Beatus Est

Moving to a New Blog

2011-11-28T22:32:00.001-05:00

Many thanks to those who have read this blog from time to time. I have decided to create a new blog called The Radiance of Form. The reasons for this move and an explanation of the new name are there in the first post.

I will be reposting a number of these posts from Beatus Est there from time to time, and continue the ongoing series on propaganda and art this week.

Thanks!

How Art is Philosophical

2011-10-18T21:48:00.003-04:00

In the last two posts I wrote about the philosophical nature of true art, and how a purely political art is rightfully labeled as propaganda. I left off last time with the question about the use of art for propagandist purposes, or rather the misuse of art.   In order however to understand how art is misused, it may be good to understand exactly what I mean when I say that art, as opposed to propaganda, is philosophical.

In the example pointed out before, the Shootings of May Third, is the depiction of a particular historic event. What raises this painting however to the level of art, is that also represents a universal truth about humanity.   It is not simply that the painting depicts the scene of the firing squad, that makes this art, but that it depicts the real emotion, the defiant courage of the man in the face of death, that all men feel kinship to.   This scene, which to a historian would be a mere fact, becomes through the focus on the executed man's courage, a vessel for communicating a universal truth to anyone who views it, regardless of having knowledge of the particular circumstances of this historic event.

The historians might tell us that such a painting is not entirely accurate depiction of the events of May Third, or even that this happened some other time, but to an artist this is unimportant.   Rather than being interested in the accuracy of an event depicted, an artist is more interested in the truth, the universal truth of this man's courage.    Indeed this is why fiction is so lauded, because it tells us more truth in the telling of a story than science might ever tell us.   The novelist Patrick O'Brian points this out through the imminently philosophical scientist, Dr. Stephen Maturin.

But I imagine, sir,' - to Stephen - ' that you read books on medicine, natural philosophy, perhaps history - that you do not read novels or plays.' 'Sir,' said Stephen, 'I read novels with the utmost pertinacity. I look upon them - I look upon good novels - as a very valuable part of literature, conveying more exact and finely-distinguished knowledge of the human heart and mind than almost any other, with greater breadth and depth and fewer constraints." - Patrick O'Brian, The Nutmeg of Consolation.

The art of literature then tells us more about the universal nature of man than any discourse on psychology or anatomy ever could, because it focuses on what is universally true about man, not just what is correct. Simply painting a man on his horse would tell us no more than a photograph might, but should that man be pointing and sternly riding a rearing horse, what is communicated is clearly the virtues of his great leadership and stern courage, which makes message of the painting not the man, but the virtues which can be universally known to all men. This is what makes art philosophical, that art speaks about parts of the soul of human beings which are common to all of us.

What makes something art is that it depicts not just the events and situation of a particular event or person, but that depicts the parts of about human nature which are universal to all mankind, and through that points to something other than the mere facts of our existence.

Political vs Philosophical Art

2011-09-28T07:32:00.005-04:00

In the last post I wrote about how art is used to promote political ends, such as the coerced composition of the 5th Symphony of Shostakovich. The final distinction I left off with, that while art some is sometimes made to be political, all art is philosophical, deserves to be looked at further.

Politics is by its nature a changeable thing, something that despite the advent of "political science" still manages to be a fickle thing, not responding to theories of unbreakable rules. This is because politics is related to particular, rather than universal things, particular politicians, particular issues, budgets, and voters, all of which are subject to the particular circumstances of a time. In other words, a political campaign which one time worked in one state might not work in another, or even the same state at a different time.

A purely political art then is a work of art that is used to promote a particular political end.   A purely political art is most properly called propaganda, it is used to propagate, promote and convince people of the goodness or importance of an issue.   After this particular issue or cause is no longer in play, the purely political art loses its moorings and becomes meaningless, art then becomes merely an item of curiosity.   The art of the Chinese Cultural Revolution comes to mind, the posters don't really move you to anything other than finding the design striking and interesting.

Politics and politicians however are not guided simply by particular circumstances, but rather (at least the best of them) are guided by principles that are applied to particular circumstances.    The principles are what a philosopher would call universals.   The universal truths, such as justice, equality, courage, et cetera. When we see these universal principles as the guiding force of work of a politician, rather than simply the expedient, we acknowledge this as a great thing and label such people "statesmen" rather a politician.

Art then works the same way.   The universals are at work in the best works of art, the courage of a man, the need for justice, the longing for beauty, these make the best art universally loved, thus we call it "Art."    On the other hand, art which is purely used for political ends, which has little or no value in the universal sense, but is valued as we said only for the particular circumstance of the time and place, is called "propaganda." But yet, even in art which is intentionally political, which might be called propaganda in some sense, still can express the human virtues in a universal way.

Looking at Goya's The Shootings of May Third, we do not have to understand the particular political event which inspired the painting to be inspired by this. The defiance of the man with his arms stretched out stands out. He may be a radical, or a monarchist or whatever party, but his courage is what strikes everyone viewing this painting, this universal virtue turns Goya's painting from propaganda into the realm of true art.

Thus it is the universals, the philosophical, which makes art what it is, but the purely political degrades art into the realm of propaganda. The artist stands to the propagandist like the statesman
stands to the political hack.

But what happens when the propagandist uses, or more correctly misuses art for terrible ends?

Shostakovitch, Art and Propaganda

2011-09-22T07:49:00.002-04:00

Today I came across a very interesting show about a piece of 20th century music, which raises interesting questions about the nature of art, politics, philosophy and propaganda. The program, PBS' "Keeping Score" with Michael Tilson Thomas, explores the history of the creation of Shostakovich's 5th Symphony and how the life of an artist in the early years of 20th Century Russia was affected by the totalitarian government of the Soviet Union.

I found the show interesting in that it explores not just the music qua music, but that music is a particularly powerful means of not just expression but of propaganda. Every person interviewed in this program acknowledges that music, indeed all has a power greater than just to be enjoyed, but that it has a deep power that can be used to political ends. Stalin recognized this, and before the 5th Symphony, made Shostakovitch persona non grata with a particularly scathing review of his opera, labeling the music as antithetical to the state.

To the totalitarian Soviet Regime (indeed all totalitarian regimes), all art is in a sense "political" and therefore simply a tool to be used for or against the regime, so artists are chosen for their support of the state. This is however only somewhat true, as some art is intrinsically political (anthems, statues of patriots etc,) but some art is only political due to its adoption by a party or state. The adoption of Wagner as quasi-politico-religious themes by 1930s Germany is a good example of this, as Wagner was dead before the Nazis came to power. This exposes the difference between the works of art made to be political from those used for political ends. What makes this possible is not that all art is political, but that all art is philosophical.

This is a theme which I am currently exploring further so look forward to another post explaining further that connection between philosophical art and political art.

Article on Duncan Stroik's Renovation in Sioux Falls

2011-09-15T07:40:00.003-04:00

Over the last year a lot has been happening, including getting married, starting a new job and working with the ICA and NCAS. I have been writing though I've been concentrating on writing longer more scholarly work. I do however intend (as I've said too many times before) to start blogging more often. I hope to use this perhaps as a way to work out parts of ideas I'm working on for a few scholarly articles I hope to publish soon. I'm also trying to work out a new name for the blog, so suggestions would be welcome, as I'm trying to use this blog as more of a more scholarly laboratory than just a news feed.

One article I just had published was on the recently completed renovation of the Cathedral of St. Joseph in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The renovation was overseen by Duncan Stroik, a former boss and professor of mine at Notre Dame. The article was published by Adoremus Bulletin, where you can read the article in full. I encourage you however to purchase a copy of the article if you like it, as the print version includes a number of beautiful full color photos of the renovation.

Altes Museum (Old Museum) Berlin

2010-10-22T07:56:00.002-04:00

The Altes Museum by Karl Friedrich Schinkel. Finished in 1830 the building was the height of Greek style architecture. (Thomas Gordon Smith refuses to use the term "Revival" in speaking of the style, and so do I) The building survived vicious fighting during WWII and survived the fate of the Communist regime after the war. The Royal Palace once stood on the same island in the Spree but was unceremoniously replaced with a hideous modernist block, (which is now being torn down to rebuild the Palace).

Main Elevation

Colonnade

Main Atrium, modeled on the Pantheon in Rome.

Main stair hall landing on the second floor.

Modern the Right Way - Otto Wagner

2010-10-15T07:47:00.005-04:00

Kirche am Steinhof, Vienna, Austria by Otto Wagner, 1907.

The chapel of the local insane asylum, the beauty of the church is striking. It manages to retain the essence of classical architecture while not being completely classical. The church is filled with remarkable and exquisite figurative art, thus maintaining an essentially Catholic character. The main altar is just astounding.

If all modern were like this, I'd hardly complain.

What a Good New Classical House Looks Like

2010-10-14T08:22:00.003-04:00

A New Classical Townhouse in Chicago (completed 2006)

You don't have to make a house look like a McMansion to have a classical house. Here's an example in Chicago that fits into the neighborhood and is beautiful. Perhaps I wouldn't choose the French Empire Style but the house works and will doubtless be treasured for generations.

Washington Monument Grounds Competition, Why Bother?

2010-07-21T08:17:00.010-04:00

The vision for Monument Gardens from the McMillan plan by Daniel Burnham, Charles McKim, and Augustus Saint-Gaudens Commision of Fine Arts

Last week a coalition of Washington DC planners announced the National Ideas Competition for the Washington Monument Grounds. The announcement of this open design competition to redesign the grounds surrounding the Washington Monument, has prompted a lot of response from commenters on Greater Greater Washington and elsewhere, but I simply ask, will it be worth the bother? I am apathetic about this competition for two reasons, one based on my knowledge of the current state of architecture, and second because there already is a great plan for the site.

I’m afraid this competition, like the recent Eisenhower competition, and African American Museum competition, will be an exercise in playing with a stacked deck, stacked only for the modernist. The Competition states that a jury of “respected Americans who are leaders and creative thinkers in the fields of history, design, civics education, art, and science” will be judging the multitude of entries to whittle the competition down to twenty-five semi-finalists and then five finalists that the public will be allowed to vote on.

Will this be the vision for the Washington Monument as well?
Eisenhower Memorial proposal by Frank Gehry

While having the appearance of public input, the jury will have complete discretion to choose which entries will make it to the finals. The steering committee appears to have not a single prominent classical architect involved, leaving me with the distinct feeling that the result will be another confused and ridiculous modernist accretion to our beautiful, classical, city. The shame is that the professionals and academics running this competition will claim to have chosen what the people want, but will undoubtedly chose what they want, ignoring how poll after poll have proven the public’s love of the classical.

The biggest reason however is that the grounds of the Washington Monument already have a tremendous, beautiful and amazing plan, just one that has not been realized. In the 1901 McMillan Plan’s re-envisioning of the original L’Enfant layout of Washington DC, the Monument was to be centerpiece of the Mall, terraced fountains and railings and a large triumphal stairway descending towards gardens and parterres beautifying the center of the city. Not only is it part of the original plan that so many architects and planners profess to have a reverence for, but moreover it’s simply the best solution to the problem.

In 1900, the Monument Grounds were not so different from what we see today, described by many then as now as a wasteland of open space. The plan developed by Daniel Burnham, Charles McKim and Augustus Saint-Gaudens well researched and planned to be the symbolic heart of a great nation and everything from the width of the Mall, the spacing of the trees and the heights of the buildings along it was considered so to create a unifying, beautiful and magnificent effect.

One of the pavilions of the Monument Gardens from the McMillan Plan, which would have provided shade and visual interest for those strolling the grounds. - from the Commission of Fine Arts

This part of the mall is the keystone to the entire plan, one that not finishing leaves the entire work much the poorer, like not painting the nose of the Mona Lisa. To instead propose an alternative plan of modernist architecture hatched in the halls of architectural academia would be to deface this magnificent work of art with a monstrous carbuncle.

