|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 9 - 21 Jan 2009 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city, and, accordingly, few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today?
In 1928 William Van Alen designed one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, Walter Chrysler and his company. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram Building, which form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism, were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson's tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built to similarly show off the puissance of AT&T is not nearly as important or successful, and, thankfully, has not had the same kind of impact. |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 8 - 16 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city, and, accordingly, few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | >
> | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city, and, accordingly, few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | | | In 1928 William Van Alen designed one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, Walter Chrysler and his company. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram Building, which form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism, were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson's tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built to similarly show off the puissance of AT&T is not nearly as important or successful, and, thankfully, has not had the same kind of impact. | |
<
< | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society, the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram's building with their iconic brass hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today, though, it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and "sell" to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new "Freedom Tower," which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind, which was supposed to add to New York City's famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty, to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Samuel Bronfman did for his company. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where--sort of as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch--potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true designs and aesthetics. | >
> | So it seems to me that to build a great building, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society, the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram's building with their iconic brass hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today, though, it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and "sell" to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new "Freedom Tower," which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind, which was supposed to add to New York City's famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty, to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Samuel Bronfman did for his company. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where--sort of as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch--potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true designs and aesthetics. | | | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course, they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel's apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 7 - 16 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture that I have been discussing, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture we are discussing here. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | >
> | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city, and, accordingly, few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | | | | |
<
< | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, Walter Chrysler and his company. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram Building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson's abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T was designed to similarly show off the puissance of that company but it is not nearly as important as the other buildings, and, thankfully, has not had the same kind of impact. | >
> | In 1928 William Van Alen designed one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, Walter Chrysler and his company. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram Building, which form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism, were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson's tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built to similarly show off the puissance of AT&T is not nearly as important or successful, and, thankfully, has not had the same kind of impact. | | | | |
<
< | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram's building with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today, though, it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and "sell" to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new "Freedom Tower," which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind, which was supposed to add to New York City's famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty, to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Samuel Bronfman did for his company. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where--sort of as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch--potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true (and in this case economically successful) designs and aesthetics. | >
> | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society, the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram's building with their iconic brass hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today, though, it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and "sell" to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new "Freedom Tower," which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind, which was supposed to add to New York City's famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty, to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Samuel Bronfman did for his company. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where--sort of as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch--potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true designs and aesthetics. | | | | |
<
< | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course, they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel's apartment rings hollow, it is a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | >
> | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course, they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel's apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | | | | |
<
< | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy and gain prominence through their form, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the "Joneses" are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. If this really is the case then it hardly seems surprising that the architectural outlook at the moment is pretty bland here in NYC and the US. | >
> | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyline altering works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy and gain prominence through their form, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the "Joneses" are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. If this really is the case then it hardly seems surprising that the architectural outlook at the moment is pretty bland here in NYC and the US. | | |
|
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 6 - 12 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | More than any other form of art, architecture, because of its scale, requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture that I have been discussing, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project like a painter or sculptor sometimes can. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture we are discussing here. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city (and some of the worst and ugliest) were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | >
> | More than any other form of art, architecture requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture that I have been discussing, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture we are discussing here. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | | | | |
<
< | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, the corporation that was footing the bill. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram’s building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson’s abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T was designed to similarly show off the puissance and skyline changing power of that company but it is not nearly as important as the other buildings and thankfully has not had the same kind of impact. | >
> | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, Walter Chrysler and his company. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram Building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson's abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T was designed to similarly show off the puissance of that company but it is not nearly as important as the other buildings, and, thankfully, has not had the same kind of impact. | | | | |
<
< | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to think more about and put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram’s building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram’s building with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today though it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and sell to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new “Freedom Tower,” which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind which was supposed to add to New York City’s famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name, just large enough, in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Phyllis Lambert helped her father’s, Samuel Bronfman, company gain. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where—as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch—potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true (and in this case economically successful) designs and aesthetics. | >
> | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram's building with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today, though, it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and "sell" to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new "Freedom Tower," which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind, which was supposed to add to New York City's famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty, to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Samuel Bronfman did for his company. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where--sort of as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch--potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true (and in this case economically successful) designs and aesthetics. | | | | |
