Arthur Erickson

[mx2]

[csintexas]

I don't think you have any moral superiority. All you seem to care about is putting out a bunch of trash art like gehry and then whine about how architects are so misunderstood.

The architect does not have the final say the people who are paying do and someday if you ever get to a position to actually directly work for a client you will find that out.

[SDR]

Among the other things that an architect's position provides is a platform from which to more effectively persuade for architecture, as opposed to mere building. An architect is assumed to have an effective overview of history, of building types, and of what is appropriate both functionally and aesthetically for a given situation. A builder is not assumed to be in this position, except by the ignorant.

Of course, there may be builders who do have such an education -- but why should they ? It is hardly necessary for a successful career. It is the uneducated client who believes that he can save hinself (and is builder ?) unnecessary aggravation and expense by dispensing with the services of an experienced local architect.

Would a smart man act as his own attorney in court ? Would an intelligent woman let the local pharmacist diagnose and prescribe for a serious illness ? The pharmacist is prevented by law from doing so. Architects as a group have not tried (presumably) to have laws enacted that would guarantee them work, as have the building and building materials trades.

SDR

[mx2]

Watch yourself Chris, your showing your colors again...to stick to the point; clients do NOT know best, all the time. What then does an architect do: as told? I am paid a lot of money just to work directly for and with our clients, and not to mention I do work on the side for myself...directly with my clients. I don't appreciate the tone your taking in defense of a topic you and I disagree on.

For you to assume I care about putting out "trash art" is extremely insulting and makes me wonder where you're coming from since I never attacked you personally.

Architects are paid a fee to design something, based on their knowledge, skill and experience. Where do you draw the line at doing what the client dictates to providing what the client needs and/or wants? It is very rarely so black and white and the position of an Architect from the beginning should NEVER be to do as the client says, but rather to listen to the client wishes and exceed those expectations while providing a service that first and foremost protects the general public...and yes, many times at the cost of the client.

Take tree mitigation, for example...you think it's what the client wants when they're forced to pay for the removal of trees? I had a situation recently where the client wanted wood casement windows and it took some effort to explain that they didn't make any that could meet the wind pressures as calculated by code requirements...the client wanted it, we would have liked it but instead I had to find an alternative that worked for the client, for the city, and even for our satisfaction as well. In the end, they reluctantly understood and more importantly, I know they will be in a safer building. Now there are options, many, and its the architects job to provide those options to the client...but long before the client sees the options, it's the architects job to work out the problem and seek the solutions, often to the contrary of what the clients wants. Now, certain subjective criteria, such as paint color,...well that, I personally don;t have any qualms with what clients want, to the point that I tell them we can help them choose but essentially, from my experience, colors are best left to be "as selected by owner", except for larger more public spaces. The I will have a say in all of it becauss it is more important for me to make sure my reputation is not smudged because the owner wanted purple polka dots on a green wall as the entrance to a City Hall or something...

mx2.5

[csintexas]

No one ever said "clients know best" I said clients have the final say whether they are right or wrong is not a factor.

It is irritating because you seem to support everything I consider wrong about architecture.

Yes I agree and that is what I have said all along we have a higher obligation to function but not aesthetics.

[mx2]

what does that mean, they have the final say, right or wrong? That's not true...no professional will compromise their integrity, reputation, liability or even issues of safety, just because the client wants something contrary...

It's a team effort and we work WITH our clients...and not just FOR money.

mx2.5

[csintexas]

I'm not talking about safety issues -building inspectors and engineers generally have the final say about that not architects.

So what is this discussion about function or aesthetics?

[usarender]

The article by Bollnow illucidates well some of the ideas as posted by Erickson, with respect to SPACE in architecture.

It offers a true deconstruction of modern notions and is a deeper treatise on the modern concepts we have in architecture, related to space.

It is an excellent article.

Some of the topics, high-lighted -->>

" in fact, Bollnow, by describing space in close relation to human behaviour and environmental conditions, seems to have discovered the essential structure of space.

In a stark contrast to Norberg Schulz's concept, which is to some extent still anchored in conventional architectural rationalism, Bollnow's outlook is deeply humanistic in that it places man and his immediate environment at the centre of everything he describes. He thus manages to present an enormous variety of new insights which contrast greatly with the poverty of the spatial concepts of present architectural design. In fact, one is tempted to imagine how much different architecture would be today, if, instead of postmodernism, Bollnow's concept of anthropological space had become the basis for architectural reasoning of the last three decades.

