Not long before I left Portland in August, I witnessed a neighborhood
meeting regarding an innovative, oops, progressive AIA-sponsored program
to design and build a duplex, a series of rowhouses and some courtyard
apartments in older city neighborhood, the idea being to create
potentially prototypes for higher density housing. The jury included
architects, builders and neighborhood reps. The winners were all "modern"
designs, meaning some use of non-traditional materials, somewhat stark
and roofs that were either flat or, in one case, shed-style.
The neighborhood was a virtual catalog of builders' plans of the last 70
years from elegant "old Portland style" the worst sort of '60s schlock,
with more on the way. Indeed, the only thing that would actually be
CONTEXTUAL in this hodgepodge would have to be modern, maybe even a
little decon inflected.
Well, the architects made their presentation to the neighborhood, the
shed-roofed, non-orthagonal duplex destined to hit rough waters. The
latter design's architect made a persuasive case for his work, most of
which was driven by a desire to increase natural light and the feeling of
vertical space and to reflect the site which bridged a warehouse district
and the residential neighborhood.
One by one, the neighborhood folks stood up and stated their support for
his ideas and their respect for his sensitivity to sustainability issues.
And, one by one, each asked, "But can't you do all of that AND put a
pitched roof on it?"
My apologies to those Portlanders who know how much I've shorthanded this
story, but this was the gist. The path of formal innovation is so lonely
and seldom rewarded with a tangible destination, we should toast anyone
getting anything radical built... and then, of course, criticize the hell
out of them if deserved. But the sometimes weary skepticism and sometimes
open hostility toward things like Tschumi's paradigm surfing Columbia or
Sci-Arch's (methinks I misspelled that but oh well) ad copy seems a bit
like armchair quarterbacking a dungeons and dragons game.
randy gragg
On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, David Sucher wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, Randy Albert Gragg wrote:
>
> > MY point is that innovative materials necessitate innovative forms, else
> > we may have a dog and tail wagging problem. I worry about the tacit
> > nostalgia in terms like traditional, with or without the neo-.
>
> As I drive the largely ugly suburbs I wonder what happened. I look around
> Seattle and ordinary little neighborhood commercial buildings from the
> early part of this century are charming, composed (in the sense of calm)
> and generally pleasant.
>
> I see post WW2 buildings in the suburbs built by no less intelligent and
> profit-oriented developers and they nearly all make me depressed.
>
> Why?
>
> One of the common-denominators of the uglies is (it seems) the use of
> 'innovative' materials from after WW2: concrete-block, aluminum siding,
> aluminum sliders, plastics of all kind, etc. etc.
>
> My THEORY is this: The majority of buildings in almost every culture are
> not designed by architects. With the older materials--not even remotely
> 'innovative'--the culture of building had learned how to use them over
> generations and so the mistakes are fewer. But we have had not had the
> time with these new materials. Of course gifted architects---I work with
> one myself and admire his sensibility with harsh, industrial
> materials--can use these innovations with aplomb. But the rank and file
> architect---much less the untutored builder--hasn't the foggiest idea how
> to use their innate properties.
>
> So one of the dangers---I like a little melodrama---of innovative
> materials is that the 'how to use them' has not been developed.
>
> Certainly, substitute fiberglass shingles for asphalt or plywood (yes it
> was a great innovation at one time) for boards, but don't do it to be the
> first one on the block to do so. Do it because it works better.
>
> Didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't try new things. :-)
>
> David Sucher
>
meeting regarding an innovative, oops, progressive AIA-sponsored program
to design and build a duplex, a series of rowhouses and some courtyard
apartments in older city neighborhood, the idea being to create
potentially prototypes for higher density housing. The jury included
architects, builders and neighborhood reps. The winners were all "modern"
designs, meaning some use of non-traditional materials, somewhat stark
and roofs that were either flat or, in one case, shed-style.
The neighborhood was a virtual catalog of builders' plans of the last 70
years from elegant "old Portland style" the worst sort of '60s schlock,
with more on the way. Indeed, the only thing that would actually be
CONTEXTUAL in this hodgepodge would have to be modern, maybe even a
little decon inflected.
Well, the architects made their presentation to the neighborhood, the
shed-roofed, non-orthagonal duplex destined to hit rough waters. The
latter design's architect made a persuasive case for his work, most of
which was driven by a desire to increase natural light and the feeling of
vertical space and to reflect the site which bridged a warehouse district
and the residential neighborhood.
One by one, the neighborhood folks stood up and stated their support for
his ideas and their respect for his sensitivity to sustainability issues.
And, one by one, each asked, "But can't you do all of that AND put a
pitched roof on it?"
My apologies to those Portlanders who know how much I've shorthanded this
story, but this was the gist. The path of formal innovation is so lonely
and seldom rewarded with a tangible destination, we should toast anyone
getting anything radical built... and then, of course, criticize the hell
out of them if deserved. But the sometimes weary skepticism and sometimes
open hostility toward things like Tschumi's paradigm surfing Columbia or
Sci-Arch's (methinks I misspelled that but oh well) ad copy seems a bit
like armchair quarterbacking a dungeons and dragons game.
randy gragg
On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, David Sucher wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, Randy Albert Gragg wrote:
>
> > MY point is that innovative materials necessitate innovative forms, else
> > we may have a dog and tail wagging problem. I worry about the tacit
> > nostalgia in terms like traditional, with or without the neo-.
>
> As I drive the largely ugly suburbs I wonder what happened. I look around
> Seattle and ordinary little neighborhood commercial buildings from the
> early part of this century are charming, composed (in the sense of calm)
> and generally pleasant.
>
> I see post WW2 buildings in the suburbs built by no less intelligent and
> profit-oriented developers and they nearly all make me depressed.
>
> Why?
>
> One of the common-denominators of the uglies is (it seems) the use of
> 'innovative' materials from after WW2: concrete-block, aluminum siding,
> aluminum sliders, plastics of all kind, etc. etc.
>
> My THEORY is this: The majority of buildings in almost every culture are
> not designed by architects. With the older materials--not even remotely
> 'innovative'--the culture of building had learned how to use them over
> generations and so the mistakes are fewer. But we have had not had the
> time with these new materials. Of course gifted architects---I work with
> one myself and admire his sensibility with harsh, industrial
> materials--can use these innovations with aplomb. But the rank and file
> architect---much less the untutored builder--hasn't the foggiest idea how
> to use their innate properties.
>
> So one of the dangers---I like a little melodrama---of innovative
> materials is that the 'how to use them' has not been developed.
>
> Certainly, substitute fiberglass shingles for asphalt or plywood (yes it
> was a great innovation at one time) for boards, but don't do it to be the
> first one on the block to do so. Do it because it works better.
>
> Didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't try new things. :-)
>
> David Sucher
>