The Haiti Project:
Designing Disaster ResponseExecutive Summary
This proposal for a Disaster Response Design Charrette at NewSchool of Architecture & Design provides students learning opportunities and enables the community to respond to the recent crisis in Haiti.
Problem Statement:
• Seeming conundrum of heavy hurricane-resistant vs light earthquake- resistant construction.
• Vernacular structure and poverty may lead to quick repeat of history.
• Communication of potential dangers of return to existing vernacular buildings is critical.
Proposal:
• Design charrette with students and professionals creates new possibilities.
• Cross-cultural education with industries’ best practices to benefit students and the people of Haiti.
Timeframe:
• Spring Quarter charette at NewSchool benefits students, faculty and the institution, enhances curriculum with real practical problems.
• Four-day NewSchool charrette, beginning April 8, 2010.
• Charrette Thursday, 8 April 2010 through Sunday, 11 April 2010
• Exhibition Friday, Saturday and Sunday 16-18 April 2010
Looking Ahead:
Sponsored teams to build designed solutions in Haiti, possibly in Summer 2010.
Budget Considerations:
Budgeting will be the first priority for newly established committee of the board pending program participation requirements from NewSchool faculty.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, creating real and lasting good to the benefit of the people of Haiti is the goal.
Recommendation:
Commitment of the NewSchool of Architecture & Design Student Council solicited.
Pending the commitment of the Student Council, several factors have been explored that will place this project on a very fast-track. The administration of NewSchool has “given a green light” to explore this process and indicated support for the ideas presented. The Faculty of NewSchool will review this proposal at their meeting on Monday, 8 February 2010 (Coinciding with the Student Council Meeting). The faculty will be considering how it fits into curriculum plans for Spring Quarter, 2010. Initial, informal, faculty and student response has been generally positive including strong positive feedback from members of AIAS.
The Haiti Project:
Designing Disaster Response
Note: Executive summary in bold italics at the beginning of each paragraph.
Introduction:
NewSchool of Architecture & Design students respond to crisis in Haiti.In response to the overwhelming destruction of life and property in Haiti following the January Earthquake there, it occurs that a great opportunity to do real and lasting good is upon us. As architecture students, we at NewSchool of Architecture & Design, located in San Diego, CA, have a unique opportunity to help. Being in a seismic activity zone with similar risk, we are surrounded by architectural design and structural engineering professionals who are experts in the challenges of seismic design suitable for Haiti.
Statement of the Problem:
Vernacular structure and poverty may lead to quick repeat of history.The destruction of property in Haiti was in large part due to a vernacular construction type that is directly counter to modern seismic theory. Inexpensive, un-reinforced masonry buildings of one or two stories are precisely the type of heavy, rigid buildings that absorb the energy of an earthquake and quickly crumble under the strain. This fact, coupled with the lack of earthquake understanding (there hasn’t been a significant seismic event in the collective memory of the last several generations) and the poverty of available means of building, creates an unfortunate opportunity for history to quickly repeat itself. Add to this the frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean (for which heavy buildings are the proper engineering solution) and a seemingly unsolvable conundrum is created.
Communication of potential dangers of return to existing buildings is critical.
A significant challenge is the communication of information about the potentials for earthquakes and new responses to vernacular building. With precious resources thinly spread, the natural inclination may be for Haitians to rebuild quickly without seeking additional information. Providing information, in easily understandable terms and visuals, about earthquake conditions and other environmental concerns will be an important part of a solution in Haiti. With critical civic infrastructure hobbled by their own facilities being reduced to rubble, assistance with this basic communication need is more critical.
Project Proposal:
Design charrette with students and professionals creates new possibilities.The project I am proposing is a design charrette which would bring together interested NewSchool of Architecture & Design students with affiliated professionals in Southern California, including NewSchool faculty and other advisors to produce a design charrette. This charrette will be a response to the unique conditions surrounding disaster response in Haiti. It is my vision that the design teams would be provided leadership, encouragement and material support through corporate donations / sponsorships and the involvement of captains of industry in Southern California.
Cross-cultural education with industries’ best practices to benefit students.
This project is of educational benefit to the students at NewSchool as it provides a real-world experience, in addition to the opportunities for mentorship and exposure to the architectural design, structural engineering and construction industries’ best practices. The opportunity to work with students on ground-breaking new designs and the opportunity for exposure to the captains of industry will be the primary motivations for the industry professionals. And the opportunity to lead, mentor and learn about architecture and construction while providing a visible response to the crisis in Haiti represents a major PR opportunity for corporate and community leadership.
Timeframe:
Spring charette at NewSchool benefits students, faculty and the institution.This charrette would take place at NewSchool of Architecture & Design during the first two weeks of class in Spring Quarter, 2010, when all students are in attendance. Pending design studio instructors syllabi and intentions, the design charrette could be a part of creditable work for the quarter. It is perhaps no small consequence that NewSchool of Architecture and Design would reap the public relations benefits of a special initiative project not unlike the now infamous Rural Studio work of the late Samuel Mockbee, of Auburn University.
Schedule:
Four-day NewSchool charrette, beginning April 8, 2010.
Beginning on Thursday, 8 April, 2010:
A session titled Culture of Haiti opens the charrette. Participants will be treated to multi-media presentations about the norms, values and conditions of Haitian life, its cultural institutions, and its opportunities and resources. Speakers with significant endeavors in Haiti and citizens of Haiti will be invited to present relevant personal experiences.
Friday, 9 April, 2010:
This Workshop Series will be an opportunity to prepare the participants to understand Haitian vernacular architecture, available technologies and tectonic opportunities, island seismology, and environmental concerns including soil and climate conditions. The presentation of identified sites for various design typologies will be made at this time. At the end of the day, informal teams will be created with an architecture professional, an engineering professional, a faculty member, and students at a minimum.
Saturday, 10 April, 2010:
Design Day participants will work in teams to create design solutions to selected typological problems. Emphasis will be on design ideas and development of design response. Documentation can be in many forms including the typical sketches, drawings and other 2-D media. 3-D media and multi-media will be encouraged.
Sunday, 11 April, 2010:
Design solutions created in the previous day will be presented to the participants. At this time, the designs will be schematic and informally developed (due to time constraints). This session could be organized to evaluate and synthesize information and recommend “best” solutions. Further development of preliminary documentation is possible by student participants prior to exhibition.
