in recent weeks, a number of reactionary architectural commentators have come out of the woodwork to denounce what they see as the negative current direction of contemporary architecture. They claim that the architecture must be "rebuilt" or is "imploding." Their indications, the architecture is on life support, taking his last breath. The criticism they offer is that contemporary architecture has become (or always?) Insensitive to users, site conditions, history-hardly a novel view. Every few years, this kind of frontal assault on the value of contemporary architecture is launched, but critics this time seem particularly shallow and moved. Surveying the scene of the global contemporary architecture, in fact I think we are in a surprisingly healthy place, if you look beyond the obvious showpieces. We avoided overt dogmas of the past, we have renewed our focus on the issues of the environment and social action, we are more concerned than ever with tectonics and how to build with quality. But the perennial criticism of contemporary architecture does not seem to have considered this depth, nor that is thoughtfully. Unfortunately, the various rebuttals to their criticism, apparently in support of modern and experimental architecture, was clumsy and poorly supported.
12
In my view, the spiritual precursor to this debate was the major of Frank Gehry. At a Spanish press conference on 24 October last year, in response to a journalist who accused him of practicing "psychic" architecture, Gehry has quietly reversed the bird journalist. After a few seconds of glowering, Gehry then said "98 percent of what will be built and designed today is pure crap." While some read middle finger of Gehry (and commentary) stand as a defense for his own work vis-à-vis public opinion and lashing out at fellow architects, I l I saw more generously: Gehry was sort of defense against contemporary architecture typical critics
Indeed, a few weeks later, on December 15, and Steven Bingler Martin Pederson released a reactive piece in the New York Times entitled "How to rebuild the architecture." in this document, they argue that modern architecture has lost its way and must return to a pre-modern ideal of " universal forms and principles of natural conception. "Despite the absurdity of the sentence, the central absurdity of the play is that it uses a single example ( make it Right houses) to indict all contemporary architecture. In the play, the mother of layperson Bingler acts as the final arbiter of good against bad design. Debate continues on December 20 with dogmatic "10 geometric rules of architecture" of Prince Charles; peaked with caustic but ultimately flawed response Aaron Betsky, "The New York Times Versus Architecture"; and was stacked by Justin Shubow in a New Urbanist screed for Forbes entitled "Architecture continues to Implode."
Critics of modern architecture here (Prince Charles, BINGLER and Pederson, and Shubow) lean heavily on the example of make It Right , and a handful of one-off monsterpieces by celebrity architects to impeach all of modern design. The debate, as always, is framed between the opposite poles of the screw you avant-garde modernism and neo-Luddite traditionalist (middle finger of Frank Gehry against white fence Andres Duany.) What these arguments seem perpetually polarized miss is that the discipline of architecture is plural, diverse. The space between these poles is filled with companies that produce quality work but who do not have the stature or Gehry or Duany nor their dyspeptic attitude. I would say that these practitioners represent a third way, and a more nuanced criticism of both sides, creating an innovative architecture that is perhaps more subtle, well-planned and sustainable as formally radical work of so-called superstars. For this reason, the argument Bingler and Pedersen seems misplaced. The real object of their criticism does not appear to be modern architecture at all, but rather three interrelated components:
- poor planning
- a cultural context charged that defines architects to failure
- some trends among some architects (but far from all) to create the architecture, without regard to context or scale
the latter is basically produced as a result of the failures created by the first two conditions, and it is hardly true all modern architects. In fact, the majority of practitioners of modern architecture are susceptible to the same problems that traditionalists: respect for users; the context; ladder; quality; materials; pedestrians; density; and flexibility. (In other words, at least seven of Prince Charles' 10 geometric principles for architecture .)
