Thanks for your thoughtful post Hakuna.
I’d be interested to hear more about how you think LEED interrelates with aesthetics & what are some of your favorite green buildings.
Well unfortunately I am not LEED accreditted (taking my test though in three months)–it really is a big influence on the younger Architects in our office. But I like to keep up on the latest and greatest and since I am the Project Manage of a very large project that will be LEED certified I am looking to broaden my base of knowledge (and keep up with the young folks at the same time!)
However given that, I do know that location and orientation on the site are huge issues, orientation for solar gain and loss, reclamation of by products, etc are all very large influences on the design of buildings. Energy issues have a huge impact on building design as do the Mechancial systems–both heavily impacted by LEED. Much of it seems very basic thoughtful design, but as we all are aware that is often left on the wayside in building design.
The City of Seattle requires all new buildings they build or any building by a developer over 240 feet have to be LEED certified. So there is no doubt it is and will continue to be a strong influence on the design of most buildings over the next several years.
As to my favorite buildings? Well any I am working on of course! But I will need to think about this and respond later. See if I can find some good examples.
The author of Architecture of the Absurd is going to be speaking down in New Haven tonight. I’m going to try and make time to go see him. The book looks right on point to this discussion.
Sorry, but I hate most of those pictures there. In fact, I hate Ikea. I almost cannot imagine what people see in that straight-edge minimalist cold aesthetic.
The Chicago library is right down the street from my office, and I’ve got to tell you, it’s a butt-ugly building. Probably the worst type of “post-modern on a budget” mishmash you could come up with. Not sure the pic allows you to fully appreciate the birds and other frou-frou stuck on the top like decorations on a cake. And it is pretty monolithic from the sidewalk.
There was a competition for the building, and in some respects it was a challenging site, with an el line running along/through it. I seem to recall Helmut Jahn’s proposal was interesting, among others. IMO, the powers that be went with a “safe” traditional-appearing proposal, that complied with their budget.
Would have hoped for something more of a large public building in a city as aware of architecture as Chicago.
This is something that many people are going to use, is public, and will hopefully last for 100 years or more. Isn’t choosing something safe better than picking something that is edgy, but will likely been seen as an outdated fad 15 years later?
Yes, the proiblem is that they appear to be showrooms. These are not rooms you can live in. They are rooms which are stuck in a catalogue or picture-book as examples of “striking architecture” or something. But they’re not in any way inviting. Or rather, they invite you to look but never to interact.
Yeah, that pretty much gets to the root of the debate as I recall it. Is a large commission like this an opportunity for public subsidization of “art”?
It is hard to tell what folks will or will not like in the long run. Remember how people hated the Picasso when it was erected? Now it is one of the most famous images of Chicago.
Or do you end up with something like Jahn’s State of Illinois Building - the Thompson Center. In contrast to the Thompson Center which was plagued with HVAC issues and is a horrendous place to work, at least I understand the Washington Library works well as a library.
I was unable to find on-line images of the other library contenders. But here is an article that summarizes much of what I remember. It describes the resulting building as the end of a long, sad saga where the greatest priority wasn’t making a great building, but risk management.
Some additional images are available here.
To my eye, there is something exaggerated - almost cartoonish - about it. Something you might find in a near futuristic movie’s CGI. Which is fine, if that is the look they were going for.
I think the rooftop elements have a good chance of appearing dated in the relatively near future.
The Beeby designed library in Chicago is in my opinion NOT the direction we should move in. Imitation of styles from years past is not the future of Architecture. These post modern expressions rarely make the adjustment to the function and design of modern buildings.
The Seattle library although you may not enjoy the aesthetic does function very well as a library from my understanding of things. The stacks are laid out in a scissor type layout that allows adjustment and addition of books on the dewey decimal layout. Most libraries can’t do this, and as I understand it the Chief librarian was very involved the design of the library.
Current modern Architecture may not be (and likely will not be) the future, but looking to the past for aesthetic direction is not the answer either in my opinion.
I agree with all of this…the library is not my favorite. There’s something about this postmodern trend of mixing traditional & modern styles that I’m not crazy about, and I think the proportions are a little out of whack…especially with the rooftop stuff. I remember it took them a while to get the corner pieces up there…as I recall it was very, very expensive to make & install them…and I liked the building a lot more before they went up.
But, on the other hand, I do think it’s reasonably well-designed inside. It’s a little too difficult to “find the books” for me, as I recall you have to go up a few floors before you really get into the “library” space (it’s been a few years since I’ve been there, so I don’t remember exactly). But, overall it’s function as a community library and gathering place was clearly kept in mind when it was designed. Also, I like the use of the stone facade…it looks solid and friendly at the same time.