Friday, Saturday and Sunday April 16-18, 2010
A Public Exhibition at NewSchool of Architecture & Design (Main Hall and Auditorium). This event would work best with student docents stationed to explain the exhibits and solicit contributions toward construction of the various solutions.
Looking ahead:
Sponsored teams might build designed solutions in Haiti in Summer 2010.While many non-government organizations (NGO) are having difficulty operating missions to Haiti as of this writing, it may be challenging to propose that actually building some of the developed solutions could be the ultimate goal of this process. Further, it may be risky for students to deal with issues of liability and safety of participants traveling to Haiti during the near future due to compromised infrastructure. Still, I would like to propose that the some (or perhaps all) of the design teams’ solutions could actually be funded and constructed in Haiti (ideally by teams of NewSchool of Architecture & Design students, faculty, and interested charrette team members, sponsors and others during the Summer of 2010).
Building charrette results in Haiti would require significant financial and international political support and contributions from NewSchool sponsors as well as cooperation with the team(s) of design professionals already organized in Haiti. This project could represent an opportunity to collaborate with Architecture for Humanity, Habitat for Humanity, and other NGOs. This collaboration might include grant funding and gifts-in-kind from corporations, foundations and other sources. Funds for materials, travel expenditures, and construction costs would need to be pledged and collected during the late-Winter and Spring of 2010 for this to happen. And this project could continue long into the future as further resources are secured to fund the construction of additional solutions in Haiti.
Required Resources:
Basic resource needs will include the following; pending detailed analysis. (in no particular order):
1) Grant writer to secure funding / underwriting / sponsorship commitments from industry, foundations, and other givers
2) Use of IRS designation “501 (3) c” entity status and special banking accounts to secure and manage funds; grant tax-deductible status to contributors
3) Administrative staff time to assist with management of funds, official NewSchool correspondence, public relations and related tasks
4) Location (NewSchool is proposed) suitable for large-group participation with resources for design materials production / reproduction
5) Location and fees for electronic meetings to coordinate, plan and facilitate international communication with Haitian representatives, possibly requiring video
6) Travel / housing expenditures associated with bringing Haitian representatives to NewSchool for the design charrette
7) Travel / housing expenditures associated with sending NewSchool students to Haiti in Summer 2010 to build designed solutions
8) In-kind donations of studio and building materials and resources necessary to complete the charrette and any required modeling
9) In-kind donations of services from architecture and structural engineering and other professionals to assist with design charrette
10) A designated faculty member to provide mentorship and advise students regarding the charrette process, networking with professionals, and corporate sponsorship opportunities
11) Student volunteer time and resources to prepare documentation, secure resources, invite design professionals, solicit donations, record events, create models, build mock-ups, and -pending funding- to construct solutions in Haiti
12) NewSchool faculty participation to teach , coach, and mentor the process and facilitate results, assist with scheduling, and participate in charrette, and lead student construction teams
13) French language interpreters may be required for facilitation of some communications
14) Food and beverages for participants in design charrette, guests at receptions, visitors
Budget Considerations:
Budgeting will be the first priority for newly established committee of the board pending program participation requirements from NewSchool faculty.The primary considerations for this project will be guaranteeing expenditures that are over- and-above proceeds of grants or gifts specific to the project. It is difficult, in advance of approval and creation of acceptable preliminary plans, and determining the number of participants to estimate a budget. Typical expenses might include:
1) Supplies for charrette process (can be donated) including typical studio materials
2) Food and Beverage for charrette participants: Opening reception refreshments, Continental breakfasts, Box lunches for participants, Exhibition Opening refreshments
3) Hospitality and travel arrangements for guest speakers, Haitian participants
4) Digital resources including “Go-to-Meeting” or similar, file-sharing (BIM) and others
5) Video, photographic, and website documentation of process, outcomes
6) Publicity, networking and marketing expenses for press-kits, posters, advertisements, postage for mailers and communication processes, “courtship” of local professionals’ participation, etc…
Conclusion:
Ultimately, creating real and lasting good to the benefit of Haiti is the goal.Design professionals have been meeting, daily, in Haiti since the morning after the earthquake on 12 January 2010. They are working to envision a new Haiti; frankly aware that the old Haiti did not work. This charrette process will be best suited to help the people of Haiti if it also incorporates the culture of leadership of these design professionals. This process might involve some international electronic meeting techniques and if possible, the inclusion of representatives of the Haitian design-professionals community. While the change they envision may be greater than the subject of this project, any steps toward their goals will include providing for the shelter and health safety and welfare of the community at large.
Recommendation and Request:
Commitment of the NewSchool of Architecture & Design Student Council solicited.It is with great enthusiasm and some fear that I present this proposal to the student council for consideration. My enthusiasm for the project is perhaps self-evident. The desire to do real and lasting good comes of my upbringing and my values. It has been my motto to leave each situation I encounter better than I found it. While this encounter with the disaster in Haiti presents a new level of challenge, it is one I believe we can accomplish together. However, it will only be accomplished as a project of the student body, working in conjunction with our institutional support, and the in-kind and financial support and goodwill of a community of professionals and leaders in Southern California.
I ask that the Student Council establish a committee of the board to explore, budget, create process, and solicit participation in The Haiti Project: Designing Disaster Response. I offer my services to the board to chair such a committee and to further develop the communications with the board of the Student Council, the administration of NewSchool, and Faculty as well as the professional communities for which participation will be appropriate.
The challenge of opening this project represents engagement in a culture and a way of life that is quite foreign to our experience of living in Southern California (regardless of our origins). My fear is that we, as students trained in the art and science of architecture, are accustomed to the high aspirations that often accompany exclusive design. We may be, perhaps, blind to this real opportunity to create something new that comes from nothing. This project may require the design of mundane and simple systems and projects, to be built of recycled and reused materials the origins of which many among us may not be able to conceive.
