In probably the most salient example of the divide between the architectural profession and the general public, MVRDV had it's public reputation skewered last week when it's proposed design for two towers in the Yongsan business district of South Korea was compared to the destruction of the World Trade Center:
Quite possibly the most disheartening part of this debacle is that MVRDV is widely considered to be among the architectural profession's most research-oriented and most intelligent design firms. There is practically no positive spin for MVRDV; either they intentionally designed their Cloud towers after the Twin Towers and completely miscalculated the public reaction, or (as they claim) they never noticed the relation and appear either negligent or blind. Either way, they do not come off as intelligent designers. Which is a shame, because they have a large body of work which says otherwise. Even the cloud rendering that MVRDV presented as their inspiration looks eerily reminiscent of the Twin Towers under attack, which begs the question: How did they not see it? How is it that the general public instantly recognizes the relationship, but in 3 months of design they do not? A scan through argumentative comments on MVRDV's facebook page further illustrates the disconnect between designers and the general public. One would hope their reputation is not permanently damaged, although one also wonders, will they continue with the proposed design?
Steve Luoni and the Environmental Response
Steve Luoni is the director of the Community Design Center at the University of Arkansas, an integrated research and design outreach center affiliated with the Fay Jones School of Architecture. The CDC is a unique organization that provides design and planning services, like a traditional design firm, but in an educational environment. The CDC is staffed by design professionals, educators, and students alike; a collaborative environment where research ideas can be integrated into practice, and students learn to produce work for actual clients.
Several weeks ago, Steve Luoni gave a lecture at the University of Utah, focusing on 4 of the CDC's research/work areas: watershed urbanism, low impact neighborhood development, street ecologies, and transit oriented development. Each of the projects he showed have the characteristic of being highly integrated with the work of the CDC's ecological engineers. He explained that most local codes make their design solutions illegal, and therefore the most challenging part of their projects is working with the right people (code officials, fire chiefs, etc.) to have the code adjusted, changed, or adapted to their design.
Probably the most refreshing part of Luoni's presentation was how truly "outside the box" it was. "Outside the box" probably ranks high on the list of overused phrases, nonetheless it is disappointing to attend lectures by architects and designers who often profess a unique approach, but whose work is remarkably similar. Sure, one form is not like the other, but the results are frequently congruent. The CDC integrates research and collaboration with other professionals (especially engineers) in a way that other firms, developers, and designers ought to admire and replicate.
Lastly, Luoni brought up 2 subjects beyond the typical scope of design solutions that were rather apposite. We should mention that the additional commentary is our own, and may not coincide with Luoni's opinions:
1.) "We don't villainize suburban development" - the design world is chalk full of interrogations of and accusations against suburban development without addressing the large elephant in the room: that a large portion of the population is supporting suburban development through their economic behavior. It seems the current strategy of opponents of suburban development is to make living in the suburbs "uncool" or even a stigma. However, when it comes to finances, people are often ready and willing to bear a stigma or be uncool. Luoni's method is to be cognizant of the "real costs," and to address the reasons people do not want to live in urban environments. In short, there is a need to solve the problems of the alternative, not just villainize suburban development and hope people will ignore those problems and shun the suburbs.
2.) Luoni drew analogies between the medical profession and architectural profession, explaining that the medical profession did not gain respect from the general public until it legitimately solved health problems of the general public (see bloodletting vs. vaccination), thus intimating that perhaps the architectural profession might get more respect from the general public if it too was able to legitimately solve design problems of the general public. It very well may be true that the design profession has found viable solutions, but these solutions are typically limited. The irony, perhaps, is that the general public does not have enough trust in the profession to grant them the full scope of their solutions. As we read between the lines, we see significant meaning in the CDC's ability to work collaboratively with engineers and apply their own research. The medical profession was only able to solve problems when it better understood the science behind their discipline and applied what it learned in research. Sometimes, it seems that the architectural profession seems woefully unscientific, and it's research more voodoo than science. But that is a topic for another post...
Several weeks ago, Steve Luoni gave a lecture at the University of Utah, focusing on 4 of the CDC's research/work areas: watershed urbanism, low impact neighborhood development, street ecologies, and transit oriented development. Each of the projects he showed have the characteristic of being highly integrated with the work of the CDC's ecological engineers. He explained that most local codes make their design solutions illegal, and therefore the most challenging part of their projects is working with the right people (code officials, fire chiefs, etc.) to have the code adjusted, changed, or adapted to their design.
Probably the most refreshing part of Luoni's presentation was how truly "outside the box" it was. "Outside the box" probably ranks high on the list of overused phrases, nonetheless it is disappointing to attend lectures by architects and designers who often profess a unique approach, but whose work is remarkably similar. Sure, one form is not like the other, but the results are frequently congruent. The CDC integrates research and collaboration with other professionals (especially engineers) in a way that other firms, developers, and designers ought to admire and replicate.
Lastly, Luoni brought up 2 subjects beyond the typical scope of design solutions that were rather apposite. We should mention that the additional commentary is our own, and may not coincide with Luoni's opinions:
1.) "We don't villainize suburban development" - the design world is chalk full of interrogations of and accusations against suburban development without addressing the large elephant in the room: that a large portion of the population is supporting suburban development through their economic behavior. It seems the current strategy of opponents of suburban development is to make living in the suburbs "uncool" or even a stigma. However, when it comes to finances, people are often ready and willing to bear a stigma or be uncool. Luoni's method is to be cognizant of the "real costs," and to address the reasons people do not want to live in urban environments. In short, there is a need to solve the problems of the alternative, not just villainize suburban development and hope people will ignore those problems and shun the suburbs.