<
< | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel’s apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | >
> | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course, they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel's apartment rings hollow, it is a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | | | | |
<
< | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy and gain prominence through their form, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the “Joneses” are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. If this really is the case then it hardly seems surprising that the architectural outlook at the moment is pretty bland here in NYC and the US. | >
> | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy and gain prominence through their form, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the "Joneses" are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. If this really is the case then it hardly seems surprising that the architectural outlook at the moment is pretty bland here in NYC and the US. | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 5 - 11 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | More than any other form of art, architecture, because of its scale, requires cash. That is to say that, especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project like a painter or sculptor sometimes can. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce, especially the type I have been talking about, are businesses. In the modern age, buildings are branded, and have been for quite some time. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built or cannot be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city (and some of the worst and ugliest) were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | >
> | More than any other form of art, architecture, because of its scale, requires cash. Especially at the level of large urban architecture that I have been discussing, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project like a painter or sculptor sometimes can. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce are often businesses. In the modern age buildings are branded. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture we are discussing here. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city (and some of the worst and ugliest) were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | | | | |
<
< | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building, which was, due to his clever subterfuge, the tallest building in the world for less than a year, is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, the corporation that was footing the bill. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram’s building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexis of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated (unfortunately often very poorly) turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson’s abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T or Hitler’s planned People’s Hall in Germania (a caprice we should be thankful was never built, but which was designed to seat 180,000 people in the main hall; one of many problems being that the breath of 180,000 people would have condensed into clouds in the dome and then caused it to rain on the assembled masses) which were designed to similarly show off the puissance and skyline changing power of the people funding them are not important in the same way and have thankfully not had the same kind of impact. | >
> | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become one of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, the corporation that was footing the bill. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram’s building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexus of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson’s abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T was designed to similarly show off the puissance and skyline changing power of that company but it is not nearly as important as the other buildings and thankfully has not had the same kind of impact. | | | | |
<
< | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, it seems to me that what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be, and become more and more, big business those who are funding the buildings start to think more about and put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of materials but those that he did use were incredibly expensive. Even just the windows of the Seagram’s building—which was the most expensive skyscraper in the world at the time of its completion—with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today though it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and sell to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new “Freedom Tower” which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind which was supposed to add to New York City’s famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty to the current, boring design by David Childs or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name, just large enough, in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of longevity or immortality that Phyllis Lambert (the daughter of then Seagram’s CEO Samuel Bronfman who convinced her father to hire Mies) helped her father’s company gain. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. That is not necessarily a problem, and maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success. Maybe if China and India become economic powers and stabilize in 50 years they too (when hopefully more private citizens and companies instead of governments can and are funding building projects) will stop trying to make huge statements and settle into a more cost conscious less daring building phase as we have, and—as Eben noted—as the Dutch have in Amsterdam. | >
> | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable, and maybe lucky, combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be big business those who are funding the buildings start to think more about and put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of very expensive materials and the Seagram’s building was the most expensive skyscraper ever when it was completed. Even just the windows of the Seagram’s building with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today though it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and sell to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new “Freedom Tower,” which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind which was supposed to add to New York City’s famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty to the current, boring design by David Childs, or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name, just large enough, in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of immortality that Phyllis Lambert helped her father’s, Samuel Bronfman, company gain. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. Maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success, where—as Eben pointed out regarding the Dutch—potentially garish monuments of the present are eschewed in favor of tried and true (and in this case economically successful) designs and aesthetics. | | | | |
<
< | One of the few interesting buildings that is on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce. But even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work, but of course they are in reality penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel’s apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | >
> | One of the few interesting buildings on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce by the developer. But, even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work; but, of course they are, in reality, penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel’s apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | | | | |
<
< | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the “Joneses” are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. | >
> | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy and gain prominence through their form, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the “Joneses” are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. If this really is the case then it hardly seems surprising that the architectural outlook at the moment is pretty bland here in NYC and the US. | | |
|
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 4 - 11 Jun 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | In class we have talked about “reading” architecture and how a building’s form and style can speak volumes about its function and what its tenants wish to say to the general public. Specifically, we have focused on the transition of banks and other corporate offices from the solid, heavy, and imposing historically influenced neo-classicism/beaux-arts classicism of the 18th to early 20th century to the transparent steel and glass modernism that took hold in the middle of the 20th century. | >
> | More than any other form of art, architecture, because of its scale, requires cash. That is to say that, especially at the level of large urban architecture, no architect has the means or the ability to build for themselves their dream project like a painter or sculptor sometimes can. Moreover, while architecture is art, and architects artists, the buildings that they produce, especially the type I have been talking about, are businesses. In the modern age, buildings are branded, and have been for quite some time. They are symbols of power, success, and the ability to literally change the face of a city. Few and far between are projects where an architect is given total free reign, and they tend to be all but nonexistent in the forum of urban architecture. However, this does not mean that great buildings cannot still be built or cannot be built here in New York and the United States. Some of the greatest and most enduring monuments of our city (and some of the worst and ugliest) were built by corporations and developers who wanted to declare their strength, power, and prominence to the world. So how do we account for the relative blandness of what is being built around us today? | | | | |
<
< |
- This isn't really a good beginning. The "peg" you're hanging on was a momentary illustration in a conversation about something else, and by using the peg, you smuggle your thesis into the middle of a paragraph that should be snappier.
