Reflections on New York

Each morning, my brother and I would zip into his Camaro and hurtle down the black pavement towards the train station, of which we’d approach from by a left turn off the main thoroughfare.  Buying my ticket, I’d glimpse the numbers ticketing by on the tv screen overhead, heeding the trains labeled “express,” not to be caught unmistakedly on the “local” train; that would be quite un-New York of me, to take more time than necessary.  Frosty breaths and those long, business coats floated on the platform.  Although surrounded by other people, we are cordial yet distant.  There is a rare myth that public transit somehow unites people of disparate backgrounds, but it does no such thing; it, like the sidewalk above, is simply another part of the city we share, one item in a long list of them.  There are always people about, but the city has its districts that are quiet and slower, or louder and fast.  You can, at the right time, be one of only a few walking down a particular block.

Its a glamorous life of energy but it also has hidden challenges.  Space, the bountiful of the countryside, becomes parsed, segregated, separated, and owned in the city.  The space of a washing machine, of which no one in the Midwest would question, becomes a luxury in the city of New York. It makes more sense to pile them up, one on top of each other, side by side, in a corner washing store down the street, of which space and economy become complementary.  If one could get a washing machine, how would one transport it, especially without a car?  Delivered to your work place, you could bring it home with you, piece by piece on the subway, – the lid under one arm and the buttons in another hand –  and reconstruct it for use. But then you’ll need an exhaust vent for it…alas.  The city is a place for everyone yet for no one. It hardly bares a mark of any one person.

Antoine Picon: Architecture, Construction, and Technology

Antoine Picon delivered the best lecture of the past two and half years at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.  As a speaker, he hit on all the important tendencies within the profession, including the prioritization of surface, the fall of tectonics (or construction through parts) and the move towards inflection (an accent to space comprised of fluid rather than separate parts), and the creation of atmosphere and effects.  Part of his interest was in relating architecture now to history and the past, citing Koolhaas as one who deeply understood Modernism and was thus able to act in the present using knowledge of the past; this connection made him able to act.

In the history of construction, he spoke of the cultural dimension of technology; the choice of how to build and of what is not merely the act of the architect, but also reflects the culture of the architecture’s place; England embraced iron as being able to create organic form, while the French resisted this, instead assuming a more traditional vernacular gabled use of steel.  Historically, structure and material were not divorced, but were considered one and the same.  He is interested in reflecting on the return to this co-mingling or unification.  He also spoke of the time required to divorce an architectural object from either a material or structural classification; it took nearly three decades for reinforced concrete to be perceived as a material, rather than only a structure. In many ways, he viewed the current trends towards deconstructivist architecture as one that exposes and misconstrues material and structures.

 

 

He also believed that architecture had a link with the way we experience our own bodies, and that it was construction, that allowed us this introspection.

Of particular interest was his exposing of the question of structure as truth or lie.  Louis Kahn would advocate for a truth to materials, and avoidance of “hollow” columns; Paul Rudolph would use false columns.  Similarly, the Wainwright Building used false columns to greater emphasize the structure; “the best way to be faithful is to lie” said Antoine Picon.

In one of his most provocative statements, he stated that the Parthenon as a model for architecture was dead; the idea of a pure structure, one that held the fascination of modernism, is no longer a valid model in the 21st century.  This is partly in response to the greater complexity of architecture, in which new systems erode the clarity of structure and space.  There exists no longer any stable tectonic principles, which he believed is not necessarily an ideal situation.  He believes that architecture needs to reconnect with memory and history and create a new tectonic narrative; this is what my thesis will take on.

As a side note, although I had discussed the Parthenon as a model of column architecture, I had avoided pictures of it or referencing it in my essay.  In retrospect, I believe it to be my unconscious awareness that, as a model, the Parthenon eroded my own argument or search for progress.

