I am boring.

In this week's class I was called boring alongside the rest of the class.  I resent this and feel that it shows the paradox that our professors want us to live up to.  They want us to be outrageous and inventive but will fail us if we do so.  Archigram had no buildings that I know of that were ever built, and what good is innovative architecture if it does not exist except on paper.  Why would I design something that has no possibility of being built.  I design things that work.  It is very easy to make colorful drawings with pens and crayons and things.  But to design something actually functions, that takes skill.  Walking city is a great looking facade.  That is it.  Where were the mechanical diagrams, where were the floor plans.  Where are the sections?  Do they exist?  While Archigram was a vital catalyst during the 60's, they are not needed and have no place being taught in our class today as anything other than history.  They shouldn't be called to the front of the class' attention as precedent.  No professor should say, "Why don't y'all do something like that?"  In my opinion a professor is in the wrong if they encourage us to practice irresponsible and reckless architecture and should be held accountable for it.  Our society doesn't need an archigram.  We just need more people with better taste who give a shit.  A box is boring, Wiley tower is boring, Memorial gym is boring.  But I AM NOT BORING.

Critique on the Starchitect System

So the manifest I did had these doomsday machines in the foreground and the starchitects in the background.  It also had war zeppellins carpet-bombing the destroyed city with building bombs that ignore thier context.  Its kinda packed.

In case you can't read the text, it says, "The analogy is this: we are all singular gears in the starchitect machine.  The engine is the economy and it supplies power to the drivers, the starchitects.  When they hit the throttle, all the gears turn.  A single gear in revolt will not bring halt to the machine.  The choice is this: turn the machine or be turned by it.

I guess what I am trying to say is.  If you think of the economics of architecture you have to look at demand first.  Who is the main buyer of things architectural.  The public, the flashy, gaudy, uneducated, blithe, irresponsible public.  The public likes a flashy skin, some exotic structure, and a leaky roof or floorplan that is sub-par.  The drivers don't care and are generating alot of the profit.  It seems that the people who are not going to buy the starchitect brand are the people who can't afford it or have some architectural backing. 

The starchitect system is set up so that they drive the machine.  What they do is "trendy architecture" and everyone wants thier own knock-off.  The gears, the other architects who don't want to make thier own knock-off are the gears in revolt.  They still turn but do not progress in the system.  The goal of the starchitect system is to be the star.  So you have the caste system, where you have the stars, the demi-stars, and good architects, the bad architects, and everyone else. 

The only way the machine would stop is if all the gears decided to make a gut-grinding halt all at once.  This will never happen.  Perhaps because some are delusional that this is a good  system and they hope to be on top one day.  Some don't know that there is a system.  Some know this is a crappy system and are simply comfortable.  Comfortability overwhelms responsibility in most cases.  We are happy with our meager paychecks right where they are. 

If, and this is a longshot.  If all the gears did revolt and we rebuked the stars.  Would the demi-stars siphon themselves into star-hood?  Or would something else happen?  Could there be an anonymous architecture.  Where the buildings stood by themselves, the people were paid behind closed doors and names and recognition were never thrown out into the public?

Advice to Incoming Architecture Students

In this longer post I'll be defining concept, diagram, parti, and precedent.

We'll start with a precedent, It is probably the easiest to explain.  A precedent is a building, instrument, film, car, or object.  Really a precedent is and thing from which you derive ideas.  I have used books, films, buildings, cars, theories from other professions, and organs among other things.  As an example We'll look at Alvar Aalto's Library Seinajoki.

 He clearly draws from an open book and incorporates it into his building.  You can see it really well in plan but it is less in a photo.  Many more people add precedent into their building in a more subtle way.

Next we'll move on to diagram.  I feel that its hard to separate from parti.  A diagram is a clear way to explain one aspect of a building in a visual way.  The normal things a diagram would show are things like sustainable systems, circulation (vertical and horizontal), programatic divisions, structure, public vs. private, and ordering principles (axis, rhythm, datum, hierarchy, etc).   Below is a set of diagrams done by Morphosis to show aspects of the San Fransisco Federal Building.  Later I'll show a parti that they did of it.

