Michael Geller flagged on FB this piece from ArchDaily, exploring the desire for novelty, the egos of ‘starchitects,’ local context and the grab-bag of other issues in this era where technology has made almost anything buildable. My almost-random excerpts from it are:
“STOP confusing architecture and art,” demanded Patrik Schumacher, Zaha Hadid’s partner, on social media in 2014: “Architects are in charge of the FORM of the built environment, not its content… Architecture is NOT ART although FORM is our specific contribution to the evolution of world society. We need to understand how new forms can make a difference for the progress of world civilization.”
and …
The Spectator recently called Hadid “the champion of an architecture that was more about personal ‘vision’ than public utility.” Fast Company has called Frank Gehry, certainly the world’s most famous architect, “the avatar of architectural self-expression,” and Gehry himself staunchly defends “the validity of self-expression” as “a basic value.” This year, the Architectural Review declared that both architects’ recent projects “arrogantly flaunt their refusal to defer to local context … announcing instead that the supposed right to ego-expression of a starchitect trounces all such decencies.”
Coincidentally, a review essay by Ingrid Rowland on Gehry, always referred to as “Canadian-born architect Frank Gehry” on the CBC, appeared in the New York Review of Books to coincide with a newly published hagiography … uh, biography, and an exhibition at the LA County Museum of Art (which closes on the 20th if you happen to be passing through). As a rare unlocked article on the site, it is worth reading both for the writer’s insights as well as for the slagging of a major cultural figure.
Referring, of course, to the Guggenheim Bilbao, she argues that it reflects a spirit of place:
In the case of Bilbao, he saw the dramatic promise of the site itself, a forested gorge that suddenly widens into an estuary making its serpentine way to the sea. Nineteenth-century Bilbao was laid out in regular blocks on the flood plain left by this bend in the Nervión River, to serve a burgeoning steel industry and a major port. Across the water, the maze of medieval Bilbao, a stop on the pilgrim road to Santiago de Compostela, huddled on a smaller sandbar beneath the limestone cliffs. Photographs of Gehry’s Guggenheim building rarely take in these natural surroundings, focusing instead on the tawny curves of the structure, clad in a combination of limestone and titanium panels. But Gehry himself was evidently looking at the view. The museum’s complex profile echoes the complexity of the hills around it, while its reflective façade takes on the colors of Bilbao’s perpetually changing sky.
… which reminds me of a quote from D.H. Lawrence: “All true art rises from a specific soil and flickers with a sense of place.” Later in the review, she comments on the evolution of his buildings and the art-for-art’s-sake thinking going into them, corroborating the comment flagged above from the ArchDaily piece:
When it first opened, Gehry’s Disney Hall, with its stainless steel cladding, was so bright that the flashy exterior blinded the neighbors. It had to be darkened. Buildings that scream for attention can be fun, provocative, even inspirational, but they are not the stuff that most architecture can be made of.
Closer to home, the rendering above appeared on an FB post by Patrick Condon, chair of Urban Design at SALA, UBC (the source of the image was Derek Lee). This looks like “Son of Icepick,” the radical tower proposed by Cadillac-Fairview for a site adjoining, and overhanging, historic Waterfront Station, but I may be wrong. His thoughts on ‘weird’ architecture are worth quoting in full:
I am moved to write a bit more on this topic so indulge me. All around the world we are seeing more and more proposals for “interesting” and “iconic” buildings. In and of itself this would seem like a good thing I guess. Our city has been lauded as a beautiful city lacking in distinctive architecture. So I guess we do need more “interesting” buildings.
What then is it about these twisty buildings like the ones shown, and the ones that are even more cartoonish like the “gherkin” and the “shard” in London, and the transgressive ones (meaning they look normal but with a twist) like the “Jenga Tower” proposed for Georgia. I am not the only one in the city who feels discomforted by these new proposals. We are many. What is it that troubles me? Perhaps it is that I expected more meaning from an “icon” than such shallow references. I would have hoped that they would have been more in the tradition of the Marine building on Burrard, which somehow exemplifies the maritime aspirations of our city perched on the edge of the Pacific. Or perhaps I wish they were more like the more more recent Woodward’s project, which somehow makes its social aspirations into a narrative that can be read as you move to and around the building. Iconic yes but not a one liner, or more to the point not a “one worder”.