....and, thus, Bollnow manages to respond to the factual complexity of space"

Obviously, Bollnow has received great impulses from the structure of the German language. In contrast to the more rationalistic traditions, e.g. those of the Romance languages - in particular French - the German language has not lost many of its primitive roots. Thus, it has preserved many terms related to original conditions of space, words which imply meanings very different from their Romance counterparts (e.g. 'Platz' (place) versus 'Ort', 'Stelle', 'Heim' etc.). Consequently, important parts of Bollnow's discussions are based on the history of words, language, and thought as expressed in literature. In this sense particularly, etymology could become an important source for research into human space concepts and architecture.

The book is divided into five main chapters entitled: 'The Elementary Articulation of Space' / 'The Wide World' / 'The House and the Feeling of Security' / 'Aspects of Space' / 'The Spatiality of Human Life'.

THE ELEMENTARY ARTICULATION OF SPACE

In his first main chapter, Bollnow usesvarious sources to show that, in its origins, space was not a boundless concept, but on the contrary, was more or less clearly limited, defined, rather environmental and closely related to the history of human settlements.

History

Space is not homogeneous, but articulated. There is a suggestion of this in Aristotle's puzzling discussion in the fourth book of his 'Physics', the first treatise on spatial problems in the occidental tradition of thought. Relating it to the four elements (fire, air, water, earth), he teaches the "natural articulation" of space, that each of these elements show a natural directionality, e.g., upwards in the case of fire and light things, and downwards with regard to earth or heavy things. Bollnow emphasizes that this concept differs essentially from our modern view of space. There is another puzzling aspect in the Aristotelian notion of space: what we would consider as "place" (topos, 'Ort' in German) somehow appears to be hierarchically projected from a local to a cosmic dimension and thus shows extension, which Bollnow compares to a container. Conclusion: Aristotle's view is never one of endless mathematical space but is limited in its utmost extension to "the void delimited by the heaven's vault."(:30)

This extremely convincing emphasis on the environmental origins of the notion of space has far-reaching consequences, not only for architectural research and architectural theory, but also for our whole concept of man, in so far as our ontology, our metaphysics are based on primary cosmologies. In other words, Bollnow advocates a dramatic reversion, an "implosion" of our modern space concepts, an implosion which, by the way, is already well established in ecology and animal behaviour studies (Uexküll), but not at all in architecture and urbanism.

Directional elements and axiality

Bollnow's following sections deal with directional elements of space. Here too, he ingeniously "deconstructs" established systems, e.g., axiality.

In their intrinsic relation with ideology and moral values, the two pairs, 'front and back' and 'right and left', clearly show their close relation to cultural history, but obviously not in the anthropomorphous sense, as generally thought, but rather in relation to the spatial organization of the environment.

Fixed points

Particularly important is Bollnow's statement that there are zero or fixed points in his humane concept of space.

The overall conclusion: space is not at all homogeneous in its primary structure. Bollnow's arguments for the environmental origins of space conceptions are absolutely convincing. This becomes very important with regard to the second main chapter.

There is an additional revolutionary concept in Bollnow's work. Space was not there from the beginning, as we assume with the Euclidian concept. Space in the human sense has evolved. As a concept related to human perception and culture, it was originally closely related to dwelling and settlement and subsequently developed by extension of the spatial perception of man.

But the fundamental insight that Bollnow presents to us here is the following: he describes how networks for mobility influence our experience of space. The streets of a city acquire a certain autonomy, create their own spatial conditions, engender a homogeneous landscape of their own. Linschoten also characterized the space of pathway as "non-cultivated space",

"All roads lead to the end of the world." According to Linschoten, the street is ex-centrically related to dwelling space."

[usarender]

In this scenario, the ideas of the free flow of continuous space becomes redundant. In doing this, we in effect are opening our architecture to a lack of true spatial definition, instead of defining and containing the space we design. Space and form as a simultaneity of the space/time continuum thus become void of meaning, and further, with the age of the machine, de-humanizing.

This lack of vision on the part of the modernists, accompanied by the distorted perspective of space lead to the inevitable decline of architecture character and definition of space, and it's being completely ignored since the 80's, when Po Mo took over, and further aggravated our notions of space, by shifting to a surface treatment of space. The boxes thus lacked the content and meaning we as architects have the highest vocation to inspire and create. We have, in doing this, resigned ourselves to the plastic superficial society of mass consumerism, where the corporate and business dictates become more powerful then the persuasion of our convictions. In essence, we have began to produce " classless " architecture of the masses, of an even greater de-humanizing character.