Build it and/or Make it

Construction:

The last few weeks I have attended a great variety of guest speakers, which have given me particular great insights into the workings of the architecture and engineering disciplines.  The first speaker, Mr. Teare explained his role on the Ross School of Business.  He served as a third party consultant, the Architect’s Field Representative,  to the architecture team.  As a third party, he helped enforce the stringent construction documents developed by the New York City firm.  This relationship was particularly interesting because the typical animosity that sometimes exists between contractors and on-site architects was nearly eliminated.  In this case, as a third party, he felt more able to enforce the construction documents and work collaboratively with the contractors.  Furthermore, he did not have the legal fear of “instructing a contractor as to mean s or methods,” which have been explicitly given up by architects in their contracts.  As one who had intimate familiarity with the plans, he became a resource to the contractors and a source for asking questions before rather than later, preventing unnecessary re-work.  It became particularly important to have clearly defined responsibilities and legal abilities.  He would go through the necessary CM channels, avoiding speaking with subs directly, but rather their bosses.

My meeting this morning with Mr. Owen proved particularly interesting.  He emphasized the importance of the architect in creating construction documents that help contractors build; if the  architect had mentally “constructed” the project, he felt that this became evident in the plans, which became a resource for helping one build.  He also emphasized the root nature of the job of project managers; to take complex information and break it into smaller parts, that can reduce the higher level thinking to lower levels.  One great example of this was his boss, who drew in chalk all the doors, door swings, and walls of a complex floor plan, thus eliminating some of the thinking and ensuring a better end product. Similarly to O’Neal from the night before, he emphasized the importance of getting work put in place, which really becomes the fundamental goal of both architects and engineers.  From his experience, he believed that the contract structure – whether traditional (design-bid-build, joint venture, or CM) – did not drastically change how one built a building; rather the process was relatively the same only a few things changed in terms of formalities.  In terms of career choices, he was particularly enlightening in his experience of working both with architects and engineers.  He emphasized that starting in the construction side would give me field experience and allow for a switch to architecture later one, while a switch from architecture to engineer or construction would be nearly impossible later on.   He also emphasized the importance of his MBA in helping him navigate the financial aspects of projects, which often drive projects.  As a company, the contractor often holds the contract because they hold the bulk of the contract dollars, while the architectural fee may only amount to 10%, the other 90% is wrapped up in the actual construction. From my conversation, I have become particularly interested in working for a construction company constructing a building designed by a high end starchitect; which would be particularly valuable as a person aiming to design to that quality of work.

In regards to construction strategy, locating in places where their are capitols and major universities was part of the strategic plan of the company, as they are not as susceptible to economic downturns or tax incentives.

A particularly recurring theme is the need to see a project from start of construction to the end; this provides one with the fundamental exposure to all aspects of a building that needs to be designed and constructed.

Architecture:

In terms of architecture, I idea of putting work in place, has been taking on its own terminology within architecture, termed “making.”   Architect’s interest in making physical objects is a result of a period of paper architecture, in which the drawing and rendering had served to communicate the majority of the project intent.  With the rise of the digital, the drawing has to some degree become both easier and more misleading, making the physical construction both more intriguing and more conducive to investigation.  Of particular interest recently was the Whither Installation, which brought together a group of both architectural educators and architectural makers to discuss this prevailing trend within the architectural field.  Chair John McMurrough has interestingly placed the pedagogy of the school in the context of the “speculative and the real,” which has become embodied in the list of speakers and conference attendees he has consciously, and well done so, curated to form the atmosphere of Taubman College.  Particularly interesting is the rise of the “Experts in Studio Series,” which brings in outside experts in the field of architecture to engage students in intensive one week workshops regarding a particular position to architecture.  Last semester saw the arrival of Alexander D’Hooghe, who placed architecture at the intersection of big box and infrastructure, being both real and speculative simultaneously.  Dan Wood, this semester’s visiting critique, takes this even further, with an explicit agenda to be “engaged int eh envisioning the future,” in a positive and forward looking, particularly at a larger scale than that of the building.  This is partly a reaction to an attempt to broaden and expand the work of the architect at the edges of the profession.  This strategy was termed “architecture and,” which aimed to align architecture with other foci, such as technology and teaching.  His ending note was particularly intriguing in his concern for the addressing the question of the architect’s role, due to critiques of their work not being “architecture” because it is too political or too diagrammatic.  