Finish the Plan, don’t destroy it.

Orange Diocese Selects Same Architect from Oakland for New Cathedral

2010-07-12T09:43:00.021-04:00

When I read the other day that the Diocese of Orange California had chosen Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM) to design the new Christ Our Savior Cathedral in Santa Ana California, I was not at all surprised. Several months ago, Bishop Tod Brown tipped his hand that he had something in mind for the Diocese of Orange when he sent a request to Rome to remain in his office for five years past mandatory retirement age of 75 so that he might guide the long stalled Cathedral project.

What is surprising however is that a Bishop would chose to be swayed by today's latest architectural fads rather than engage and embrace the interest in beauty and tradition in architecture and art growing amongst the laity of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, Bishop Brown has chosen to use the Cathedral as quite strident rejection traditionally-minded people when the diocese stated "Bishop Brown has emphasized the diocese has no interest in copying the past."

So far nothing is known about the design other than this statement and what can be assumed from the portfolio of the architect and his well known (and widely criticized) design for the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland California. It is likely that the design for Orange's Cathedral will be in many ways entirely similar to the sleek modernist glass and steel monstrosity in the Bay Area. Like Oakland we can assume that the Cathedral will be devoid of all traditional indications that it is a church, both in its overall plan or liturgical layout, but also that apart from a few out of place works of ethnic or abstract art placed in random corners, the only thing that will say "this is a church" will be the sign on the highway.

Cathedral of Christ the Light by Craig Hartman of SOM

From the perspective of modernist architects, the elimination of ornament and beauty has been the modernist ideal for almost a century, but it is particularly disturbing that the church, or rather a few misguided members of the older "progressive" generation have embraced this line of reasoning for the purposes of being "culturally sensitive."

Recently I had the opportunity to hear Mr. Hartman speak about the Cathedral of Christ the Light at a conference at Catholic University of America. Hartman spoke in his talk of how when designing the Cathedral in Oakland of the need to build a church that was sensitive to the dozens of different cultures and ethnicities found in the Catholic population of the Bay area. Of course the most appropriate way he found to fill to that need was to create... a glass and steel box. To Hartman, the only way to create a building is of course to strip it of any symbolism or meaning that might refer to any particular culture. The reasoning according to Hartman and other modernists is in order to create a church that is culturally sensitive to all ethnic groups is to create a church that refers to the traditions of none of them.

If such a sophistical line of argument were genuine, (which I believe it is not, it's simply finding a convenient excuse to create what they always would have done), the argument is condescending to the point of being downright offensive, as they essentially are arguing that ethnic minorities are so unsophisticated as to be unable understand any other culture than their own.

Los Angeles' Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels is also stripped of cultural symbols.

Experience however has proven the converse to be true, that diverse ethic communities embrace and love aspects of other cultures when they are introduced. For instance where large immigrant populations from Central America have settled in formerly Polish neighborhoods of Chicago, the Polish icons and paintings still hang proudly.

But as the saying goes: "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail," the modernist architect argues that stripping a building of all cultural meaning and symbolism is the only way to make it speak to a "universal" audience in the Church. The truth is that beauty is the most universally known thing to all human beings, and a beautiful church is the most culturally sensitive church one can design, so that all people may love it. Beauty and the embrace of traditions, rather than creating division, are capable of creating a deeper, richer and fuller synthesis of cultures than the cold, bare and lifeless designs modernist architects dream up for the Church.

Sadly, should Bishop Brown stay on for the next five years, this is precisely what the parishioners of the Diocese of Orange will get. This however is in my mind the last gasp of the generation of Church leaders enamored with the modern. Indeed I believe that Bishop Brown knows this and that he is taking on this project in his twilight years because he knows it is the last chance to impose his particular idea of the Church and what it's art should be.

Proposal for Oakland Cathedral by Domiane Forte (courtesy of the designer)

However, the people of the Diocese of Orange still have a chance, before it's too late, to express a desire for a beautiful Cathedral worthy of the traditions of the Church. While in Oakland the people spoke up too late, as the grass-roots campaign to have Dom Forte's design for Oakland replace Hartman's came very late into the process, people still have a chance to speak out in Orange. Perhaps a number of traditional designs be proposed and the people of Orange decide whether any of them or Hartman's design are better? Of course Bishop Brown and Hartman won't let that happen, as we all know what the result would be. As always, true beauty wins.

Why are Blocks That Size?

2010-05-31T20:26:00.012-04:00

The other day Daniel Nairn posted an interesting comparison of the street grids that can be found in various cities in the United States. A key question that was what made designers of cities choose one block size over another? Why for instance are the blocks in places like Tuscon, Arizona have blocks of 400 feet on a side while places like Portland, Oregon have 200 foot blocks?

To decode the block sizes of most cities one has to look at the interaction of architecture and nature, that is how local climatic conditions affect the shape of a building and it's lot.

The basic principle is that in the north the climate is primarily cold and dark, and in the south it's hot and sunny. This is more pronounced in Europe, where most of the precedents for American building types come from, and these building traditions were brought to America through the different cultures that established colonies in the New World. Thus how cities are laid out by the Spanish is significantly different from how the French, Dutch or English laid out a city, not only in tradition, but also because of where each of these cultures settled in the New World.

In southern and Mediterranean climates, there is a lot of sun and there is a lot of heat as well. So having a building close to the ground is a plus, as the earth helps regulate temperature. Also a building that is only one or two floors is good to help avoid heat rising up to higher floors. Traditional Spanish houses then are long low affairs, with small courtyards giving a little light where necessary but in general cool and dark.

Archtypical Spanish House

In the northerly climates, because of a concern for letting in light, so buildings tend to have tall windows, but also they need to deal with cold winters. So having a tall building is an advantage, as heat is retained through the stacking of floors. Keeping the lots small, narrow and nestled together helps retain heat.

So these important factors affect how the lots that such buildings need begin to make a lot of sense. A city in the northern European tradition will then have buildings being taller and narrower, having a depth of only about 35' or so for the main block and including requisite garden space, would have a relatively shallow lot size, meaning that the block size could be relatively small, at least in depth.

Ideal block in Alexandria Virginia 350' x 450'

Looking at Alexandria, Virginia as an example we see a more "southerly" northern house, having a main block of 35 feet or so with a small wing attached and a small garden behind. The lots in Alexandria are slightly deeper because of this side wing but still relatively shallow compared to the massive blocks you find in old Spanish colonial cities.

Archtypical Alexandria House

San Buenaventura, (aka Ventura), California, where I lived for two years, has lots 400 feet by 400 feet, four times the size of Portland's blocks. Ventura, was laid out according to the needs of a hot sunny climate, and like other buildings of the Spanish Colonial era obey the need for low sprawling houses. Having such low sprawling buildings, the space that this requires on the ground is a lot more and so the lots need to be significantly deeper to allow for a usable garden space behind.

Ideal block in San Buenaventura 400' x 400'

The need for a garden as a place to grow produce and even raise small livestock can't be under emphasized in a pre-industrial city. Almost all food needed to be raised locally, so having a garden was essential to city living. After the industrial revolution, with the advent of fast travel, food could be brought to market from distant lands, so the importance of a garden begins to wane. Thus we can see why Portland, founded in the latter part of the 19th century could afford to have relatively tiny blocks.

The industrial city becomes less and less subject to the necessities of the environment, and so most American cities west of the Appalachians have block sizes of more or less arbitrary sizes. Anchorage can afford to have a big block size just as much as it could have a smaller one. Really today with the advent of cars and air conditioning, the size and shape of a lot has more now to do with the needs of the car and finding parking for it than any other concern. So the key is less the depth of the lot, and more the width (being in multiples of car widths for parking.)

Speaking this Friday on Beauty and Harmony

2010-04-27T15:16:00.003-04:00

A good part of the reason I've not been blogging lately is that I've been preparing a lecture and presentation for a conference this weekend. The architecture schools of Catholic University of America and the University of Notre Dame are co-sponsors of A Living Presence - Extending and Transforming the Tradition of Catholic Sacred Architecture.

I will be speaking on the topic of Harmony and Beauty, a difficult philosophical concept for a very long book, but one that has proven to be even more difficult to shoehorn into a 15 minute presentation.

My slot will be in the 1:30 -3:15pm session on April 30, titled: Beauty and Abstraction.

Not gone the Way of the Dodo yet!

2010-03-29T09:14:00.002-04:00

Stuffed Dodo at Westfries Museum, Hoorn Netherlands.

I've not gone the way of the Dodo yet and died off, just been too busy with a number of projects to post lately. I've got a big backlog of things to write on and right now it's looking like the Augean Stables, (well not all of the architecture, but some of it does stink).

Stay tuned!

DC's Sacred Buildings

2010-02-01T14:03:00.001-05:00

Just a link to a collection of pictures of the great churches and other sacred architecture of Washington DC, taken by our friends over at BeyondDC

Haiti's Presidential Palace

2010-01-20T08:59:00.006-05:00

Devastation of the quake at the Presidential Palace of Haiti
(photo by LisaandroSuero via Twitpic)

Due to the tremendous loss of life and suffering there, I've waited a little while to post these thoughts about the impact of this month's earthquake on the architecture of Haiti. There is a terrible habit of some professions to use tragedy as a convenient way to get publicity, even architects, so I waited to post these thoughts some time afterward.

One of the first things that I noticed in the photos of the devastation wreaked upon the island nation of Haiti was the destruction of the Presidential Palace in Port au Prince. This majestic beaux-arts building, according to wikipedia, was built by French trained Haitian architect George H Baussan, in a French imperial style.

My question is what will the fate of this building be in the reconstruction? Certainly I don't want to diminish the loss of tens of thousands of lives by quibbling over a building, but I do think it is an important thought. As some reports have said, the building's destruction has become symbolic of the destruction of the country as a whole, but will the reconstruction of this building in all of its majesty be the symbol of the reconstruction?

I hope, as many readers probably would guess, is that the building either be reconstructed as it was, at least in appearance. Or better yet, that a new classical building replace it. My worst fears however are that the building would be replaced by a modernist monstrosity, ala Thom Mayne's Alaska Capitol scheme.

Will Haiti get a Thom Mayne Deathstar Capital?

What are your thoughts? Would it be appropriate to design a new classical design? How about a competition to do so?

Alternative way to get the Blue Line to Georgetown

2009-12-17T09:50:00.007-05:00

Since the earliest days of Metro, planners and engineers have struggled with the idea of running the Blue Line between Rosslyn and Georgetown, but I believe that a solution to this problem could be found with looking at the problem in a roundabout way.

The problem of how to get the Blue line to have a stop in the heart of Georgetown has been the topic of discussion for a while now, and biggest obstacle has been how to navigate the extreme grades between Rosslyn and Georgetown.

Each area is perched atop significant bluffs above the Potomac below, making direct a tunnel between the two sides a nightmare, one that Metro abandoned in the earliest stages of planning as impracticable. The direct tunnel would have to descend and ascend such a steep grade over such a short distance so that a station at a practical depth would be impossible.

However, I propose a simple solution, simply make the distance between the stations longer and give the tunnel a little more room to make the descent. How can you do that when obviously you can't move the whole of Georgetown? Simply putting a big bend in the tunnel.

Railroad builders have used the technique of bending the tracks around bends, horseshoes and even loops to make the ascent of steep grades possible, such as at the famous Tehachipi Loop. The idea would be to give the train enough track to descend below the Potomac by bending the tracks to the west, making a turn under the Potomac and the C&O canal and making a gentle ascent under M Street NW. Certainly it would be more tunneling, but it would make the sorely needed station a possibility.

Could this work? Has anyone proposed something like this before?

New Design Site Launched

2009-12-15T14:36:00.005-05:00

I'm pleased to announce the launch of my new design business website.

www.bootsma-design.com

I offer architectural renderings, architectural design consulting, liturgical and urban design as well as graphic design. Please take a look and feel free to comment.