While the interface with industry professionals and community leadership will have its benefits, and the public relations values are important considerations, this project represents far more. Participation with industry best practices will encourage practical application of our knowledge. Engagement in another culture, with a unique history and opportunity, provides a shared experience of cross-cultural learning and architectural practice that is of pragmatic benefit in our increasingly global design industry. Construction of systems and shelters and buildings built of available materials will be a unique tectonic challenge. However, it is ultimately the opportunity to create hope, working with and for the people of Haiti (for whom hope has long been a dream) that provides the real meaning of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
R. Lyle Boatman, ASID, NewSchool of Architecture & Design, B-Arch, Class of 2012
For further information, please contact me as follows:
R. Lyle Boatman, ASID
lyle@boatmandesign.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Hiati Project: Designing Disaster Response gets Green Light from NewSchool of Architecture & Design Student Council
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Haiti: The glimmer of an idea in response to crisis
The title of the book, “Glimmer,” by Warren Berger, (the Penguin Press, New York, 2009) refers to the notion of the glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, or in this case, the glimmer of light in a sea of darkness that inspires the creative type to move into action on a particular idea. It is a phenomenon that is, hopefully for the creative type, familiar. It is also often referred to as that “a ha” moment when one grasps an idea that has been hard to assimilate.
Most of what designers do is assimilation. The challenge is in managing the type of information with which one surrounds oneself. If, for example in the current crisis in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake, all one knows is the humble construction of un-reinforced masonry, and all one has at ones disposal is mud brick and mortar, then one might rebuild a house with the same process by which it was built before. And since there hasn’t been a significant quake on the fault line between the American plate and the Caribbean plate in perhaps 200 years, one might be reasonable to think that the January earthquake was a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
If, on the other hand, one has surrounded oneself with a knowledge of building technology, an awareness of materials and processes, one might, in a moment of inspiration, find the glimmer of an idea (in that sea of darkness and despair) that revolutionizes the way of building a home in Haiti. Perhaps, in lieu of a brick and mortar construction, one considers that some new, light-weight material made of recycled polystyrenes and polypropylenes with a simple baling-wire lashing to connect them is a possibility for making a quick, habitable space that is flexible enough to quiver with the earth, and light enough to avoid absorbing the energy of another quake. What is this material? And how does one make this happen?
Of course, one would have to have an education that considered the effects of earthquakes, the causes, the resulting damage, and the means available to avoid damage. One would have to know something about building, a little something about architecture, and a little bit about housing in a tropical climate. Possibly more importantly, one would have to be able to transform ideas into actions, and find solutions in discarded refuse.
In a world where leadership is considered a high-paying job (think of corporate leaders) has anyone organized a charette among the leadership of corporate San Diego to design solutions to the problems in Haiti? Or for that matter, since we students of architecture are learning something about the effects of earthquakes, the causes, the resulting damage, and the means available to avoid that damage, has anyone thought to organize a design charette? We know something about building, a little something about architecture, and a little bit about housing in a tropical climate. What is it that we can do about this crisis?
Being in receipt of an e-mail from Steve Altman, President, NewSchool of Architecture & Design, encouraging students to consider giving to a Haiti charity, I am tempted to wonder, in addition, what else we can do that is more related to our education. The president’s assessment of the situation is helpful and accurate owing to the fact that a significant sum could be contributed with one-days’ lunch money for the student body. I wonder what more we could all learn if we applied a little more effort and created a community response that considered design solutions in addition to lunch money (?).
Could we, for example, utilize some of the funds from the student activity fee to create a design-response-learning-charette that would help us all to learn about creating means of shelter after earthquakes and other disasters? Could we, I don’t know, learn something about Haitian culture that would help us to design solutions to the problems, perhaps inherent, in traditional means of construction on the island (?). Could we have a voice in creating designs and solutions that might address the housing crisis they are about to endure (?). Could we assemble a team of students willing to donate their summer months off to spend time directly affecting the cause of rebuilding in Haiti (?). Could we contribute more, learn more, and build community in the process(?)
Is this, perhaps, the glimmer of an idea?
Most of what designers do is assimilation. The challenge is in managing the type of information with which one surrounds oneself. If, for example in the current crisis in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake, all one knows is the humble construction of un-reinforced masonry, and all one has at ones disposal is mud brick and mortar, then one might rebuild a house with the same process by which it was built before. And since there hasn’t been a significant quake on the fault line between the American plate and the Caribbean plate in perhaps 200 years, one might be reasonable to think that the January earthquake was a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
If, on the other hand, one has surrounded oneself with a knowledge of building technology, an awareness of materials and processes, one might, in a moment of inspiration, find the glimmer of an idea (in that sea of darkness and despair) that revolutionizes the way of building a home in Haiti. Perhaps, in lieu of a brick and mortar construction, one considers that some new, light-weight material made of recycled polystyrenes and polypropylenes with a simple baling-wire lashing to connect them is a possibility for making a quick, habitable space that is flexible enough to quiver with the earth, and light enough to avoid absorbing the energy of another quake. What is this material? And how does one make this happen?
Of course, one would have to have an education that considered the effects of earthquakes, the causes, the resulting damage, and the means available to avoid damage. One would have to know something about building, a little something about architecture, and a little bit about housing in a tropical climate. Possibly more importantly, one would have to be able to transform ideas into actions, and find solutions in discarded refuse.
In a world where leadership is considered a high-paying job (think of corporate leaders) has anyone organized a charette among the leadership of corporate San Diego to design solutions to the problems in Haiti? Or for that matter, since we students of architecture are learning something about the effects of earthquakes, the causes, the resulting damage, and the means available to avoid that damage, has anyone thought to organize a design charette? We know something about building, a little something about architecture, and a little bit about housing in a tropical climate. What is it that we can do about this crisis?
Being in receipt of an e-mail from Steve Altman, President, NewSchool of Architecture & Design, encouraging students to consider giving to a Haiti charity, I am tempted to wonder, in addition, what else we can do that is more related to our education. The president’s assessment of the situation is helpful and accurate owing to the fact that a significant sum could be contributed with one-days’ lunch money for the student body. I wonder what more we could all learn if we applied a little more effort and created a community response that considered design solutions in addition to lunch money (?).
Could we, for example, utilize some of the funds from the student activity fee to create a design-response-learning-charette that would help us all to learn about creating means of shelter after earthquakes and other disasters? Could we, I don’t know, learn something about Haitian culture that would help us to design solutions to the problems, perhaps inherent, in traditional means of construction on the island (?). Could we have a voice in creating designs and solutions that might address the housing crisis they are about to endure (?). Could we assemble a team of students willing to donate their summer months off to spend time directly affecting the cause of rebuilding in Haiti (?). Could we contribute more, learn more, and build community in the process(?)