The best example of this simultaneity, however, is Robert Somol, whose proposals for cartoon urbanism, custom massification, among other architectural theories, presented architecture as both creating real buildings while at the same time reconsidering the stances of the profession and the possiblities of architecture.  Last night, we heard from Paul Lewis of LTL architects, who explained their firm’s investigations as encompassing speculative work, installations, building, and interiors.  Their particular firm approach focused on these five points; “Catalyze Constraints” – use limitations to advantage, “Invention Sprawl” – invent at all scales of the project, “Multivalent Performance,”  “Social Intensification” – achieved through human density and choreography, and “Architecture does not equal money”, as in the quality of the architecture is based more on creativity than on a high price tag.

The End of Small Models

The Whither Installation conference was held today at Taubman College at the University of Michigan.  The conference focused on the affects installations by architects have had on both pedagogy and on practice.  Eric Hulman, Katie Balliet, and Chris Romano all presented during the pedagogy portion of this session.  Chris Romano presented his “Living Wall”  studio project.  This entailed groups of six to eight students designing a inhabitable installation that required both sitting and sleeping spaces.  It required students to understand basic structures, detailing, waterproofing, transportation, and material quantities; seems like a perfect integration between architecture, engineering, and construction.

Kristy Balliet presented a talk called “Dog sized models,” which required students to build 3 to 6 foot models.  Her particular projects were interesting in that they focused on topics germane to my own research, that of weightlessness and column architecture.  Her students particular projects involved creating a space station, in which the ground floor and the walls became intertwined in a radial plan (gravity no longer vertical).  Another project was a terminal, which required the use of columns to  provide wayfinding and orientation.   Kristy particularly focused on teaching students to be “explicit;”  a reaction, I believe, to the proliferation of new ways of making and the lack of surety in what projects architects are to focus on.  There is no longer an over arching mission of method, as there had existed in modernism.

Eric Hulman’s projects touched on a few of my own concerns, particularly how the architectural installation manifests it in architecture work.  He was particularly adamant about not “becoming installation specialists.

Installations do have many benefits to the profession, but there particular focus on material affect, rather than structure, which indeed is the backbone and essence of architecture, is particularly troubling; architects continue to surrender true building to the contractor and construction manager; only when architects learn again how to build will they be able to regain their influence in actual building, and not simply the installation.

Meeting

Recently, I met with my Michigan mentor through the local AIA chapter here.  To recap the meeting/dinner, Mr. Owen and I spoke about architecture and construction.  He has worked on both sides of this effort, which makes him a great person to speak with.  One of his primary concerns with the architecture profession is its unwillingness to take on risk or liability.  This is reflected in the contract language, particularly in the cost estimates section where “opinion of probably cost” is used instead of “estimate of probable cost.”  He expressed concern that because cost drives business  decisions, and architects are typically not good at cost estimating, their credibility suffers in the professional arena.  Although he believes an architects training and eye for detail makes him more skillful than many of his competitors – including construction managers, contractors, etc – the unwillingness to take on liability will continue to plague the profession’s respect within design and construction industry.   Other professions will continue to fill in the gap where architects are not willing to take on liability.   The most vocal architect in support of this is SHoP, but it is good to hear this reinforced from local experience.  Above all, the emphasis on having a wide, breadth of experience seemed most attractive to Owen, who was able to lead teams of both designer and engineers because of much of his experience.

Percentage of the Profession

Over Thanksgiving, I recently had a discussion with my uncle, Brian Clements, who is an architect in Bowling Green, Kentucky.   An interesting question was asked about what the focus of TCAUP at University of Michigan was. I responded with these segments:  Systems/Infrastructural thinking, 40%, Urbanism/Urban Design, 15%, Making 30%, Typology/Exclusive Building Design 15%.   I questioned the emphasis on systems thinking, as it at times seems far from architecture/buildings.  Brian’s response, however, expressed a concern about the commodification of architecture, such as corporations using standardized models for their buildings.  In this sense, the architect was  no longer looked to for a unique building because a more standard model was used.  He described the essence of the architect as being able to bring diverse systems together for a more unified and performative whole, which I also agreed upon.  The profession today is evaluating whether it should be about construction and buildings or if architects become “architects” of other systems, such as infrastructure, landscapes, environmental, and social processes.   For the time being, I am focused on understanding the architect’s traditional roles of building design and construction.

