What is Architecture?

Good question.  Literal Definition:

1. The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
2. A style and method of design and construction.

For me, it is the embodiment of more.  Yes, architecture has to satisfy certain criteria (i.e. keep the water out, not fall down, etc.), but what else can it do?  Can it inspire?  Can it awe?  Can it calm our psyche?  If it is true that less is more, then I have to contend that more is more.  The more energy, the more thought, the more symbolism, the more creativity, the more beautiful a structure or building can become, the more it becomes architecture.

Here is what some others think.  What do you think?

Architecture from MAYAnMAYA on Vimeo.

HOT or NOT: Knutson Construction Services

From the moment that the Architect jettisoned the "builder" portion of master builder, Builders and trades people have had it out for us.  Builders are focused on the simple and practical matters: how two materials are connected, what height cabinets are to be installed, where the bathrooms are located, when their check is supposed to arrive, etc.  Architects are concerned with the intangible and experiential: how are the two materials in dialogue with each other, what height cabinet is the most comfortable for a human, where are the bathrooms in relation to the bedrooms, when am I ever going to get paid, etc.  I believe the animosity is bred from each thinking they can do the other's job better.  White collar vs blue collar.  Sweating under the sun vs eye strain from a computer screen.  In reality, the best architect is one who admits what he knows and what he does not know.  I often defer to the man/woman in the field to see how they would do a task to help me understand the limitations and constraints.  From there, a design solution can be reached.

In the case of the Knutson Construction Services building in Rochester, the Builder is on display...and the Architect apparently fell asleep at the keyboard.  Remember, this is from the design standpoint, as their is plenty of construction expertise on display and I can find little fault in the implementation of the vision.  It is just that the vision is apparently clouded with other visions of bad buildings.

The verdict is...NOT



The theme is apparent: display the construction abilities of this full service general contractor and use the Knutson name and logo as an element of design.  I appreciate the prowess of the contractor both in the cast-in-place structural elements and in the consistency of masonry work.  My issue is with the decision to abstract the "K" to the point where it no longer is a recognizable allegory.  I am huge fan of abstraction, but there is a fine line between abstraction and a different idea all together.  In this case, the angles of the concrete and roof lines and even the retaining wall on the backside of the building are all different and unrelated.  I even tried to look at the front entry from a bunch of different angles to see if the concrete or shadows would all of a sudden reveal themselves in a DaVinci Code moment of recognition.  I got nothing.  Either this is a colossal oversight or there is an unbelievably masterful concept hidden that is beyond my (or anyone else's) comprehension.

I detest design moves for design moves' sake.  I believe that there should be more meaning behind each line on the page, or each material in a composition, especially when it comes to modern architecture.  For me, this design is largely unresolved.  It is a spec office building that is slightly askew on the site and uses great materials in an incongruous fashion.  Key details that make my skin crawl are apparent in the dominating blue rooftop louver screens that were an attempt at integrating with the architecture of the roof line, as well as the southwest elevation which apparently wasn't understood would be the face that most people would see driving north on Highway 52.   

Southwest Elevation, a.k.a. The Most Interesting Facade in the World

I guess when it comes right down to it, the means justify the end.  By that I mean the craftsmanship and skill of the Builder gives this building its design.  The Builder wins this round for showcasing their skill and making the Architect look foolish.  I consider this a good example of why we need a more critical lens for evaluating the built environment.  Just because something is different, doesn't necessarily mean it is good.  When you pass this building on Highway 52 do you automatically think, "wow, that is cool" or do you think, "hmm, that is different." 

There were elements and details that I did actually enjoy.  The monumentality of the cast-in-place concrete was fantastic.  As an entrance element it works really well, I just wish there was some more meaning there.  Also the detail at the top of the front curtain wall is difficult to achieve (such as small cap at the roof line) and shows some creativity in the assembly of the system.  But as I drove away I felt relieved that this building was tucked away on the northwest side of town and not in my neighborhood.  The next time you drive by, be sure to look for the elusive "K," I know it has to be in there somewhere!!

The Design Vacuum (excerpt from Architectural Record)

The following is an excerpt from this past July's lead editorial from Architectural Record.  It happens to include an excerpt from a writer named David Dillon, who recently passed away, but was a well known architectural critic for the Dallas Morning News.  This brief narrative exemplifies the struggles in our profession today and what I view as the design imperative that is necessary to reconnect with the public and make architecture relevant once again.