East Building of National Gallery Crumbling After Only 30 Years

2009-12-11T08:58:00.003-05:00

NOTE: After writing this article I received the following message from the author of the WSJ article:

"I have read your blog about my WSJ article on Pei's E Bldg wall system but it contains what I believe is a major error--the notion that Pope used expansion joints on his W Bldg marble veneer. This is untrue. The W Bldg marble veneer is mortared as well as anchored to its concrete back-up on the lower level and bonded to a brick substrate on the upper/piano nobile level. The resulting mass obviates the need for expansion joints. The only movement joints on the building are for structural movement and they fall between the wings and the center/rotunda block. I checked this out with the Gallery in reporting the story."

In this week's Wall Street Journal, Catesby Leigh writes about the ongoing problems popping up at the I.M. Pei-designed National Gallery East Building. The WSJ article explains that the facade of the building, constructed using an experimental curtain wall system that the architect described as "a technological breakthrough for the construction of masonry walls," has become unstable. While the article delves into the technological reasons for the failures, it begs the question of why. Why would the architect make a conscious decision to ignore established precedents for the construction in favor of a new, unsustainable system. The answer has more to do with ideological constraints as much as a technological ones.

East Wing of the National Gallery (photo by Iainr, via Flickr)

The facade of the East Wing is constructed of a series of 2'-by-5', 438-pound marble panels that are held in place on a structure of steel hangers attached to a concrete frame. With the use of new rubberized gaskets to seal the joints between the stones and allow for movement to occur, the walls were supposed to last for a half-century or more before needing even minor maintenance. Pei described them as "a technological breakthrough for the construction of masonry walls." It is this system that the WSJ piece describes as the very reason why the facade failed.

But the bigger question is why the building employed such technology in the first place. The following line explains the why:

The [use of the new experimental] gaskets also would spare the East Building the need for wide, visually disruptive expansion joints—a standard feature of curtain wall veneer, running horizontally and vertically at regular intervals to accommodate thermal movement.

The clean lines and solid geometrical forms of the building's design simply could not be interrupted with unsightly expansion joints. I.M. Pei quite simply was shackled to his own modern design, constrained to have large uninterrupted geometries of stone, a technological solution was an absolute necessity. The earlier Main Building, designed by John Russell Pope, had no such constraints.

Expansion joints are hidden behind the pilasters. (photo by Boots)

What most people, even architects don't realize is that the Pope building, like the East Wing, is similarly constructed using a marble veneer over a structural core. What is different, however, is the extensive use of a well established conventions construction and the use of expansion joints. These expansion joints on the facade of the Main Building are cleverly hidden behind clusters of classical pilasters on corners of the facade. Pope, not being constrained by the ideology of modern architecture, was able to find a solution that was at once attractive and still working marvelously almost 60 years after completion.

The essential difference between these buildings is clearly the technology used, but that technology is a direct reflection of the architectural philosophies of each architect. In the former case the architect believed that new materials would provide a "technological breakthrough" to allow him to create the clean lines of modern architecture. Ignoring traditional solutions and the nature of the materials he was working with, it ultimately resulted in structural failure. The latter architect however worked using established precedents of construction that took into consideration natural forces such as expansion and contraction and gravity, and combined this with a sleight of hand possible through classical architecture, created a building that has stood over twice as long with no major failures.

The question of modern versus traditional when it comes to building technology has become more than just a question of style, but that of sustainability. The cladding of the entire East Wing will now have to be removed and restored at the cost of $85 million to the taxpayer. This works out to about 17% of the inflation adjusted cost of the original building ($500 million). Add to the financial cost the immense amount of fuel, energy, and building material waste produced by such a project, the justification for such buildings is becoming more and more difficult. Structural and facade failure in an iconic Modernist building is not without a number of precedents, begging the question of why architects insist upon continuing to build such unsustainable architecture in our enlightened times, again the answer is ideology.

On one hand, architects wisely are beginning to embrace sustainability, but with the other hand cast aside traditional detailing and traditional architecture because of a ideological bias against such architecture. We need to use architecture, all of its lessons to create a better and more sustainable future, here at GGW it seems most everyone looks to tradition when it comes to urbanism, so too we should embrace it in architecture. For architecture to truly be sustainable it must not only welcome back into its repertoire the lessons that traditional and classical architecture have to offer when it comes to construction, but also must be willing to embrace them.

Bicycling in the Eternal City

2009-12-01T07:37:00.014-05:00

When people here in the US think of cities with a strong bike culture in Europe, the places that come to mind are Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Paris, but Rome is rarely on that list. The picture that most Americans have when they think of the Eternal City is riding a motorino around the Colosseum, or as Eddie Izzard puts it most Italians riding around saying 'ciao' like in Roman Holiday. But thanks to a new bike sharing program started last year, that culture is beginning to change.

Bicycling in Paris

This past week I visited Paris, Venice and Rome, and while in Paris I had planned to check out the Velib system for this post. Paris is as many folks have reported becoming an increasingly bike friendly city, and despite the rash of vandalism lately, the Velib system still remains convienient and widely used by commuters and tourists alike. I was pleasantly shocked however to see that Rome has begun its transformation into a bike city much like Paris or Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

Launched in July of last year, the system is being run by ATAC, the transit agency that runs the buses and metro in Rome, and its its fare system works much like the Velib system, being free to subscribers for the first half hour then charging 1 Euro for 30 mins after. Stations are mostly clustered in the Centro Storico (Historic Center) of Rome, though there are a few around La Sapienza University and in Ostia Antica along the coast. On the Google map for the stations, you can even click on each station to see how many bikes are available at any given time.

The new bike sharing system in Rome

The bikes are of a more sturdy and conventional design like most Dutch bikes as opposed to the aerodynamic Velib. Each has a rack in back and a basket in front, making them pretty convenient to take a few items. However this stolid design isn't dissuading the ever fashionable Italians from riding them or riding bikes of their own. The bikes I saw Rome, most of them very new, were ridden by ordinary looking Romans, dressed in street clothes or women in their necessary high heels. It seems the culture of bicycling is being seen to be just a normal part of life, even for the Romans.

System map of the bike share in the Centro Storico

Two years ago when I lived in Rome, I would not have dared ridden a bike in this city, so the transformation, albeit still very small, is remarkable. Judging by the experience of so many cities such as in Paris, New York and Copenhagen, where bicycling had for so long been seen as ridiculous or dangerous concept, but is now embraced proudly as part of the city's life, I think it's an encouraging sign to see such growth in such a short time.

When a Survey Shows Britons Prefer Classicism, Architects Attack!

2009-11-02T08:52:00.021-05:00

A short time ago, Robert Adam Architects commissioned a study along with The Traditional Architecture Group in the UK asking ordinary people which sort of building they preferred when they were shown this image.

The YouGov survey asked 1042 respondents to select a preferred building from a choice of four, in answer to the question; ”Please imagine a new building is planned to be built near where you live. Four different designs are proposed. Please look at the designs below. Which one would you most like to be built near you?” The illustrations show new buildings of a similar height, size and orientation to the street.

Much to the surprise of the architectural establishment (but neither to Adam, nor myself) the public preferred the traditional schemes by a three to one ratio. Predictably though the architectural press and heads of the prestigious architecture organizations in Great Britain used the survey as a launchpad for their invective against traditional architecture and ultimately on the public at large.

Having all the characteristics of a drunkard confronted with his addiction, the press and architects first deny the charge then move to attack their antagonists. Johnathan Glancey of the Guardian's response to the poll is fairly indicative when he questions the poll's accuracy.

Even if 77% of those who took part in the TAG survey preferred the superficial look of the two “traditional” office blocks, I wonder what they would have said if they had visited all four buildings?

Glancey would like to make us think that the public is somehow hoodwinked by just showing the facades of these buildings, and that the modernist buildings insides are really a lot better than the exteriors show. "You see, the public is just being fooled by only showing the exteriors, really they would love the place if they just got to know it. " Of course this just introduces an assumption that interiors of the traditional buildings are mediocre at best. Which is exactly Glancey's sentiment when he derisively dismisses the classical design:

"You can dress up an everyday office block in any facade you like, yet nothing will ever hide its matter-of-fact nature. Not only do floor heights give the game away — where are the piani nobili in the two “traditional” designs? — but you also know instinctively that behind those weakly expressed entrances lie ordinary speculatively built offices."

Margarine he says, assuming that the classical building is nowhere near the quality of the renaissance palazzo and therefore not as good as his modernist office block. Traditional architecture, according to Glancey, is incompatible with modern uses and is completely unable to adapt to the exigencies of "our modern times."

The two with “traditional” facades, however, are the least traditional of the quartet because the heyday of neo-classicism offered little precedent for the design of 21st century office blocks.

Such forgetfulness is par for the course for the adherents of modernism such as Glancey, conveniently forgetting that the pioneering architects of office blocks in Chicago were committed classicists such as Daniel Burnham, John Holabird and Cass Gilbert, again, living in denial. I suppose it's not too surprising to see such statements when the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Ruth Reed, dismissing this same survey slammed classical architecture because the buildings shown are “frequently very expensive and often use unsustainable materials.”

To which Robert Adam replies with characteristic wit:

“I don't know what planet Ruth Reed is on if she thinks that the glass, steel and concrete favoured by modernist architects are more sustainable or cheaper than the natural materials like brick, stone and stucco used by traditionalists"

As I believe I've shown again and again before, the ridiculous canard of modernism being the sine qua non of sustainability holds as much water as the roofs of these same modern buildings.

But probably most offensive of all is the downright disdain they have for the opinion of the public at large. Glancey is again typical in his Glass-tower elitism when he condescendingly calls those who prefer the traditional designs stupid.

Once upon a time, seven out of 10 people claimed they couldn’t tell the difference between a heavily marketed margarine and dairy butter. How dumb were those people who couldn’t pick up on a difference that must have been as great as the gulf between modern movement and neo-classical architecture?

So if you prefer traditional architecture, you just like margarine because you are too dumb to know the difference. Glancey seems to say: "If you were as intelligent and educated as I am, you'd know the difference." But Glancey either has as Robert Adam claims such "lamentable ignorance of classical architecture" or he is simply not telling the whole truth. I'd prefer not to call someone stupid, as he would, so I think he just lies. Such are the ways of this drunken establishment, drunk from the excess of its power over the built environment for so long that it can only deny the plain truth in front of their eyes, attack traditional architecture and denigrate the very public they claim to be enriching.

I'd be happy to see the architectural press launches such attacks if I were Robert Adam and the classicists in Britain. They are only indicative that classical movement is beginning to resonate with the people, and the modernist establishment is losing its privileged status the sole arbiters of architectural orthodoxy.

I hope that someday the state of affairs on this side the pond will change and the architects and promoters of modernism will be forced to have a debate with tradition on its merits. Sadly however, without champions such as Robert Adam over here, the modernists still remain snug in their glass-tower elitism.

2009-10-28T17:40:00.002-04:00

Could developing large parking lots help suburban churches fund improvements? Grenfell Architecture has designed this plan to help a parish create a more beautiful church using solid New Urbanist principles and traditional Virginia architecture.

The church occupies typically sprawling suburban lot, surrounded by seas of asphalt and low-rise buildings. However while I was working at Grenfell Architecture we tried to look at this project in a radical way. We came up with a plan to fix the disorganized sprawl of parking lots and low-rise buildings to create a new neighborhood and to truly make this church the center of a community.

The primary focus was to design a new church that better reflected the liturgical reforms of the past few years within the Catholic church. Since many parishes have only limited resources, we explored how a phased development could help turn this parish from asphalt-dominated auto-centric sprawl into to a walkable mixed-use neighborhood.