| >
> | In 1928 William Van Alen designed what would ultimately become of the most consciously branded and yet most successful skyscrapers in the world. His Chrysler Building, which was, due to his clever subterfuge, the tallest building in the world for less than a year, is adorned with gargoyles and flairs that were designed to mimic the hood ornaments and radiator caps of Chrysler cars in order to link the building to, and please, the corporation that was footing the bill. Similarly, Lever House and the Seagram’s building which, standing across Park Avenue from one another, form the nexis of urban skyscraper modernism were daring when they were built and have turned out to be important and much imitated (unfortunately often very poorly) turning points in 20th century architecture. However, by the same token, Phillip Johnson’s abominable and tacky Chippendale armoire/skyscraper that he built for AT&T or Hitler’s planned People’s Hall in Germania (a caprice we should be thankful was never built, but which was designed to seat 180,000 people in the main hall; one of many problems being that the breath of 180,000 people would have condensed into clouds in the dome and then caused it to rain on the assembled masses) which were designed to similarly show off the puissance and skyline changing power of the people funding them are not important in the same way and have thankfully not had the same kind of impact. | | | | |
>
> | So it seems to me that to build a great building like the ones above, one needs a rather ineffable combination of the right place, the right time, the right society (or societal ethos), the right architect, and, perhaps most importantly, the right person paying the bill. The goal is, or should be in an ideal world, not simply to create something that will hubristically mark the landscape, but to create something that inspires and draws attention to itself through its quality, not just its size. However, it seems to me that what is missing from the US and specifically New York City today is that as architecture continues to be, and become more and more, big business those who are funding the buildings start to think more about and put more consideration into profit margins instead of architectural integrity. The three buildings I mentioned above were ludicrously expensive. Mies van der Rohe was famous for using a very limited palette of materials but those that he did use were incredibly expensive. Even just the windows of the Seagram’s building—which was the most expensive skyscraper in the world at the time of its completion—with their iconic brass colored hue require near constant cleaning and upkeep in order to make the building look presentable. Today though it seems hard to imagine someone taking the same kind of risk with a building, especially one they have to sell space in and sell to the public. For examples of this we need look no further than the new “Freedom Tower” which has evolved from a daring design by Daniel Leibeskind which was supposed to add to New York City’s famous downtown skyline by mimicking and playing off of the Statue of Liberty to the current, boring design by David Childs or the architectural taste of Donald Trump. He has made a career of throwing up one neo-Miesian skyscraper after another, as though if he builds enough of them and puts his name, just large enough, in shiny gold letters on the front of each maybe he will assure for himself the same sort of longevity or immortality that Phyllis Lambert (the daughter of then Seagram’s CEO Samuel Bronfman who convinced her father to hire Mies) helped her father’s company gain. However, these buildings are economical; they do not lose floor space towards the top because of daring forms or new architectural ideas. They are a product of a society and a time which, while successful, seems more worried about making a dollar than making an architectural and cultural statement. That is not necessarily a problem, and maybe it is a plateau that societies reach at a certain level of success. Maybe if China and India become economic powers and stabilize in 50 years they too (when hopefully more private citizens and companies instead of governments can and are funding building projects) will stop trying to make huge statements and settle into a more cost conscious less daring building phase as we have, and—as Eben noted—as the Dutch have in Amsterdam. | | | | |
>
> | One of the few interesting buildings that is on the proverbial horizon here in NYC is a skyscraper being built right next to the MOMA by the French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize winner Jean Nouvel. This exciting tapering tower may not be a landmark or a revolutionary move in the big game of international architecture, but it is exciting, and more interestingly was the more “dangerous” and thrilling of the two designs that the architect was asked to produce. But even this building has to be sold today in NYC. The upper floors have so much of their space taken up by the elevator core that the apartments there will feel like they are very pressed up against the glass. To combat this the architect and developer have said that they will feel like the pied a terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower where Gustav Eiffel used to work, but of course they are in reality penthouses which will have to be sold for multi-million dollar amounts and as such the reference to Eiffel’s apartment rings hollow, like a marketing ploy more than a truthful statement. | | | | |
<
< | However, I believe that this change in the dominant style of corporate architecture is important not only because of the difference in what these styles say about the purpose of a building, but also because the changing of dominant architectural styles has, at least for the past three centuries or so, also signaled a change in the dominant world power and order. Innovation and the willingness and ability to fund and support exciting new buildings is a hallmark of a thriving, upward moving society, and today that sort of innovation is no longer happening here in the United States. Instead, it is in countries like China, especially with the coming 2008 Summer Olympics being held in Beijing, where boundaries are being pushed and innovation is being embraced.
- This is the place where you state the only thesis this essay has: that innovative and expensive architecture is the hallmark of social progress, and the place where the biggest buildings are going up is the future. You don't prove or even make more probable that thesis later in the essay--you just assert and then depend upon it. And it is nothing more than the steel-age advertising slogan of expensive egotistical architecture.
- Architecture in the steel age requires vast sums of money. So the sort of innovation in architecture you are discussing can only occur where there are large quantities of loose money. Also organizations (whether conceptualized as "private" or "public" makes no difference--the World Trade Center, after all, was a product of socialism) determined to assert their importance by heavily marking the built environment. Some organizations with need to mark the built environment nonetheless do not want to advertise themselvges: cocaine built many glass towers in Miami at the end of the 20th century, but it was not a place of showy architecture because the organizations behind the buildings had no desire to increase direct scrutiny. Koolhaas builds little at home, because only Rotterdam in the Netherlands will accept trophies of the present like his, owing to the complete destruction of the mid-20th century: the rich Dutch leave Amsterdam the way it is and invest in fancy new buildings somewhere else. Regimes with big money and need for self-aggrandizement build the macromonuments, whether they are the future or not. Kuala Lumpur is a trifle overbuilt and will come to resemble Angkor Wat in 900 years, one suspects, if the big money buildings of the 20th century survive as well as those of the 12th.
