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.

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 (???).

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.

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.

No Mundane Design Allowed!

I just posted on Facebook that I am aware that I will never design a building in my career that will be dependent upon fossil fuels as its main source of energy. It is a fact that any building I draw will have a design life-time that will outlive fossil fuel on this planet. I am amazed by this consideration, and I am wondering how all the old buildings, whose design life-time has not been fully utilized, will be adapted. Surely we cannot continue to discard the resources that have gone into all those existing buildings designed before this awareness arrived (???).

Having read recently that the Sears Tower in Chicago is being retrofitted to meet "new building" energy standards, I am aware that there is a lot of work to be done. Imagine how one might redesign such a monolithic structure so that natural ventilation (convection) and day-lighting are even possible (???). Or consider that it might need to be covered on its South-most facades with active solar photovoltaic panels to acquire enough solar electric to power the building. This is truly a mammoth undertaking.

I have considered that, in five or ten years, the profession of Architecture will not be as we know it today. I am aware that the considerations which will be foremost in our minds will no longer be so focused upon what the building looks like. Blade Runner, one of my movie favorites, was made in 1982 (Ridley Scott, Director) and set in 2016 (just seven years from now). The architecture looks nothing like what we see being built around us in downtown San Diego. I wonder how much things will change; and how prescient Ridley Scott's notion of this nearby future will turn out to be (???).

I had a midterm jury review for my fire station (see Abstract Concepts and Mundane Buildings, below). My presentation was well received. I was praised for my process, and my graphic presentation. I was happy with the critique; and even expected the comment that this building looks a little like an '80's Schoolhouse (read as mundane). I was, however unclear where to go from there.

I took a day off to ponder (actually I took a day off to recover, as the preparations for the jury took more than I anticipated -my first "all-nighter") and came back to my project with a renewed perspective. I am convinced that the creative process comes "from nothing" and that inspiration and innovation are the result of providing the creative mind room to work, with limited distraction. It was as if a new vista had formed over the day I spent catching up on sleep, laundry, housekeeping, grocery shopping and the like.

I sat down to review the comments made by the jurors and was inspired to revise, completely, my design concept. In the process, I have created a new building that does not suffer in the realm 0f the mundane. If anything, it is architecture in a new light. It is like nothing I have ever seen before, and like nothing I could have preconceived. I am jazzed by the new ideas, the new forms and the reinterpretation of function, if not necessarily in that order.

And I have the challenge of learning how to make this building, and every one I design, from here on out, to be as independent as possible when it comes to resources; particularly energy. I have heard that there is a new Dean, Jennifer Wolch, at UC Berkeley in the College of Environmental Design. Her expertise is in the area of Sustainability. I am excited to think that this is one place where the expectations of the future in architecture are being considered, now. I am looking forward to an opportunity to tap into that environment. And I look forward to bringing that same standard of inquiry to my work at NewSchool of Architecture & Design in the meantime.

Teddy Cruz speaks at NewSchool

This afternoon's studio was interrupted with a presentation from Teddy Cruz of Estudio Teddy Cruz. Mr. Cruz is a former NewSchool faculty member who did his undergraduate work in Architecture at CalPoly in San Luis Obispo, CA and his Master's in Architecture at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. He is an impassioned speaker with a fascinating ability for complex thinking. His speaking was supplemented with fantastic graphics illustrative of his sophisticated conceptual approach (though somewhat unsophisticated in their graphic style).

I was intrigued by his characterizations of architecture as a manipulation of money and process. He created a dichotomy by describing the difference between those projects with "clever money and stupid process, and those with stupid money and clever process." It is a fascinating spectrum I am sure; particularly when one can evaluate from his perspective on a wide(er) range of projects.

The practice of Estudio Teddy Cruz, as presented, is not so much about Architecture (as I have come to know it- having to do with the creation of buildings, place-making and space-making), but rather a complex dialogue in Urban Planning and Environmental Design that is informed by Architecture, and social and economic studies. His work, as presented, certainly takes one away from the ocular-centric (myopic) approach that is the focus of most of my projects at NewSchool of Architecture & Design (thus far; remembering I am in my first quarter).

My recent experience working for global development concern, Emaar, in the Newport Beach, CA offices, was experience working with the kind of "top-down" development approach that Cruz distrusts. His philosophical approach is more grass-roots oriented; dealing with the density of socio-economic transactions per acre rather than the number of salable housing units per acre.

Curiously, the whole time I was working for Emaar, I was fascinated by the global marketing of the SoCal suburban design approach practiced by Emaar. What has not worked so well here in Southern California (based upon the approaching demise of sustainability of suburbia caused by depletion of essential fossil fuel resources) seems highly desirable in the face of the challenging conditions existing in suburban Cairo. And while it may be that our SoCal suburban dream is more desirable than the existing options in Cairo, one wonders if the projects we were working on at Emaar Design Studio will ever be built as planned; and if the density of units will continue to be one of their defining factors.

What is compelling about this lecture was the depiction of a larger opportunity for design. Not unlike the evolution of a species, the design of the built environment is evolving to survive in conditions which threaten its continuation. Our ever present awareness of the depletion of fossil fuel resources means that structures designed today cannot be built with any expectation of dependence upon fossil fuel. The lifetime of buildings on the drawing boards today will see the depletion of those resources on this planet. So to co-op a phrase from process planning today, we must design with our "best-practices" in mind while at the same time fulfilling the role of the seer; looking into the future in a way we have not dared before.

The feel-good moment in the lecture was realizing that we (as architecture students, prospective architects, environmental designers, etc...) have the opportunity to insert the learnings of our failed policies and practices into the opportunities of developing cultures. Complex thinking indeed.

Abstract Concepts and Mundane Buildings

After a greuling session of formal critiques by studio mates, instructors and TA's, I am spent. Yesterday's pin-up of progress drawings was an amazing learning experience. I was fascinated by the variety of solutions to what appeared to be a simple program with some narrowly defined parameters (not the least of which is a too-small site crammed up against a freeway that is more than ten feet higher than the average elevation of the site).

The most fascinating thing was the abstraction(s) of process by some of my classmates. Perhaps I have been in the world of work for too long... or not in the world of education for so long... My in-progress drawings are solidly in the realm of construction documents. Admittedly, there are flaws, unknowns, details which have yet to be created, structural elements that are possbily the wrong size, or the wrong visual weight. And all of that can be resolved in the next five weeks.

I believe my building is actually build-able without too-terribly much stretching of the current technology. It looks a little mundane (in elevation views, all the sculptural richness is flattened out) and that troubles me. So what's the problem??? I am guessing that my mind is grounded in a way that the other students are not. I have no abstract reasoning that is too difficult to graphically communicate. I have no abstract concepts that have never before been built. I have no abstract reasoning that I do not have words to adequately express. And I feel bad about this. (???)

Still, the building will address a standard of sustainability that is far beyond anything attempted in most municipal construction projects. The facility will depend heavily on natural daylighting, stored solar thermal, and solar electric that is grid connected for net-zero (design goal) night-lighting and AC, recycled "gray" water for site landscaping, natural ventilation / convection in the public spaces, and sustainable materials use wherever possible. The firefighters will be treated to spaces that are created with spiritually restorative qualities meant to manage the stress of life as a firefighter/medical "first responder."

What am I missing?