AIArchitect

He is not far off base on this issue because anyone in the business with a brain knows that far too many of these so-called "Starchitects" (who ever dreamed up that idiotic phrase) are nothing more than cheap Hype, and without the "hype machine" many of them would be considered foolish incompetents. I could comment on the crackpot instructors who push this garbage in too many architecture programs on simple minded students but that is another blog. How many ugly, yes plain ugly, ineffective buildings that are often constructionally flawed can we live with? This crap in question is often not in the same Universe as the elegance of van der Rohe or the timelessness of Eames. What we see today is crackpot creativity that has gone amuck, often these structures look like cartoons or exploded garbage cans - sorry, that isn't brilliant architecture. No matter how you "talk" it - much of it is simply "junk." What are people thinking? Or are they not thinking at all! He may be wrong on Wright, but on the core issue, he certainly receives an A+.

In general, I believe he has a valid point. There are far too many ostentatious "foreground" buildings and far too few excellent "background" buildings. The built environment - to be truly engaging and harmonious - must achieve a balance between the two, and the scales should tip toward a greater number of the latter.

However, every city needs a reasonable number of foreground buildings. They function best (most appropriately) when they embody important institutions that define the culture, advance civilization and provide meaningful landmarks in the cityscape. Think Paris.

Speaking of which, I can't fathom the gripe Silber has with the Louvre Pyramid. It provides much needed orientation space, natural light and relief from museum fatigue. As such, it functions beautifully. It also provides stunning focus to the court between the Richelieu and Denon wings and echoes other contemporary landmarks in Paris. Pei may be guilty of architectural absurdities (of this I am skeptical), but not here.

But, what Architect can really, honestly say that any of their designs does not have some aspect of their own personality inserted into it? For me, design is a personality trait, not a pure skill, and if I didn't "like" my own designs, I would never develop anything worth putting before any of my clients. That's not to say that any designer should be allowed free reign over any project. But that's more the realm of ethics and responsibility, not style and personal taste.

Always refreshing to read about someone from outside the architectural media/academic elite (you know, the ones in the black turtlenecks with the funny glasses) who is unafraid to point out the absurdity of much of what passes for "cutting edge" design. Usually the cutting edge is defined as who can produce the most outlandishly inappropriate form for a given client. What we should be publishing and honoring are designs that respond sensitively to site, context and program, that acknowledge (without mimicry) historic precedent and building traditions, and that seek ever higher levels of building performance. Regrettably, such projects are seldom seen in the slick magazines, including, I'm sorry to say, the AIA's own Architectural RECORD.

Just as all politics is local, local architecture and design can be so much more refreshing than the pages of our national publications. While local firms respond to the pragmatic concerns of program, context and climate, they can still offer a contemporary design identity. Those who hire "star" architects should not be so naive as to believe that pragmatism is at the top of everyone's agenda, or that a "star's" style can be universally imposed, or that ego is ever secondary. But if the client is seeking iconic design above all else, who is at fault? Silber's message is a tired one. The overwhelming majority of AIA members work locally and aren't faced with these dilemmas. We go to great lengths to provide outstanding service to our clients with an agreeable balance between pragmatism and inspiration. We have every interest in seeing that today's client is also tomorrow's. Hopefully someday Mr. Silber can meet some of our more down-to-earth - and very talented - members and get a better representation of the profession.

Architecture is a sport in which style points mean a lot. As all architects can attest; the vast majority of architectural commissions do not come with clients or budgets to really get wild. As a result, a lot of architecture is inflicted with the doo-dad of the moment in an effort to get minor style points.

Most famous buildings are "high style" explorations of form and decoration, some of which are contextural and some of which are not, such as Falling Water, the TWA terminal at JFK and the Chrysler building.

When given the opportunity and budget, most architects will go for a "cool" design, while trying to be contextural as well, and the professional journals feed this practice by generally only publishing "cool" buildings.

Recently, some architects have really gone wild (and absurd) in their quest for style points, resulting in deconstructivist nonsense and squashed / exploded aluminum cans for buildings. It is up to clients and other architects to dissent against what they consider bad design, including design which creates buildings which are primarily sculptural vanity pieces.

Wretched excess, anyone?

What concise imagery Hegotit offers in his earlier blog, when he refers to Gehrys work as "exploded garbage cans".

Two architectural extremes present themselves in the Gehry Bilbao Museum, and the Mies addition to the Houston Museum of Fine Arts. To purge, and preserve your esthetic brain, please visit both.

In the latter you will easily encounter refinements that would soothe the esthetic damage done to any man, and in the former you are advised to visit at your own risk, and to not look directly up, least you become so disoriented that you would fall flat on your back.

One might simply ask if such abuse to sensibility is really architecture? Or is it really some sort of "fun house" technique, employed when the purity of esthetic sensibility was either absent in its entirety, or not the point at all.

It has been suggested that design approval, of such absurd designs,occurs as the result of a special form of "hypnotic artsy psycho babble" performed by a hypnotist, who himself is under the influence of a form of self hypnosis.