Let me explain the first two points through Make It Right houses, since it is the albatross hanging around the neck of modern architecture by Bingler and Pedersen. In the United States, architecture is often found at the thank you of poor planning. In case after case, even if the initial urban design (layout, layout, density, etc.) of a project may be imperfect, architecture ends up taking the blame. The Make It Right development was doomed before the architects put the pen, because it was the basis of failure of master planning. The real error in this case was to try to reproduce a semi-suburban development of individual houses rather than ask in advance how to reinvent community aspects and the Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood. "Context sensitive" house Bingler Development is no better (or worse) than Morphosis' Adjaye of, or of MVRDV. The Make It Right development remains a collection of weird, detached, statements signature, which was the mission entrusted to architects a priori by planners. Architects here has not been asked to design a coherent collection of buildings in collaboration with other architects on the list. Instead, the planning entities involved asked Thom Mayne, Winy Maas, David Adjaye, Steven Bingler, et al. to design "signature" pieces. The result is a zoo of exotic species. A better strategy would be to plan the Lower Ninth Ward for density.! multifamily buildings, townhouses, duplexes
However, some of the most successful, walkable, new exclusive areas in Europe make extensive use of modern architecture. The building style has very little to do with the success of these projects, but good planning is essential. Look, for example, development of Borneo Sporenburg the northeast of Amsterdam port. Planners, West 8, gave architects twenty one envelope subdivision, but allowed each design with minimal constraints. The result is a streetscape of various modern and integrated façades. Each is unique, but they form a coherent whole. buildings of strange objects, but beautiful like whale De Architekten Cie punctuate the entire project. Borneo Sporenburg was a masterpiece of planning. We wish the New Orleans, the organizers of Make It Right was also thought at first.
Or take the Ørestad Development in Copenhagen, a high population density, the collection works well with modern block BIG , 3XN, Henning Larsen, and other Danish companies. I visited Ørestad last summer, and the place was bustling with students, families, children. Residents have made extensive use of their balconies and streetscapes (modern). He felt as vital as any community I've ever crossed the United States or elsewhere. 8 House BIG radical formally proven to be both socially radical, having input used by the residents to come to wrap a public road twisting through the whole project. Other examples of good modern planning abound in Europe: Bo01 (Live01) the plan of Malmö, Copenhagen Harbor Islands Brygge, Besós Barcelona waterfront. These developments provide a platform upon which strong, interesting architecture can be built.
Closer to home, another positive example is the recent redevelopment Pearl District in Portland, Oregon. Modern buildings and parks coexist happily with semi-traditional or historical variants. Arthouse lever architecture or Ziba Head Holst and 937 Condominiums are located just next to the Armory renovation or the Brewery Blocks. Traditionalism reflex seen in developments like Poundbury Prince Charles would feel not only foreign, but almost insulting. And in fact Poundbury-a pet project ultratraditional England under Prince Charles and architect Leon Krier, has been strongly criticized for being moribund, boring, soulless. Give me an imperfect but fascinating modern project on a false traditional fade all day.
This leads to my second point, which is that of a cultural context loaded in the United States has implemented for the failure of architects. Although housing trends may suggest that more people are moving back into cities, many Americans still aspire eventually to a single family home on a grassy field filled sprawling. Community after community is being built using a square plot of 10,000 feet as the guide, with stylistic mandates requiring stucco or brick traditional home-arches, round windows, rhinestone, and everything else. In my own city of Houston suburbs like Pearland, Sugarland, Katy or are built around large developments meandering 4,000-plus square foot homes on large lots, while stylistically prescribed. lakes and artificial pump chemically treated water blue water through the ornamental fountains. Commercial architecture that operates these developments is a collection of shopping centers with parking lots cleared before. expected Quickly, quickly executed.
This is a planning model in which modern architecture is poorly suited, or not at all. Yet when the architects in the attempt of the US to produce innovative alternatives, sustainable or otherwise, they face the reality of a built environment mainly designed for spreading false traditionalist. The majority of the population seems content to this unbearable reality unattractive, perhaps because of successful alternatives are rarely offered. Developers are encouraged by the dominant culture against modern architecture and often, frankly, against quality. Cheapness unfortunately appears as the central value in many American development. I would say that modern architecture is, at its base, much more durable and integration that this all-too-common model for development in the United States, but he was overtaken by a strategy of bottom-line development with building codes designed to support it. This, I believe, was the source of the remark Gehry that "98% of what is built today is pure shit": the beige endless sprawl of modern American metropolis. Yet, rather than leveling their purpose the non-descript threatening to eat the American city development, Bingler / Pedersen and Shubow have instead reduced their views on modern architecture alone: this small core of people struggling to do something different and, hopefully, better. In the process of attacking the few excesses of the architecture, these criticisms eventually undermine its best talent, generalizing "modern architecture" as the problem. In continental Europe, much less vitriol is directed to the architecture, because the underlying planning mechanisms and the cultural context allow great design to occur more frequently, regardless of the style.