I think what troubles people in our city about these twisty, transgressive, and cartoonish buildings is their very lack of real meaning, and how their paper thin narrative (or total absence of narrative) seems so appealing to the .01 percent market. What seems discomforting and depressing about it is the billboard quality that these buildings have, as if their very purpose was to be large enough, but shallow enough, to communicate across the oceans to the far corners of the planet saying “me too!”. That is truly disturbing, particularly in the context of a time when our friends to the south seem to be committing political suicide over the issue of cultural inequality, with Trump’s advocates on the right blaming their inability to succeed on foreign looking “muslims who hate us” (in my view without justification) and Bernie Sanders’s advocates blaming their inability to succeed ( in my view with ample justification) on a “rigged economy” operated by and for the .01 percenters.
These cartoonish and transgressive iconic buildings have come, I think, to symbolize the rapid separation of the .01 percenters from the rest of culture. Viewed in this light these buildings seem to be more than simply “interesting” but culturally corrosive. They are public reminders of the futility of civic participation for the other 99.9 percent, and represent the ascension of a sort of oligarchy of wealth unknown during our lifetimes.
I think this is particularly painful for Vancouverites. Certainly we had our gentry for many generations, ensconced in Dunbar or Kerrisdale or Shaughnessy. But they generally had the sense of noblesse oblige that comes of having to confront your less fortunate fellows on the streets of the city. But this new form of city signals a different kind of gentry, one not tied to civic space but more the inhabitants of a largely separate reality. A space of penthouse views and limo rides to the first class lounge at YVR.
Am I exaggerating? I think not. The anger felt by many during our last civic election, and the mayor’s odd public apology just before the guillotine fell, seems to me to signal a collapse that, while milder than what is going on in the states right now, is at least a distant relative of the same inequality driven phenomenon.
If I am right about this it will make it extremely difficult for us to shepherd this next new and unfamiliar stage in our cities growth. These issues cut deeply but are extremely hard to articulate in the context of what seems to be a simple design question about the next “interesting” building proposed for what were once our streets.
Is he exaggerating? Should we embrace this kind of “look at me” shouty architecture in Dullsville or are we just fine with our boxy stuff?
I wish I were as good as Condon at writing long, contorted explanations to justify my personal preferences. The Marine building has some maritimey design elements at ground level. They’re nice! But they’re not exactly a deep reference for a city next to an ocean.
Assuming that residents of tony West Side neighbourhoods have noblesse oblige because they live closer to the ground is just more of Condon’s usual anti-tower preferences. If anything, penthouse residents are more likely to encounter the less fortunate in their neighbourhoods than residents of the Dunbar and Shaughnessy enclaves.
And frankly, the presence or lack thereof of a ‘narrative’ in a building is not something normal people (read: not design professors and architects) care about. They care about housing prices, and whether a neighbourhood is nice to live in. *Maybe* they care about whether the buildings look nice, but usually much less than people whose careers are intimately tied to the aesthetics of buildings.
So, anyone who doesn’t agree with Patrick’s taste in architecture is immediately dismissed as a “.01 percenter”?
Wow.
Looking at the photo illustration of the Vancouver waterfront there isn’t one building that doesn’t suffer from blatant mediocrity or the rank immaturity of form-making triumphalism. The only buildings with remotely significant references to regional and national history, local meaning and context, and site-specific ingenuity are the old CPR Station and the little slice of Canada Place that is visible. Even The Landing, as handsome as it is, could have been placed in New England, Baltimore, Montreal or San Francisco.
Fifty four years ago my brother and I chased each other around the light oak benches at the CPR Station while waiting to board a train to the Prairies in the early 60s. (Back then they had Sterling silver tableware and great food in the dining car.) When our mother shushed us, we both stopped and admired the paintings of mountain scenery way up at the clerestory level for a long time. Every time I pass through the station now I look up and fondly remember that time, which has become even more poignant with my mother’s recent passing, and am very happy that the murals and the building were preserved, as though they are a part of my personal family history.
