architecture | selophane.blog

Kube Open House

I went to an open house a number of months ago for a new project by KUBE architecture. From the street, this Georgetown home, designed by Janet Bloomberg, seems to be yet another Georgian town house. When you open the door you find yourself transported to a modern space more at home in Los Angeles or manhattan than the 18th century streets of DC’s 2nd ward, yet the starck transition works. It sets you up for a series of well lit rooms that play with the modern trope of compression and release but manage to avoid the pitfall of hyper-glossy surfaces that are too often found in contemporary spaces. Instead Janet has chosen a muted palet of textural elements which alternate between the sheen of brushed metal, the warmth of rich wood veneers and the pleasantly imperfect nature of unglazed ceramics.

The house is anchored by a floating stair whose verticality is emphasized by a curtain of steel cables running from the ground floor to the second story. While an interesting architectural element, the steel cables at times present a bit of a challenge in visual and physical comfort. When I visited the house was very crowded, the steel cables made the narrow kitchen passage feel even tighter. While a wall would have made the situation even worse, an open void may have made this space not nearly as tight. Then again, in a day to day mode, this would never be an issue.

Light plays a big part of this house, Light is brought in through a skylight in the center of the house. Part of it is captured in the bathrooms through the use of a glass baseboard along the bathroom walls to allow subtle lighting in while still maintaining privacy. It should be noted that privacy is also an essential element for the master bathroom whose door is hidden in plain sight amongst the wall panels of the Master Bedroom. Light then filters through the stair cables and into the kitchen and is supplemented by a slim window along the south kitchen wall. The kitchen itself was an interesting mix of two wood tones, stainless steel counter-tops with an integral sink and a bright orange frosted a transparent polymer island top. Finally light filters through a glass panel under the stairs into the large finished basement with a bathroom. This space is nicely lit and could easily be adapted as an extra bedroom or as a guest suite.

The rear wall was a NanaWall like system; when opened it complete disappeared allowing the small rear yard to flow into the house as one living space. Combine this with the mostly concrete back yard and you have a space that easily could be an extension of the living room. The cast concrete backyard has a poetic 3 square feet of grass, which is just large enough to be noticeable, but small enough to be ironic. If there is anywhere where I felt things could be improved it would have to be the rear yard; while I get the statement that is being presented here, I would have loved to see a tree or two worked into the backyard, it felt like a missed opportunity.

Heaven in 3 and half rooms

In Fall of 2009 I went on a trip to Deep Creek Lake, Maryland with some friends. While I was out there I took the opportunity to visit both Falling Water and Kentuck Knob. They are about an hour away and part of the same tour system. While Falling Water may well be Frank Lloyd Wright’s most well known home, neither should be missed. Kentuck Knob is a great example of how a Usonian Home could be modified to suit the needs of a much wealthier client than the original target market. Furthermore, the house is built on a hexagon base unit which stands in full contrast to the rectangle used as the base for Falling Water.

When I returend to Northern Virignia I had the pleasure of touring a third Wright home, the Pope-Leighey House, a more traditional Usonian Home. While less well known, this house holds its own in any architectural arena. Compared to Kentuck Knob and Falling Water, this middle class home feels more garden folly than full time residence, but it is a great example of an early compact Modern compact home which manages to fit in the creature comforts in the smallest of spaces.

Which leads me to the general feeling I had about all three residences: how small and cave-like they felt. All of the spaces are characterized by tight control of light, generally short ceiling, and a lack of extraneous space. All three houses function in a completely different domestic paradigm than today’s residential housing stock. Wright’s signature styles of compression and release and geometric efficiency of space stood in sharp contrast to the contemporary residential style of orthographic expansion and redundancy. This is all part of the drama of his architecture. Falling Water, which has a total of 5,330 square feet (2885 square foot interior; 2445 square foot terraces) and a guest house of 1,700 square feet, is comparable to many of the McMansions of recent years with their 3,500 Square feet of interior space; but yet they somehow feel larger and grander. Even the minuscule solar decathlon houses which are often criticized for being free standing one bedroom apartments feel palatial compared to Wright’s 1200 square foot two bedroom, 1 bath, with office Pope-Leighey House.

All of that said, there is a comfort to be found in these small quarters. Everything feels more appropriate and human scaled and so well designed that additional space would be an unwelcome excess. Furthermore, these houses, unlike our modern bog-box storage units, are designed with a bare modicum of storage locations. The house is on display, not your collectibles. That is not to say these houses are austere, far from it, nor are they filled with a Rococo style of ornament. They walk a fine line between monk’s cell and IKEA showroom.

The Problem with Architects

One of the things that has been the most disturbing to me since I graduated and joined the world of working architects is how little our craft seems to be understood in the United States, not to mention how little demand there is for architects to work on projects. There is a discussion raging over on archinect about the public conception that architects are wealthy, well paid, and always in high demand; while in reality compared to most of the other white collar professions (doctors, lawyers, et al.) it is the opposite. I for the past three weeks I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain why I think this is the case without devolving this post into a history lecture, and I think I’ve finally figured out how to do that. The root behind all of this confusion is two fold.