- It might be more correct to say that innovative steel-age building occurred where organizations wanted to claim that they were the future of power. You have perhaps some recollection of Philip Johnson's mariage de convenance with National Socialism? That charming man said, as you may recall, that he went to work for Albert Speer building Hitler's triumphant new Berlin for the thousand year Reich, "because the Nazis had all the best graphics." Accepting the premise that Johnson was an exceptionally repellent narcissist, or even the alternate premise that AT&T was just as much the future of power when he worked on its declaration of kitschy permanence now instead declaring the permanent powerfulness of Sony, which bought the place back when Japanese organizations were going to be the fulcrum of the future and Tokyo was the site of all the really amazing real estate boom action.
The strong, heavy, historically influenced style of banks and corporate offices—like York & Sanders Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1919-1924) and McKim, Mead, and White’s Municipal Building (1914)—that was the dominant style for so long can be directly traced back to the neoclassical revival in Europe (especially England) centuries ago. Indeed, it is easy to see that the buildings just mentioned are clear descendants of other similar works such as Sir John Soane’s famous Bank of England (1788-1833). However, in the 1950’s a revolution occurred right here in New York City at 53rd and Park Ave. Right across the street from one another, and within only a few years of one another two buildings sprang up which inexorably changed the trajectory of corporate architecture. Lever House (1952), designed by the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrell (SOM) and the Seagram’s Building (1954-1958) designed by Mies van der Rohe were the first great examples of the “modernist” office buildings which became so ubiquitous in the second half of the twentieth century. So ubiquitous in fact that one of the first great Post-Modern office buildings (Philip Johnson’s Penzoil Place, 1976) is a neo-Miesian skyscraper with the top lopped off at a 45 degree angle. But part of what made these buildings so fascinating was not their style and form but that despite representing truly international ideas regarding the direction of architecture they could only have been built in the United States.
The 1950’s, as we all know, saw a remarkable change in the balance of world power, as Europe was struggling to rebuild and recover from a catastrophic world war and America was enjoying a new wave of prosperity and power, becoming for the first time in its history, a real “Super Power.” Lever House and the Seagram’s Building were representations of this new power. Large corporations had the money to make expensive gambles on new buildings (the Seagram’s building, despite its simple palette of materials was exceedingly expensive to build and maintain, as van der Rohe famously used very high quality and expensive materials) and were willing to risk the money for the chance to build and associate themselves with something that would be of real importance and cultural significance. And in the case of the Seagram’s building especially that risk paid off. All across the world from the small town office parks of America to the most far-flung reaches of the globe, black steel and glass Miesian buildings became the default, accepted corporate style. Today we are not seeing that same innovation in the US.
The perfect example of this new temerity in the US is the evolution of the design for the “Freedom Tower.” Daniel Libeskind’s original design obviously had its flaws, but it was daring, defiant, and original. This is an man who, up until a few years ago, was considered a purely conceptual architect and whose first major building, his Jewish Museum in Berlin (1998) did such a great job of connecting with and expressing the tragic history of Jews in Germany that it has been heralded as one of the most emotional buildings built in recent memory. His original design, while perhaps not of the same level as the Jewish Museum, was exciting and should have been the platform and base for a daring, emotional, innovative design. Instead, it has been completely tamed and dulled by the developer’s chief architect, David Childs. Ironically enough, Mr. Childs is the consulting design partner at SOM, the same firm that half a decade ago gave us Lever House.
To my mind, it is in China, and specifically Beijing, where the most innovative and exciting buildings are being built today. The new Olympic Stadium designed by the Swiss team of Herzog and de Meuron is a fun and theatrical new take on a classic design form. However, perhaps the single most exciting and promising new building that is being constructed right now is Rem Koolhaas’ CCTV building. It took a team from the structural engineering firm Arup thirteen months just to determine whether or not the building could actually be built. While the palette remains simply glass and metal the twisted daring three dimensional form could very possibly represent a new turn, and the start of a new era, in large scale corporate architecture. I do not mean to suggest that either of these new buildings will certainly be as important or influential as the Seagram’s building or Lever House, but they should be celebrated for the chances they are taking and for being fresh designs that I do not think could be built here in the US right now. Indeed, just like the Seagram’s building and Lever House half a decade ago, these new buildings in Beijing are fascinating because they are not the intellectual product of the society that is building them.
- Which should have clued you in to the possibility that not everything is Rome that is built on the aesthetic superiority of some other Greece. Architecture is no better at demonstrating who constitutes the future than fashion. (Imagine betting against the economic might of a country that wants every boy to be a knowledge-industry engineer and every girl to be a fashion designer. Or is that knowledge designer and fashion engineer? Early arranged marriage will sort it out, anyway.) Veblen being the subtle thinker that he is, we can assert that in the primate species homo sapiens there will always be rich men who want to erect big towers on the landscape in order to express their pecuniary virility, and that there will be expensive subordinate hominids helping each one of them waste his money.
