the Baron - go see it

Anything I would say would not do it justice and be pompous.

Here's to Gilliam

On training to be a vector

Copenhagen, from my flickr

I saw a picture of a Seoul skyline today, with, in the the foreground, a bamboo (inspired) roofed temple and in the background curtain walled skyscrapers. The use of bamboo rods to make a roof determines the shape of the roof, and this in turn makes the constraint an exercise in honing beauty out of a difficult material. So the roof was painted, curved like a wave, the tube-ends ornamented and waterproofed. Maybe it was not even bamboo anymore.

I bring this up because I am working on a local North-American project for private clients and I was musing about alternate materials like bamboo. I am a vector, like most architects, for cross cultural forms and materials. Vectors can carry diseases like mosquitoes do malaria, can fertilize like bees, or they can annoy like architects with out-there proposals.

It would be a risk for my client to consider non-local, non-traditional (in North America) roofing materials, however carefully detailed. They pay me mostly to avoid having to deal with the building officials who can be a hurdle, and who likes things tied up in nice local ribbons.

Did my training prepare me for this vector role? Did it give me the selling skills, the confidence and the ability to pierce the cultural protection force field.

No.

It did give me some technical and design exposure, but it tried to destroy any confidence I may have had about my ideas, like many professional schools do. Destroy the character and rebuild it. Pavlov showed that that does not work for all character types. He had identified four types in his research on brainwashing for the Russian military:

"the strong and impetuous type, the strong equilibrated and quiet type, the strong equilibrated and lively type, and the weak type",

i.e.:

1. Those who took it, who fought back, who grew stronger but who were not prone to being followers, who may hold secret grudges (Jason Bourne)
2. Those who  held their core, and could later be commanded and trusted (Arnold Governator...)
3. Those who talked back, who talked it though, but who broke in a good way, who could be trusted (Bruce Willis)
4. Those that broke and that could not become strong again (Darth Vader)

I am not sure where I fit in. Maybe this is a spectrum. I know that I hold no love for the empire my professors, that I would cross the street if I saw them coming first, and that I have not bought into the ideology of pragmatic architecture that they tried to instill. (I will post on the kind of abuse perpetrated on students at another time).

I think I am an "advisory vector". I usually will test the waters with a client, propose alternatives, and not be too upset if they go with the middle of the road. It is after all their money, their baby. This avoids disasters like the Toronto spiky museum additions, and the 1776 foot high skyscrapers that mean nothing, but it also tends to promote the status quo. Public clients are another story some might argue, but I disagree. Public money should not be abused for the benefit of the ego of the star architect. It is a difficult call, since good star architecture can revive a place, bring tourism money, but it can also be just annoying and self-serving and an abuse of the committee process, not to mention public funds..

Can someone link this to ethics of the profession? Is it more ethical to be a cross pollinating vector? Is it more moral to be a bee than to be a carpenter ant? Architecture, when it happens, gives meaning to construction, but it has to happen, and for it to happen, there has to be a will, and a will must exercise power, leadership. This is not a given in many contracts.  What is art? :-)

Architecture is predicting the future

When an architect is asked to design something, part of the challenge is to anticipate the effect that this usually large built and immovable object will have on the many people that will see, use and possibly inhabit it.

Conceptual art approaches can help, for example making a building evoke an idea, or using an idea to start a design, but they are never enough. That my building is 1776 feet high may help get sponsorship, but in it will hardly be perceived.

Fame or notoriety help. Celebrity architects draw buzz and crowds. One can invest genius in a built object and the aura of the famous designer creates a culture around the space.

The inescapable challenge of architecture however is to be present in time and space in a significant way.

Here is an example of how things can go wrong:

In my little town, the well-meaning heritage preservation committee got involved in the review of a design for a pump house that would sit along the waterfront. The building would need to have the volume of a large two storey house.

The committee looked around "for context" and found a nearby older shed that had two stone gable ends and a very symmetrical sloped roof, a kind of 19th century shed. So they strongly suggested that the utility's architect (or most likely engineer), take the cue.

The intention was to reflect the heritage of the industrial waterfront area.

The result was a large, white stucco covered imitation of an old shed, like an over sized paper model of it, sitting there contrasting against the dark water and sky.

I don't think that was the intention. I also think that any architect would have easily anticipated this and informed the client of the danger. Unfortunately, the heritage preservation committee is wedded to form and mimesis (a pompous architect term meaning copycatting). Unfortunately, it is an easy notion to sell, a concept that seems to make sense, reflect shapes, and if you are lucky materials.