 

In my other experiences, I have learned the challenges of group work and collaboration.  Keeping a full six people occupied is a challenging task, and it makes me more conscious of how leading a company or group of individuals would be like.  Of particular importance is the ability to make decisions, based on intuition, that lead projects down towards successful paths.  Intuition is absolutely necessary to save time and money; experience, although helpful, many times is not owned by the person undertaking the task.

Also, of particular interest, is a pedagogical shift from “tell me how its works” to “show me how it works.”  This shift has been brought about by drastically improved means of making and visualizing.  Abstract ideas about light, material, and effect can be manifest in a physical prototype model using the CNC router or a 3D printer.  This changes dramatically the way an architect works and interacts with clients. In the future, architecture may again return to the model for a tactile, more visually informative experience than the drawing, which, although powerful, embodies many abstractions; physical modeling allows these to be vetted and tested in real form.  There also exists a joy  in making actual physical things that frees one from abstraction and promotes a tangible understanding.

 

 

Robert Somol Lecture

As an introduction to Robert Somol, John McMurrough admired him for his “clarity” and “originality” and what I would call John’s third point as doggedness, his picking of sides and being loyal to his supporters and fierce to his enemies.

Most of the lecture focused on pedagogy and the direction of the discipline.  To support his position, he spoke about the pedagogical leaps that have occurred every twenty years since the beginning of the 21st century, starting with the Bauhaus, Gropius moving to Harvard’s GSD, Aldo van Eyck’s twenty years at the AA, then Tschumi and Rem at GSD, and now, as he places it, University of Illinois Chicago in 2011.  The history of architecture follows this course of “History + Mathematics” “Discipline + Events” and “Animate Form,” each respectively at different twenty year periods of the twenty first century.

The old school is characterized by “cool, artificial and intensive” while the new school is “hot, naturalist, and kit of parts.” The most poignant example of this is made explicit through his observation of legos, which used to be building blocks that could be reconfigured to endless possibilities, while new legos, which are a kit of parts,  have pre-determiend outcomes.

His interest in promoting a pedagogy is to invest within the disciplines limits, which has been a struggle in the 21st century as architects look towards new ways to operate.  His critique of the discipline is that it has been reduced to metrics.  The “fashion of politics” is LEED AP versus the idea of “constructing an audience” as Alex McQueen would promote.

At first his example seems quite undisciplined, the idea of “plastic politics” or a “cartoon urbanism,” but in reality, it is a very good critique of ways to operate. The idea of a “cartoon urbanism” is the thought that an object needs to have definition but that it has a blurring quality to its edge.

He was against the thematization of a school, and in combating this, I believe he uses his five pedagocial foci to deter any type casting of his institution. He sited examples of “sustainabilIITy. Sustainability + IIT.  His critique is spot on.  Community is boring and sustainability is too.

One of his better points was the idea of less “ity” and more “ism,”  as stating you are part of an “ism” what world do you occupy?

Pervasive Precision, metric certitude to the imaginable.
Novel Repetition (transformation of Eisenman’s house with curve)
Organized Surprise (program/lifestyle – individual/collective)
Denatured Environments
Plastic Politics – why do we always assume tax codes, etc, are given?

His last words, in response to a student question was, “Which way is the commute?”  This means which participant in the relationship are you favoring?

Speech act = give linguistic assertion status of alternative worlds.  Words becomes sticks and stones.

Other notes:
“I don’t want to become more of me”  object as index.
Green dot – sign with a performative function for Toronto.
Laughter?

Architecture of Autocracy

Today we discussed the article “Architecture of Autocracy.”  In the discussion group were three Americans, a Korean, and about nine Chinese students.  Much of the discussion centered around whether is was ethical for Western architects to accept commissions in places of totalitarian or communist governments.  One American advocated that architects, especially those in the category of “starchitects” could elevate this into a discussion within the design profession by rejecting a project or denying further work on project that is halfway complete.  Others countered, saying that these types of places provide an opportunity to educate a government about proper means of public input and democratic process.  Why should the people of a city be denied modern architecture simply because the government is authoritarian? Some of the Chinese students felt that Western architecture provided a higher standard and an influential, positive presence on the city.  Other Chinese students believed that too many people’s input would slow down the process; how was it even possible to have people come to a single consensus?  One thought a survey structure would provide for input while not allowing “everyone single person” to be listened to.   More thoughts coming later…