The diagram can also be used to demonstrate how the building was formed.  Like here: BIG - - 8HOUSE
In these series of diagrams BIG shows us why the apartments they made were shaped like they were. Some of the diagrams break the program into strips and insert them in the building.  Some reference outside landmarks.  Some ever reshape the building to acknowledge these references.  Regardless of what you are diagramming, you diagram needs to follow a few rules.
1- Simplify it - your diagram needs to communicate the idea well, if it's convoluted then its going to be hard for someone to understand.  If you have too many lines then get rid of some.  Reduce it, and for good measure, reduce it down again.
2- Use your tools - I've seen some people's diagrams go down the drain because they are forcing themselves to use tools that they aren't able to adequately utilize.  Hand drawings are just as valid as computer generated ones.  Stick to your medium.
3- Maintain a format - what I mean by this is: if your client is doing more trying to figure out what angle your diagram is from or discern the diagrams in section from the ones in plan, you have failed. They need to focus on the information and they can't do that if they are confused or frustrated.

The way a diagram is different from a parti is that while a diagram communicates one aspect of a building, the parti coherently shows all of them working together but distills it into a really concise drawing.  It is the essence of the building, the inseparable qualities of the building.  Sometimes it is a formal condition (how the building is shaped).  Other times it is a structure or organizational strategy.  It too needs to be simple.  When I say simple I mean concise and with impact.  There is a difference between a simplistic parti and a simple one. Simplistic implies that the idea is wanting, or lacking depth.  Simple just implies that the idea, complex as it may be, is easy to understand. To the right is a parti of the San Francisco Federal Building.  As you can see there is the formal idea and you can start to see the workings of tectonics and structure.  There is some idea of a hierarchical space in the center.  All of this is clearly communicated.  It has been reduced down to its essence.  This is our goal as architects.  Before the building has been formed in CAD or you've touched your lead to bristol you should be able to draw this.  It is the drawing that you could make for your friend or boss on a napkin at a business lunch. I feel the need to say that parti is not always seen as a section.  There are plan parti, elevation parti, and parti models.  It is just the first step in the actual design.

Finally, we come to the concept.  I've been putting it off because this is the hardest to describe.  A concept can be anything.  It is a premise that you use for a design. In good architecture, a concept is necessitous.  You should be able to condense it into a sentence, "My concept is: Theater becomes the film." but you should be able to expound on it vigorously.  "The program is divided into action and stagnant spaces like the picture and the frame of the film strip..." If your concept is, "My building is a cloud." You must ask yourself "What is it to be a cloud?  What building type, what structure type personifies a cloud?"  Then you must apply your answer to your building.  In this way your concept manifests... incarnates itself into a building.  Some concepts are simply formal, I find these the most superficial.  Some people go for them anyway.  The really deep and intellectually intriguing building have concepts that influence every aspect of them.

The concept is hard to put into context.  It is derived, on one hand, from the givens.  The context, program, demographic, location, media, and I think most importantly our understandings of these subjects.  From our understandings we formulate an attitude, a mentality, and that broods into a concept.  Contrarily, the concept feeds back into our preconceptions of context, program, and media.  It would dictate that we add or delete parts of our program.  Perhaps we would favor one site over another because of its "opportunities".  We start to see our medium in a new light, new uses are invented or reinvented.  The process involving a concept is very cyclic, and it is important to get that when designing with a concept.

Concept is the mold that shapes the jello of our objects.

Back from Axemas

We were disgussing our readings in class and the one that got me the most was the one from Tschumi, I really enjoy his written works, and agree with him on most of his subjects.  This time was no exception.  When he talks about architects not worrying so much about form up front, i'm right with him.  He talks about letting the program drive the concept, which then, in turn, drives the concept-form.  And I'm not sure if he's right.  Does the program supercede even the concept. I think not.
I can't remember who said this, or if I dreamed that I read this, but I read some literature a while back.  Basically this architect was interviewed and he said this of his architecture, When I design I forsake form in favor of concept, and I design along this path.  However, when I am finished, if the result is not beautiful it's wrong.  While I agree that concept comes before the form, I think that a strong concept informs even the program, and the program feeds back into the concept, reinforcing it.  In my current project I picked the site and demographic.  The concept I had was making a building that was a means of contesting . . . whatever- the status quo, the distinction between public and private, etc.  The concept I had was strong enough to inform a program that would help me contest what it meant to design my building type, and it had to be edgy.  Now the program is feeding back into that iconaclastic concept and helping drive it.  So while I think that program comes early on. . . while program is a crucial driving force behind architecture, I think concept comes first, not by much, but by enough for it to extend and intrude into the program in a way that influences the addition or deletion of parts.