An aside:
I agree with many of my colleagues who say that if you are going to do some restoration work or add to an older building, choose one: re-use material or re-use form and proportion, but don't do both, at the risk of getting some half-assed mimesis.

Ok, so back to the story. This thing now sits on the waterfront, annoying, out of place, and a reminder of industrial sheds we lost, but bigger and worse.

So instead of learning a lesson, this heritage committee moves on, job well done, and is now addressing the problem of our train station. Again, mimesis is being suggested, but this time there is no proximate context, so they looked in the pattern books for old train stations with huge eaves, and came up with some hybrid Frank Lloyd Wrightish stone bunker, because they wanted the stone of course.

What is galling is that the railway people had proposed a very nice, airy design, with proper functional overhangs to protect people on the platform, but with nice glass, and curves and a good light feel to it, considering the barren context of the area, a jewel that may have lightened the oppression of the district.

I don't think it will be realized, because no-one thinks that architects can predict the future, especially when the heritage preservation committee is locked in the past.

About architecture and design optimization

from my flickr

Thinking about Frank Gehry's buildings, and how the interiors are often disappointing, and how Toronto can now brag that it has a token Gehry.
Architecture, like many living things, is an attempt to defy gravity for a while In fact Wright made the analogy with trees. They manage to combine the height with better light gathering and water moving functions, along with structural wind resistance and are beautiful to look at. I think that when a building combines what we see as balance and beauty with gravity defying functions, like the Fifth Avenue Guggenheim spiral by Wright, where the ramp supports the walls and the lighting and circulation are integrated into the gaps as the ramp expands outwards, we have something new, something natural, something that has optimized the act of creation economically like nature does.

However, when we have a steel structure that supports curved metal sheets that combine into a graceful envelope, we have a sculpture, a chimera, but we certainly don't have what I would consider good architecture. None of the formal intentions are integrated with the human functions or with the structural functions. The awkward interiors are a symptom, a flaw in what should be integral.

Beaux-arts buildings and previous baroque buildings use symmetry to create visual and circulation axes within the constraints of construction techniques of the time - stone bearing capacities, structural span possibilities and light and ventilation requirements. For example width was determined by how far light could penetrate from a window to the interior, usually about twenty feet, therefore determining the maximum width of a wing to be approximately forty feet. Within these constraints, the geometry of the building emerged, and we have the Brandenburg gate, Versailles, Chenonceau, and when windows were made higher and larger through the use of flying buttresses there were the great Gothic cathedrals. Other great architectural inventions like domes served multiple functions. These rotated arches let light in from above, allowed huge spans and could be gracefully buttressed by secondary partial domes. The majesty of the byzantine temples of Istanbul remains unsurpassed.

And so why do we glorify sculptural architecture? Because it reflects our culture well. It shows that we can use technology to make things work. Mechanical and electrical systems make these buildings livable. They are large sets, that show wealth and excess. They are celebrity reasons.

As architecture it offends me, seems a bit crass due to the lack of constraint and of restraint. Pretty, sculptural, like the huge ornaments that dot history, like the colossus of Rhodes, the Atomium at Brussels, the large Roman and Roman-inspired triumphant arches. Architecture should be more than sculpture, it must work and live, make shade, shelter while being poetic. It should reflect ingenuity and evolution, and embody discoveries and inventions, discoveries like those inherent in the slight curve of the Parthenon's base and its subtly varying column spacings, the asymmetry of Chartres towers telling the story of its construction and of its builders, the lightness of its interiors, and the balance and poetics of Fallingwater's terraces and its colours and materials that rise with the light.

That SOA thing

Here is the definition from an authoritative vendor-neutral body:

The World Wide Web Consortium’s glossary defines Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) as

"A set of components which can be invoked, and whose interface descriptions can be published and discovered"

Note that the definition does not talk about the type of transport, it is all about interface descriptions – Web services are therefore a subset.

As in all such interface standardization efforts discovering the service (semantics) is key.

How to make apps talk to each other meaningfully (semantics and syntax) without a human in the loop is a problem old as operating systems.

This has been and remains the “holy grail” of integration. Getting apps to talk across their boundaries has been a staple of data processing since I can remember.

We have had shared memory, files, networking, RPC, CORBA, and the now the latest idea is to re-use the Web servers connected to apps as Web services by parsing the HTML or XML to understand the context of the data across HTTP [We seem to be adding layer after layer of code to do this for some reason. Maybe with the hope of adding some sort of “intelligence”, maybe not…]. When we only use TCP/IP interfaces instead we generalize and call it SOA. This tells us that TCP/IP is now a commodity layer. It is all about commoditization moving up the stack.