Both parishioners and priests alike have given this plan almost universally positive reviews. The pastor of this church has seen the plans and is amenable to the idea, but it does not represent any actual plans to construct this project.

1. This is the current site condition. The area is disorganized and chaotic, dominated by parking there is little in terms of good outdoor space, and the buildings do not create any ensemble in any way.

2. The first step is to create a system of streets. This begins to organize the area into a block structure. The streets are designed for on-street parking, amazingly providing an equal number of parking spots diffused about the site.

Note too that the connections are created to allow for this neighborhood to become a center to adjoining neighborhoods.

3. Parking now not being at a premium, the large parking lot facing the street is replaced by a section of shop-front commercial with apartments above. The corner would be anchored by a neighborhood size grocery store, and other small shops such as florists, coffee shops, or service businesses could occupy the rest. The apartments above see their first residents in anywhere from 10 to 20 apartments. These apartments would be ideal for elderly or younger couples who might not be able to afford larger homes.

4. The first set of 20 townhouses are built upon empty parking lots. The townhouses feature alleys behind with one or two car garages. These are geared towards families with children who might attend the local school.

5. The parish school which would be now after sales or lease of properties, be able to afford to build a new three story school. The school would have the same area of classes, but having a taller profile provides a more compact footprint.

Note: up to this point the only demolition that has occured is of parking lots. Already the campus has been improved tremendously.

6. Now having built a new school, the old school could be the first demolition, allowing for the construction of 28 new townhouses and another small section of commercial storefronts and apartments. The townhouses each feature the same rear facing garages and small yards behind.

7. Now the school could complete the reconstruction of the school by completing a rear wing with gymnasium that would create a pleasant interior courtyard. The courtyard also allows for light to reach all classrooms of the school.

8. Having completed all of the residential components, the parish could now use the funding that has been generated from the residential sales and commercial rents, to help build a new church. The new church here might incorporate a small historic chapel as part of the complex of the church, sacristy and rectory for the parish. The existing rectory would be removed, but the pastor could reside in an apartment or one of the townhomes while the new rectory is being built.

9. Now that the parish has a new church and chapel, the old church is demolished to complete the plan. A new set of storefront buildings would be finished in such a way as to create an orderly town square. The town square would be activated by having stores, coffee shops and both school and church functions on its green.

Between this commercial block a parking lot would be created to serve the commercial as well as the apartments built above. Using the topography, a parking structure could also be built behind, doubling the parking.

However, one would hope that since this neighborhood center would be home to almost 75 families, that the need for parking would be reduced significantly. The appeal of being able to be close to school, church and shopping, as well as possibly work, along with a local bus line running to Metro along the main road would encourage less auto use by residents.

The key though is the church as the center of the community. This principle is easily applied to followers of any faith, allowing for their own faith to be shared by their neighbors, and to provide visible witness to neighbors as well. Making the church not just a place where people go on Sundays but a visible and active part of their lives, giving residents something shared that brings them together as a real community.
All Images Copyright Grenfell Architecture PLLC.

Update: This post has been reposted on Greater Greater Washington, please go to this link to see the discussion there.

Return to sanity and blogging

2009-10-27T16:14:00.002-04:00

After a few months of intense work on a number of projects, including a new website (which is still under construction) and the launch of my new design business, I'm back to a more regular schedule and a more regular blogging schedule.

I plan to have about two posts a week, though perhaps more when the mood strikes me.
Thanks for your patience.

The Importance of Beauty to the Catholic Church

2009-10-06T10:03:00.000-04:00

A new column by Art Lohsen entitled "The Importance of Beauty to the Catholic Church"

Bike Lanes in Portland

2009-09-14T14:27:00.008-04:00

I've been busy working on a few projects so posting continues to be light. However I thought I might share a few images of the newest bike improvements going up in the bike heaven of Portland that I saw on my trip home this past week. I don't usually post much about transit and bikes here on this blog, as I prefer this to be a more philosophical blog about architecture, but I found these of interest.

A lot of folks are familiar now with Portlands "Bike Box" outlined to protect bikers in the street as can be seen here.

An interesting little element here is the tucking of a bike lane BEHIND a stop for the new street car lines. As someone who commutes by bike in Arlington, I'd love to see the bus stops do something like this, rather than the buses pulling over INTO the bike lane and forcing me to A. stop, or B. dart out into traffic.

This sort of ingenuity is great.

What is great however is that Portland has just in the past few weeks established a new "Cycle Track."

The Cycle track is simply a inversion of the standard bike lane in the street to a separated bike lane between the sidewalk and the parking lane of the street.

Notice that there is a little 2 foot space there between the parking and the bike lane to allow for a door to open.

Here we see how this helps to deal with the big trucks that invariably block a standard bike lane. Here you can see there's still room to get by!

All of this was done in the past few weeks with just some striping changes. No new concrete or asphalt was laid here. Its great that PDX has taken a little initiative where others haven't and tried something that works in Europe just fine. Wouldn't it be great if DC and Arlington would do the same?

Novelty vs. Beauty

2009-09-02T23:19:00.004-04:00

Following is the text of my article published on Catholic News Agency's website.

I'm also being interviewed on EWTN radio's Son Rise Morning show tomorrow (Sept 3) in the 8am hour about this article.

Here follows:

When I tell Catholics I meet that I’m an architect, invariably they ask me, “Why doesn’t the church I attend look like a church? Why don’t they build nice churches like the old ones we love?” Sometimes I come up with a complicated answer or theory, but most of the time I answer, “architects.”

In the United States, we have a fairly good tradition of building beautiful churches in which one can feel a true sense of reverence. One would be hard pressed to find a church built before World War II that wasn’t beautiful and beloved by its parishioners. It would be an even more difficult task to find such a church built after the World War that comes close to the beauty found in an average 1920s church and a Herculean task to find one built since the 1960s.

How is it that even within the Catholic Church, where we affirm and believe in the importance of tradition, that a deep and profound architectural heritage came to be abandoned? Again the answer is that architects, like so many other artists, have become obsessed with the idea of novelty. Most artists have been trained to believe by their mentors in 20th century art culture that only novel or “revolutionary” creations are worthy of being called art.

Today, I would venture to guess that most architects labor under this idea in one form or another. Some are truly dedicated revolutionaries, trying to undo centuries of tradition and casting aspersions towards traditional architects as backwards monarchists, luddites, or purveyors of kitsch. Most, however, are simply trying to be creative in the best way they can, some even maintaining an innate affection for the traditional, but still holding it at an arm’s length.

But in terms of high profile architecture, the revolutionary architects have been the ones that have caused the most egregious damage to the beauty of the Church, creating bunkers that one barely recognizes as a church, let alone a Catholic one. The Jubilee Church in Rome by Richard Meier, Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles by Rafael Moneo and the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland by Craig Hartman of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, to name just a few, are examples of the tremendous ugliness foisted upon the Church by these revolutionary modernists. Coincidentally, or perhaps quite logically, all of these architects are atheist or at least agnostic spiritualists. However, most churches we see daily in our communities are built by skilled, but uninspired, architects. A great many of them are committed and practicing Catholics, who nonetheless labor under the philosophical sway of the revolutionaries.

Now, most architects don’t want to rock the boat and become bomb throwing revolutionaries; they are content to go with the flow, while not realizing the philosophy they casually subscribe to contradicts the basic philosophy of their very own Church. Most believe, as do a great many Catholics, that progress is a good thing and so too even in the Church. A great many indeed believe, given the changes of the Mass and the art of the church that the Church during Vatican II embraced the idea of novelty writ large.

But this philosophy of novelty is contradictory to the teachings of the Church because it rests upon a fundamental belief of the modern movement: the absence of objective truth. A philosopher friend of mine explained to me that the one unifying strain of thought in modern philosophy is the belief that truth itself is not something to be discovered by man, but rather something that man creates. The classical philosopher, on the other hand, believes that truth is eternal, that we are by our nature made to seek and know the truth. To the modernist, however, there simply is not such a thing as objective, knowable, eternal truth. This belief in the absence of real truth is what is at the very root of this insatiable thirst for novelty.

The ancients believed that art was one of many ways that one could come to understand the truth, as was succinctly explained by Aristotle who wrote that “art imitates nature.” Now the Philosopher did not mean that art is just the drawing of what we call natural, such as bunnies or mountains or trees, but that art imitates the true nature of things, such as when we refer to our human nature. Art, therefore, is concerned with the truth about the nature of things: it imitates nature in order to teach us to know and love the truth. Aristotle states that human beings delight in knowing, and what in art is not concerned with delight?

What then is left for the artist to imitate if truth does not exist? If there is nothing of nature that is truly knowable then there is nothing to be learned from beauty, and art has little value over the enjoyment taken in its consumption. When there is no truth, only the new and different and shocking are the things in art that can be enjoyed.

But this enjoyment lasts only for a short time, because since there is nothing to be learned from these works of art, they lack the depth and weight to be a truly satisfying meal for the soul. If one looks at what passes for art today, it has become very thin gruel indeed. The insatiable desire of novelty has led to such abandonment of traditional forms and ideas of art that a pile of cigarette butts or the preserved corpse of a shark is considered the height of art. That such art is highly prized because it is “of its time” only shows how much art has devolved from valuing beauty, order and truth to merely a fashion or fad.

Previous generations of artists always relied upon the wisdom of their forbearers, building upon their techniques and their brilliance to find ever new ways to make beauty. Progress for architects in the past always was a fuller understanding of their craft, looking at precedent to create more beautiful buildings than the generations before. But today progress has little to do with precedent, discovering a fuller understanding of the truth and principles and working towards the end of wisdom. But again because modernists posit that those principles cannot be known, real progress towards wisdom is impossible, leaving behind only an insatiable lust for that new. Instead, the modern artist sees progress itself as the end, and calls novelty true architecture and dismisses all architecture based on tradition as worthless kitsch.

The philosophy of the classical mind stands in stark contrast with the modernist, believing that truth is real and it is a knowable thing. The classical architect embraces this idea and believes that truth is made manifest through beauty, for it is in beauty that we can come to know God. St. Thomas Aquinas says this in part when he says we know God through the order of the universe.

In architecture we only need to look to the examples of the past before the middle of the 20th century to see this beauty. By studying the great architecture of the past, especially the work of the Church, we can come to better understand the principles of beauty: order, proportion and magnitude. The more we study it the better we come to understand our own world and God’s ordering of it. Indeed, this is the true purpose of all art, to shed light on the reality of being through the beautiful, to make radiant the truth. Now to best understand these truths, such as the truths of the faith, we must look to the lessons of the past and emulate them. Not simply copy or parrot the works of past masters, but by practice learn the true principles of the art.

Understanding and emulating the beauty to be found in traditional architecture is key to the creation of true Catholic art. Through the principles of proportion and order, an architect can create sacred architecture that is entirely grounded in the principles of beauty that is found in tradition and that sheds new light on truth, and especially the truths of the faith. This is the amazing property of a beautiful church, it is at once ancient and new, just as beautiful today as it always has been, still speaking with clarity of the truth through beauty it possesses.

This is why the Second Vatican Council declared “the church has not adopted any particular style of art as her own,” because throughout the centuries of Catholic architecture, the lessons and principles of sacred architecture cannot be irrelevant in our or any other time, but are infinite, because they are from God. Indeed, our architecture should reflect the faith that God is the infinite and eternal principle of all things. Just as our theology teaches us, the truths of God are not exhausted or made irrelevant in any time, but have become better understood; our fuller understanding of the truth has made our past discoveries even more radiant.

So too the styles of architecture change, not by massive revolutions or by wholesale rejection of the past (such as how Walter Gropius famously threw all of Harvard’s architectural history books on the trash heap when he became Dean of the architecture school in the 1930s) but by slow degrees corresponding to the revelation of the truth through philosophy and art and the work of centuries of artists.

