you know it when you see it

[…]

i think it’s interesting how few experiences we have with architecture in our week-to-week existence. even in new york where it seems like we should have a number of opportunities for these experiences, they become limited by how we spend our time. if architecture doesn’t make an impact where you live or where you work, then all you are left with is how you get back and forth between the two. i have been asking people where they experience architecture in their daily lives and interestingly, i’ve found that their daily commute is a big part of it. i guess unless you’re not wandering the city like a tourist, then your commute becomes one of the only opportunities you have to find architecture during your day.

if i was thinking about this ten years ago, when i lived in new york, i guess i would talk about the world trade center because i liked the idea that they made two. to build two versions of the same building doesn’t make sense, but they did. it always seemed comic to me in every sense of the word. i guess it’s because of their visibility and scale, but the world trade center almost forces a constant interaction, although perhaps not as modest an interaction as you were looking for.

i don’t agree that it doesn’t make sense. i think the world trade center was in many ways a utilitarian building. the relationship that i have with the ‘telephone building’ is probably similar to the relationship that you have with the world trade center. it’s mostly about visibility. because of its visibility the world trade center was able to appear in multiple contexts all over the city, a visibility further facilitated by the fact that there were two towers. i wonder if the freedom tower will have the same effect.

being in new york now, the empire state building has replaced the world trade center in my experience of architecture. it’s another huge, highly visible building. i was even able to see it out of the bedroom window of an apartment i was staying at in brooklyn. los angeles doesn’t have buildings like that, so maybe it’s just that i have a thing for skyscrapers. city hall in la is certainly a wild building, but i like the idea that a building can exist in the collective psyche of everyone in a city. as you move around the city, skyscrapers are constantly visible, which means that a building doesn’t have to physically exist between a persons home and their work to be a part of their everyday architectural experience. i think it’s an important exception.

this kind of architecture without “value of qualities,” is, if anything, a fact. from this “undistinguished” run of architecture, as flavin calls it, we gain a clear perception of physical reality free from the general claims of “purity and idealism.” only commodities can ford such illusionist values; for instance, soap is 99–100% pure, beer has more spirit in it, and dog food is ideal; all and all this mean such values are worthless. as the cloying effect of such “values” wears off, one perceives the “facts” of the outer edge, the flat surface, the banal, the empty, the cool, bland after blank; in other words, that infinitesimal condition known as entropy.

[…]

does something have to be permanent to be architecture?

i wasn’t making the distinction that a structure has to last ten years to be architecture, but i think it’s important to examine the qualities that create a continued interest in a building after it’s ten years old.

which is a disqualification of the temporary.

it’s not a disqualification, just a separate topic for discussion. there are amazing temporary structures, but i don’t know whether or not they are architecture, and i don’t think they are significant in the context of this discussion. there are a number of new buildings that generate a lot of excitement and interest, but i don’t want to talk about something that’s only going to be interesting in the short term.

look closely at them; look upwards; look for the name of the architect, the name of the contractor, the date when it was built; ask yourself why if often says ‘gas on every floor’; in the case of a new building, try to remember what was there before; etc.

i’m not an architect so maybe this is naive, but i didn’t know that permanence was a part of architectural inspiration. is an interest in longevity an accepted idea in architectural practice or is it that simply an assumption.

historically permanence has been an important part of architectural practice, but i think there’s been a shift in recent years. the proliferation of high profile installations has generated incredible amount of public interest not to mention enormous funding.

but i think those examples speak to a central issue in trying to find architecture. those same big names are also designing buildings, however the interest in these permanent structures may be as ephemeral as the interest in the temporary installations. everyone is going to have their own answer to the question, but i think that an architect has a responsibility when designing a building that is not required when designing something that isn’t meant to last. a building requires a large investment, so the building doesn’t really begin to pay off until after the loan has been repaid and the financial pressure is relieved. architecture is something that becomes valuable over a longer period of time.

so architectural value is located in financial value? what about use-value?

but use-value is related to the cost. in the the death and life of great american cities, jane jacobs talks about how a mix of old and new buildings is important to a city’s vitality because the old buildings have lived through their economic obligation and can therefore support interesting uses when they are no longer required to generate profit. in my personal experience, i have found that the immediate impact of architecture caters to a very small public. over time, architecture has the opportunity have a bigger impact. value is located where architecture still exists after it has fulfilled its initial purpose.

i don’t think that most architects think about aging when conceiving a building or defining architecture or defining a program for a specific group of users. there is something that you are aware of when you are choosing materials and developing a relationship to the city or a site. sometimes it is discussed in terms of how the perception of a building will shift in a neighborhood over time, but i wouldn’t say that it is something that occurs latently. in the last 100 years, the materials that have been used are not as durable as materials that were used 300 years ago, and with this shift, architects no longer consider the lifespan of buildings.

so the fundamental distinction between these projects is an awareness of the end result. with an installation, an architect is aware of the end even during the conception. an installation may be deployed in multiple places, but with each deployment we know that it will leave and we know when it will leave. we are defining something as temporary by knowing when it will end, but all architecture is temporary. there are no permanent buildings.