I am unhappy the building and surrounding land and water lots are privately owned and feel that this entire section of the waterfront should be publicly owned for two reasons: (1) it is uniquely located to fulfill its potential long-term future role as the most important passenger terminal on the West Coast; and (2) the ability of the private sector to propose obnoxious, out-of-context development at this site will be eliminated. No. 1 has a proactive motive that would have great meaning and utility to society. These aspirational qualities are the things that are missing from this discussion. No. 2 is reactive, but not as reactionary as the diatribe from the safety and protection of academia against the one-percenters and toxic characters like Trump, kind of a verbal tearing down of the economy because of one offensive building façade. In that respect, Condon’s political commentary seems far out of touch with real practice on the ground, and one wonders what’s next, legislated formulaic 19th Century urbanism and prefab Home Depot front porches and Eurotrams replicated to the horizon?
No one reading this doesn’t love the magnificent Art Deco Marine Building. The architect was very lucky to have an understanding and generous client. As most architects designing tall buildings can attest, that is very rare in today’s context of cost consciousness, and especially in profit-making. Nonetheless, some architects can pull off credible and innovative design while bringing projects in on time and on budget, and possibly winning an award along the way. The key is to nurture a clientele with a sense that contributing to society positively with their projects is a worthy cause, to foster excellence in design with clients while also keeping an eye on the budget, and to encourage looking beyond a building in isolation. The fear of being fired by a client for opposing mediocrity is one of the main drivers of our bland urbanism. The critics need to get out into the real client-architect world more often before calling for revolution.
There is no call to revolt and tear apart the economy because one-percenter’s images may be reflected from a twisted building’s glass curtain in some people’s eyes. These buildings are quite rare, and require a lot more scrutiny. The real crime is with the mediocrity that so permeates our cities, and that reflects the intentions of purely bottom line developers and their factory architects. The people who buy their condos and lease their office space are 99.9%ers 99.9% of the time. Many have been saturated by condo rot and are demanding more from developers and regulators. Many buyers are demanding more energy efficiency and lower operating costs and GHG emissions and are willing to pay a price now in order to save a lot more in future. Businesses are leasing office space downtown again. These are good signs and will cause the industry to change for the better.
But real meaningful change also rests with the public sector who can and should wield their economic clout to affect positive change, like buying out key parcels of land to build better transportation systems and well-designed buildings in future …. without the rhetorical coup d’ etat.
For residential buildings, especially if it’s multi-storied, multi-family units, people care more about longevity in its structure, HVAC systems, piping (that doesn’t explode), soundproofing and cleanliness with some nice views from home. Once, they live in a condo building a swanky exterior becomes paler to the above basics.
As for public buildings we each will differ on innovative architecture.
As a professional librarian…formally trained and with several decades of work experience in space planning, library service delivery, customer service and dealing with technological changes (that prompts redefinition of library space use):
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto in its crystal shape extension (bolted onto the older part of the building), when I visited the museum…looked arresting. However as I was wandering around inside looking at the exhibits, the space with strange jutting walls, make it a challenge from a practical standpoint for positioning ever-changing exhibits, exhibit cabinets, etc. re/ floor space and height. I looked at the walls….some of it looked structurally just awful/cheap (to me). I was abit horrified.
Big cities if they can/want it, do want a signature central library, museum..either in its architecture / what it delivers to the broader community. But hopefully, never impractical for a twisted building. ROM’s crystal illustrates some long term impracticalities in cost-effective and flexible management of exhibit space. With a huge permanent collection in storage, it looks like alot less public exhibit space.
“Look at me” library modern architecture in big cities, nowadays is aimed to pull you in physically, because after all, everyone believes everything and all information is online. It’s hard battle most library directors fight. But more importantly the library, given its size and centrality can easily be/should be a public meeting space for collaboration and in-person information / ideas exchange to support a democracy.
For this “look at me” library design: http://yycnewcentrallibrary.com/ It suggests a different role of the library. It looks more condensed space. All one can see in the designs, is 1 public theatre room..should be more.
So twisty or any “look me” architecture in shape maybe is fine ….for what type of building use?
Another link: http://globalnews.ca/news/1578313/virtual-tour-inside-calgarys-new-central-library/
Next door National Music Centre is being constructed. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/calgarys-national-music-centre-plans-to-wow-both-inside-and-out/article8968942/ Colours right now of the façade, don’t look that lovely light golden…uglier. Maybe being a part music hall for acoustics is the reason??