Is this, perhaps, the glimmer of an idea?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Modernism: An Interesting Stylistic “Dabble“, or the Generic Distillation of All Architecture?
How odd it must have seemed, at the turn of the last century, when one could begin to see the fascinating decoration and design which followed. The sinuous and sensual flowering of the late 19th Century Art Noveau style was strikingly unusual in its context of boxy furniture designs and architecture dotted and decorated with machine made rosettes and inexpensively mass-produced bric-a-brac. While the Industrial Revolution produced many great things and processes which we take for granted, it is possibly most notable for the counter-revolution it spawned. Indeed, many would-be designers of the 21st Century are still hoeing the counter-revolutionary row.
The somewhat reactionary Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th Century, heralded as the triumph of “hand-made” over the machine, unwittingly, opened Pandora’s box. The century which followed had no lasting official style nor architectural design idiom. Suddenly, the intellectual rigors of Edwardian times were discarded in favor of style-of-the-day proclamations. The impact, at roughly the same time, of the burgeoning mass media and the seeding of what would eventually be called “the Age of Information” further skewered the decorative arts and architecture.
All of this culminated in a hundred years in which no particular style reigned, and no particular aesthetic virtue remained. The eventual result of the Arts and Crafts movement is the parody of design that is HGTV’s home-makeover-in-a-weekend-for-five-hundred-dollars. Does the HGTV acronym stand for homogenized TV or homogenized design? Everybody has a “hand-made” opinion; indeed everyone is a designer, and each believes in their right to comment, and even to influence design, regardless of their aesthetic training. In this context, there is little particular value for rigorous design training, aesthetic education, nor patronage of the arts; particularly architecture.
During the same hundred years, however, there has been a consistent development of increasing pragmatism (as in economy of means) in the design and construction of buildings. This development has, at its core, the economic impacts of our evolving times. Our decreasing supplies of affordable fossil fuels and increasing costs of energy development have impacted design in ways which would cause Mies to twitch in his grave. God is no-longer in the details; but lives in the economic equation which factors form, function, aesthetic parameters, health and safety, liability, present day and unknowable future maintenance costs, durability, technological parity, and -most recently- energy and material sustainability. This equation says little or nothing of space-making or place-making, and only peripherally deals with the creation of architecture.
Rem Koolhaas has shed some light upon this evolution of architecture and decorative arts in the form of sarcastic commentary in his essay known as “Generic City.” For while the organized chaos that is modern culture has been working its magic, a generic distillation of the forms and functions of our buildings and urban environments has been at work. While his commentary is not specific to any particular work of architecture or design, it is clear that he has opinions.
In general, Koolhaas comments on the lack of architectural power or prowess available to deal with the statistical and economic realities of the modern urban environment. His sarcasm and inventive inquiries are best understood as coercive jabs pushing at the limits of collective knowledge about architecture and design. He is, in his own way, asking his reader to venture out of the armchair to see what he sees. One cannot help but think that this might be an interesting journey.
And one can see, in our own environment in San Diego, certain parallels to his commentary. The inevitable sprawl that a city center, located on the edge of the continent induces is part of this equation. The population of the area of roughly one half of the circle of sprawl that surrounds most cities is forced onto the half of the circle around downtown San Diego that is not under water. This situation is further exacerbated by the ridge of mountains not twenty miles from the Pacific Ocean making our local sprawl into a long stretch along the sea.
This evolution of San Diego has produced the challenges of infrastructure and culture on which Koolhaas comments; most notably a distortion of identity, and a longing for a history long ago razed. In its place, a few mediocre buildings are meticulously preserved and celebrated as the “Gaslamp District.” Not altogether unlike Koolhaas’ analysis, this is the place in San Diego where the boundaries of cultural conservativism and sexual experimentation are often crossed. Indeed, the very area now celebrated as the “historic Gaslamp district” was at one time riddled with flop-houses, drug dens, and prostitution.
Koolhaas goes on to discuss the rewinding of the scene; metaphorically emptying the city of its contents. This consideration of another urban exodus is far from likely. Statistically speaking, the urban regions of the globe show consistent growth trends and evolution. It is far more likely that an architecture that deals with this trend is in development. By whose hands it is designed remains to be seen. The pragmatic developers work toward some ideal formula based upon the aforementioned equation. Their approach leads to a generic standard while the romantic starchitects develop esoteric and uniquely personal, sculptural plans.
There is one consideration that may bring it all together: Is it possible that the generalizing of architecture and design to which Koolhaas alludes is simply a continuing refinement of the Modern architecture envisioned by Le Corbusier? Is it possible that a Modern architecture of simplicity, parsimony and elegance is the refinement and the eventual zenith of all architecture?
Today, we have a modern architecture that is something much broader than Le Corbusier’s invention. Indeed, Le Corbusier’s Modern, will look as foreign in a few years as it did upon its invention (nearly a hundred years ago) as the new sustainable architecture of the 21st Century unfolds. As Jurgen Habermas comments in his essay “Modernity -An Incomplete Project,” the word “modern” comes from the Latin word “modernus;” first used in the 5th Century to distinguish the, then, present from ancient Rome. In this context, the word Modern can be applied to all the architecture and design since the word’s invention in the 5th Century. This could mean that all the architecture since the 5th Century is Modern; and Le Corbusier’s 20th century invention of Modern architecture (later named the International Style) is really just a variation on a theme.
In this case, perhaps Koolhaas’ use of the term “generic” is in fact a variation of semantics representative of a continuing, distilling, evolution of the Modern. I, for one, look forward to uncovering further the generic distillation within Modern architecture. While Vitruvius may have summed up his view of architecture with the oft repeated triumvirate, Firmness / Commodity / and Delight, I would add that Simplicity, Parsimony, and Elegance need to be considered in this lexicon. For me, the counter-revolution begun with the “hand-made” ethos of the Arts and Crafts continues with the ongoing distillation of the generic essence of the Modern; most pointedly not homogenized.
The somewhat reactionary Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th Century, heralded as the triumph of “hand-made” over the machine, unwittingly, opened Pandora’s box. The century which followed had no lasting official style nor architectural design idiom. Suddenly, the intellectual rigors of Edwardian times were discarded in favor of style-of-the-day proclamations. The impact, at roughly the same time, of the burgeoning mass media and the seeding of what would eventually be called “the Age of Information” further skewered the decorative arts and architecture.