i suppose i can at least partially understand these ideas, but if i was trying to find architecture, that is not how i would look for it. i would look for people who call themselves architects. if someone calls him/herself an architect, then aren’t they are making architecture?

to stand for the importance of things we don’t understand is to stand for an active and reactive pursuit of knowledge. to favour the curious mind over the informed one is to make room for experimentation and risk-taking. to stop the path of information is to reject the passive consumer and to require, instead, an active engagement of a motivated and implicated audience of participants.

there is a historical distinction between building and architecture.

i’m looking for exemplary architecture. if i’m putting a lot of time into designing a building that will only be considered good for five or ten years, i don’t think i feel particularly satisfied.

we are talking about buildings as objects, but when a building moves past its original use, the creative re-use is based in the dynamic interior rather than fixed exterior. there are a lot of architects in new york who deal exclusively with the re-evaluation and redesigning of building interiors, which are not always expected to last as long. so the majority of architects in new york are not designing for ten years down the road. we spend more time interacting with the interior of our home and offices than we do with the exterior architecture of most buildings. in terms of finding the daily architectural experience of the average new yorker, it deals with the more transient interiors than the large exterior surfaces we are talking about.

are you trying to find the objective experience of architecture, or a more human experience? when you say some architecture is bad, are you implying that it’s not really working for the people that are occupying that space, or is it for economic reasons? i’m fascinated by the construction of skyscrapers in dubai, and they fact that they are unoccupied and will probably remain that way most of the time. this doesn’t seem like proper architecture, but rather a form of fiscal investment. i knew an interior architect working on one of those buildings and while they put a lot of energy into the project, it doesn’t seem like it’s going be used.

for me it’s hard to qualify the architectural experience of buildings in dubai when the only interaction i have with them is through publication, which is often how we experience architecture. i’m not interested in that kind of experience, i’m interested in the exemplary architecture that we experience in our daily lives and that we want to see other people use.

so is this a question of individual experience, or are we looking for architecture that is universally accepted as exemplary? perhaps what is exemplary to me is only exemplary to me.

so architectural consensus?

if there isn’t consensus, is an individual opinion useful?

subjective examples allow us to identify the qualities that make architecture exemplary. as architects, we make decisions that shape buildings where we are not the intended users. architectural practice presumes a certain ability to generalize. a single example may speak to qualities that are found in other examples.

but exemplary architecture is not necessarily the same thing as good architecture. a building doesn’t have to be good to be an important part of the everyday experience of architecture. i would argue that the most notable buildings in my everyday experience are the housing projects i walk past on my way to and from work. they are exemplary because they represent a specific set of qualities that form a building typology that is almost omnipresent in the city. while i wouldn’t qualify them as an example of good architecture, they are also more than just buildings. there is a long history of design that led to the development of “the towers in the park” housing model, and at the time the model was developed, it was certainly considered architecture. so, while i think the vast majority of people would agree that the model is a failure of design, it nonetheless remains a staple of the architectural experience.

if we think of modernism as a struggle to make ourselves at home in a constantly changing world, we will realize that no one mode of modernism can ever be definitive. our most creative constructions and achievements are bound to turn into prisons and white sepulchers that we, or our children, will have to escape or transcend if life is to go on.

what is it about how you personally experience these buildings that make them so important in your everyday life? it’s interesting because i feel like i know exactly what you are talking about in general without knowing the specific qualities of your experience. i was walking through some of the public housing in my neighborhood yesterday, and while its flawed, it still has extraordinary qualities i would want to emulate in other buildings. perhaps that is what makes it exemplary.

[…]

i wonder how these buildings will be perceived in the future. what will people say about the examples we’ve discussed? perhaps the architectural failures of today will be more important than the successes because of the lesson they provide to architects and planners in the future. maybe it’s more important to know what not to do than what to do.

returning to the example of dubai, i may be taking an overly optimistic view, but it seems a lot like new york in the teens, twenties and thirties. who are we to criticize their skyscrapers when we live in the city that has provided the model for them? you’re provoking us to think beyond the current criticism. excluding the example of the koolhaas building burning down in china, those buildings are going to be there for the next century and someone is going to figure out a way to use them.

i don’t agree. i think we are living in the failures of our past and we are constantly struggling to correct them.

i don’t know. i can’t think of a building that i’ve approached and thought, “oh that’s really bad architecture”. maybe that’s because i’m not an architect. maybe you do that all the time, but usually i think, “oh wow, that’s an old building, and it’s still around” or just, “yeah, that’s a pretty old building”.

i was trying to determine a timeframe of use for finding buildings to consider. there should be a specific age where a building acquires certain qualities just by way of how long it’s been around that aren’t related to its architecture. there are certainly more interesting examples and less interesting examples.

like grandparents…

with quotes from robert smithson, georges perec, anthony huberman, and marshall berman.

the  public  school  (for  architecture)  new  york

common  circular  4  –  public  school  for  architecture  new york fall  2009