This is the future of a true Catholic architecture, one that embraces our human capacity to know and to experience the truth, both through our intellect and through the beauty of art. That we can create such beauty and that we ought to create this is evident from the teachings of the Church. We, however, must in many ways undo the damage done to the classical world by the march of modernism, both as a philosophy and in the practice of art and architecture. Philosophy and architecture need each other when it comes to this, for philosophy to define and defend the idea that there is truth and beauty, and for architecture to create beautiful works of art, informed by truth.

There have been signs of progress towards this ideal, where new developments in architecture are striving towards a fuller understanding of truth through the beautiful, such as at my own alma mater, Thomas Aquinas College. Here where the Great Books are studied not for their historic value, but as books that are critical to understanding ourselves, the world around us and God himself, a grand new chapel has been built to the glory of God. The Chapel of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity is not simply a replica of a Church, but a lesson in brick and stone of how ancient principles of beauty come to life in new and creative ways.

Inspired by both the high renaissance churches of Palladio in Italy and the local vernacular Mission churches of California, the chapel shows perfectly how this growth of wisdom happens. By blending together these different styles without an inordinate desire for novelty, a truly original piece of art is created. Here the architect Duncan Stroik rejected the notion that one must pursue the novel and embraced the beautiful forms that will endure for generations. This is the choice that all architects must make to create a true Catholic architecture.

When it comes to a choice between novelty for novelty’s sake and the beautiful, in our Catholic churches the beautiful and the true must always be chosen. We can create something new, a new way to see the beautiful, but not create a new beauty according to our own image. In this way we can create what is both ancient and new. Truth is as infinite as God is, to seek after it in our architecture is to create something worthy of God and our Church.

This resource is provided in collaboration with The Foundation for Sacred Arts.

Column on Sacred Architecture

2009-08-28T12:46:00.003-04:00

I'm on the road talking to potential clients about some new chapel and monastery projects that I hope to finish in the coming months and post here. In the meantime, this past week Catholic News Agency has published my column on the state of Catholic architecture in a column titled Novelty vs. Beauty.

If Only France still had a Royal Family

2009-08-23T18:16:00.005-04:00

Louis Le Vau's Hotel Lambert in Paris.

The Qatari Royal family is moving full steam ahead to modernize the historic Hotel Lambert in Paris. Just wondering if Parisians wish they had some Royal connections to the Qataris to prevent such madness. A well I guess its better to be free.

On Temporary Hiatus

2009-08-21T08:44:00.002-04:00

I'm on temporary hiatus from blogging for the next couple of weeks. I'm setting up a website now for a new business venture that I'm starting on. I am starting a business providing architectural design and graphic design. Given the architecture market as it stands now, I feel that expecting full time employment would be unwise so have decided to take matters into my own hands and promote my skills and work for myself.

Please stay tuned as blogging will resume when my free time resumes. I will howeverffrom time to time post small links such as to my forthcoming article on sacred architecture at Catholic News Agency.

Quite Literal Vertical Cul-De-Sac Rises in Manhattan

2009-08-12T08:54:00.004-04:00

Leon Krier has in times past called the skyscraper a "vertical cul-de-sac," and a developer in New York is taking the idea to the next logical step, bringing cars right up to your door in a skyscraper. According to an article in Architectural Record the "new residential building, designed by Selldorf Architects, takes the privacy and parking ease of a gated community from the burbs to the "urbs" and turns it on end."

Cross section of a new "Sky" Garage in New York's 200 Eleventh Avenue.

I struggle to find the words to describe how bafflingly stupid and absurd this development is, but Krier quite correctly notes that skyscrapers carves out a vertical, rather than horizontal space separate from the street network below. It then seems only natural, that the inclination to have the car be the measure of all things, follow from the horizontal suburban gated enclaves or "burbclaves" to vertical "urbclaves."

A suburban garage in a vertical format where one need not see anyone till safely home.

In Detroit I remember seeing an old theatre in a historic tower turned into a parking lot so that the office workers would never have to exit their secure vehicles until they could safely exit into the building. This apartment tower with its so called "Sky" Garages simply pushes that idea to the logical extreme that one finds in the suburbs, where one is locked in the car from door to door, eliminating all unwanted human contact.

The Michigan Theater parking lot, victim of suburban paranoia.

It is a truly sad development that now in the city, where one is accustomed to deal with people, where one ought to find community interaction, one need not interact with anyone they do not wish. The auto-centric mindset is not one that is promoting cars as transit, but as vehicles to pursue an anti-communitarian ideal of security fed by a paranoia towards interacting with anyone, even to the level of the ubiquitous New York doorman.

Nominees for Britain's Worst New Building Announced

2009-08-05T09:15:00.006-04:00

Merseyside terminal by Hamilton Architects at Liverpool Pier Head

It's been far too long since I have posted, but I know I do not write on a topic that moves at breakneck speeds, so I think my tardiness somewhat acceptable. Nevertheless, I shall try in the coming weeks to post more often, and next week there will be an exciting announcement.

This week however, BD Online, the British architecture journal, has announced the nominees for the 2009 Carbuncle Cup, the "prize" for the worst new building in the UK. Taking a cue from HRH Prince Charles' infamous "Carbuncle" speech in 1984, the competition is a popular one, given the number of truly awful new buildings in the UK.

The poorly detailed Poundbury Fire House

The list is filled with inappropriate, unsympathetic and simply ugly buildings. I take slight objection to the inclusion of the Poundbury Fire House, not because its beautiful, its quite bad, but because it is a straw man of the worst sort. Criticism of the station has become a proxy war launched upon classicists, despite not being designed by a classical architect. The poorly detailed faux classicism this building explains in stone how ignorance of good detail and composition, common among the great mass of architects untrained in classicism, can lead to a very poor building indeed.

Classicism has rules that if broken result in a very bad building to the eye. Had these rules been been followed here, I sincerely doubt the vultures of modernism would have found much to criticize. Modernism on the other hand, without rules, creates little of real beauty, and we see how the Carbuncle Cup remains dominated by this style.

Classical Architect Memorialized with Sterile Modernism

2009-07-08T15:42:00.025-04:00

Architectural Record reports this week that the firm David Woodhouse Architects has won a competition to design the memorial to Chicago architect Daniel Burnham. Surprising to no one, the sponsor of the competition, AIA Chicago (American Institute of Architects), has chosen to memorialize one of the strongest proponents of classical architecture in the United states with yet another banal and derivative modernist memorial. It hardly surprises me because the AIA, champion of the modernist architectural establishment, constantly seeks to promote modernism as the only possible form of architecture acceptable in our "modern" times. Using the a memorial to one of the greatest proponents of classical architecture, barely seems cynical, but given the sophistry of most architects it is hardly astounding that they would make such a bold claim.

The AIA find this fitting memorial to Daniel Burnham.

The focus of the competition should have given one pause, as the competition stated that the memorial's objective was:

To build a lasting and notable memorial that will inspire and educate the public, and honor the memory and importance of Daniel Burnham and his Plan of Chicago

The competition did not think it prudent to focus on his contributions to classical architecture as a whole, the Chicago Exposition of 1893, and the numerous grand classical places he created, from the Museum of ScienceChicago, to the National Mall and Union Station in Washington DC. and Industry in Instead, the jury exhibited an ignorance of these contributions and chose a memorial that supports only a vision of Burnham as proto-modernist.

The city of Chicago reflected on a blank wall.

DWA’s winning design central feature is a barren granite wall, ala Maya Lin’s Vietnam memorial, a move that was hailed by the press as daring in the 1980’s but remains as sterile now as it was then, but has since become such a ridiculously overused cliché. In the walls facing the lake and the Field Museum is traced the Plan of Chicago in “ribbons of burnished stainless steel” with sledgehammer subtlety. A life-size statue of Burnham stands next to the walls, unadorned and without pedestal, standing like a shabby professor before the blackboard.

The highly polished wall reflects the skyscrapers of the Michigan Avenue street wall and the skyscrapers of downtown Chicago proclaiming that this was the work of Burnham. This of course is false.

The architect’s own website describes that this wall “directs attention outwards towards the city – showcasing Burham’s vision by connecting us to its vibrant, unfolding reality.” The problem is the vista of downtown Chicago has little or nothing to do with Burnham. Chicago’s downtown, replete with what is now Grant Park, skyscrapers and the gridiron, was long in place before his 1909 plan.

Burnham's vision of "Paris on the Lake" is far from realized.

Burhnam’s plan, little of which has been executed, instead focused on creating grand public places like he created at the World’s Fair. Tree lined avenues lined with appropriately scaled and detailed buildings linked these places, from Lake Michigan to a civic center with a magnificent city hall fit for an imperial capital as Chicago saw itself (there is now a massive highway interchange at this very spot). The vision that Burnham saw was one of a Paris on the Lakefront, but again, the design ignores this and instead celebrates a vision that was not Burham’s.

Further proof of this motive is in the architects description of the memorial. Woodhouse claims that the

“Memorial's design is rooted in classical precedent (the Athenian Acropolis itself has a diagonal approach up an incline past an off-center cubic volume to a central pedimented portico)”

Such foolishness abounds in modernism, claiming that a ridiculously stripped down, asymmetrical and random plan is classical simply because one can find such things in ancient places. It is a one of the great logical errors to take accidents (things that are not essential) to be essential principles. Certainly a certain asymmetry was to be found in classical architecture, is found where other circumstances warrant. The example given forgets the Old Parthenon, destroyed by the Persians in the first invasion, was on center, but Pericles respecting this sacred place, left this ground clear.

This is classical scheme?

But this is only a continuation of the narrative, that modernism is classical or at least grew as a natural consequence of the classical, claiming Burnham as your own is a good way to. Holding that modernism grew naturally out of classical architecture is a useful argument when confronting the common man who rejects such monstrosities, but is highly cynical considering that the basis of modernism is the rejection of classical tradition. It takes another kind of mendacity to simply ignore the facts for the furtherance of such a dogmatic view of architecture. It is a sad testament that a memorial to a classical architect, its winner and most of the entries serve to reinforce the commonly held theme of the inevitable advancement of modernism, co-opt classical architecture to the service of modernism.

A further insult is that there were a few good classical designs actually appropriate to the content of this memorial. It is a shame that the Richard Driehaus put up the money to sponsor this competition, given his support of the Driehaus prize for classical architecture, but it is an added shame that two classical schemes got the short shrift.

I leave you with images from those schemes, who were among the 20 finalists, either of which would have enhanced and beautified the city. The firm Hammond, Beeby, Rupert and Ainge, submitted the first scheme which evokes both Burham’s civic center in spirit both in design as well as in the rendering. The last submitted by James McCrery Architects who worked with noted sculptor Alexander Stoddart, this design would have graced Chicago with some of the best sculpture in the world since Daniel Chester French’s Standing Lincoln in Lincoln Park.

Hammond Beeby Rupert Ainge's design evoking the rendering of Burnham's civic center.

The memorial evokes the architectural language of the Beaux Arts.

James McCrery's Scheme focuses on beautiful statuary placed prominent in he park.

Streetcars: Made in the USA?

2009-07-02T09:06:00.006-04:00

I don't normally post on transportation issues, our good friends over at GGW do such a good job on the issues. However once in a while something great comes up I have to share especially when it involves my home state of Oregon. There has been a lot of talk about streetcars and how American cities can emulate the good lessons of Europe's streetcar renaissance, one question has been who's going to build them. DC has some (long delayed) plans to install a single streetcar line, but the cars and technology come from the Czech republic. I was delighted to see however that Portland's new streetcars they have installed are home grown, built by Oregon Iron Works right there in the great Northwest.

An American, Oregonian made Streetcar rolls off the line.