All of this culminated in a hundred years in which no particular style reigned, and no particular aesthetic virtue remained. The eventual result of the Arts and Crafts movement is the parody of design that is HGTV’s home-makeover-in-a-weekend-for-five-hundred-dollars. Does the HGTV acronym stand for homogenized TV or homogenized design? Everybody has a “hand-made” opinion; indeed everyone is a designer, and each believes in their right to comment, and even to influence design, regardless of their aesthetic training. In this context, there is little particular value for rigorous design training, aesthetic education, nor patronage of the arts; particularly architecture.
During the same hundred years, however, there has been a consistent development of increasing pragmatism (as in economy of means) in the design and construction of buildings. This development has, at its core, the economic impacts of our evolving times. Our decreasing supplies of affordable fossil fuels and increasing costs of energy development have impacted design in ways which would cause Mies to twitch in his grave. God is no-longer in the details; but lives in the economic equation which factors form, function, aesthetic parameters, health and safety, liability, present day and unknowable future maintenance costs, durability, technological parity, and -most recently- energy and material sustainability. This equation says little or nothing of space-making or place-making, and only peripherally deals with the creation of architecture.
Rem Koolhaas has shed some light upon this evolution of architecture and decorative arts in the form of sarcastic commentary in his essay known as “Generic City.” For while the organized chaos that is modern culture has been working its magic, a generic distillation of the forms and functions of our buildings and urban environments has been at work. While his commentary is not specific to any particular work of architecture or design, it is clear that he has opinions.
In general, Koolhaas comments on the lack of architectural power or prowess available to deal with the statistical and economic realities of the modern urban environment. His sarcasm and inventive inquiries are best understood as coercive jabs pushing at the limits of collective knowledge about architecture and design. He is, in his own way, asking his reader to venture out of the armchair to see what he sees. One cannot help but think that this might be an interesting journey.
And one can see, in our own environment in San Diego, certain parallels to his commentary. The inevitable sprawl that a city center, located on the edge of the continent induces is part of this equation. The population of the area of roughly one half of the circle of sprawl that surrounds most cities is forced onto the half of the circle around downtown San Diego that is not under water. This situation is further exacerbated by the ridge of mountains not twenty miles from the Pacific Ocean making our local sprawl into a long stretch along the sea.
This evolution of San Diego has produced the challenges of infrastructure and culture on which Koolhaas comments; most notably a distortion of identity, and a longing for a history long ago razed. In its place, a few mediocre buildings are meticulously preserved and celebrated as the “Gaslamp District.” Not altogether unlike Koolhaas’ analysis, this is the place in San Diego where the boundaries of cultural conservativism and sexual experimentation are often crossed. Indeed, the very area now celebrated as the “historic Gaslamp district” was at one time riddled with flop-houses, drug dens, and prostitution.
Koolhaas goes on to discuss the rewinding of the scene; metaphorically emptying the city of its contents. This consideration of another urban exodus is far from likely. Statistically speaking, the urban regions of the globe show consistent growth trends and evolution. It is far more likely that an architecture that deals with this trend is in development. By whose hands it is designed remains to be seen. The pragmatic developers work toward some ideal formula based upon the aforementioned equation. Their approach leads to a generic standard while the romantic starchitects develop esoteric and uniquely personal, sculptural plans.
There is one consideration that may bring it all together: Is it possible that the generalizing of architecture and design to which Koolhaas alludes is simply a continuing refinement of the Modern architecture envisioned by Le Corbusier? Is it possible that a Modern architecture of simplicity, parsimony and elegance is the refinement and the eventual zenith of all architecture?
Today, we have a modern architecture that is something much broader than Le Corbusier’s invention. Indeed, Le Corbusier’s Modern, will look as foreign in a few years as it did upon its invention (nearly a hundred years ago) as the new sustainable architecture of the 21st Century unfolds. As Jurgen Habermas comments in his essay “Modernity -An Incomplete Project,” the word “modern” comes from the Latin word “modernus;” first used in the 5th Century to distinguish the, then, present from ancient Rome. In this context, the word Modern can be applied to all the architecture and design since the word’s invention in the 5th Century. This could mean that all the architecture since the 5th Century is Modern; and Le Corbusier’s 20th century invention of Modern architecture (later named the International Style) is really just a variation on a theme.
In this case, perhaps Koolhaas’ use of the term “generic” is in fact a variation of semantics representative of a continuing, distilling, evolution of the Modern. I, for one, look forward to uncovering further the generic distillation within Modern architecture. While Vitruvius may have summed up his view of architecture with the oft repeated triumvirate, Firmness / Commodity / and Delight, I would add that Simplicity, Parsimony, and Elegance need to be considered in this lexicon. For me, the counter-revolution begun with the “hand-made” ethos of the Arts and Crafts continues with the ongoing distillation of the generic essence of the Modern; most pointedly not homogenized.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The documentary film, "Visual Acoustics," about the late Julius Schulman is a must-see. I was impressed with the subject's singular focus; and early childhood development of that same focus (however unclear the target may have been in the early years). It is clear that the world has lost an important and extremely talented man due to his death last year. The title refers to comments made by Schulman referencing his talent for controlling the visual noise surrounding the subject(s) in his photographs. Schulman is known for creating the iconic images of modern architecture; especially his photograph(s) of the Pierre Koenig Case Study house.
"Visual Acoustics" was presented in conjunction with some of Schulman's photographs (from his archive) of buildings in San Diego; courtesy of ModernSanDiego.com. I was fascinated to learn that many of the photographs are of wonderful buildings now razed. An additional group of photos was of mid-century architect-designed homes about which there seems to be no current record. Many of these homes were built in Rancho Santa Fe; an exclusive suburban San Diego community known for its lack of street addresses. Frankly, no-one knows if these notable homes exist, or in what state they exist, as they are referenced by PO Box address only.
This brings to mind a question about the ownership of architectural designs. And this question, ultimately, references back to the debate about the definition(s) of architecture. If a private individual with construction talents builds a purpose-built chicken coop, according to the vernacular tradition of chicken coops in the particular region in which the chicken farm resides, is it architecture? If one builds a very large "chicken coop," using the same structure system, bedecking the nesting shelves with velvet theater seats, and suspending great chandeliers from the crossing point of the truss, or from the ridge of the ceiling to light the space (subsequently called a theater), is it architecture? If one builds the earlier mentioned vernacular chicken coop in Times Square in New York City, using the nesting shelves as bunk beds, and the structure as shelter for the homeless, is it architecture?
