selophane.blog

Life Without Buildings has an interesting post showing the top four winners of this year’s AIA New Orleans design awards. As is no surprise to any one who has lived in New Orleans and been involved in architecture, Eskew+Dumez+Ripple had a good showing with one landscape project and an urban housing schema designed for Brad Pitt’s “Make It Right” housing program. The residential project seems to me to be very much in the vein of the rest of their work. The renderings available on the website are signature EDR – hyper distorted perspective, large swaths of color, gauzey scale figures, and an almost too crisp structure. Their landscape project is more of an interest to me. It encompases the site I used for my architecture thesis and shares some of the same concepts – reintroduction of the city to the river and revitalization of a much neglected part of the city. From the one image I have seen, the similarities appear to only be in design concept, and not execution, but I am more than interested to see how this project develops.

The other two projects – a rebuilding center by Wayne Troyer and a house by Bild Design are also interesting case studies. The rebuilding center makes good use of readily available materials is a “semi-home made” kind of architecture. The Lowerline residence by Bild design seems to be a variation on theme previously explored by principal Byron Mouton in his own home on Zimple Street.

Yanko Design has an interesting article which they referenced from Dezeen about Shigeru Ban’s paper Tea House installation being put up for auction. Now as much as I’d love to own this piece of architecture, I know that I would never be able to afford it. On the otherhand, I can admire it and learn from it.

Ban’s use of paper has been his recent ongoing material de-mode. Paper as a building method is an interesting, though not intuitive, choice. There are some fundamental problems that come with paper; first, structural stability can be compromised by water, second, (non-coated) paper is very difficult to clean, and third, the presence of sunlight and air can cause acid-rich paper to deteriorate overtime. All of this non-withstanding amazing things have been created from paper; Frank Gehry’s famous series of chairs, Ban’s recent work with paper tubes, as well as recent pieces at DWR and other retailers. But the paper design that strikes the most similarity to the Paper Tea House is some of the recent office furniture from MUJI. They have the same kraft paper color and texture, as well as the crisp almost modern edges.

Paper as an architectural and design material could positively impact both design and the environment. First, paper made of post-consumer recycled content is not only a renewable resource it also diverts raw goods from the landfill and incinerator. Second, coated paper could easily be made to have the same clean lines and pure color palette as the myriad of plastics currently used. Third, paper construction could lead to a revolution in both raw material and finished furniture transportation – by shipping precut and pre-scored pieces in flat sheets. Imagine going to IKEA and purchasing a flat packed dining room table, which is literally FLAT. The consumer could fold along the dotted lines and “create” their new eco-friendly designs in the comfort of their own home – à la the blow up furniture of the 70′s and the inflatable air mattresses that have come into vogue recently. This could bring back the mail order home business of two centuries past, and make it affordable and modern.

So I don’t know how I missed this, but apparently on Monday, March 31st The Washington Post ran an article about the new phenomenon of Foreclosure Tours in the DC/NOVA metro area (Click here for the article). This strikes a sore spot with me, it makes me think of the Katrina tours that sprung up in New Orleans once tourists started to return to the city. Now I know this is a different sort of animal; the article describes these tours as “foreclosure seminars on wheels” and they are intended to help fill in neighborhoods instead of to educate. Yet in the end, I wonder, aren’t they both ways of profitting off of the pain and suffering of others?

Now i know that this in and of itself is not really architecture or design related, but I feel as if the whole foreclosure mess stems from the modern architecture and urban development of the US. For the past century we have been spreading farther and farther from urban centers and the average american living space has ballooned, this has not only affected us mentally and physically, but it is also affecting us environmentally and monetarily. As we move farther from the cities we need to travel farther to reach our employment, have less mass transit available to us, and the larger properties get the more spread out they must be. Where a 1/4 acre of land was plenty large for each Levit house (and considered private in comparison to inner city living), a modern McMansion would hardly fit within the property lines and required setbacks of the same lot. Daily travel becomes more expensive – monetarily and environmentally – especially with a lack of decent regional rail systems. Add all of this into a market in the past few years where 0% ARM’s were a common thing and a mind set which said that ownership is always better than rental, and its easy to see how we got in this situation.

The thing that interests me is that no one is suggesting that as a solution to the housing crisis we start building rail lines or beefing up mass transit systems and encouraging urban and suburban densification. Condo and apartment living provides many environmental and economical advantages to single family home ownership – heating and cooling loads are lower and more averaged, water usage is decreased because there is less lawn/planting per person, and there is less land being used for housing which allows for more land being used for other needs. While I may have some design and business issues with the new urbanist town centers and mixed use developments I do believe that they are a long term plan for dealing with housing.

On tuesday the DCist ran an article about the National’s Stadium being the first LEED rated stadium in the country and the general move of DC towards what may be perceived as “Green Architecture”. (Click here for the article)

I feel that this article fails to clarify some key issues and understand a few things about the difference between “Green Architecture” and LEED. First, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) to quote their own website is “a 501(c)(3) non-profit community of leaders working to make green buildings accessible to everyone within a generation.” This group is not affiliated with any state government, and I feel that it bears questioning the merits of requiring new construction to comply with a private non-profit agency (as DC is doing), instead of a public agency. This smells a little to strongly of privatization for me, but thats another post for another day. Second, the LEED system is a method of ranking a building based on points for certain qualifications. This system does not weight any points higher than others; using solar panels to account for 20% of your used power is worth the same as providing showers and bike racks or choosing a site with access to two bus/metro lines. A certified building is the lowest tier, silver is third, gold second, and platinum is at the peak. It is possible for a building to garner enough points for a certification by a combination of existing infrastructure, choosing the right products, and painting your roof white. While it is true, all of these help decrease the carbon count of a building and are worth doing, I would hardly say that this is being on the forefront of “Green Design.” In addition there are some green design points which do not figure (or figure very minimally) into LEED ratings, such as operable windows, brownfield redevelopment, and products from renewable resources.