The company was motivated by the good experience with Portland's streetcars, but a little irked that there were no US manufacturers, so they decided just to build their own. I have to say, the cars look just as attractive and convienient as any found in Europe, and doubtless delivering such trams across town has to be cheaper and faster than delivering them half a world away. Such ingenuity and entrepeneurship ought to be applauded and rewarded, perhaps the next streetcar DC buys could be "Made in Oregon?"

Trams are a key component in building a beautiful city in my opinion, they make for safe, clean and quiet transit, quite opposed to the armada's of SUVs and fleets of rumbling buses and trucks*. A city can have proper public spaces only when people, not cars, dominate the public realm, and having effective and attractive ways to get people there is key to that. I'm happy that an American, and specifically Oregonian, company is helping lead the way.

*Trucks need not be part of the city either. Dresden began using street cars to keep trucks from cluttering up their beautiful city, by creating special "freight streetcars" to deliver parts to their new VW plant.

One of Dresden's windowless freight hauling streetcars.

Westminster Abbey Competition for the Design of a New "Corona"

2009-06-30T10:54:00.007-04:00

The London Times reports on a (possibly) exciting competion to complete Westminster Abbey's long unfinished crossing spire. The Abbey, site of coronations and royal weddings for nearly a millenia, has over time been added upon and improved by the likes of Sir Chrisopher Wren and George Gilbert Scott. However, the spires and towers proposed by numerous architects for the crossing have never been built. The crossing now is to be surmounted by a "corona" to mark the 75th anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and likely to celebrate the crowning of the Prince of Wales as King Charles III.

The Corona would replace the small pyrimidial crossing cap seen today.

Now since Prince Charles is likely to be at least personally interested in this project, one has to wonder who will be chosen to submit the design and what will the design be like? Will the Royal Institute of British Architects reign supreme over this project and demand a modernist scheme? Will the nonsensical preservationist criteria of designing in a markedly different style (meaning exclusively modern) be trotted out?

Or will sanity be preserved and the design be classical/gothic and be more sympathetic to the historic church? Given the amount of vitriol and venom recently spewed in the direction of the Prince for his offering of an opinion on the Chelsea Barracks plan, one is likely to see the level of attack on classical architecture and Prince himself to reach a fevered pitch. If a classical scheme by Quinlan Terry is even part of the discussion, the charges of royal interference in the benighted practice of architecture (as if patrons don't have a choice), and how Prince Charles is singlehandedly trying to destroy architecture.

Could a design such as this top the famous royal church?

However I think HRH will yet again appeal to the common sense of beauty and tradition in the face of such barbs, and will yet again be backed not by the popularity of the architectural elite, but of his people. The Abbey has yet to unveil the designs for the corona, so there is still reason to hope that a classical design will be chosen, far better hope than we might have here in the US in a similar situation. The tide is changing in England, and as I've said before, it is in no small part due to the Prince's good opinion and taste for the traditional and classical beauty found still in Britain.

National Civic Arts Society Unviels "Building Our Nation's Capital"

2009-06-25T08:28:00.002-04:00

Last night in Georgetown, the National Civic Art Society premiered its new documentary film "The Vision of the Nation's Capital," to great acclaim. The video, documenting the great classical vision of the Capital envisioned by L'Enfant and George Washington, was warmly received by the attendees. This vision, reborn in the McMillan Commission in 1901, subsequently sullied by tasteless and ill planned modernist buildings throughout city, is the focus of the NCAS' mission.

The event was just the beginning of a movement toward reinvigorating and restoring this vision, that all can appreciate. Of note was the attendance and support of Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee and the former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Bruce Cole.

Congressman Cooper expressed his gratitude for being invited to the event and had some short remarks after the video's premiere. He lamented the cold and heartless office buildings so many people work in throughout the city and expressed too his admiration for the classical buildings pointed out in the video as "places people like to work."

Certainly I hope that this is just the beginning of a larger movement to realizing that the classical vision of Washington can and should be built, and that Americans at large will find a city more beautiful than ever before.

Some Reasonable Words about Prince Charles

2009-05-14T19:22:00.003-04:00

With so much venom and anger being vented at Prince Charles for daring to enter into a debate about style, Simon Jenkins, writing for the Guardian(UK) gets it right about Prince Charles and the modernist/classicist debate. Some interesting arguments about preservation are also raised that may be apropos to the 3rd Church debate.

I can't improve on it by commenting, so I link to it here. I'll just point out my favorite line, answering the charge of HRH being "undemocratic"

The debate has never died. It is kicking dust down at the old barracks site in Chelsea, where a proposed cluster of towers in a park by Lord Rogers, in the style of postwar Roehampton, is pitted against a terrace by Quinlan Terry in the even older style of Wren. In support of the latter, the "unelected" prince has written to the unelected owner of the site, the Qatari royal family, while the unelected architects have written to the unelected press. Never has the concept of franchise been so abused.

Preservationism Stands in the Way of Transit Options

2009-05-14T08:44:00.006-04:00

Preservationists on Chicago's South Side are calling for local officials to stop the demolition of a small building standing in the way of a planned Metra Commuter train stop because the building was designed by Mies van der Rohe.

The "Test Cell" Building stands in the way of a proposed Metra Stop

This insignificant tiny bland box was designed by the German Modernist architect van der Rohe during his tenure as the architect of the Illinois Institute of Design and should be saved. According to one silly preservationist, this brutish little eyesore is akin to doodle by Rembrandt. One has to wonder when the hijacking of the preservation movement by ideologically driven modernists will come to an end and common sense will begin to prevail?

It seems to me that this building logically fails in almost all criteria that a building should have to mandate preservation.

1. The building is great - Lets face it, the building is like the Tribune says "a clunky brick box" only an idiot would think this building is intrinsically great.

2. The building is a significant example of its style - Go to any college campus in this country and you'll find a dozen of these miserable boxes cluttering up the landscape. As for an argument that it's the hand of a master, I doubt that Mies personally even drew the plans, like the Third Church of Christ Scientist, the architect didn't design this, his underlings probably did. If he personally laid the brick on this building maybe I could see it, but that isn't the case either.

3. The building is irreplaceable - Some buildings, like Penn Station were masterpieces that when they were torn down are lost forever. One could theoretically rebuild it, but the costs and the circumstances of today effectively render this impossible. This bunker could be built to the original plans in probably two or three days virtually anywhere, but what would the point be?

Some would claim that that would be "dishonest" but then I don't understand the obsession of modernist preservationists with "original materials." Architect drew the plans, the form is the important part, that's what makes it architecture, the hundreds of buildings reconstructed in Europe over the past 60 years after World War II are testament to this, they ARE great buildings, built to the designs of architects great and small, that they are new materials is irrelevant. One wonders if some sort of 60s new age thought got into preservationism? It's as if the stone and brick itself were somehow sacred by being arranged by the master, or the workers infused the brick with its zeitgeist of its particular time.

The real shame is that this miserable little junky building is standing in the way of real progress, a train station that will help revitalize the area. As the Tribune article says, hundreds of cars will be taken off the freeway adjacent to the school, and to stop genuine improvement for an ugly banal minor work by an architect that SOME people claim a master, is not simply stupid, it's the most irresponsible sort of architectural hubris imaginable.

Lecture tonight on Sacred Architecture

2009-05-13T08:27:00.003-04:00

Tonight at the CIC, architect Art Lohsen of Franck & Lohsen Architects, will be giving a lecture entitled, Transcendent Beauty, the Importance of Catholic Architecture.

The lecture will be tonight, May 13 at 7pm at the Catholic Information Center, 1501 K Street NW, and is hosted by the Foundation for Sacred Arts.

I have attended this series thus far and have been impressed by the quality of the speakers and the topics as well. I encourage anyone interested in Catholic architecture to attend. I have another function I'm committed to, otherwise I would be there tonight.

Great Buildings of the Past Century: The National Gallery of Art

2009-04-30T08:46:00.007-04:00

It seems to me that a great bulk of my critical writing here is often profoundly negative towards the practice of architecture. Frankly a lot of the blogosphere tends to be that way, and its human nature to complain and in architecture particularly there tends to be a lot less good news going on than bad. I've therefore decided to be a bit more positive and seet out buildings that are really great and give some good reasons why. I've decided to limit myself to building from the last century or so, roughly from 1900 on, I think it might be interesting to see how many great buildings I can find from this era.

The National Gallery of Art - 1941 - John Russell Pope

The National Gallery of Art was one of the last built works of the great classical architect John Russell Pope. Derided by his critics in during the rising tide of modernism as "the last of the Romans" Pope was a master of a sedate and serene classicism that one could adequately call modern.

This modern classicism is typified by Pope's use of the more robust classical orders such as the Doric, and greater ratio of wall to openings than other more Beaux-arts architects. His use of articulations tends to be more subtle, preferring slight changes in plane rather than deep bays and openings like one might find at Burnham's Union Station. Ornament, while not absent, is less used, but only at points of emphasis, and in proportionate manner, and like so much ornament of the interwar years, tends to be more planar and more spartan.

Corcoran gallery

Comparing his National Archives to Ernest Flagg's victorian 1897 Corcoran Gallery, the Archives appears lighter, with broader expanses of stone, widely spaced and small widely spaced acroteria and a shallow simple cornice. The Corcoran's use of deep recesses, heavily sculpted and staccato use of acroteria and festoons on the cornice and particularly the rusticated base give this smaller building a very heavy presence.The National Gallery continues Pope's style to its logical end. No figurative ornamentation is found on the exterior of the building, and only small wreaths in the frieze and small leaf patterns ornament the doors. This points to the idea that Pope saw this building not like another work of art on display, but rather as the frame.

Exterior ornament is limited to architectural detail.

The parti or plan of the building is remarkably clear and orderly. The central rotunda clearly modeled on the Pantheon flanked by block wings, each with long corridors ending at light courts is both pleasing and easily understandable. Comparing this to the often confusing layouts of so many museums its not hard to see why it's considered the best museum in the world. Other details make this building a remarkably wonderful place to view art. Diffuse light streams from above in the galleries, courtesy of the double layer of skylights brilliantly designed to bring in light but not cast shadows or cause glare.

The Pantheon-like central hall.

The building is despite it's appearance also extremely modern in a technological sense. The museum was one of the first buildings designed to be entirely air conditioned. The brilliance is found in that the air vents are placed above the cornices of the interior doorways, concealing this unattractive detail from the viewers standing on the floor below. The returns are tasteful grilles placed behind benches that sit in the halls.

The Pantheon oculus motif, giving beautiful diffuse light.

There is one final amazingly brilliant detail that no one sees, and probably only a very few people even know about is the use of expansion joints on the facade. Most buildings built today need expansion joints, this is due to the different materials that go into a modern building, usually a steel frame with stone as durable exterior material. The problem is when the building heats up the steel and the stone expand at different rates, necessitating some sort of joint to allow the expansion to be absorbed. Without this the stone would crack and fail.

Expansion joints are hid behind changes in plane.

Normally when a building has a long expanse of wall, like at the National Gallery, these expansion joints are simply run right down the front of the building. Pope however, just like he does with the skylights, and the AC vents, conceals this. Here it is concealed behind the places on the facade where the planes slip behind each other. The joint runs from top to bottom of the facade, but BEHIND the folds of the building. Simply brilliant. Without the flexibility of the classical language, this detail would be difficult, if not impossible to pull off, leaving the usual nasty looking line of plastic grout.

The National Gallery is a great example of how to build a truly modern building, with all of the conveniences necessary to its operation and construction, but yet maintain the dignity and beauty of the classical language.

Even Security Guards know its Ugly

2009-04-28T18:21:00.004-04:00

Today my boss was out and about taking photographs for a presentation on the architecture of Washington DC, and like so many other photographers in DC and the country, was accosted by a security guard for his trouble.

Now for those of us in DC who have a fondness for architecture, this troubling intrusion on our civil liberties is no new news really. A while back some innocent tourists were confronted by private security guards about taking photos of Union Station, a DC landmark.