"...[There is] a huge vacuum in serious design commentary, in which architecture, the most public of the arts, is losing touch with its public -- its customer base, if you like -- and has less and less influence on how our communities are planned and designed.
...[in a recent poll of] six national critics about what was most important to residents in their part of the country...almost without exception the key issues were public and civic -- affordable housing, regional planning, access to transit, neighborhood preservation, congestion, sprawl, open space.  Architecture with a capital A, as in what are Rem Koolhaas or Frank Gehry up to now, barely made the list.  Which is to say that there is a big disconnect these days between what architects are doing and what the magazines are publishing, and what the public is doing and interested in.
Correctly or not, the public perceives the profession to be largely indifferent to its concerns.  They think architects are interested mainly in architecture as art, in architecture as business, or in defending the autonomy of the profession, which has been largely squandered, whereas they see themselves as custodians of the public realm and the social and communal elements of architecture and design.
...The great critic Ada Louise Huxtable once said that the public knows its right when it comes to the law, or Social Security, or Medicare; it's up on all the entitlement programs.  But it does not know what  it is entitled to in terms of architecture, urban design, or environmental policy.  One job of a good design magazine [OR BLOG!] it to help educate the public about its rights in these matters, because in the end its biggest ally is a concerned public, and its most powerful weapon the ability to arouse public opinion in the service of good design."

Eff Gehry

Since becoming an architect, answering the question, "what do you do?" in polite conversation has patterned a routine response.  I am frequently told, "Oh, I always wanted to be an architect," and "I could never do architecture because I am terrible at math," and the always classic, "Oh really?  Do you like Frank Gehry?"

At some point in the last decade, Frank Gehry supplanted Frank Lloyd Wright as the one name of an architect that people with limited knowledge of architecture seemed to know.  The fact that Frank Gehry has become the dictionary definition for 'architect' is not only disturbing it is revolting.  It is the equivalent of saying, "Oh you are a doctor?  Do you enjoy Dr. Kevorkian's work?  It is ground breaking, don't you think?"  Often having just met this person, I clearly do not want to offend them and I am graced with some tact, albeit a minute amount, so I have developed a clever answer that insinuates my disdain while acknowledging their right to enjoy his so-called work.  My response is:

"Gehry?  Well he certainly is a talented sculptor, but I am not sure he knows anything about architecture."

It is quite simple.  Frank Gehry appears to have no working knowledge of how architecture is created yet has successfully developed a brand all his own that brainwashes the unsuspecting masses.  Hats off to him for that.  Now giving credit where it is due, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain was a seminal building of the last 25 years.  The ability of this building to attract visitors and transform a tiny port town into a vital and thriving tourist destination is truly spectacular.  But is it architecture?

From the dawn of civilization, the most primitive structure that man erected was the lean-to shed, one post and one plane.  Soon after, man used the post and beam to frame larger expanses of space.  Further down the road, the arch was utilized and its inherent structural strength allowed some of the mots awe-inspiring ancient architecture.  After the industrial revolution and the widespread adoption of concrete, more advanced structures were developed from the hyperbolic paraboloid to free form architecture like Ronchamp.  At each of these critical junctures in architectural history, the architect/designer knew that vocabulary of design and made buildings that served their function with an inherent understanding of how it was to be supported and remain static. 

Enter Frank Gehry and his method of multiple iteration model making.  Working at different scales and in different mediums, he creates model after model until the perfect form is produced.  A work of art...not architecture.  This perfect model is handed to a team of people who's job it is to figure out how to build it.  Take for example the Pritzker Bandshell in Millennium Park (Chicago).

 soft ribbons of metal emanating from the stagefront

Now in real life, the bandshell appears exactly like the model in scale, proportion and vibrancy.  But if you have a chance to visit the next time you are in Chicago, take a walk around to the backside. The view from back there is much less inspiring.

complex web of struts, beams, and supports achieve the desired effect

It is precisely this lack of integrity of structure that is the most appalling to me.  It is deliberately deceptive.  All of his architecture follow this same premise: "Look at the ribbons, aren't they beautiful:?  Pay not attention to the structure behind the curtains."  Anyone can do this.  In fact, there are probably professional artists who could achieve even greater success if they had the access to Frank Gehry's engineers and drafters. 

I prefer my architecture pure, simple, and coherent.  A wall that is true to its materiality and structure.  A facade that is composed and artful, but not fake.  To me, those have greater significance and are a greater addition to the built environment.  Frank Gehry's work belongs INSIDE the museums that he most often designs.  So the next time you view or experience a Frank Gehry building, make sure to look beyond the flashy exterior skin and formulate your own opinion of the 'architecture.'  Then the next time you bump into an architect at a party be sure to say, "Oh you are an architect?  What is with that Frank Gehry guy?  I just don't see what all the fuss is about."