When we have talked in class about the how the US is slipping as jobs are being sent to cheaper overseas locations we have mainly focused on India. China is a difficult country to analyze and deal with on this level because despite whatever advances it is making economically and socially it remains under the yoke of an essentially dictatorial non-democratic government, and for us westerners I think it is sometimes hard to accept that such a country could very well become the economic super power that replaces us at the top of the world stage. Granted to infer simply from two new buildings that China is on its way to becoming the next great world power seems a little far-fetched, but I do believe that there is a real link between a what a society builds and where it is heading. Therefore, I hope that this paper will spark a discussion of not only what people think of this connection, but also of other interesting, daring, or bland and boring building projects going on around the world today (especially if anyone knows of anything being done in India right now) and what they appear to represent about the places where they are being built.
-- AlexLawrence - 07 Apr 2008
- You really did owe us, at some point, an editorial engagement with the questions that should always be present as you are writing: What is the case against what I am saying? How should I engage or circumvent it? Do I actually know what I think I know? It's not clear to me whether you wanted to write this essay because of its thesis, or came to depend on the thesis in the course of writing. I can't quite tell whether the odd, truncated conclusion and the associated plea for discussion shows awareness of the problem, but if it does, you tried to do by hand-waving what you could only do by more fundamental reconsideration.
| >
> | Buildings are designed by architects, but they are made by the people paying for them. Skyscrapers and skyline altering and headline grabbing works of architecture are, like sports teams, one of the greatest, boldest, and loudest forms of conspicuous and invidious consumption. The problem however seems to be that today instead of trying to produce great buildings that inspire envy, more developers, governments, and corporations appear to be trying to produce economically marvelous and profitable buildings so that the “Joneses” are jealous not of what was built, but of how much money it can make. | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 3 - 12 Apr 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | In class we have talked about “reading” architecture and how a building’s form and style can speak volumes about its function and what its tenants wish to say to the general public. Specifically, we have focused on the transition of banks and other corporate offices from the solid, heavy, and imposing historically influenced neo-classicism/beaux-arts classicism of the 18th to early 20th century to the transparent steel and glass modernism that took hold in the middle of the 20th century. However, I believe that this change in the dominant style of corporate architecture is important not only because of the difference in what these styles say about the purpose of a building, but also because the changing of dominant architectural styles has, at least for the past three centuries or so, also signaled a change in the dominant world power and order. Innovation and the willingness and ability to fund and support exciting new buildings is a hallmark of a thriving, upward moving society, and today that sort of innovation is no longer happening here in the United States. Instead, it is in countries like China, especially with the coming 2008 Summer Olympics being held in Beijing, where boundaries are being pushed and innovation is being embraced. | >
> | In class we have talked about “reading” architecture and how a building’s form and style can speak volumes about its function and what its tenants wish to say to the general public. Specifically, we have focused on the transition of banks and other corporate offices from the solid, heavy, and imposing historically influenced neo-classicism/beaux-arts classicism of the 18th to early 20th century to the transparent steel and glass modernism that took hold in the middle of the 20th century.
- This isn't really a good beginning. The "peg" you're hanging on was a momentary illustration in a conversation about something else, and by using the peg, you smuggle your thesis into the middle of a paragraph that should be snappier.
However, I believe that this change in the dominant style of corporate architecture is important not only because of the difference in what these styles say about the purpose of a building, but also because the changing of dominant architectural styles has, at least for the past three centuries or so, also signaled a change in the dominant world power and order. Innovation and the willingness and ability to fund and support exciting new buildings is a hallmark of a thriving, upward moving society, and today that sort of innovation is no longer happening here in the United States. Instead, it is in countries like China, especially with the coming 2008 Summer Olympics being held in Beijing, where boundaries are being pushed and innovation is being embraced.
- This is the place where you state the only thesis this essay has: that innovative and expensive architecture is the hallmark of social progress, and the place where the biggest buildings are going up is the future. You don't prove or even make more probable that thesis later in the essay--you just assert and then depend upon it. And it is nothing more than the steel-age advertising slogan of expensive egotistical architecture.
- Architecture in the steel age requires vast sums of money. So the sort of innovation in architecture you are discussing can only occur where there are large quantities of loose money. Also organizations (whether conceptualized as "private" or "public" makes no difference--the World Trade Center, after all, was a product of socialism) determined to assert their importance by heavily marking the built environment. Some organizations with need to mark the built environment nonetheless do not want to advertise themselvges: cocaine built many glass towers in Miami at the end of the 20th century, but it was not a place of showy architecture because the organizations behind the buildings had no desire to increase direct scrutiny. Koolhaas builds little at home, because only Rotterdam in the Netherlands will accept trophies of the present like his, owing to the complete destruction of the mid-20th century: the rich Dutch leave Amsterdam the way it is and invest in fancy new buildings somewhere else. Regimes with big money and need for self-aggrandizement build the macromonuments, whether they are the future or not. Kuala Lumpur is a trifle overbuilt and will come to resemble Angkor Wat in 900 years, one suspects, if the big money buildings of the 20th century survive as well as those of the 12th.