As Mr. Arthur Erickson states -->>

"Over time architects and builders misinterpreted simplicity as plainness, lack of detail for crudity, modesty for cheapness, structural veracity as a boring "grid". Builders eventually took advantage of the look of modernism to build cheaply and carelessly, exhibiting their cynical view of a passing fashion."

and -->>

"So it was no surprise that the reaction to the bareness of ill conceived modernist buildings was to revert in the 80's to a revival of historicism in the guise of "post-modernism". That sad caper influenced nearly everyone in the building trade because it appealed to the public taste for antique references. That Dark Age is thankfully over but cultural insecurity is always there, hidden in the basement of our psyches - ready to spring out whenever brave confidence falters. It lingers in the gated communities where make-believe has become an adult panacea. It lingers with the developers who promote kitsch because it sells. It lingers with the newly rich and the establishment who need to consolidate social standing with class accepted standards. It lingers in every shopping centre, multiplex, restaurant, Vegas casino where illusion is needed to disguise the emptiness within."

This denial of the present and escape into the forms and history of the past has created a dis-connected society that has lost it references, that is wandering freely at high speeds no where.

Further, the quest for entertainment, rather then cultural value, is further degrading architecture and creating spaces that have lost any cultural and historical reference. They become chaotic dis jointed fantasy illusions in a material society that is devoid of identity.

....further -->>

"The obsession with performance left no room for the development of the intuitive or spiritual impact of space and form other than the aesthetic of the machine itself."

and

"Practicality, the elimination of the "non essentials" began the long descent of art and architecture into bottom line management. Materialism has never been so ominous as now in North America as management and not the artist takes over."

----->>

"In the Po Mo period, a change that signaled the questionable new direction to architecture was the shift from the modernist concern with space to the preoccupation with surface. Space is and has always been the spiritual dimension of architecture. It is not the physical statement of the structure so much as what it contains that moves us. Modernism released us from the constraints of everything that had gone before with a euphoric sense of freedom. Post- Modernism reverted to surface, the face of the container, the palette for the decorator. After 1980, you never heard reference to space again. Surface, the most convincing evidence of the descent into materialism became the focus of design, space the essence of architectural expression at its highest level, disappeared."

and -->>

"Whenever we witness art in a building, we are aware of an energy contained by it. The intensity of that energy reflects the intensity of the creative act, the degree of devotion invested in the work, that is communicated immediately to the viewer. Creation is the bestower of life."

and finally -->>

"We seem today to have lost sight of the original goal of architecture that is - to ennoble the place and the people who use it. It is a gift we have as architects to be able to do that. Architecture, today is only tentatively expressive of the human spirit, having been tempted from its mission by the love of mechanization - the obsession with the machine aesthetic in Europe, or the influence in America of Disney through the reduction of architecture to entertainment."

[usarender]

We have, in effect, lost the intuitive " spiritual " notions and elements of space and form, the vocation to ennoble the place and people who occupy our buildings, and have completely detached ourselves from the notion that architecture must deal with space at it's core. We are thus completely confused in our definitions of space. Our buildings should irradiate this energy in the local spatial experiences we produce. When we become overly obsessed with form follows function, the inevitable result, in this fruit salad of confusion, are the highly mechanized spiritually void buildings we have seen in recent history.

[SDR]

[usarender]

I love the simplicity, transparency and lightness of forms, structure and materials in this masterpiece of architecture, and the relationship of interior/ exterior that it creates. The use of traditional and "less traditional**" materials in the light weight panels allows for sufficient spatial understanding, without a need for heaviness of vocabulary. This allows us to bring our architecture into more contact with nature, and man, in my personal opinion. Lighting in essence is at the core of our spatial experience, as we are in essence outdoor creatures. So maintaining this openness and while allowing our architecture to make the most of this interplay of closed and open space becomes an issue of well elaborated design.

**In the Western world.

The Silver Screen of Architecture

THE NEW SILVER SCREEN OF ARCHITECTURE - Main Link

(To view the forum postings, just click on the blue letters above).

[SDR]

[djswan]

No wonder the world is heating up. Arictecture keeps replacing the trees.

Funny, I got to review some Grad applications. The top ten were in. A couple were border line. One had two trees in the design. One had none.

The trees won. I wish this was reality for our sake.

I'm back talking for the trees. I should change my login name to the Lorax.

The Lorax vs the Architect. The Lorax always loses.

I got more tomatoes.

Derek

[djswan]

I am also going to defend basic algebra.

F + F = 2F

Any other natural laws being broken out there? Let me know if there is.

Derek