In all cases we need to make the plug for the socket and make sure the voltages are OK; i.e. the syntax and semantics have to work across the boundary.

The Web has given us a new way to think about this.

Links – URI and URL’s

SOA is the idea that an app can “choose, click on, and follow a link” by itself to get a job done – and sometimes fill forms too.

There are 4 major verbs we can apply to URI’s and URL’s: GET (click), PUT (put up a resource), POST (fill-in a form mostly), and DELETE (get rid of a resource), plus a few more: This is HTTP. It is meant to stateless (except for cookies and URI-held sessions ….) because the state is supposed to be held by the user – and when the client becomes an app, that can complicate things greatly – all of a sudden you have servers talking to each other with state.

Still, we have not progressed to semantics at the app layer – this is transport and syntax.

We have always depended on humans (programmers, analysts and users). We have been doing this – imperfectly – first through command line, shell scripts, GUIs, and now Web pages and forms.

When you cut and paste, when you embed a table or a picture into a document and when you save a file to be retrieved by another app you are doing inter process communications. Windows and GUI’s allow us to do this more easily, with visuals– it may be their most obvious value proposition – the basis of the MS empire. The Web is similar, we press on links to hop among and between servers and apps.

Computers, on the other hand need to be rote taught. They can crawl web sites, but they have difficulty making them inter operate without humans writing the glue. Web 2.0 is about doing this more easily – “mashing up” service interfaces using XML and HTTP and the smarts of a browser scripting language – ECMAScript (JavaScript)

SOA ideals say that we can publish somewhat constrained specs that will allow machines to automatically selects forms and links and act on them, even when that they may never have seen before.

The more realistic approach is to say that we will need humans to guide the machines, but that the molding of sockets and plugs will get less onerous – we are attempting to standardize the interface syntax and restrict the semantics to a published, well managed, machine-discoverable set. In the interim, it helps us integrate stuff with less work.

Architectural introspection

(image by A. Barake)

Some professions are famous for introspection, i.e. endless debates about what it means to be an X. Architecture must be at the top of the list. Maybe it is the word. Information architects, IT architects, enterprise architects and the original culprits: (building) architects.

Some light shone on the causes of this recently, through a letters to the editor response in the summer issue of Perspectives, the organ of the Ontario Association of Architects. The original article, by Martin Poizner questions the reasons that architects earn on average less than real-estate agents and asks whether this is an indication of how little their work is valued.

It is the response, by Ian Ellingham of Toronto which I think is very interesting. He puts forth the notion that architecture has given up responsibility for the entire process of building and has recently focused on very narrow definitions of design, leaving much of the rest of the process to engineers (2 or 3 kinds are usually involved), urban planners, general contractors, technologists, building officials, and financiers.

He has a point, and he drives it home with a comparison to a more successful profession: medicine. Doctors specialize, but they all have the fundamental medical training first.

The same should be said of the construction specialities I list above. Wouldn't it be great if they all had to undergo basic architecture training first, learn about proportions, history of architecture, learn how to draw and how to put materials together, understand the motivations behind building and fire codes, learn about structure and properties of materials, and study great building and try their hand at designing? But as it stands now, most of the people who have power over the construction of the built environment do not have this complete set of basic skills, except the architects, and they are relegated (or have relegated themselves) to design.

There are many possible reasons for this. Architecture can claim roots in the arts since the Renaissance (in the Western tradition). Michelangelo after all was one of the designers of St. Peter's. Engineering and architecture separated during the Enlightenment for many reasons that Perez-Gomez writes about. One of my hypotheses is that people study architecture today as a way to make a living as an artist, a "safe" form of art as it were.

Unfortunately, any artistic creation requires artistic control, and architects are increasingly losing control of what they build. Because they are inherently generalists, they are sometimes perceived as "not good enough" to lead the building process. I think that to remedy this, architecture training should be the basis of all other building consultant professions, not a specialty on its own.

It may be too late to do this and we may need another name, since the word has become overloaded and its origins no longer relevant - the uber builder is now sometimes the under earner.

Portland

Portland, originally uploaded by MisterMeta.

My kind of architecture is all about materials. The old form and content argument. We tend to forget this when drawing, but remember it when rendering, but the problem is that the rendering happens late, and the materials must really be considered early. Give me proper materials over form any day.

Lugano, Nachbildung San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

Lugano, Nachbildung San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane

On the waterfront of the lake, a tribute in horizontal wood sections of a church long gone, like a TV image.

Eisenman House X model

from my flickr

Partly mysterious, because it embodies the fine line between architecture and other arts as defined by the Greeks to be useless but beautiful.