First, while architects work in the twenty-first century world, we still base our business on a nineteenth century business model. Unlike other doctors and lawyers who offer a mix of relatively small fee quick services (like sick visits and legal consultation) and large fee longterm services (complex procedures and trial and business law) architects perform mostly large fee longterm services for our clients. Most of our billing is for long drawn out projects, and even when we are involved in smaller home renovation services these projects still take weeks. What we need to discover is a way to sell single visit architectural consultation services which would be attractive to the public. To do this we have to determine a way to quantify the value that our services would add and why business and home owners should hire us instead of a less expensive builder driven solution. This leads into the second issue that architects face.

Architecture is a classist profession, it is only seen as necessity for business and government and as a luxury for upper and upper-middle class people. This contrasts sharply with Doctors and Lawyers who are seen as vital components to the modern way of life. Even the person of the most modest means will most likely visit a doctor in their life, whether through a medical clinic, hospital, or health care plan of some sort. In addition, since 50% of marriages end in divorce, even the poorest person has a very good chance of needing legal counsel if not for divorce, for some other reason. Whereas, most people will never work with an architect directly, and if they live in rural or suburban America, they will probably never live in a home designed by an Architect; the closest they will come will be working in buildings which are required by law to be designed by an Architect. This detachment from our industry prevents people from realizing not only the value of our services, but why we charge what we do for them. This lack of knowledge and detachment makes architecture and design a mysterious luxury, one which is far outside the world of most Americans. This will only change when we as a field discovers a way to make quick small fee services which will make us more accessible and affordable and not such a luxury.

A catch 22

So I’ve been on the job market since February; in that time, I’ve applied for over 175 different positions. Some of these have been outside of the world of architecture, while most have been with architecture practices.

I can see the writing on the wall, the architecture industry is changing and until it finds its new face there are not going to be many new positions out there working for other people. This is one of the reasons I’ve started my own residential design firm, studioSML, with a good friend of mine. On one hand we have the dream of working for ourselves, but on the other we are trying to be realists and understand that it is very likely that we will not bring in enough money to be self sufficient for years. This means that we both need full time positions elsewhere, and not just temporary ones. We are looking for long term (a number of years) positions that will allow us the ability to work on our own projects while still paying the rent/mortgage.

In my mind, the best way to accomplish this is to find jobs outside of architecture, and for me that means looking to my graphic design experience. Now, don’t get me wrong, if I somehow find a position with another architect or interior design or find myself with so much work i can actually take a salary I’ll be overjoyed, but I’m trying to be realistic. So I have been applying for graphic design jobs and not gotten much of a reply. Tonight, I finally got some helpful feedback from a potential employer. He questioned my desire to leave architecture and my dedication to graphic design, as well as the inability for me to find a salary that both takes into account my architecture experience(+4 years and almost licensed) as well as my graphic design experience (less than 2 years).

I don’t really know how to respond. I’ve already reworked my resume to feature my graphic design skills, but i feel it would be wrong to leave off the last 4 years of architecture jobs. In addition, in my cover letters I mention that I am looking to redirect my career into graphic design and leave architecture. I also mention that I understand that my architecture experience outweighs my graphic design experience, but that in my opinion (and hopefully theirs) it allows me to approach design issues form a different point of view. Beyond these measures I’m not sure what to do. Do I start applying for senior positions, or continue applying for entry level to positions requiring 2 years of experience?

Preservation Matters: A Video

Above is the keynote address from the Tulane School of Architecture sponsored symposium: Preservation Matters by Tulane Alum and Editor of Architectural Record magazine, Robert Ivy, FAIA. The speech is a long overdue acknowledgement of the work of the Preservation Studies / Historic Preservation Program headed by my past professor, Eugene Cizek, FAIA and a discussion of the historic preservation movement within the city of New Orleans and Tulane’s role through the twentieth century. I have to laud the efforts of the new Dean of the Architecture School, Kenneth Schwartz, who introduces the conference and Mr. Ivy. Regional Modernism has a more detailed synopsis of the presentation.

Throughout my years at the school, I always felt that the historical importance of place and the efforts of the preservation program to bring this idea to the student body was too often bulldozed by a blind passion for high modernism and other international styles. Issues of climate and green design were handled in the structural technology classes, but too often they did not play a part in the critically explored design studio work.

As an aside, I spent a number of minutes trying to figure out where they held this symposium. This lecture hall does not remind me of any space within the building while I was there. The main lecture hall is sloped, while this is obviously flat. Eventually after much head scratching I reread the symposium invitation and realized that this was held in the new University Student Center. Now I’m glad to see that this building (which was under repair for most of my years at Tulane) is in use, but I have to wonder if this type of event shouldn’t have been held at Richardson Memorial Hall (the Architecture School) where it could have had a greater influence on the student body and faculty.

Preservation, not just for berries anymore!

[Image via Tulane School of Architecture .]

Tulane School of Architecture is hosting a one day symposium at the end of January focusing on Historic Preservation. The keynote speaker will be Robert Ivy, FAIA and one of my favorite professors, Eugene Cizek, FAIA, will be providing commentary. This symposium is free and open to the public. If I was able to be in New Orleans, I would love to attend.