My theory about why people don’t tend to like modern architecture is rooted in evolutionary psychology. First of all, we are designed to appreciate symmetry and proportions found in nature (like the golden ratio). When architecture (or any art) follows those principles, it is more pleasing to the eye than when it doesn’t, and it seems to me that much of modern design shows a lack of understanding of this. I think people are also predisposed to materials that are more natural, with fewer hard corners and very straight edges. And in circumstances that call for such corners and edges, it’s more pleasing when they are made out of “softer” materials, such as wood, than harder ones. Look at your average modern kitchen…the cabinets are usually wood, and they have hard edges. But granite countertops are almost never cut with a hard edge…they offer any number of styles of beveled edges, which visually softens the hardness of the stone. When you think about it, we didn’t really even evolve to live in buildings, but are actually a species of plains-dwellers. We aren’t “designed” to appreciate vast expanses of sheer, smooth, hard, shiny surfaces, or to associate these surfaces with warmth and comfort (or beauty, for that matter). Where I live, there are a lot of buildings made of local limestone, and it used to be that the builders would leave a little bit of a rough-hewn face on the stone that faces the street, to show a little bit of the natural beauty of the stone, vs. stripping it into nothing but a plain block, which would not be found in nature. And architects should never forget that people do not appreciate their work from a “stand and look at it” kind of perspective…they have to live and work inside them, and it must be functional…it’s like fashion that way…sure, in Vogue Magazine you see designs that amount to “conceptual” art, but people don’t/can’t/won’t live in such clothes, because they simply aren’t practical or comfortable.
Actually Sarahfeena I do think you have hit on this crux of the issue. It is the coldness that appears to be turning people off from what I am reading here. I also don’t care for that coldness.
When I think of things I enjoy in life it is the little imperfections that I enjoy–it is what makes it human. I know that is what I enjoy about brick and stone buildings–the craftsman element. Those little subtle mistakes. I think you make a very interesting observation!
That was the plan, but in practice, not so much. (See - here or here).
I go by it frequently, and it isn’t that bad from the outside (it definitely doesn’t make me jump in fear the way the photo of the Prague Library did - not the blob one, the other one). But it’s not a good library.
Right now, I live in a modern building - and when I picked it, I really liked the angles and edges - but I’ve been having a hell of a time trying to furnish the place so it doesn’t feel like a museum or clash with the architecture. It’s hard to make it comfortable without looking out of place.
OTOH, a lot of the classic architecture that we love isn’t that comforting either - but we know how to make it work for us. Maybe it’s that we don’t know how to make this work for us, yet. Once we do learn how it works, it might be less offensive.
Except the Gehry buildings. Any of them. They’re just ugly. And the blob that ate Prague.
This I can’t agree with. First off, there’s a loads of inspiration to be found in the past. If architects can’t find something to draw upon from 10,000 years of civilization from dozens of cultures, the problem lies with them.
Second, those architectures evolved not only to to be aesthetically pleasing but to live within strict limits on what materials were available. But also, they were devised to be comfortable to poeple over, in some cases, eons.
You want to say, “nah, ignore that.” But that is precisely what one cannot say. Odds are, there’s ain’t much the ancients didn’t figure out in some corner of the world. Too long and too much thought for that. There are only so many ways to shape and color a room, to make furniture, etc. If you will not draw upon the past, what will you have left? In fact, it was that lack which caused our problems today! Take a look at older skyscrapers. They are beautiful, elegant structures. And yet they borrow from Gothic designs in many ways to complement the modern engineering and materials possibilities. Now look at the modernist “blank box.” It draws from nothing, and so it says nothing.
Thank you so much! 
Drawing inspiration from the past I can get behind–mimicking it I can’t. The Beeby library is trying to be something it is not. Michael Graves and Philip Johnsons Post modern work makes caracitures of past designs, which is my objection. see this Images of AT&T Corporate Headquarters by Johnson Burgee. Digital Imaging Project: Art historical images of European and North American architecture and sculpture from classical Greek to Post-modern. Scanned from slides taken on site by Mary Ann Sullivan, Bluffton College.
or this http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Portland_Building.html/cid_1109295603_Portland_Building_noid.gbi
Every project I have ever been involved with has drawn on the past, but we don’t design a facade and force the functions behind it fit into that box. Architecture will swing in a pendulum like everything else in life. My gut feeling is that things will become more humanistic as the years go on. Personally I think much of the current design is a backlash of the Post Modern movements.
I don’t disagree that there are many bland and blank boxes out there. But I also think there are some good examples. I am sort of swamped at work right now (hmm…maybe I should be designing!) but I will try and find some online images of the buildings I am talking about.
interesting. I hadn’t heard that about the Library. I enjoy it personally, and I know when I took my daughter and her friends there over the holidays they were quite enthused about it. I didn’t find it that difficult to find my way around, but granted I likely have a better sense of the design intent then the average person 
Now personally I enjoy Gehry’s work, but can certainly understand those that don’t.
Alright, I suppose I can agree with that. But I’m not a fan of any Modernist design principles, and I just generally depise Post-Modernism and Post-Modernism in any form. It’s not a movement, it’s twits bragging about the lack of a movement.
I think anything, including postmodernism, can be done well or poorly. Right now I am looking out my window at this building. (My office is on the 30th/top floor of the stripedy building in the leftmost image on the bottom row.) I’ve heard a lot of criticism of this building as insignificant post-modernism. But I think it is more interesting and attractive than many of the other buildings I’ve seen go up over the past couple of decades.
The 2 other most prominent buildings from my office are the CBOT, and Mies’ Kluczynski Federal Building. Not a bad view. No wonder I spend more time gazing out my window than working! 
Lucky you…the CBOT is one of my favorite buildings in the city.
Based on those images, I question whether that building design even qualifies as “post-modern” in any but the strict chronological sense of the word. It appears to be a reasonably decent-looking example of pre-modernist building design. It doesn’t seek to refute modernism; it simply tries to pretend that the movement never happened.