Most high-rise buildings in Vancouver are quite boring and as such any interesting non-rectangle building is a welcome addition to the urban landscape.
“There’s something wrong with our battleships“, blurted Admiral Beatty as he watched Admiral Hipper systematically sink his own!
We are hearing a similar cry from Vancouver’s soi dissant’s dumpsters of concrete and glass empties struggling for attention and like the admiral it ain’t their lily-white fault (Oh God forbid)!
I nearly jumped off my balcony, all is lost, on reading the assessment of one of PT’s recent ex-pat Canadian visiting editors extolling the virtues of London’s Gherkin’s streetscape: (rural bench, paving engulfed in weeds, lookie-loo-thu-lobby). Evidently he cycles by every day!
The Gherkin! The Shard! What abuse! But it ain’t their lily-white fault! Every body’s doin’ it!
Lloyds was under terrorist threat (does anyone wonder?) so I lost out on a view of the Lutine Bell, although, no big deal, I’d seen it before in a more stately setting!!
There was a time, in my time, culture, climate, economic and geographic influences made a town look like what it was: Marine Building Vancouver was distinct from L’Edifice Price Quebec. Water Street was Water Street a working street accessible!
Torres Americana 1962 across from Palacio Belles Artes Centro Historico, was a horror when it was built.
It still is.
Centro Historic excreted over centuries.
Santa Fe DF popped up in a matter of months and as I tried to find out what it was, I was shoo-ed from La Lavendra: yeah what is it, the washing machine!
Puerto Madero, Buenos Aires was lucky. Some one had the due dilligence to preserve and reuse the four storey masonry dock side warehouses: an act of urban responsibility Vancouver could do by over building or shunting out the rail yards and integrating Water Street with a working . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/water.front/DOWNTOWNWATERFRONT.html
. . . water front. But then our local realtors would soon grab it, and with their spoilers pretty well kill a going concern: blessed of course by your hands-off millionaire mayor!
Beatty’s cry was at Jutland 1916? We ain’t learnt nothing since!
As a lifelong Vancouverite I’ve never understood the fetishizing of Vancouver’s supposed ‘character’ or ‘narrative’. Vancouver has always been a pastiche of types and forms that reflect the migratory and historical moments in the evolution of the City. Often ‘character’ or suitable ‘types’ as Mr. Kluckner and others have sentimentalized are simply an aesthetic allegiance to a few forms that dominated Vancouver’s first building boom initiated by new immigrants. The idea that we should be residentially wed to Edwardian craftsman’s built between 1912 and 1920 is absurd. Similarly, with commercial structures, lionizing our 19th century brick or stone warehouse mid-rises seems equally disconnected from the reality of this place. I welcome the use of forms that break from our past efforts.
CityLab had a thing on this about Li Keqiang discouraging weird architecture. & yet this is what people seem to want for Vancouver
Indeed, as the University of California, Berkeley, architecture professor Renee Chow argued in her 2015 book Changing Chinese Cities: The Potentials of Field Urbanism, urban development in China needs to shift away from “figures and objects.” By doing so, she writes, China has filled its skyline with recognizable but disconnected structures, and cities are “becoming a loose chain of buildings with swaths of wasted spaces between objects that are neither sustainable nor legible.” Instead, Chow pushes for “field urbanism”: Cities should modernize without losing sight of their traditional bearings, respond to its environment, and adapt to the needs of residents.
http://www.citylab.com/design/2016/02/chinas-wants-stricter-building-standards-not-weird-architecture/470343/
A lot of these proposed buildings are the Kardashians of achitecture: showy, look at me pieces that will be high maintenance and ultimately age badly. They are bizarre for the sake of being bizarre.
You’ve nailed it. People see something, think “Wow that form is so different from what I imagine a building to look like in my own mind! That’s so bold!” It’s like a sugar rush.
“Field urbanism” – wonderful concept. And from my alma mater as well. Thank you, anon.
This is what Jan Gehl author of “Life Between Buildings” calls “Perfume Bottle Architecture”, buildings like so many elaborate perfume bottles on a vanity. Not a way to build a city he suggests. I agree.