by Zach Mortice
If I peek my head, furtively, meerkat-like, over my cube at AIA national headquarters in Washington, I can catch a glimpse of the Robert Mill’s Washington Monument and William Thornton’s Octagon building architecture museum. In some ways, it’s a representative view of Washington: a monument and a museum, both very old and laden with history. Washington has traditionally resisted Modernism, and architecture here is often broad and historical. Perhaps the city’s best know contemporary Modernist buildings are Smithsonian museums—I.M. Pei’s East Building of the National Gallery of Art, Gyo Obata’s National Air and Space Museum, and Gordon Bunshaft’s Hirshhorn Museum. They were all built in the 1970s.
Certainly, there are exceptions to this. The Shakespeare Theater Company’s Sidney Harman Hall is one. The National Museum of the American Indian is establishing itself as well-loved addition to the National Mall—a building that succinctly telegraphs its function and purpose with grace from hundreds of yards away. The new Foster and Partners courtyard at the National Portrait Gallery is amazing, but its success largely rests with how it interacts with a 170-year-old building. My story about Suman Sorg’s new condos took me into a neighborhood where contemporary Modernism is crowding out traditional forms.
But, by and large, the city is still waiting for a sharp, brash contemporary icon that demands attention to come along—what Gehry’s addition to the Corcoran should have been—what the Moshe Safdie National Health Museum could be.
And if such a building doesn’t come along soon enough, the reasons might be discerned in Washington’s history as a rigidly planned endeavor. Few cities (with the exceptions of Oscar Niemeyer’s city-block-scaled masterwork of Brasilia or the Modern fantasia of Columbus, Ind.) can say that like Washington. They were scripted and zoned before they even existed. Here, the severe height restrictions keep the skyscrapers in the suburbs, and every other block is part of a protected historic district. But you know what does work really well in this situation? Sumptuous and grand Neo-Classical restorations. And here they are. Governmental clients aren’t typically interested in adventurous designs either, though Thom Mayne, FAIA, is proving it can be done.
So it’s not a surprise that the places in Washington that are seeing the most growth in contemporary architecture are places where gentrification has been pushing organic demographic changes for years. Washingtonians aren’t afraid of Modernism, they’re just often not given the option.
Especially in the context of the recent museum building boom, other less culturally favored cities have been given this option. Denver has had two important museum openings since 2006, one by Daniel Libeskind, AIA. Zaha Hadid, Hon. FAIA, built her first building in the United States in Cincinnati. Minneapolis stands out for its 2005 addition to the Walker Art Center and the renovation of the Guthrie Theater.
Is this a matter of such cities “reaching beyond their contexts” to bring home architecture they’re not expected to “deserve”? If so, does Washington have to do the same? Then what about your town?
Comments (8)
While I usually agree with things that you write, I'm afraid I can't do so with this article.
The last thing Washington needs is a building designed by Zaha Hadid. Millions of ordinary citizens come to Washington every year to see the Nation's Capitol and to experience the pride they have in being part of such a nation. Special buildings, designed by Starchitects might please some architects, but they would be seen as warts on the face of a great place by most people. We are not born with brain's that are formed to respond to ego-centric concepts of a small group of advocates.
Posted by John Eberhard, FAIA | January 24, 2008 3:13 PM
Posted on January 24, 2008 15:13
If Mortice thinks DC needs more modern architecture, he should visit Alexandria, VA where phoney colony abounds. Some seem to forget that what we consider historic was once modern.
Posted by Kathryn Prigmore, FAIA | January 25, 2008 8:27 AM
Posted on January 25, 2008 08:27
Of course Mortice thinks DC needs more modern architecture. Is there a single architectural writer or architect educated since 1980 that doesn't think that more modern architecture is needed everywhere, regardless of climate, culture or context?
Posted by Mark Vinson, AIA | January 25, 2008 9:57 AM
Posted on January 25, 2008 09:57
Yawn . . .
Posted by Michael Adams | January 25, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted on January 25, 2008 12:01
I'm from Cincinnati - it's not a town that has seen a lot of growth (beyond the Univ. of Cincinnati campus) that is "architecturally significant.
The whole idea that you need the latest hot designer or a certain type of building to make your city better than all others is misguided. Communities grow organically - if you try to take them too far out of their natural state - you destroy them.
Posted by Don | January 25, 2008 3:28 PM
Posted on January 25, 2008 15:28
GAG !!
I have been to D.C.& in the aggregate the cities architectural character was given form by the automobile and short term speculative building interests. The city is worth saving. I agree with the idea that we need improvement. No building should be built from this point forward that does nothing to heal the city.
Posted by Terry L. WAlker, AIA | January 26, 2008 3:26 AM
Posted on January 26, 2008 03:26
First distinguish between MODERN, which can be defined as having characteristics of the present day, and MODERNISM, which is a specific, largely academic repertoire of stylistic devises developed on some rather shaky premises nearly a century ago.
Then ask why we have to suffer endless media hype about the inevitability of one artificially reanimated stylistic trend in a world of numerous rich alternatives, and one senses a certain hysterical fear of individual choice.
To which I would respectfully observe that Washington--not just its monumental core but its neighborhoods as well---is one of the most humane and loveable cities in the country in part because the longer view has often resisted short-lived trends.
Posted by David Gregory Cornelius AIA PE | January 26, 2008 3:59 PM
Posted on January 26, 2008 15:59
I work in San Francisco, where 19th Century architecture has defined the urban context for as long as I can remember.
Only recently has San Francisco "reached beyond their context" as you put it. Two recently completed projects, Thom Mayne's Federal Building and Herzog & DeMeron's De Yong Muesum are sending shockwaves through not only the architectural community but the general public as well. In addition, Renzo Piano's California Academy of Sciences is nearing completion and Cesar Pelli won the Transbay Terminal design competition which will include the tallest tower on the west coast.
People are talking about architecture again and there is palpable excitement about the general direction of the physical form of the City.
Is it necessary for cities to reach beyond their context to stay vibrant? I think it depends on what scale you are talking about. On a local scale, San Francisco's 19th Century urban context has created dense, vibrant and livable environments based on localized distinct neighborhoods. But on the larger scale of city identity, modern architecture can play a vital role in helping create civic pride. Taking risks, architecturally speaking, creates civic dialog about what is good or bad architecture...That is all we can ask for.
Posted by Chris Remedios AIA | February 15, 2008 7:32 PM
Posted on February 15, 2008 19:32