The Forrestal Building

My boss was taking photos of the monstrous Forrestal building in southwest DC, which you can see is a pretty ugly building. While taking his photos he was flagged down by a security officer and asked for usual sorts of questions and detained while the guard got his supervisor. My boss found the whole incident rather ridiculous, especially when the guard asked to see the photos, to which my anacronistic mentor explained he was taking slides photos, the guard was incredulous.

My good employer raised an interesting question telling his tale to me. Was he being accosted because he was taking photos of a modernist building? Now before you jump all over me for saying I'm accusing the Hegemony of some sort of plot, let me explain.

Consider this: my boss was out all afternoon taking pictures of other Federal buildings in DC, from the Capitol to the Federal Triangle. All of these buildings are "sensitive" to the same sort of degree that the Forrestall building is, they are all Federal office buildings. But one wonders why he, and every other tourist in town takes pictures (for the most part) unmolested till the cows come home. But the second that he begins taking pictures of a massively ugly Brutalist building he's questioned by security?

Maybe its that the security guards know that nobody takes pictures of such ugly buildings and they think that someone who does is a nut of some sort? I know that a lot of security is overzealous to a rediculous degree, but one has to wonder if even they understand how unpopular Modernism really is?

Foundation for Sacred Art Lecture Series

2009-04-28T09:04:00.003-04:00

The Foundation for Sacred Arts has been sponsoring a bi-weekly lecture series on the Sacred Arts here in DC for the past month. This Wednesday, April 29th at 7pm Dr. Jem Sullivan will be giving a talk on "St. Paul in Art, the Beauty in Holiness" at the Catholic Information Center on K Street NW.

The Foundation is a new organization (five years old or so) dedicated to seeing a renewal of traditional art and architecture within the Catholic Church. As they are committed to seeing beauty and symbolism in art, it almost goes without saying they reject most all of the Modernist schlock that passes for religious art these days.

I must admit I've been remiss in not posting about this before, but I give my mea culpa and I hope that anyone interested in traditional art and architecture, and religious art to please attend.

A Comparision of Houses

2009-04-22T08:44:00.008-04:00

This last weekend, I took a pleasant spring day to explore some of the great architecture that is found in the Greater Washington Area. Just down the road in the southern part of Alexandria, amongst the sprawl that has grown about George Washington's plantation of Mt. Vernon, is the little known gem of Woodlawn.

The garden front of Woodlawn Plantation by William Thornton

Built for Major Lawrence Lewis and Nelly Custis, the adopted granddaughter of George Washington, the house is little known outside the area other than to architecture and history buffs. The house was built by William Thornton, the architect responsible for the original design for the Capitol of the United States. Finished in 1805, the house is a prime example of Georgian design in the United States, and in my opinion, one of the most beautiful houses in the DC area.

Now just down the hill, a more striking comparison is not likely to be found anywhere, with an icon of Modernism sitting nearby. One of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian" homes, the Pope-Leighey house sits in a wooded glade, deigning to be equal claimant to the mantle of architecture. Built in 1939 in Falls church, the house moved to the plantation by the National Trust for Historic Preservation when in the 1960s highway construction threatened its destruction.

The contrast between these houses makes for an excellent lesson in the failures of modernism and the sucesses of traditional construction. Now some might argue that comparing a two hundred year old plantation manor to a seventy year old modest suburban house is unfair, but I'll take a shot. The details of each house show fairly well the widely different philosophies of their designers. Woodlawn shows an attention to and understanding of natural forces and how to deal with them. The Wright house shows how the modernist ignores the nature of his materials and forces in favor of a ideological design aesthetic. I think that despite their budgetary differences, the two houses are fairly emblematic of each designer and their architectural philosophy.

Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian" Pope-Leighey House

After all, many of the architectural details to be found in Woodlawn were commonly found in traditional houses built by architects well into the 1920s from manors on down to even the most modest bungalows. The principles that Wright exhibits in the Pope Leighey house are fairly consistent with the design mentality of his other houses as well, so I think the comparison is fair at the level of detail.

Woodlawn itself has had some bad times over the 200 years of its existence. The foundation stones are showing a bit of wear, the brick moulds have dried out a little bit, so the shutters have had to be removed, but all and all, for its age the house is in good shape. It was hit in 1896 by a hurricane, but I doubt much of the slate roof has had to be replaced, and the cornices look like they may have had a few coats of paint and maybe gotten replaced here and there. But the structure of the house looks to be intact. (I'm not exactly sure about the history, but I'm just guessing this based on inspection.)

The slate roof of Woodlawn looks great even after 200 years.

The Pope Leighey house on the other hand looks haggard in comparison. The unpainted wood siding is starting to dry out and look rough. The "cornices of flat unpainted boards look to be literally falling apart. Other than the brickwork, which looks decent, and likely was rebuilt entirely when the house was moved in the 1960s, the house's exterior is in rough shape. One detail in particular as you'll see is striking. Frank Lloyd Wright's trademark cantilevered roofs, found here as anywhere, are failing.

The inherent problems of the cantilever, the sag is apparent and problematic.

Looking at this photo, you can see how the cantilever has sagged so far as to separate it from the wall it is next to. Elsewhere you can see how over time, the wood of these cantilevers has succumbed to the trials of time and begun to sag. When snow falls on this flat roof, and has no where to go, the stresses on this roof must be tremendous, and thus the roof begins to fail.

This one detail alone illustrates how the ideology of the cantilever, the flat roof is hardly a good thing. And this house was meant for the working class! (Wright however was never able to make his Usonian houses as cheaply as he promised.) Now all buildings need maintenance, but to unnecessarily compound problems of snow, water and wind are in this case not just stupid, but criminal. This is the sort of architecture that is being held up as the ideal. Thanks Frank. Thanks for giving us a house that after seventy years is falling apart.

Cornices of the Pope-Leighey House are falling apart.

I would be willing to bet any amount that per square foot, per year, the costs of maintenance for Frank Lloyd Wrights house are not only greater but likely outstrip the costs at Woodlawn by a fair stretch. I'd also wager that a house built contemporary to Wright, and of wood and of similar modest budget with traditional details is unlikely to be suffering such calamitous problems.

The side pavilions of Woodlawn could easily be a modest home.

We do a tremendous disservice to our future generations by ignoring the very real problems with modern architecture and its inherent failings and unsustainability. When architects overlook them because of the ideology that everything must be new or innovative is a profound mendacity. Until we expose the falsehoods of the Modernists who say that their architecture is just as sustainable and good as traditional architecture, we will continue to have an intellectual and financial millstone tied about our necks.

Prince Charles: A Champion for Classicism

2009-04-06T13:00:00.014-04:00

On March 25, His Royal Highness Prince Charles spoke out against a proposal by architect Richard Rogers to build a massive modernist apartment block in a historic district of London. The Chelsea Barracks scheme calls for superblock of glass and steel apartment buildings standing in a rambling anti-urban park setting, ala Corbusier, directly adjacent to the historic and beautiful Royal Navy Hospital built by Christopher Wren.

The Rogers design had a great deal of local opposition, and during an event at the Wren Hospital, Prince Charles weighed in and backed the opposition and also wrote to the chief financial backer of the scheme, the Emir of Qatar, urging him to reconsider the design. Predictably, the modernist establishment went apoplectic. Some accused Charles of "high-handed arrogance" and one architect said that his opinions were a return to the "era of the divine right of Kings."
In one "news" article the Terry design was described as "a classical pastiche," an overused cliche if there has ever been one.

Now I'm not going to comment so much on the designs themselves, I think readers of this blog will be able to predict my sentiments fairly well. (Feel free however to debate in the comments the merits or demerits of either scheme, I'll save my comments on the designs for then.) What I really want to comment on is the vital role that Prince Charles takes in the debates in the UK about architecture.

Prince Charles is no stranger to debates about architecture. Back in 1984, a modernist scheme had been proposed to the Sainsbury Wing for the National Gallery in London, and in an address to the Royal Institute of British Architects, described the proposed addition "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend." The speech hit the architectural establishment like a sledgehammer, and did more than sink the design, it turned the entire architectural establishment on its head and allowed the door to open just enough to let classicism return to life.

Classicism by the 1980s was left for dead and for all intents and purposes, was dead. The number of architects who practiced architecture with a mind to tradition and beauty probably numbered only a dozen or so in the whole world. From this speech by Charles and further comments and speeches that followed over the years, he raised doubts about modernist architecture and its inevitable march, he raised the question, why not beauty?

Before Prince Charles gave his carbuncle speech, modernist architecture reigned supreme, triumphant and defiant. The few who would question the modernist establishment would have a difficult time even making it through university, and none would be able to rise to a level of authority to be a critic of the hegemony. But in the Prince of Wales, by virtue of his royal birth, classicism had for the first time in half a century a champion who would be listened to. Charles was a real voice for those who before had been dismissed as "nostalgic" and "backwards-looking." Certainly the architectural establishment still sneered at him for his traditional and classical leanings, but to the public at large he could not be ignored.

In the UK today modernism still reigns as the dominant force in architecture, but it has lost its monopoly hold on the culture. Today the work of classical architects such as Quinlan Terry and Robert Adam are routinely seen in the architectural press. Now reviews of classical work are dismissive and downright mean, they are not ignored in the way they are in the architectural press in the United States. To architects working in London, Robert Adam is as recognizable name as Lord Foster, whereas here in the US, classicists still labor in anonymity. I would venture that few architects outside the classical community even know of Allan Greenberg or John Blatteau, let alone recognize any of their work.

Prince Charles' criticism of modernism and patronage of classical architecture has opened architecture up for debate. That debate has been rancorous and uncharitable more often than not, but at least classicism is no longer ignored. I only wish that here in the US, good classical architects be taken as seriously as they are across the pond and not simply dismissed.

Gehry Memorial also to include nod to Eisenhower

2009-04-02T10:09:00.004-04:00

Ok, so that's not the headline that the Post used to announce this morning the winner of the "competition" to design a national memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower. But given Frank Gehry's "signature" style and propensity to attract attention to himself via his buildings, it might well have been. Today the Eisenhower Memorial commision solidified its previous decision to embrace fashionable names in architecture over beautiful architecture that would be properly deferential to it's subject and not to its builder.

Frank Gehry (Kathy Willens - AP)

The architecture of Frank Gehry is the singular and personal style of Gehry, and as his "signature" or "trademark" it exalts him the architect. Anywhere you go that there is a building by him, people exclaim "we have a Gehry," like it were any other work of art, like Picasso or a Michelangelo.

Many places, especially in Europe, are quite proud however of older buildings by famous architects like Michelangelo and others. These buildings might be fantastically beautiful and new, but even after seeing them as different and wonderful, they still fit in with the towns they are in. In fact many "signature" buildings by great architects in history have to be pointed out to you. This is because as part of a city, architecture has to be a "good neighbor" and not draw too much attention to itself.

Michelangelo and the "starchitects" of his day may be just as well known as the Frank Gehry's of our day, but today "starchitects" build with little deference to the city around them. Today's stars build objects such that their building is a solitary work of art, of genius incarnate. One could as Leon Krier said this week, put all the great Modernist architecture in a park somewhere, and in this park the buildings would make just as much sense as they do in their own environs. A Bernini or Michelangelo building put on a tabula raza would make no sense, as each of them is designed as part of a harmony in a city.

A memorial is however a little different as it's harmony is not just with the city, but also with the subject to be memorialized. The architect in some sense takes a back seat to the memorial. Lets put it this way, nobody comes to see "a Bacon" or "a Daniel Chester French" when we go to see the Lincoln Memorial, but we go to see and remember a great President. A proper memorial gives deference to its subject. Sadly, modernist architects cannot do this, neither by the means of their art nor by their own character. The modernist needs to express novelty and newness and personal artistic genius far too much to be able to defer to his subject.
An Eisenhower Memorial to Gehry will likely be so overbearingly Gehry, that history will likely forget the man memorialized before the man who built it.

