes as no surprise, the degree to which it is tolerated and permitted has been the most shocking revelation to me during my time in architecture school. I have written about Gropius here, who was not only an outspoken advocate for economization, but also the chair of the GSD at Harvard. The fact that his writings (Scope of Total Architecture), which evince a profound social agenda, have been out of print since the 1970s, while Corb's meandering collection of aphoristic assertions compiled in A New Architecture is still to this day the most widely read book on the subject convince me we are in one of the more formalist, less socially conscious eras of architecture, buoyed by a graphic culture more eager and able to consume images than ever before.