Especially the subtitle: “How “Genius” Disfigured a Practical Art.”
In Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, her indispensable Alienated Genius is Howard Roark – not a political revolutionary, not an entrepreneur, inventor or industrialist, but an architect. An interesting choice. An architect is an artist, but one whose work is by nature not strictly esthetic, but engaged in the daily life of the world. Which, one would think, would require giving some attention to, e.g., the esthetic character and traditions of a neighborhood before putting up a building there. But not Roark, the modernist unburdened by the detritus of the past and scornful of the demands of society, including his own clients. He will design every building his way, and we get the impression he would get just as much satisfaction if it were erected in a desert and never used or seen. A true Genius.
Here’s what we’ve got for a main library in Tampa. I’ll gladly swap ya. (And yes, I have seen the Harold Washington Library Center up close, inside and out.)
This is so weird…late last night, I watched this week’s episode of Project Runway, and the challenge addressed just this issue. The designers had to make a “conceptual” dress, and then also make a “ready-to-wear” version. The conceptual dress was supposed something avant-garde and extreme, and then that idea was supposed to be translated into something that could actually be used by a real person. I guess the problem with architecture in this regard is that it’s pretty expensive to whip up a “conceptual” building! But I think that architects perhaps need to find other outlets for that creative energy, rather than try to foist every crazy idea they might have onto the public.
Unfortunately, I was too busy to make it yesterday. I’ve read in Suburban Nation that The Fountainhead is practically the Bible to many architects, maybe Hakuna Matata can tell us if thats true.
Speaking of Suburban Nation, for those interested in urban planning, it is a spectacular book. It illustrates quite clearly the utter failure of modern planning, and also tangentially modern architecture, to produce a livable environment. For those who say that architecture is a subjective art, the book manages to create a very objective criteria for measuring a building’s success at creating a positive urban environment.
The addition to Copenhagen’s Royal Library, known (a little too dramatically for my tastes) as The Black Diamond actually seems to work. (Except for the flat roof. They’re so stupid for countries with lots of rain and snow.)
Looking at that building, I can’t help feeling that the architect took a step back and tried to make the building settle within its environment, rather than falling into the “challenge” or “counterpoint” trap.
Copenhagen has a profile with buildings 5-6 floors high (19th century fire regulations), punctuated by spires - so the architect stayed within that confine. The building is rather welcoming when approached on foot - all the drama takes place on the higher floors, the ground floor is welcoming with glass and cafes etc. The facade is polished granite - which may actually survive for a decade or two w/o looking like crap, unlike a lot of the concrete sh.t we’ve otherwise been burdened with.
Of course, when you look at it across the canal, it’s seriously dramatic. From most other angles, you just catch a glimpse of balck granite among the red-brick-with-copper-roof buildings that surround it.
Bauhaus and Frank lloyd Wright! I adore Mies Van Der Rohe (I consider the campus of the Illinois Institute of Technology to be great!)
I can’t stand Frank Gehry-the man is seriously nuts.
I hate everything Victorian-I would love to see all of that hideous junk razed to the ground!
I guess the only ancient style I like is ancient Egyptian-but they didn’t have enough windows!
Face it, we need to start building buildings that are functional and full of light. Resurrecting styles from the past won’t hack it.
I’ve been to this boathouse; it’s part of Oklahoma City’s attempt at creating a vibrant downtown area. The place looks impressive but isn’t particularly functional. The boats are stored in the middle which is boxier but the glass ends wind up being a bunch of wasted space that’s difficult to find a use for. The reflecting pools gather trash so you’re constantly looking at the remains of soggy napkins. And the view from the windows is a glorified drainage ditch.
I personally like the current modern aesthetic of very large windows and square lines but they come at huge cost. Those huge expanses of windows in SFH are only possible with year-round HVAC operation and even then, you often be uncomfortably hot or cold near the windows. Flat roofs are prone to leakage and need more maintenance. I distrust a building that must overly rely on technology to keep it functioning. Traditional design used centuries of experience to balance the need to keep out the elements yet allow in adequate light and ventilation.
Can someone please explain the hatred for all things Victorian from fans of modern architecture? Is it the “needless” ornamentation? The fact that styles were combined liberally? What is it? Because from my point of view, our cities were at their most successful when they were composed of a large percentage of Victorian architecture. That doesn’t even get into the fact that we can’t even dream of seeing the kind of workmanship that is in a huge percentage of Victorian buildings again in our lifetime.
Personally, I think that Victorian architecture has a cloying amount of ornamentation; it’s the antithesis of clean lines, and for the most part it looks best in the dark; it was never designed to make use of good light, and is very, very difficult to photograph well, especially in any direct light source. (Since it eminated from cloudy northwestern Europe, this isn’t especially surprising.) Some Victorian-era architecture is okay; the Neo-Renaissance stuff can be pretty good, but architecture with too much baroque or gothic elements is just overbaked for my taste. Greek Revival produced some very beautifully stark buildings, but has been unfortunately overdone, often in mediocre fashion.