When, really, does a structure or a building become architecture? It has been said that the definition requires "design with aesthetic intent." This amplifies the process, certainly. I am not certain that it clarifies the situation. Clearly, aesthetics is in the realm of subjective considerations. Is this definition referring to the aesthetics of the builder? For example, the economy of means used in assembling a building might be of aesthetic value to the builder. So is a cheap building that is quick to assemble, using little means, architecture?
Or, does the "aesthetic intent" refer to that of the possibly-unschooled designer whose misguided attempts at beautification might include the re-presentation of some architectural detail borrowed from another time, another climate, another structural system, or another material. As witness: look around San Diego at all the "Tuscan" influences in buildings great and small. Then go to Tuscany and see the real thing (One should be amazed at the difference). Faux this-and-that is no substitute for the real things, used in simply honest ways, with indigenous materials. So, clearly, the idea of "aesthetic intent" has no calibration for error: intentions might be noble and the results disastrous.
Back to the Schulman photographs of now "lost" San Diego buildings! At the point at which our rather fickle and fluid culture defines a building as architecture (allowing for the gray areas as above) who owns that architecture? Does it belong to the pantheon of architecture reaching all the way back to the ancients? At what point does the architectural value supersede the real-estate value and become worthy of preservation, documentation, and rescue? Does architecture always subject itself to being razed in the interest of progress (however defined)?
At what point does the glimmer of an architectural idea (or ideal) get the respect of renovation; hopefully consistent with the original design intent? As contrasted with razing and transferring to waste in a land-fill, is there a respect that is due a building which has, until said point in time, faithfully and willingly served its purpose?
I am reminded of a project I once worked on (in another state) where great lengths were taken to preserve the original character of an historic home. The home was not protected by registry; still the (then) owners' preference was to respect the design intent of the original architect. Built in another century, the Edwardian-style home was updated with respect for the original fittings and details including: 1) remaking the knives which cut new moldings to match those which were original to the structure, 2) and having new brass hardware custom cast in newly made molds so that hardware matching the original door handles could be used on all the new doors, 3) a custom door manufacturer was solicited to create matches to the solid wood doors used throughout the original structure, 4) Copper gutters and valleys were extended by old-technology roofers so that the slate roof would appear consistent and preserve the craftsmanship of another era, 5) antique tile details were matched in new materials so that the indoor swimming pool could look as though it had always been there, 6) an expensive, imported conservatory was added to the house with careful attention paid to antique tile details and lighting that might have been utilized at the time of construction of the original house, 7) a custom wall covering printed by Bradbury & Bradbury was utilized to fill the frieze space above custom detailed cabinetry designed to mimic the glass covered bookshelves in another space in the home, replete with matching hardware, 8) old-technology Rumford fireplaces were hand-built of masonry to match specifications from another era, and so on, ad-infinitum...
I have heard that the house has been recently gutted by a new owner who, owing to the spectacular siting of the home, and their taste for contemporary design, wanted a contemporary style home in that setting. Who owns that architecture? And further, by what right is the disposal of all those materials (let alone hours of design intention) justified? It comes down to the same old question: By what right does the driver of a Hummer utilize more precious resources than the driver of a Prius? And, at what point does the common good unseat the power of cold hard cash?
Again, I digress! So back to the point of when a building becomes architecture, how is that architecture held in trust? Or is architecture always subject to the whims of the real-estate title holder? I am perplexed. And I would love to see the responses of the gentle readers of this blog.
"Visual Acoustics" was presented in conjunction with some of Schulman's photographs (from his archive) of buildings in San Diego; courtesy of ModernSanDiego.com. I was fascinated to learn that many of the photographs are of wonderful buildings now razed. An additional group of photos was of mid-century architect-designed homes about which there seems to be no current record. Many of these homes were built in Rancho Santa Fe; an exclusive suburban San Diego community known for its lack of street addresses. Frankly, no-one knows if these notable homes exist, or in what state they exist, as they are referenced by PO Box address only.
This brings to mind a question about the ownership of architectural designs. And this question, ultimately, references back to the debate about the definition(s) of architecture. If a private individual with construction talents builds a purpose-built chicken coop, according to the vernacular tradition of chicken coops in the particular region in which the chicken farm resides, is it architecture? If one builds a very large "chicken coop," using the same structure system, bedecking the nesting shelves with velvet theater seats, and suspending great chandeliers from the crossing point of the truss, or from the ridge of the ceiling to light the space (subsequently called a theater), is it architecture? If one builds the earlier mentioned vernacular chicken coop in Times Square in New York City, using the nesting shelves as bunk beds, and the structure as shelter for the homeless, is it architecture?
When, really, does a structure or a building become architecture? It has been said that the definition requires "design with aesthetic intent." This amplifies the process, certainly. I am not certain that it clarifies the situation. Clearly, aesthetics is in the realm of subjective considerations. Is this definition referring to the aesthetics of the builder? For example, the economy of means used in assembling a building might be of aesthetic value to the builder. So is a cheap building that is quick to assemble, using little means, architecture?
Or, does the "aesthetic intent" refer to that of the possibly-unschooled designer whose misguided attempts at beautification might include the re-presentation of some architectural detail borrowed from another time, another climate, another structural system, or another material. As witness: look around San Diego at all the "Tuscan" influences in buildings great and small. Then go to Tuscany and see the real thing (One should be amazed at the difference). Faux this-and-that is no substitute for the real things, used in simply honest ways, with indigenous materials. So, clearly, the idea of "aesthetic intent" has no calibration for error: intentions might be noble and the results disastrous.
Back to the Schulman photographs of now "lost" San Diego buildings! At the point at which our rather fickle and fluid culture defines a building as architecture (allowing for the gray areas as above) who owns that architecture? Does it belong to the pantheon of architecture reaching all the way back to the ancients? At what point does the architectural value supersede the real-estate value and become worthy of preservation, documentation, and rescue? Does architecture always subject itself to being razed in the interest of progress (however defined)?