In light of the natural and governmental disasters in the past few years and the public policy debates currently raging within New Orleans, this symposium seems slightly overdue. I am glad to see that the new Dean of the Architecture School, Kenneth Schwartz, FAIA, is doing something that should have been done years ago. The historic preservation program is one of the few distinguishing elements of the Tulane School of Architecture, it helps ground architectural education at TSA to “the place” as well as “the time.” In the time I was at school, it felt as if the program did not get as much attention and funding as some of the more esoteric modernist pursuits. At times we felt like the red-headed step children of the school.

I may not personally agree with all the philosophical and ideological teachings I was taught during my historic preservation classes, but i do credit this program for helping me make the shift from design student to practicing professional. It was the only area of my education where material interactions with environmental factors as a function of building life were ever considered critical, or even discussed; it is also the only time we were able to, never mind required to, design an adaptive reuse project. This program helped introduce students to public planning officials and organizations and better inform our understanding of the political and legal process of building and protecting structures. It also broke the design bubble fostered in many of the other studios by merging design students with masters of preservation students (MPS) who were rarely design professionals.

Architect as artist

In the past century we have seen the rise of polytechnic architecture, a method of building which divorces the architect from the world of art and creativity, and instead treats buildings as solutions to engineering problems and casts architects in the role of project managers, facade coordinators and space planners. Working and living within this modern paradigm it can be easy to forget that our profession is not just about ensuring the health, safety and welfare as our licenses require, but also about creating spaces that inspire and capture the imagination.

The New York Times has an interesting article describing a new exhibit of sketches by Frank Gehry at the Princeton University Art Museum which help to remind us that architecture is more than creating big boxes for commercial and residential means. While I am not a huge fan of Gehry, and feel that he is more popular for the “cool” factor of his buildings than for the real reason he should be popular – that if you consider the sum total of his works as one examination in form, it is a very interesting exercise in mass and volume and the delamination of these masses and volumes, I am glad that someone has started a discourse about the art form that architecture once was, and could still be. The real issue here is not that too few architects sketch, but rather too few architects are given the freedom to explore and create works of art. Instead they are directed to design to meet a specific style (and sometimes meet public approval) and then produce a building within (or under) budget while creating drawings that assume that the construction team will have no knowledge of how to build a building so as to limit their legal exposure. This creates buildings that have a watered down aesthetic and take few risks.

Critics are the Worst kinds of Sadists – Architecture School episode 2

After watching the latest episode of Architecture School I was struck with just how accurate of a portrayal the reviews seemed. I remember reviewers baiting students just like that, and verbally backing them into corners such that they were forced to say their design was bad. What was missing from this was the critics literally tearing apart models to express their disgust with the scheme.

I stand by my previous opinions about the student’s work, none of them responded to the scale of the neighborhood adequately. At least some of them were looking at filtering elements of New Orleans housing iconography through a modernist lens, specifically the front porch and the screening elements. Furthermore, most of the house strategies did not create any site strategies for creating a public/private separation outside of the house itself.

Architecture School

So I just got done watching the first episode of Sundance Channel’s Architecture School.

I have to say, for the first reality TV depiction of the world of architecture education, and especially the Tulane variety, it is starting out as a decent representation. They managed to capture the ever condescending tone that most professors use towards their students as well as the tensions between rich and poor, black and white, and Tulane and the city; issues that have always inhabited New Orleans even before Katrina. I have to say, one of the things that is severely missing is the sense of height and lack of air conditioning in the architecture building – Richardson Memorial Hall, and the oppressive humidity that I am sure is plaguing these students in the field. With it being the first 2 weeks of the semester, it has to either be August or January and it doesn’t really look like they are dressed for January in New Orleans. C’mon Sundance Channel, where are my sweaty dehydrated daiquiri sipping architecture students?

Let me also add, that it is totally surreal to watch not only people that you know but buildings that used to be central to your life on TV. It has sparked in me a real desire to move back to New Orleans, maybe one of these days my life will take me back there.

Eastern Bloc meet Eastern BLOCK

The Times Online has an interesting article on the new CCTV building in Beijing. I’m sure everyone has seen this new iconic building by now, it rises like a wracked square casting an imposing shadow over the city below.

It is no surprise to me that the co-architect of OMA’s CCTV building, Ole Scheeren, is an impossibly young (35 years old) German Architect who was lived through the unification of Communist and Capitalist Germany. In the shape of the building it is easy to see the fingerprints of earlier experiments in modernism, in both the stark oppressive communist variety and the lofty grasping skyscrapers of New York and Chicago. And yet it has been distorted and made more complex. It is almost as if someone took the Arche de La Defense and twisted it until not only did the building distort, but the skin was also skewed.

This building challenges not only the symbol of a skyscraper but also that of the communist party controlled media in China. It could be a building in the process of collapse, a colossus falling to the ground, or it could be seen as a tower pulling itself up from the ground. Just as it could be a symbol of oppressive all-seeing orwellian control, or possibly a watchdog sheltering the people of china and enshrining their future. Only time will tell.