I lived in two Victorian houses-they were drafty and chilly in winter, dark and gloomy in summer. The kitchens are small, and the bathrooms are too small also. They layout is terrible-front parlor (nobody uses), small rooms for this that and the other things. And the dark woodwork makes for a gllomy house. :o
I live in a Victorian rowhouse, and some of what you say is true…I always say that our house is a good wintertime house…since it’s a rowhouse, it’s not too drafty (plus, we have added a lot of insulation). It tends to be warm & cozy. It’s not so great in the summertime, because it doesn’t get great light, especially downstairs (it was designed with skylights upstairs, so it’s a little better up there). It’s surprisingly breezy with the front & back doors opened, so we stay cool enough not to need air conditioning (we try to be green about these things).
The rooms are small, but I don’t mind small rooms. I find that we use all the rooms in our house, even the front parlor! I guess it depends on your lifestyle and what you look for in a house.
Of course, Tampa doesn’t have the funds available to renovate this historic building-- but since it’s sitting vacant, it might as well be used to temporarily house the art museum while the city constructs a brand new shiny box. :smack:
On the other hand, your link to the new Saitowitz design inexplicably fails to mention the most awesome feature: see how the box has that great huge “TMA”* on the riverfront face? Well at night, those huge letters will light up and march endlessly across the side of the building, courtesy of a marquee-style LED illumination system. This “flashing lights on metallic box” arrangement gives the design an uncanny resemblance to a gigantic VCR, which should last about nine months until the lighting system starts breaking down and the museum realizes how much it will cost them to repair it.
*Although Saitowitz has been cagey about the significance, many believe that this initialism is intended to indicate “Tampa Museum of Art.” Rumors that the museum committee mistakenly approved the air freight box containing Saitowitz’ design proposal have been discredited, as the IATA transport code for Tampa International Airport is “TPA.”
I think I would disagree with that. Although I love my old house, its basic design IS somewhat impractical for the modern family. My brother lives in a new development, and when I visit I sometimes get a little envious of the layout, which is designed perfectly for dealing with kids…attached garage with a laundry room right there when you walk in, large bathrooms with a private one off the master bedroom, a great room, so you can cook dinner and still keep an eye on what the kids are watching on TV, etc. etc. It’s far far easier than what I’ve got. Now, I guess you could do a “Victorian revival” style, that had some of the cute bells and whistles of a Victorian without the typical layout, but that wouldn’t really be a Victorian house. Victorian houses by definition have lots of small rooms rather than one big one, for instance. I kind of like it, as I said, but it’s not the easiest or most practical setup.
I would not be in favor of it, but I do think you could design a Victorian house to reflect modern living conditions. See the link in my post #160 where that architect is doing similar things to bungalow housing. They still look like bunaglows but are fairly modern in the layout of the floor plan, with laundry rooms, etc. The still retain some characteristics of a bungalow but a true bungalow lover would easily be able to tell an older layout from this layout.
Stranger on a Train hit on my objections to the Victorian style. It is too much ornament for my personal taste. It has a gingerbread look that I don’t personally care for. Personally I like bungalow housing, that is why I knew where to find that link! Bungalow housing is a very American style and has nice proportions and to me a grounded feel about it. I am designing a house right now for my family and we are looking at a bungalow style. I actually enjoy modern too, but I also agree that it sometimes has too much of a sterile look for my personal taste. A house is something to be lived in and should reflect that. Commercial buildings I think are much more suited to the modern style.
Oh, I agree…I recently went on an open house tour of a brand-new development which had its various models all in different “classic” styles…there was an American Foursquare, a Queen Anne, etc. The foursquare was interesting…I live in a town full of old ones, and this new one was a pretty reasonable facsimlie. It certainly looked like one on the outside! The inside was laid out something like one, but with a greatroom across the back of the house. It wasn’t bad.
I love bungalows myself…for all the reasons you say. I like the simplicity and honesty of them. But not all Victorians are full of ornamentation. The Queen Anne farmhouse across the street from me is quite plain, in fact, and the house I live in isn’t really elaborate, either. I’m not an architect or an art historian, but I think there’s a lot more to Victorian archtecture than ornamentation, and you can certainly have the Victorian style without it.
Well, as regards good architecture: Andrea Palladio laid down the proper proportions for doors, windows, aspect ratios of building height/width, etc. However, it is the architect’s job to designI don’t see Victorian architecture incorporating any of this-those architects (of the Victorian era) ignored those rules, and plastered everything with ornamentation, like a wedding cake. People have pointed out how expensive these buildings were to build-and the maintainence is worse! Suppose you have a Victorian house with multiple gabled roof, a turret or two-you are facinga staggering bill for a new roof. Compare that to a FL Wright house-just a simple flat roof! THAT is why I consider modern architecture better!
I read it when I was 16–does that count?