- It might be more correct to say that innovative steel-age building occurred where organizations wanted to claim that they were the future of power. You have perhaps some recollection of Philip Johnson's mariage de convenance with National Socialism? That charming man said, as you may recall, that he went to work for Albert Speer building Hitler's triumphant new Berlin for the thousand year Reich, "because the Nazis had all the best graphics." Accepting the premise that Johnson was an exceptionally repellent narcissist, or even the alternate premise that AT&T was just as much the future of power when he worked on its declaration of kitschy permanence now instead declaring the permanent powerfulness of Sony, which bought the place back when Japanese organizations were going to be the fulcrum of the future and Tokyo was the site of all the really amazing real estate boom action.
| | | The strong, heavy, historically influenced style of banks and corporate offices—like York & Sanders Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1919-1924) and McKim, Mead, and White’s Municipal Building (1914)—that was the dominant style for so long can be directly traced back to the neoclassical revival in Europe (especially England) centuries ago. Indeed, it is easy to see that the buildings just mentioned are clear descendants of other similar works such as Sir John Soane’s famous Bank of England (1788-1833). However, in the 1950’s a revolution occurred right here in New York City at 53rd and Park Ave. Right across the street from one another, and within only a few years of one another two buildings sprang up which inexorably changed the trajectory of corporate architecture. Lever House (1952), designed by the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrell (SOM) and the Seagram’s Building (1954-1958) designed by Mies van der Rohe were the first great examples of the “modernist” office buildings which became so ubiquitous in the second half of the twentieth century. So ubiquitous in fact that one of the first great Post-Modern office buildings (Philip Johnson’s Penzoil Place, 1976) is a neo-Miesian skyscraper with the top lopped off at a 45 degree angle. But part of what made these buildings so fascinating was not their style and form but that despite representing truly international ideas regarding the direction of architecture they could only have been built in the United States. | | | To my mind, it is in China, and specifically Beijing, where the most innovative and exciting buildings are being built today. The new Olympic Stadium designed by the Swiss team of Herzog and de Meuron is a fun and theatrical new take on a classic design form. However, perhaps the single most exciting and promising new building that is being constructed right now is Rem Koolhaas’ CCTV building. It took a team from the structural engineering firm Arup thirteen months just to determine whether or not the building could actually be built. While the palette remains simply glass and metal the twisted daring three dimensional form could very possibly represent a new turn, and the start of a new era, in large scale corporate architecture. I do not mean to suggest that either of these new buildings will certainly be as important or influential as the Seagram’s building or Lever House, but they should be celebrated for the chances they are taking and for being fresh designs that I do not think could be built here in the US right now. Indeed, just like the Seagram’s building and Lever House half a decade ago, these new buildings in Beijing are fascinating because they are not the intellectual product of the society that is building them. | |
<
< | When we have talked in class about the how the US is slipping as jobs are being sent to cheaper overseas locations we have mainly focused on India. China is a difficult country to analyze and deal with on this level because despite whatever advances it is making economically and socially it remains under the yoke of an essentially dictatorial non-democratic government, and for us westerners I think it is sometimes hard to accept that such a country could very well become the economic super power that replaces us at the top of the world stage. Granted to infer simply from two new buildings that China is on its way to becoming the next great world power seems a little far-fetched, but I do believe that there is a real link between a what a society builds and where it is heading. Therefore, I hope that this paper will spark a discussion of not only what people think of this connection, but also of other interesting, daring, or bland and boring building projects going on around the world today (especially if anyone knows of anything being done in India right now) and what they appear to represent about the places where they are being built. | >
> |
- Which should have clued you in to the possibility that not everything is Rome that is built on the aesthetic superiority of some other Greece. Architecture is no better at demonstrating who constitutes the future than fashion. (Imagine betting against the economic might of a country that wants every boy to be a knowledge-industry engineer and every girl to be a fashion designer. Or is that knowledge designer and fashion engineer? Early arranged marriage will sort it out, anyway.) Veblen being the subtle thinker that he is, we can assert that in the primate species homo sapiens there will always be rich men who want to erect big towers on the landscape in order to express their pecuniary virility, and that there will be expensive subordinate hominids helping each one of them waste his money.
| | | | |
>
> | When we have talked in class about the how the US is slipping as jobs are being sent to cheaper overseas locations we have mainly focused on India. China is a difficult country to analyze and deal with on this level because despite whatever advances it is making economically and socially it remains under the yoke of an essentially dictatorial non-democratic government, and for us westerners I think it is sometimes hard to accept that such a country could very well become the economic super power that replaces us at the top of the world stage. Granted to infer simply from two new buildings that China is on its way to becoming the next great world power seems a little far-fetched, but I do believe that there is a real link between a what a society builds and where it is heading. Therefore, I hope that this paper will spark a discussion of not only what people think of this connection, but also of other interesting, daring, or bland and boring building projects going on around the world today (especially if anyone knows of anything being done in India right now) and what they appear to represent about the places where they are being built. | | |
-- AlexLawrence - 07 Apr 2008 | |
>
> |
- You really did owe us, at some point, an editorial engagement with the questions that should always be present as you are writing: What is the case against what I am saying? How should I engage or circumvent it? Do I actually know what I think I know? It's not clear to me whether you wanted to write this essay because of its thesis, or came to depend on the thesis in the course of writing. I can't quite tell whether the odd, truncated conclusion and the associated plea for discussion shows awareness of the problem, but if it does, you tried to do by hand-waving what you could only do by more fundamental reconsideration.
| | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 2 - 07 Apr 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
In class we have talked about “reading” architecture and how a building’s form and style can speak volumes about its function and what its tenants wish to say to the general public. Specifically, we have focused on the transition of banks and other corporate offices from the solid, heavy, and imposing historically influenced neo-classicism/beaux-arts classicism of the 18th to early 20th century to the transparent steel and glass modernism that took hold in the middle of the 20th century. However, I believe that this change in the dominant style of corporate architecture is important not only because of the difference in what these styles say about the purpose of a building, but also because the changing of dominant architectural styles has, at least for the past three centuries or so, also signaled a change in the dominant world power and order. Innovation and the willingness and ability to fund and support exciting new buildings is a hallmark of a thriving, upward moving society, and today that sort of innovation is no longer happening here in the United States. Instead, it is in countries like China, especially with the coming 2008 Summer Olympics being held in Beijing, where boundaries are being pushed and innovation is being embraced.
The strong, heavy, historically influenced style of banks and corporate offices—like York & Sanders Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1919-1924) and McKim, Mead, and White’s Municipal Building (1914)—that was the dominant style for so long can be directly traced back to the neoclassical revival in Europe (especially England) centuries ago. Indeed, it is easy to see that the buildings just mentioned are clear descendants of other similar works such as Sir John Soane’s famous Bank of England (1788-1833). However, in the 1950’s a revolution occurred right here in New York City at 53rd and Park Ave. Right across the street from one another, and within only a few years of one another two buildings sprang up which inexorably changed the trajectory of corporate architecture. Lever House (1952), designed by the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrell (SOM) and the Seagram’s Building (1954-1958) designed by Mies van der Rohe were the first great examples of the “modernist” office buildings which became so ubiquitous in the second half of the twentieth century. So ubiquitous in fact that one of the first great Post-Modern office buildings (Philip Johnson’s Penzoil Place, 1976) is a neo-Miesian skyscraper with the top lopped off at a 45 degree angle. But part of what made these buildings so fascinating was not their style and form but that despite representing truly international ideas regarding the direction of architecture they could only have been built in the United States. | |
<
< | The 1950’s, as we all know, saw a remarkable change in the balance of world power, as Europe was struggling to rebuild and recover from a catastrophic world war and America was enjoying a new wave of prosperity and power, becoming for the first time in its history, a real “Super Power.” Lever House and the Seagram’s Building were representations of this new power. Large corporations had the money to make expensive gambles on new buildings (the Seagram’s building, despite its simple palette of materials was exceedingly expensive to build and maintain, as van der Rohe famously used very high quality and expensive materials) and were willing to risk the money for the chance to build and associate themselves with something that would be of real importance and cultural significance. And in the case of the Seagram’s building especially that risk paid off. All across the world from the small town office parks of America to the most far-flung reaches of the globe, black steel and glass Miesian buildings became the default, accepted . Today we are not seeing that same innovation in the US. | >
> | The 1950’s, as we all know, saw a remarkable change in the balance of world power, as Europe was struggling to rebuild and recover from a catastrophic world war and America was enjoying a new wave of prosperity and power, becoming for the first time in its history, a real “Super Power.” Lever House and the Seagram’s Building were representations of this new power. Large corporations had the money to make expensive gambles on new buildings (the Seagram’s building, despite its simple palette of materials was exceedingly expensive to build and maintain, as van der Rohe famously used very high quality and expensive materials) and were willing to risk the money for the chance to build and associate themselves with something that would be of real importance and cultural significance. And in the case of the Seagram’s building especially that risk paid off. All across the world from the small town office parks of America to the most far-flung reaches of the globe, black steel and glass Miesian buildings became the default, accepted corporate style. Today we are not seeing that same innovation in the US. | | | The perfect example of this new temerity in the US is the evolution of the design for the “Freedom Tower.” Daniel Libeskind’s original design obviously had its flaws, but it was daring, defiant, and original. This is an man who, up until a few years ago, was considered a purely conceptual architect and whose first major building, his Jewish Museum in Berlin (1998) did such a great job of connecting with and expressing the tragic history of Jews in Germany that it has been heralded as one of the most emotional buildings built in recent memory. His original design, while perhaps not of the same level as the Jewish Museum, was exciting and should have been the platform and base for a daring, emotional, innovative design. Instead, it has been completely tamed and dulled by the developer’s chief architect, David Childs. Ironically enough, Mr. Childs is the consulting design partner at SOM, the same firm that half a decade ago gave us Lever House. |
|
|
AlexLawrence-SecondPaper 1 - 07 Apr 2008 - Main.AlexLawrence
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
In class we have talked about “reading” architecture and how a building’s form and style can speak volumes about its function and what its tenants wish to say to the general public. Specifically, we have focused on the transition of banks and other corporate offices from the solid, heavy, and imposing historically influenced neo-classicism/beaux-arts classicism of the 18th to early 20th century to the transparent steel and glass modernism that took hold in the middle of the 20th century. However, I believe that this change in the dominant style of corporate architecture is important not only because of the difference in what these styles say about the purpose of a building, but also because the changing of dominant architectural styles has, at least for the past three centuries or so, also signaled a change in the dominant world power and order. Innovation and the willingness and ability to fund and support exciting new buildings is a hallmark of a thriving, upward moving society, and today that sort of innovation is no longer happening here in the United States. Instead, it is in countries like China, especially with the coming 2008 Summer Olympics being held in Beijing, where boundaries are being pushed and innovation is being embraced.