At what point does the glimmer of an architectural idea (or ideal) get the respect of renovation; hopefully consistent with the original design intent? As contrasted with razing and transferring to waste in a land-fill, is there a respect that is due a building which has, until said point in time, faithfully and willingly served its purpose?
I am reminded of a project I once worked on (in another state) where great lengths were taken to preserve the original character of an historic home. The home was not protected by registry; still the (then) owners' preference was to respect the design intent of the original architect. Built in another century, the Edwardian-style home was updated with respect for the original fittings and details including: 1) remaking the knives which cut new moldings to match those which were original to the structure, 2) and having new brass hardware custom cast in newly made molds so that hardware matching the original door handles could be used on all the new doors, 3) a custom door manufacturer was solicited to create matches to the solid wood doors used throughout the original structure, 4) Copper gutters and valleys were extended by old-technology roofers so that the slate roof would appear consistent and preserve the craftsmanship of another era, 5) antique tile details were matched in new materials so that the indoor swimming pool could look as though it had always been there, 6) an expensive, imported conservatory was added to the house with careful attention paid to antique tile details and lighting that might have been utilized at the time of construction of the original house, 7) a custom wall covering printed by Bradbury & Bradbury was utilized to fill the frieze space above custom detailed cabinetry designed to mimic the glass covered bookshelves in another space in the home, replete with matching hardware, 8) old-technology Rumford fireplaces were hand-built of masonry to match specifications from another era, and so on, ad-infinitum...
I have heard that the house has been recently gutted by a new owner who, owing to the spectacular siting of the home, and their taste for contemporary design, wanted a contemporary style home in that setting. Who owns that architecture? And further, by what right is the disposal of all those materials (let alone hours of design intention) justified? It comes down to the same old question: By what right does the driver of a Hummer utilize more precious resources than the driver of a Prius? And, at what point does the common good unseat the power of cold hard cash?
Again, I digress! So back to the point of when a building becomes architecture, how is that architecture held in trust? Or is architecture always subject to the whims of the real-estate title holder? I am perplexed. And I would love to see the responses of the gentle readers of this blog.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Catching Up
A month has passed and I am amazed. Time really flies when you are having fun.
I received notice from the NewSchool of Architecture & Design offices that I made the Dean's List for academic achievement in the Summer Quarter. Now the pressure is really on! People are watching!
And this quarter's projects are a lot more interesting. I am working on a new school of architecture based upon the programs offered at NewSchool. Interestingly, the proposed site overlooks Balboa Park (San Diego's answer to Central Park, and home of the world renown San Diego Zoo, among other attractions). Unfortunately it is under the flight path of landing planes coming into Lindbergh Field (San Diego's downtown airport). So again, I am dealing with height restrictions and noise as the proposed site is not too far from the fire station I designed this past summer.
Initially I developed a series of boxes on the site to fit the almost 200,000 sqft program requirement into the 49,800 sqft "shoebox" site. Then inspiration struck in the form of a piece of pie. Suddenly the studio building (almost 45,000 sqft on its own) became round with movable segmented walls on the radius. The simple structure requirements and opportunity for flexibility seem to meet the program needs quite nicely.
My next working model will be a building with another variation: the individual floors of the studio will not be concentric (eccentric?), and not truly round either. I am afraid it will be one of those unreasonable student projects that would, if constructed, cost an arm and a leg. Oh well, I guess that is where I am supposed to be. I get little but positive feedback. Moving right along....
I received word that "Metropolitan Home Magazine" will cease publication after the end of 2009. Wow; another cultural icon bites the dust. I remember in the 1970's and early 80's when it was still called Apartment Life and full of clever solutions for small-space living. Hmmm I wonder where that market is today? Up until about 9 years ago, I had every issue, since the beginning. Who knew that they might become collectible (???).
I received notice from the NewSchool of Architecture & Design offices that I made the Dean's List for academic achievement in the Summer Quarter. Now the pressure is really on! People are watching!
And this quarter's projects are a lot more interesting. I am working on a new school of architecture based upon the programs offered at NewSchool. Interestingly, the proposed site overlooks Balboa Park (San Diego's answer to Central Park, and home of the world renown San Diego Zoo, among other attractions). Unfortunately it is under the flight path of landing planes coming into Lindbergh Field (San Diego's downtown airport). So again, I am dealing with height restrictions and noise as the proposed site is not too far from the fire station I designed this past summer.
Initially I developed a series of boxes on the site to fit the almost 200,000 sqft program requirement into the 49,800 sqft "shoebox" site. Then inspiration struck in the form of a piece of pie. Suddenly the studio building (almost 45,000 sqft on its own) became round with movable segmented walls on the radius. The simple structure requirements and opportunity for flexibility seem to meet the program needs quite nicely.
My next working model will be a building with another variation: the individual floors of the studio will not be concentric (eccentric?), and not truly round either. I am afraid it will be one of those unreasonable student projects that would, if constructed, cost an arm and a leg. Oh well, I guess that is where I am supposed to be. I get little but positive feedback. Moving right along....
I received word that "Metropolitan Home Magazine" will cease publication after the end of 2009. Wow; another cultural icon bites the dust. I remember in the 1970's and early 80's when it was still called Apartment Life and full of clever solutions for small-space living. Hmmm I wonder where that market is today? Up until about 9 years ago, I had every issue, since the beginning. Who knew that they might become collectible (???).
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
So the quarter has finally come to an end. And it was nip and tuck right up to the end on Friday. At the last minute, or so it seemed, a new assignment fell to my desk. Seems that every quarter at NewSchool of Architecture & Design, students put together a portfolio presentation that represents the work done over the past quarter. It is meant to be a record of the work and really helps the student to analyze their progress over the quarter. The studio instructors also use it to recall the work they have reviewed in the various critiques over the quarter (ie: ones grade comes more-or-less directly from this process).
During the Wednesday session of our final week, after the fire station was due, we were treated to a lecture on the merits of "In Design," an Adobe program designed for the tasks at hand in creating a book or magazine. I was panic stricken as I thought I was expected to put together a "book" of my work. Well, some of that panic was appropriate. However, in lieu of learning a new, and quite sophisticated, program I did a MS PowerPoint presentation which accomplished the same end. ....without the two day panic of learning new software.
