Greater Greater Washington

Architecture


Can architecture transcend its obsession with expressive design?

Thursday's Kojo Nnamdi Show discussed the role of architects in shaping our built environment. Much of the conversation focused on whether architects should only consider the aesthetic design of a building, or larger issues including environmental sustainability or even structural practicality.

One caller, a small builder in Annapolis, said that he avoids using architects because they too often create impractical designs that have to be redone after the architect finishes. Architect and UMD Professor Emeritus Roger K. Lewis suggested that he just hasn't found the right architect:

There are lots of very good architects ... but unfortunately, as in all professions, there are some architects who don't necessarily do what needs to be done. Many architects aspire to do very memorable, monumental, high-image work no matter what the scale and they can easily be tempted to over-design. I've done a lot of work for developers and learned very quickly that I had to be real.
The media and the architecture profession shape much of this temptation to focus on design even to the exclusion of making a building that works. Lewis said,
Architects have always been interested in design, but some have been more interested in design as a personal expressive outlet. And the media has fueled that. The last twenty to thirty years, the public, through the media, has focused almost exclusively on the starchitects, the buildings that are attention-getting, that are avant-garde, that are not in any way conventional. That's where the attention is. And even in the profession, even the architectural magazines tend to focus on this kind of work, which means they're not focusing on a whole lot of other stuff that we architects are working so hard to design.

Design can be the vehicle to achieve social objectives, such as sustainability, such as making a building whose carbon emissions are much less than they would otherwise be. ... This is also true of town planning, our thinking about how we should design settlements, design the landscape of America and not just the individual building is also being greatly affected by the notion that we need to achieve social, economic and environmental objectives.

John Peterson, Founder and President of Public Architecture, explained how for a great many years the architecture profession was split between "design progressives," who focused on design, and "social progressives" who were concerned with social justice, including sustainability, but believed that their issues "neutered" the importance of design. Peterson sees this as a phase which is coming to an end:
It's become clear that that was an adolescent attitude for our profession. Architects are actually quite good at juggling complex and diverse issues. The idea that we can't look at things like social justice or positive social change, and at the same time look at beauty is simply wrong. ...

[Architects are] going to continue to become less significant a voice and we're going to see a loss on the quality of our built environment if the architectural community doesn't adopt and accept the fact that they have a responsibility to look at the impact of their work beyond their client, beyond the user, and look at the community as a whole.

As architects begin to strongly embrace green design and other socially important angles of their work, will the popular and media obsession with "starchitects" fade, or will the stars just play up different aspects of their work? Architecture critics are still telling the "design police" to get out of the way of architects' "freedom." And when designing a bicycle station for the beautiful Union Station, the architect was concerned only with separating "his" work from that one as much as possible, and giving the city "an outright boot in the butt." If looking at the impact of a work to the community as a whole still means turning up their noses at a community's aesthetic and policy priorities, the profession clearly still has a ways to go.
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

What is a community aesthetic?

by MarkM on May 18, 2009 2:02 pm • linkreport

a sense of place.

When a starchitect tries to make a structure that's hostile to its surroundings, it diminishes the fundamental sense of place of that urban (as in human-scale street-grid, could be in a major city, walkable "suburban" satellite town, or rural walkable small town) location.

by Cavan on May 18, 2009 3:18 pm • linkreport

Just because a project is contemporary and represents the time in which it was built (or was designed by a world-renowned architect for that matter) doesn't mean it has to be hostile to it's surroundings or cannot contribute to or create a sense of place. Morphosis, David Adjaye, Diller Scofidio Renfro, and many other practices known for elegant contemporary design are also very passionate about public space. Foster and Shalom Baranes have developed an excellent parti arranged around public space for the soon-to-be-built CityCenter project here in DC.

Also see the recently completed 'Piazza at Schmidt's' up in Philly:

http://www.archinect.com/news/article.php?id=88841_0_24_0_C

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_design/20090515_Changing_Skyline__A_nonconformist_s_development_coup.html

by Jim on May 18, 2009 3:36 pm • linkreport

Ah, I've read about Morphosis, apparently the Federal Building they built in San Francisco is a positively miserable place to work.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/San_Francisco_s_Green_Building_Nightmare_5428.html

by Steve on May 18, 2009 3:42 pm • linkreport

Mophosis also did the NOAA building on the Suitland Federal Center if any of you want to take a look at it some time. the vast majority of it is actually underground; they left the lawn intact.

Bigger comment later but I have a supervisor pulling me into a meet...ack!.

by JTS on May 18, 2009 4:36 pm • linkreport

It's not an issue of whether architecture can do this or not; it's an issue of whether the architects can change to become more than just window dressers. New generations of high-minded architecture like FLAnK, Delle Valle Bernheimer, KieranTimberlake,and REX are trying to involve themselves in the whole process of building much more than the current starchitects. The big corporate firms and developers like EYA are already way ahead of specialty design firms. Architects have to change their ways, or they'll become irrelevant.

But those same design police reject traditional additions as well, so the oversight is pretty damaging to design in general.

by цarьchitect on May 18, 2009 5:39 pm • linkreport

But those same design police reject traditional additions as well, so the oversight is pretty damaging to design in general.
Are you thinking of the HBRP in DC which rejected one of Shiloh Baptist's designs for being insufficiently modern? (They did this to the AEI too, correct?) I'm tempted to suggest that the HBRP requiring a building to be "more modern" is like the DEA telling you that you don't use enough drugs.

by Steve on May 18, 2009 5:45 pm • linkreport

@Steve - None of the concerns discussed in the article you've posted about Morphosis' Federal Building are about rock-star architecture. The building's inhabitants levy three complaints:

(1) Elevators designed to make people walk more. (Unrealistic and bizarre.)

(2) Ineffective passive heating and cooling because of the decision to forgo an HVAC system - again, for reasons of energy conservation. (Good idea, reasonable in San Francisco, but poorly engineered/executed.)

(3) The building doesn't contain a cafeteria, so workers have to go outside for lunch. (Last I heard, this tends to be a good thing from the walkable cities point of view.)

So - one failing goes back to a sort of arrogant architect, one is poor engineering, and the last is something that many people on this site would view as a positive.

by David Ramos on May 18, 2009 6:00 pm • linkreport

"the architect was concerned only with separating "his" work from that one as much as possible, and giving the city "an outright boot in the butt."

I think that was uncharacteristic of what he said. I understood it as the architect being very concerned about not changing or altering Union Station in any way. He seemed highly approving of the renovations and expansion because they adhered to the style of Union Station.

Also, he didn't say he wanted to give DC a boot in the butt, he said he thought the city needed one. I agree. Bike down Mass Ave to Union Station. Disgusting. Boring.

by JTS on May 18, 2009 11:50 pm • linkreport

I don't think it is fair to equate architects who elect to focus (at least some of a project) on expressive design with architects who ignore the policy and aesthetic preferences of a community. I think the dichotomy between expressive design and utilitarian design is interesting to think about, but I also think the quoted material supports the idea that it isn't completely accurate to place projects into one camp or the other and will be increasingly difficult to do so.

Moreover, as anyone who has been to a community meeting knows, identifying the policy preferences of a community is hard enough; I can't imagine trying to nail down the aesthetic preferences adequately.

Personally, I like variety. I like mixed uses and I like mixed designs. I would hate for architects working on projects in DC to be limited by the assumed aesthetic preferences of the community.

by Eric H. on May 19, 2009 7:28 am • linkreport

More on Erdy McHenry's 'Piazza at Schmidt's' in Philly:

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/site/a-piazza-in-philadelphia/#When:05:27:31Z

by Jim on May 20, 2009 2:28 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or