The strong, heavy, historically influenced style of banks and corporate offices—like York & Sanders Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1919-1924) and McKim, Mead, and White’s Municipal Building (1914)—that was the dominant style for so long can be directly traced back to the neoclassical revival in Europe (especially England) centuries ago. Indeed, it is easy to see that the buildings just mentioned are clear descendants of other similar works such as Sir John Soane’s famous Bank of England (1788-1833). However, in the 1950’s a revolution occurred right here in New York City at 53rd and Park Ave. Right across the street from one another, and within only a few years of one another two buildings sprang up which inexorably changed the trajectory of corporate architecture. Lever House (1952), designed by the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrell (SOM) and the Seagram’s Building (1954-1958) designed by Mies van der Rohe were the first great examples of the “modernist” office buildings which became so ubiquitous in the second half of the twentieth century. So ubiquitous in fact that one of the first great Post-Modern office buildings (Philip Johnson’s Penzoil Place, 1976) is a neo-Miesian skyscraper with the top lopped off at a 45 degree angle. But part of what made these buildings so fascinating was not their style and form but that despite representing truly international ideas regarding the direction of architecture they could only have been built in the United States.
The 1950’s, as we all know, saw a remarkable change in the balance of world power, as Europe was struggling to rebuild and recover from a catastrophic world war and America was enjoying a new wave of prosperity and power, becoming for the first time in its history, a real “Super Power.” Lever House and the Seagram’s Building were representations of this new power. Large corporations had the money to make expensive gambles on new buildings (the Seagram’s building, despite its simple palette of materials was exceedingly expensive to build and maintain, as van der Rohe famously used very high quality and expensive materials) and were willing to risk the money for the chance to build and associate themselves with something that would be of real importance and cultural significance. And in the case of the Seagram’s building especially that risk paid off. All across the world from the small town office parks of America to the most far-flung reaches of the globe, black steel and glass Miesian buildings became the default, accepted . Today we are not seeing that same innovation in the US.
The perfect example of this new temerity in the US is the evolution of the design for the “Freedom Tower.” Daniel Libeskind’s original design obviously had its flaws, but it was daring, defiant, and original. This is an man who, up until a few years ago, was considered a purely conceptual architect and whose first major building, his Jewish Museum in Berlin (1998) did such a great job of connecting with and expressing the tragic history of Jews in Germany that it has been heralded as one of the most emotional buildings built in recent memory. His original design, while perhaps not of the same level as the Jewish Museum, was exciting and should have been the platform and base for a daring, emotional, innovative design. Instead, it has been completely tamed and dulled by the developer’s chief architect, David Childs. Ironically enough, Mr. Childs is the consulting design partner at SOM, the same firm that half a decade ago gave us Lever House.
To my mind, it is in China, and specifically Beijing, where the most innovative and exciting buildings are being built today. The new Olympic Stadium designed by the Swiss team of Herzog and de Meuron is a fun and theatrical new take on a classic design form. However, perhaps the single most exciting and promising new building that is being constructed right now is Rem Koolhaas’ CCTV building. It took a team from the structural engineering firm Arup thirteen months just to determine whether or not the building could actually be built. While the palette remains simply glass and metal the twisted daring three dimensional form could very possibly represent a new turn, and the start of a new era, in large scale corporate architecture. I do not mean to suggest that either of these new buildings will certainly be as important or influential as the Seagram’s building or Lever House, but they should be celebrated for the chances they are taking and for being fresh designs that I do not think could be built here in the US right now. Indeed, just like the Seagram’s building and Lever House half a decade ago, these new buildings in Beijing are fascinating because they are not the intellectual product of the society that is building them.
When we have talked in class about the how the US is slipping as jobs are being sent to cheaper overseas locations we have mainly focused on India. China is a difficult country to analyze and deal with on this level because despite whatever advances it is making economically and socially it remains under the yoke of an essentially dictatorial non-democratic government, and for us westerners I think it is sometimes hard to accept that such a country could very well become the economic super power that replaces us at the top of the world stage. Granted to infer simply from two new buildings that China is on its way to becoming the next great world power seems a little far-fetched, but I do believe that there is a real link between a what a society builds and where it is heading. Therefore, I hope that this paper will spark a discussion of not only what people think of this connection, but also of other interesting, daring, or bland and boring building projects going on around the world today (especially if anyone knows of anything being done in India right now) and what they appear to represent about the places where they are being built.
-- AlexLawrence - 07 Apr 2008
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|