On Avant-Garde and Unemployment

I keep reading about the people who are forming the negative thought, what poor bastards.  One must be an especially misguided architect to reinforce an idea they seek to destroy.  I suppose that this is the greatest slap in the face that one could give onesself.  It seems to me that if a project is directed and full in substance, when it draws appropriate relationships it ceases to be ambiguous and it starts to become a good project.  I really wonder if it is better to be absurd and become the negative thought rather than the avant-garde, or is it better to be sensible and on the better side of mediocre.  Is origional stuff good if its bad origional stuff?  Should we pioneer bad stuff as well as good stuff for the sake of the profession.  If we're supposed to, then I refuse.  Someone else can do it.  Will we ever come to a time when we have no avant-garde and no negative thought?  Or would this be counter-productive?  If we find a valid, perfected logic for designing inhabitats should we abandon this in favor of the avant-garde?

I don't want to contradict my professors sometimes, but I feel that sometimes I have to go a bad route to learn a good lesson, if a project is mine, and I don't feel the necessity to design a certain way, shouldn't I have the right to respectfully disagree with my professor. without penalization during grading.  If its a well-contrived solution and well-analysed shouldn't it stand even though I might have supplanted the professors steps with my own?  How are we supposed to be avant-garde in this environment?

The Why?

In architecture according to Kahn, Form is what, design is how.  But is it so?  I feel that the program and codes are the what.  That the form is how.  What I mean is this we are told what we are to make, but it is in the forming  of it that we realize how it is to be.  Lots of buildings can do the same thing, and could be designed the same way.  But the how of them is different because of the form. I will rethink and explore this more in depth later.

So, we were talking in class today and the question my professor asked was, " How much of the world does it take to make what I wear?" I thought this was an interesting question.  And this led me to the question of what kind of structure, both economic and financial, we would have to have to have to support our consumerist needs?  Just to have the basics, for cotton shirts, jackets and socks we would need enough cotton fields to support the population of ruston, we would need looms, the machinery or employees to sew all of it into those patterns. And if you picked machinery then we'd have to find steel or iron deposits somewhere in ruston, fat chance of that happening! So we'd have to do it by hand. If we wanted to dye it, we'd have to figure out what natural native ingrediants to use.  And then we'd buy it.  It would be soo expensive and consume such manpower that it is illogical to propose such a plan.  I think however we, in our move to a global economy and culture, are missing it.  Local and regional cultures are being overrun.  People in india know what grits are.  And "you're not from around here, are you?" has become an expired phrase.  I think that we are losing our local identity but to retain it we'd have to revert to club-wielding neanderthals.  Or would we?  Is there a happy medium that we could acheive.  Could grow the cotton locally and ship it 30 minutes away to we made into textile fabric, and ship it back to be dyed and sewn, by machines made from regionally mined and refined steel?  Should Mcdonalds be able to ship chicken in from God knows where to feed to us.  It isn't healthy, it makes us sick?  Should they be allowed to, but should we have the sense to say no? 

I think these big localized factories need to start spreading out, waaay out.  I think our cars should be made within 2 hours of where they are sold.  I think if we have to move our fuel more than 500 miles just to get it into our cars then it isn't a valid fuel source.  Why can't we as a people acknowledge that this import/export economy is bad for our health and bad for the environment?  I don't think that the government should give us what we want right now, it may sound socialist, but shouldn't they give us what we need?  I'll close on this, If 60% of America went and voted to legalize murder, shouldn't the government say no?

I think Architecture should not give us what we want, when it isn't what we need.