All of this speaks to a larger issue here, what is Green Architecture? Is it designing a building to achieve a punch list of environmentally friendly goals as one would fit a building code or the ADA, or is it something greater? An embracing of alternative design strategies that permeate the entire essence of the building? If we start labeling all LEED buildings as Green Architecture we are doing a disservice to architecture; whilst they may be Green not all are Architecture.

The Washington Post ran an article critiquing the National’s Stadium on the Anacostia Waterfront. (Click here for the article).  The author’s main thesis is that while the new stadium functions much better than RFK, it is lacking in charm and thoughtful design.  This can be illustrated in the two quotes below:

The old and much-maligned RFK Stadium, where the Nationals played the past three seasons, might be a better building — more visual interest, more presence on its prominent site, and a better mix of modern style with the city’s vernacular gravitas — but it was a lousy experience. Today, we have a great experience but, alas, a lousy building.

and

 

[A]s sports lovers know, sports is never just sports. And architecture, especially in a world capital, is never just architecture. Nationals Park might be a better experience than RFK, but it fails to say anything larger to the city, or the world.

 

I personally feel that Mr. Kennicott is both on track and off base at the same time.  What he maligns is one of my greatest issues with American contemporary architecture, engineered buildings.  The majority of our construction today are buildings meant to function as “machines for living,”  they are tweaked and altered to arrive at the lowest cost most program efficient yet bland and boring structures; wouldn’t Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius be so proud?  The new Nationals Stadium was built by HOK, which while known for sports architecture and building stadiums that can turn a profit, is not on the cutting edge of any designs.  This is the direction we’ve been moving towards since the last World War, secluding the contemporary avant-garde architecture of Greg Lynn, Morphosis, and the Metropolis/Dwell set to pages of architecture magazines and shimmering California cities, while the rest of the country focuses on the fabric that fills in our aging cities.  This is where Mr. Kennicott is off the mark.  He discuses iconic stadiums around the world, Calatrava and Herzog and de Meuron’s olympic stadiums, and does not realize that these buildings have arisen out of a new form of critical regionalism – or rather critical regional idealism.  Those stadiums show the sense of self that Greece and China wish to be, as does the Nationals Stadium.  It shows a Federal Government who functions well without good form, or if you’d rather an ideal of the pinnacle of American utilitarian structures – a building to fade into the background.  In this way, the Stadium is a success by all counts.

 

According to the Washington Post (click here for the article) Jean Nouvel has been awarded the Pritzker Prize. A more fully illustrated blog post can be found at Gizmodo (click here for the post).

This intrigues me because Jean Nouvel is one of the contemporary architects whose buildings were used quite often as precedent studies in school. He joins other distinguished contemporary precedent study architects like Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, and Herzog and de Mueron.

I have only seen one of his buildings in person, the institute of the Arab World in Paris. I was only able to see it from the outside, but that is where most of the design concept lies. The skin, which is patterned off of an Islamic geometric progression and screening methods, is made of a geometric/fractal-like pattern of operable irises that adjust to limit the solar gain. When I visited the building, it appeared to have some issues with the operation of these irises. Some of them were stuck in the open and others in the closed position.

The Washington Post has an article (click here for the article) in this Sunday’s “Style” section about two different urban landscape projects in DC. This article is an intersting analysis of two urban landscapes on the boards for DC. The author examines these landscapes in two dimensions: first to see if they fit with the DC status quo and second to explore whether they would be welcome and beneficial explorations of urban space.

The thing about this article that strikes me is that since moving here 3 years ago, DC has always seemed to be a city out of scale. The monumental city is so large and the same rules of planning and vistas have been applied to the commercial districts to create a city which – to the pedestrian – rarely feels crowded. I compare this with Manhattan and Paris and immediately see where they differ (succeed if you will). Both of these cites have broad monumental axis where it is appropriate, yet in the pedestrian commercial corridors space is a commodity. This allows the individual to feel the herd-like nature of the crowd and truly understand the modern city and its perpetual quixotic noise, motion, sights & smells. DC, by creating grand avenues and pedestrian poor business centers, maintains a stoic “each man is his own island” nature that can be easily read as being quintessentially part of the city. The author’s exploration of scale and context for the convention center alleyway speaks volumes to this issue.

On the other hand, the street scape he explores near the stadium seems to be a discussion solely about one rendered image and disregards the reality of this image already in practice within the city. To me, this image – which is included above – could easily be Chinatown, Columbia Heights, Adams Morgan, Silver Spring, Bethesda or any other gentrified part of the city and its surroundings. It is not against the DC character to populate new urban landscapes with national brands and mega merchandising in a simulacrum of a true urban mixed use development which is closer to Reston Town Center than Old Town Alexandria. As for the whitewashing of the crowd, of which the author is critical, this is slowly becoming the new reality in this city. In areas of urban wealth, minorities are less visible; look at any of the developments I’ve mentioned above and you will see that the crowd or shoppers and diners are mostly white, middle and upper-class, and in their late 20′s and 30′s. I am not an urban ethnographer, so I can’t cite sources and censuses, but this is what i’ve observed. The large lower-class african-american population of DC is slowly being forced into Prince George’s County and those who remain are mostly middle class and do not seem to be the target of the gentrification projects.

In the end, I’m glad that this article is opening the lines of dialogue about DC as a living as well as working city. The need to innovate and recreate has for too long been suppressed for the sake of municipal identity and federal aesthetics. I hope that the architectural spirit of DC is able to adapt and change not just at the monumental and municipal level but also at that the small scale residential.