So when I finally get around to publishing some photos, you will see how it all came out. I was working on tutorials for Adobe Photoshop last night. Interestingly, there is a culture at NewSchool which I find challenges my ethics. I bought a student version of Adobe Photoshop. I went through the rigmarole of getting vetted by Adobe as a bonafied and legitimate student. And quite a rigmarole it was. They must have thought that somebody who wanted to pay for the software was actually trying to cheat them (???).
Perhaps the folks at Adobe might have been surprised by the idea that a student actually wanted to purchase their software. This is because they probably know that, apparently, most students rip-off the software from other students. Which brings me to the point of ethics and workability.
It seems to me that a system which condones or tolerates the, patently illegal, pirating of software is on the wrong side of the ethical and workability paradigm. That this same system is promoting the proprietary nature of designers' solutions is paradoxical, at the very least. I wonder about a workable solution to this problem (???).
The software which students learn in schools like NewSchool of Architecture & Design is expensive. There is no question that the software manufacturers are interested in leading students to the conclusion that their software is the "best thing since sliced bread" when it comes to solutions for some particular set of architectural or graphic communication problems. And, I am quite certain, that there is some advantage for the software companies considering lenience when it comes to enforcing copyright laws. No software company would want the bad PR of coming down on the future market for their products.
Some software companies take the approach of providing the software free of charge to bonafide students. This lessens the pressure for illegal pirating and promotes the use of the software in an environment of trust and mutual gain. For eventually, the student becomes a professional and is in an environment where resources can be made available. It would only be prudent for the student to recommend that software "X" be purchased. After all, it is the one software they will know inside and out.
It seems to me that it behooves the institutions of learning to band together to demand this approach from the software companies they serve. To assume that students will always do the right thing is assuming too much. It is not unlike assuming that a dog will sit back, not lunging for the food on the coffee table during the only moment when no one is looking. Students are a product of the environment in which they are tutored. There is no getting around this.
During the Wednesday session of our final week, after the fire station was due, we were treated to a lecture on the merits of "In Design," an Adobe program designed for the tasks at hand in creating a book or magazine. I was panic stricken as I thought I was expected to put together a "book" of my work. Well, some of that panic was appropriate. However, in lieu of learning a new, and quite sophisticated, program I did a MS PowerPoint presentation which accomplished the same end. ....without the two day panic of learning new software.
So when I finally get around to publishing some photos, you will see how it all came out. I was working on tutorials for Adobe Photoshop last night. Interestingly, there is a culture at NewSchool which I find challenges my ethics. I bought a student version of Adobe Photoshop. I went through the rigmarole of getting vetted by Adobe as a bonafied and legitimate student. And quite a rigmarole it was. They must have thought that somebody who wanted to pay for the software was actually trying to cheat them (???).
Perhaps the folks at Adobe might have been surprised by the idea that a student actually wanted to purchase their software. This is because they probably know that, apparently, most students rip-off the software from other students. Which brings me to the point of ethics and workability.
It seems to me that a system which condones or tolerates the, patently illegal, pirating of software is on the wrong side of the ethical and workability paradigm. That this same system is promoting the proprietary nature of designers' solutions is paradoxical, at the very least. I wonder about a workable solution to this problem (???).
The software which students learn in schools like NewSchool of Architecture & Design is expensive. There is no question that the software manufacturers are interested in leading students to the conclusion that their software is the "best thing since sliced bread" when it comes to solutions for some particular set of architectural or graphic communication problems. And, I am quite certain, that there is some advantage for the software companies considering lenience when it comes to enforcing copyright laws. No software company would want the bad PR of coming down on the future market for their products.
Some software companies take the approach of providing the software free of charge to bonafide students. This lessens the pressure for illegal pirating and promotes the use of the software in an environment of trust and mutual gain. For eventually, the student becomes a professional and is in an environment where resources can be made available. It would only be prudent for the student to recommend that software "X" be purchased. After all, it is the one software they will know inside and out.
It seems to me that it behooves the institutions of learning to band together to demand this approach from the software companies they serve. To assume that students will always do the right thing is assuming too much. It is not unlike assuming that a dog will sit back, not lunging for the food on the coffee table during the only moment when no one is looking. Students are a product of the environment in which they are tutored. There is no getting around this.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Counting Down
I am counting down to the wire as we wrap up the fire station projects and move on into long-span structures. I am looking forward to designing an airport (I think). I haven't posted much lately as I have been spending alot of time working in the studio. The callous is back on my index finger and I haven't even started my final model for the fire station yet!
The final model is more about presentation than about design opportunity. I am very pleased with the various reviews my new concept has received. And so it is now up to me to demonstrate model building skills that are in concert with my design. I am thinking three-ply chipboard (a type of cardboard, most similar to the cardboard back of a yellow legal pad; just two or three times the thickness).
I did a rendering yesterday that well illustrated the concept as viewed from the neighborhood across the street. I was pleased to see that the private areas remained private, and the public areas were obviously accessible. I think that my concept will work (and I pledge to add pictures to this blog just as soon as the quarter is over).
I am excited about this process and the prospect of wrapping up this project. There comes a time when it is simply a production problem with limited design yet to be input. This is that time.... time to crank out the work.
At the same time, I am feeling pretty good about my other classes. I am sure I will be stumped by the challenges of studying for finals while attempting to complete a huge amount of work in studio for the final jury on this project. But that is what enthusiasm and inspiration (that comes from nothing) is all about.
That's all for now.
The final model is more about presentation than about design opportunity. I am very pleased with the various reviews my new concept has received. And so it is now up to me to demonstrate model building skills that are in concert with my design. I am thinking three-ply chipboard (a type of cardboard, most similar to the cardboard back of a yellow legal pad; just two or three times the thickness).
I did a rendering yesterday that well illustrated the concept as viewed from the neighborhood across the street. I was pleased to see that the private areas remained private, and the public areas were obviously accessible. I think that my concept will work (and I pledge to add pictures to this blog just as soon as the quarter is over).
I am excited about this process and the prospect of wrapping up this project. There comes a time when it is simply a production problem with limited design yet to be input. This is that time.... time to crank out the work.
At the same time, I am feeling pretty good about my other classes. I am sure I will be stumped by the challenges of studying for finals while attempting to complete a huge amount of work in studio for the final jury on this project. But that is what enthusiasm and inspiration (that comes from nothing) is all about.
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