But, lets take a close look from another direction. Very little attention has been given to the inexplicable actions of the design approval committee person. Who upon awakening from hypnotic sleep, finds themselves impaled for life upon the miscreant esthetic scars they have just approved. Both the MASTER and the subjects, sleeply gaze at each other in hypnotic "artsy babble" stupor, oblivious to the truly gross effect of their negligence, while allowing the MASTER his errant conquest, at the immediate expense of the budgets both were asked to preserve.

And finally, please, please do not mention Gaudi in the same paragraph with XXXXX, least some sleepy eyed design committee person commissions him, with eyes wide open, to complete the Sagrada Familia. Stranger things, have obviously, already happened.

The Senate should be asked to consider a bill, which would amend the Federal Criminal Code, making ARCHITECTURAL MANSLAUGHTER, a criminal offense, and even more serious, if a dangerous weapon like "artsy psycho babble" were employed during the actual crime.

I am an architect. As such I am advisor to relatively untutored clients. Whose judgement should I rely on? What palette of experience, taste, and knowledge shall I offer? Shall I dip only into the grab bag of style and eclecticism? Maybe, if the client requests it; that, or reject the commission. Perhaps one produces a misshapen building by stretching aesthetics beyond the breaking point, but stretch we must, or stagnate. Most clients will not approve a design they don't like personally, or that they believe they cannot market to the public; in my experience, they are certainly not doormats to my genius. True, a horse designed by committee may be a camel, but that outcome is a shared responsibility. Average, or "background" buildings are the norm, after all. We need not fear the demise of banalty.

Silber shows that Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind et al, like the proverbial Emperor, are wearing no clothes. And THAT is an exceedingly ugly sight!! (Spare yourself and do not actually try to imagine Libeskind without clothes.)

Architecture is the design of space; decorating a facade is only relavent to the scale of the experience; otherwise immaterial to the architecture.

Building is objective; architecture is subjective.

I'm glad to see others express the feelings my colleagues and I have had many times when I see some of the ugly and impractical stuff that gets fawned over by the industry magazines and gets design awards. Many times it appears that they are doing it simply because they can and have gullible clients with too much money that are blinded by the celebrity of their architects.

As a project manager for the last 32 years for an Owner (government agency) after having worked for several years for local Architects, I have also had to listen to complaints from those that have to maintain these monuments to the designers. I have seen many times where expensive, sophisticated lighting and HVAC controls were disabled or disconnected because they were too complicated or unreliable. There have been problems with roof leaks in the fancy complicated roofs that resulted in mold and mildew and subsequent staff health issues and complaints from the public (and yes occasionly the news media get involved). We have had severe corrosion issues that resulted in legal action that also casts the profession in a bad light. We had another design winner that had mahogany window frames against our staff recommendations that rotted out in a few years. Looked great when it was new but not later.

We have had to spend millions of public dollars fixing these problems that should not have occurred in the first place and we have spent considerable time and resources in legal actions against both A/E firms and Contractors because of this.

Architectural Record and others should do a followup say 10, 20 or even 30 years down the road to see if these "buildings" are still standing and how much they still resemble the orginal design.

I would like to respond to a statement made by Gary Collins: I disagree with the suggestion that "background" buildings are necessarily "average" or banal. They can be, but not because they are "background" buildings per se. I think of Piazza San Marco in Venice. Clearly, St. Marks and its campanile are "foreground" buildings, and rightly so. But I challenge anyone to dismiss the other buildings that complete the square as "average" buildings, though they do function in the "background" role. They perfectly play their part, with fine detail and execution, and their arcades enhance the spatial quality of the square proper. Until we view the creation of quiet, appropriate - even exquisite - background buildings as an art in itself, we will continue to shout at each other with our attention-grabbing foreground buildings, and our cities will continue to suffer from the cacophony that passes as high design.

Until the business managers of the world develop skills integrating "Design" and "Business," they are doomed to suffer the tyrany of society's Star Architects, protected by their "rich" patriarchical client base who see these famous architects [mentioned but disdained] creating environmentally functional poetry in space. Those that have not brought projects to fruition that garnner enormous public attention should try to appreciate the human energy it takes to make "Design" a reality regardless of "style."

I believe this topic applies easily to most, if not all the arts. I don't have much agreement (or disagreement) with what was said to this point, but I am suggesting one possible contributer to the problem, as it is stated, "form meant to please one's self (or one's theoretician cronies) is architecturally irresponsible." Try substututing musically, artistically, or the work of current writers of the day for the term architecturally. I would like to suggest a contributer to this condition is the disconnect existing between the public and the professional in such cases. We have become viewers, watchers and bystanders to the works of others.

Ken Crocco's post elicits the following comment: It is true that in music, painting and literature there is a huge amount of self-pleasing, but none of those arts tax the public coffers to the same extent or have the same impact on every day life for so many people for so long a period of time as Architecture does. Accordingly, we have a civic duty to produce a built environment that's not only pleasing to us, but pleasing to the public, for a long time, and with an eye towards functionality and the long term costs, especially from a sustainability point of view.