My last point is that most modernist architects care center on the issues of the built environment, sustainability and the environment , in addition to forming. But some do not. This is a place where I agree with the authors: our system has tended to promote showy, banal, formal design of the architecture of the substance. He often favored erroneous modernist architects. Consequently, the architecture is responsible for its worst excesses, but not always praised for his subtle successful. We allowed formally emphatic amoral practices to define our discipline to the public and become front men standing for architecture as a whole, rather than promoting these more sustainable practices that are experimenting with context, programs, materials, tectonics, social agency simultaneously. Most architects rushing to build the self-constraint laissez-faire China environments or Dubai end up producing an architecture in one dimension. The results are meaningless, because the planning and the underlying context are meaningless. Invariably, projects designed for these places become the public face for contemporary architecture, despite the fact that many in our profession are deeply skeptical about this kind of work. We can not continue to excuse architecture in a dimension of its broader responsibility to the built environment.
Unfortunately, Aaron Betsky was the bad review to take this particular point, because it ends up reinforcing the arguments for and Bingler Pedersen. Betsky underlines their claim that modernist architects are arrogant and detached-effectively- saying "yes, roofs leak of modern architecture, but so what ;! We experience "and" Good architecture is really for rich clients, who cares about the opinion of everyone. "Betsky is off base here. The best modern architecture is well planned, not (or not should not) run, and consider the views of customers and the community. Take the recent example of two buildings side by side in Denver. the first, Denver Art Museum, Libeskind is probably oversized formal and aggressive. A year after its construction, it took several million dollars in repairs to prevent leaks, and a reconfiguration of the interior so that the Conservatives could install more adequately performances inside. Immediately adjacent is a building much quieter and more efficient (but also radical in its way.): Clyfford Still Museum Allied Works James Russell writes for Bloomberg praised the "elegant gravitas," of its "light of day shimmering building," rhythm, his "zen quiet." but when modern architecture in the broadest sense is criticized by the public, it is almost always based on excessive work such as project Libeskind, and rarely on the most successful examples, but such subtle Still the museum. And that such projects do you appear on the city of Denver's official website? (Full disclosure :. I worked for Allied Works for several years, but not on the Museum Yet, I also taught by Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid)
This is only to suggest that the authors (and the public) should look further and see the stunning architecture being created in globally also concerning its context, without falling into the traps of either twin or traditionalism empty formalism. Each formalist gestures as Hadid, Libeskind et al, there are a hundred architects, contextual socially motivated there. Just in Seattle and Portland alone, dozens of large modern enterprises engage more or less under the radar. Allied Works, Olson Kundig, Holst, Skylab, Mahlum, Suyama Peterson Deguchi, Works Partnership, Lever Architecture-not to mention the larger offices such as LMN or Zimmer Gunsul Frasca. Or choose another city: New Orleans, Eskew Dumez Ripple or Studio WTA. In Minneapolis, Vincent James Snow or Kreilich. In Austin, Baldridge Architects, Bercy Chen, Michael Hsu or Alterstudio. In New York and Los Angeles, too many to list. Every major city has large labor practices with great constraints. These are companies struggling to produce a fantastic job in an environment designed not only for the poor boxes and beige stucco McMansions, but against a straw man called modern architecture. Prince Charles, Bingler, Pedersen and Shubow raised a nonexistent spectrum and easy target. In the process, they denigrate the shins of those of us who are trying to provide sustainable alternatives to positive prevailing model for development. We are fighting an uphill battle. So our planning entities, developers and critics become more visionary and help provide platforms on which best architecture can be integrated architecture will always take the blame. My hope is that we can continue to develop innovative third way, and escape having to choose between a raised middle finger or a white picket fence.
Matthew Johnson is a partner LOJO: Logan Johnson and architecture and assistant professor of architecture at the University Houston. He attended Stanford and Yale, and has worked for Steven Holl and Allied Works.
Posting Komentar