2.) Luoni drew analogies between the medical profession and architectural profession, explaining that the medical profession did not gain respect from the general public until it legitimately solved health problems of the general public (see bloodletting vs. vaccination), thus intimating that perhaps the architectural profession might get more respect from the general public if it too was able to legitimately solve design problems of the general public. It very well may be true that the design profession has found viable solutions, but these solutions are typically limited. The irony, perhaps, is that the general public does not have enough trust in the profession to grant them the full scope of their solutions. As we read between the lines, we see significant meaning in the CDC's ability to work collaboratively with engineers and apply their own research. The medical profession was only able to solve problems when it better understood the science behind their discipline and applied what it learned in research. Sometimes, it seems that the architectural profession seems woefully unscientific, and it's research more voodoo than science. But that is a topic for another post...
Watershed urbanism
Low impact neighborhood development
Street ecologies
Transit oriented development
Where is the Critic?
Historically, the general public has been connected to architectural design through one primary venue: the general media. This raises the question: where is the architectural critic? More specifically, where is the infamous critic Ellsworth Toohey of Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead, who was able to wield almost complete control over the architectural world by shaping public opinion? Ayn Rand's fictional public seemed desperately invested in architecture. So, why is it that so many metropolitan newspapers do not have an architecture critic? Or at least a regular architectural critique of recently constructed (or designed) buildings? This is perhaps one of those chicken or egg questions: is the general public not interested in reading about architecture - hence, no architecture critic - or has the lack of an architecture critic resulted in a general public that is not interested in architecture? Obviously it is difficult to have one without the other. Though, in our present age of "opinionation" it seems that not only does every pundit have an opinion, but that people listen to them, and therefore they seem to be multiplying. It doesn't seem that it would be very difficult to hire a professor from the closest school of architecture to write a weekly - or bimonthly - column on architecture.
Regardless, we live in a city that seems rather disinterested in architecture - and not due to a lack of new construction. The city, after all, seems highly interested in development, and there is plenty of construction both ending and beginning in spite of the recent recession. But discussion of all this building in the general media is limited to the following essential facts: user, purpose, square footage, funding/cost, architect, contractor. Newspapers all over the country seem to follow this formula, and architectural critique seems to be found only in the largest cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. At the Yale School of Architecture Paul Goldberger commented on writing about architecture, "If it didn’t sound hopelessly pompous, I would say that the purpose of criticism in the general media is to create a better educated, more critically aware, more visually literate constituency for architecture, and thus, presumably, increase society’s demand for good design."
It is interesting that the aforementioned Toohey said, "Don't set out to raze all shrines—you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed." Our interest in mediocrity is not to enshrine it, and our intention is obviously not to raze the spectacular. Our interest in mediocrity is to elevate it. We are interested in what has made so much of our architecture mediocre, and how it can be improved. It appears that one solution is somewhere between an architecture critic and an interested general public.
1st edition, the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Regardless, we live in a city that seems rather disinterested in architecture - and not due to a lack of new construction. The city, after all, seems highly interested in development, and there is plenty of construction both ending and beginning in spite of the recent recession. But discussion of all this building in the general media is limited to the following essential facts: user, purpose, square footage, funding/cost, architect, contractor. Newspapers all over the country seem to follow this formula, and architectural critique seems to be found only in the largest cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. At the Yale School of Architecture Paul Goldberger commented on writing about architecture, "If it didn’t sound hopelessly pompous, I would say that the purpose of criticism in the general media is to create a better educated, more critically aware, more visually literate constituency for architecture, and thus, presumably, increase society’s demand for good design."
It is interesting that the aforementioned Toohey said, "Don't set out to raze all shrines—you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity, and the shrines are razed." Our interest in mediocrity is not to enshrine it, and our intention is obviously not to raze the spectacular. Our interest in mediocrity is to elevate it. We are interested in what has made so much of our architecture mediocre, and how it can be improved. It appears that one solution is somewhere between an architecture critic and an interested general public.
Mediocity (mē-dē-'ȯ-sə-tē)
Mediocity (or mee-dee-AH-si-tee) is created from an interest in how the general public interacts with, and engages, architecture and urban design. We operate this blog on the notion that not everything interesting has to be spectacular; and that we even find mediocrity, at times, more interesting than the spectacular. We are interested in how the middle-class consumes architecture. We are interested in how the general media represents architecture and urbanism to the general public. We are interested in the general public's apparent simultaneous interest and disinterest in architecture and urban design. We sense a disconnect between the architectural community and the general public and are not certain if we should be dismayed or if we should expect it. In this age of specialization, the general public seems disconnected from almost every profession. Yet the general public interacts with architecture and urban design on a daily basis, and although it may not have a cognitive impact on an individual's life, it has an impact nonetheless.
So the issues on which this blog will focus or address are:
As evident, image from Google
So the issues on which this blog will focus or address are:
- The relationship between architecture and urban design, and the general public - the intent: to gauge public involvement and interest in architecture and urban design, and the goal: to promote public awareness (think cognitive) of the impact of architecture and urban design.
- To promote sustainable urbanism - not just through a critique of urban sprawl, but by addressing both the positive and negative aspects of urban living, thereby searching for and advocating measures for improvement.
As evident, image from Google
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)