A Modest Proposal
Now, I criticize a lot here on this blog, but now it is time for action. I propose a true competition for a counter proposal for this memorial. I am now working to raise money for a CASH prize for the best design for a counter proposal for this memorial. I propose that it be open to young artists and architects under 40 from anywhere in the country. The prize would be small, likely $400 - $500 but the subject is small and would take little time to produce.

I would propose that the design not necessarily be classical, but certainly I feel that classical would be best to express the necessary gravitas and reverence necessary for a memorial. All designs will be considered rationally from all designers.

What do you think? Would you be willing to contribute a design? I will be formulating a program for this competition so your feedback will be taken into account.

Leon Krier on the True Sustainability: Tradition

2009-03-30T23:58:00.007-04:00

Many many apologies for the long hiatus yet again in posting. A few big projects came down the pipe these past few weeks so blogging has fallen to a lower priority rung. However these next few weeks should be much more sane.

Tonight I attended a lecture by architect, theorist and urban planner Leon Krier at Catholic University of America right here in DC. For those of you in the DC/Maryland Area, Mr. Krier will be speaking this Wednesday at University of Maryland on the same topic, the Architecture of Community.

Leon Krier (taken with cell, sorry for quality)

Tonight Krier spoke mainly on traditional urbanism, which makes up the bulk of his scholarship, but in light of our increasing awareness of environmental concerns and energy concerns. He gave a very good argument as he usually does for both traditional urbanism which centers planning around the 10 minute walk, ie, according to human scale and nature, but also on traditional architecture itself.

In previous posts I have made the argument that traditional architecture not only looks better, but that it is more sustainable. I have given a number of arguments showing how traditional construction details, and traditional materials are more adept at dealing with natural forces of wind and weather than experimental modernism. I have tried to show how tradition is not just an aesthetic choice, but is an actual functional part of a building. Tonight Krier was able to sum this up with just one statement, one that I think ought to be declared an axiom of architecture:

"Tradition is not about style, it's about technology."

Krier made the argument that traditional details, traditional construction is not about a style, not about aesthetics, but is entirely about technology. Not about experimental technology in the modern sense, but technology that works. Criticisms were raised in the questions after the talk about traditional architecture simply historicism. Krier gave the brilliant response that technology that works, such as the wheel or other discoveries, are not simply historic events, but are truths, and as such are outside of time.

We use wheels all the time, but don't worry about when they were invented, but that we simply recognize their utility and incorporate them into our lives. So too would the case be for construction technology, we simply don't need to reinvent the wheel.

So if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Photos from the Dedication at Thomas Aquinas College

2009-03-10T23:12:00.009-04:00

Cardinal Mahony greets President Tom Dillon and Vice President Peter DeLuca before the Dedication.

Architect Duncan Stroik speaks at the Dedication Ceremony.

College Chaplain, Fr. Cornelius Buckley SJ opens the doors.

Cardinal Mahony Processes into the Chapel, ahead of him is Bishop Cordelione of San Diego.

The founding professors of the college, followed by alumni priests, process in.

Cardinal Mahony speaks about the Chapel.

The Congregation gathered for the Dedication.

Cardinal Mahony presents a blessing to the President.

Cardinal Mahony presides over the Mass of Dedication.

President Dillon delivers an address.

Cardinal Roger Mahony Sprinkles Holy Water on the Congregation.

All photos courtesy of Thomas Aquinas College

New Chapel at Thomas Aquinas Finished

2009-03-10T22:01:00.007-04:00

This weekend I was fortunate to have been on the campus of Thomas Aquinas College (my alma mater, undergraduate) to celebrate the dedication of the brand new Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity Chapel. The chapel only seats about 600, even with overflow, so I wasn't enough of a VIP to attend the actual dedication itself, but the college has posted up photos from the event, which I will attach to the next post.

I was able to however attend the first Mass the day after the dedication, a Traditional Latin Mass celebrated by the head of the Fraternity of St. Peter, Fr. Berg, a graduate of TAC in 1993. As an interesting liturgical aside, there seems to have been zero problems having the Traditional Latin Mass in the new church, as well as the Ordinary form, or Novus Ordo Mass as well. Blogger, and prolific Matt Alderman has written an excellent piece in First Things about preparing new Catholic churches for the use of both forms of the Mass, and it's great to see a new church functional for both.

One commentator here thought the church was renovated or was in Italy, but no, it's BRAND NEW. This church is in my opinion the best church built in America in the last 40 to 50 years. I'd be hard pressed to find a more beautiful church built since World War II anywhere else in the world. There are a few others which are fine churches, though as I said, very few, and certainly none that have been built in my lifetime even come close. If someone can find one I'd love to see it.

We are, it should be said, in just the opening stages of a renaissance with New Classicism and the church's few minor quirks are only to be expected. When one can honestly say that 30 years ago there were probably just a handful of Classical architects working in the world, and nothing like this was being built anywhere. The few practitioners there were out there were only able to preserve so much knowledge. Today we can see how far we've come in such a short time, but also knowing that this is only the beginning, and much is yet to be discovered and learned anew.

TAC's chapel isn't perfect, and though it is hard to believe today, but new and BETTER churches will be built. This church is the sign that we can do it. It is a sign to architects everywhere to what is possible. It is sign to the all churches of what a sacred place can be, and how beauty can exist.

Dedication weekend at Thomas Aquinas College

2009-03-05T13:47:00.004-05:00

I leave this evening to fly to Los Angeles enroute to the dedication of the new chapel at my Alma Mater, Thomas Aquinas College. After ten years of planning and construction - I recall fondly the drawings for the three proposals - the dreams of many alumni and faculty and staff are coming true. Here is a little article explaining a little of the history of the Chapel and all of the events that will going on this weekend.

Photo by EventH on Flickr

I will be taking photos of the chapel in all its new glory, which I shall post Monday or Tuesday upon my return to Washington. I leave you with some recent photos of the interior, and with this thought: This chapel cost $23 million to complete, whereas Our Lady of the Angels, the Catholic Cathedral of Los Angeles, cost $190 million.

Photo by EventH on Flickr

I will do some work on factoring the different sizes and other cost adjustments, but I suspect that the TAC chapel still comes in at least equal, if not less than the Cathedral. Some may say "we just can't build this way any more," but borrowing from the President's campaign slogan, yes we can, and yes we did.

CFA Denies Inharmonious Addition to Library, Post Writer Denounces CFA

2009-02-26T19:27:00.012-05:00

Proposed addition to Mt. Pleasant Public Library in DC by CORE Design

Last week the US Commission of Fine Arts denied a plan by DC Public Libraries to add the above addition to its historic 1920's Mt. Pleasant branch. Marc Fisher of the Washington Post called the move "stomping on innovation and the faint whispers of home rule." Fisher couldn't be further from the mark, both in terms of architecture, but moreover why the CFA is justified as a Federal Commission to do such a thing.

First of all let me say before I get accused of politics, I don't intend to use this article as a springboard for ANY discussion about Home Rule, Statehood, or DC Voting rights. I only intend to respond to Fisher's and others' attacks on the CFA's authority as arbiter of architecture within the Capital independent of whatever political definition it has. I believe my arguments would stand (or fall) equally well for any Capital, be it DC or Berlin or Tokyo.

Fisher tries to net the CFA with the claim that it "serves mainly to prevent the city from evolving over time as any living place must." He says because the Library had three community meetings and "responded to neighbors' complaints" the CFA overstepped its bounds by denying the approval of this addition. Now these may be a fine and justified reasons in any normal city would respond merely to its own citizens. However, Washington DC has a special standard of aesthetics to uphold, by virtue of it being not just any ordinary city but our nation's Capital.

To see DC as "Our Nation's Capital," is to see it as not just for those who live there, but indeed everyone's home. Indeed the "neighbors" who need to be consulted are not just those who live nearby, but also those who live from Maryland, Virginia and indeed from sea to shining sea.

To understand DC as a home for the whole nation is to know it as a work of art, and as such has a symbolic end first and foremost. DC as a Capital ought to tell something to us about us, and it can do this by being more than just a collection of parts, but as one great piece of art in the form of its architecture and its urbanism. That architecture can tell a story, and like any story told anywhere in all of human history, needs to be whole, unified and cohesive to tell its story to us.
This is how L'Enfant saw the city, built apart from any of the already existing cities, a new work of art, symbolizing the new Nation formed by the Constitution. Indeed the city is itself the bond between the states, a seal of confirmation pressed in stone, stating that we were then and are now One Nation.

DC symbolizes this best where the McMillan Commission - the predecessor to the current CFA - did its finest work creating the Mall as we know it today. The Mall as the scene of all of our greatest aspirations and dreams as Americans is the great stage that politicians use to arouse our passions, that leaders of all kinds call to our patriotism to think of the common good of our whole nation.

But it could not do this without a unity of form that the McMillan Commission created. A unity of form that resonates in a particular way with the idea that here no one man or woman's interests are to be placed over the interests of the nation. Monuments are erected only to those who, rather than placing themselves above the people, gavethemselves for the greater good of all. The McMillan Commissions genius shows clearly where, despite monumental buildings and memorials being built, the dome of the Capitol - the Hall of the People - still dominates over all other monuments and buildings of the city, reinforcing that it is to the people all deference is to be given.

The symbolism of our Constitutional City is what the CFA is charged with defending. In DC the symbolism of the city ought to apply to every neighborhood, not just the core of the Federal area. The architecture of our nation's Capital ought be harmonious and beautiful, mixing with its immediate neighbors but also with the city as a whole. From the monumental core to the smallest street, DC ought to be a symbol of harmony and a well ordered city like it ought to be, even if it falls well short of those aspirations.

The CFA is right in rejecting this and other buildings like it because rather than being harmonious with a work of art that the city, they point to themselves and say "look at me!" Folks like Marc Fisher know that when they say designs like this are "striking and inviting mix of old and new" and want architects to "push the decrepit system into a new era," they are pushing their own agenda, not the ordered harmony of L'Enfant and the McMillan Commission but disharmony and discord.

This addition proposed is not something that defers to the city and its order, but it rather pushes itself as "innovation" and "evolution." It is, frankly neither innovative or an evolution, but rather another bland glass box calling attention to itself like so many others. The architects of this building are like a mischevious trumpeter in the midst of a symphony who begins to play his own tune, trying to focus the the attention of on himself, rather than on creating together a work of true beauty.

Apple Store Tries to Wedge Modernism into Georgetown

2009-02-18T14:00:00.000-05:00

A fair amount of debate has been raging lately about the proposed new Apple store in Georgetown and the Old Georgetown Board's refusal to approve any design that the company submits. Apple has submitted four separate proposals for the store, which sits on a site on Wisconsin Avenue directly at the end of Prospect Street.

Apple initially submitted a design back in 2007, only to be rejected by the Old Georgetown Board. Having been rejected, Apple came up with a few other designs, each a little more outlandish and inappropriate, seemingly to make their first design appear to be reasonable in comparison.

Throughout this whole process, from the initial design to the latest design shown here, Apple has shown an apparent disregard for the character of Georgetown and how its building should fit in with the street.

The first design, while not as insane as the second or third designs, still displayed an amateurish lack of understanding of classical detail and scaling. The building as a whole appears no better than the post-modern building it intends to replace. The facade stands half a story taller than its neighbors, disregarding a clear precedent of floor heights and scale, the windows are detailed incorrectly and the cornice is boxy, clunky and shows a lack of attention to detail.

If the first design was denied approval as being inappropriate, what in the world make Apple think that its second and third designs submitted would be approved? The second and third designs apparently came from the old huckster's trick of telling the biggest whopper possible to make your initial suggestion seem reasonable in comparison.

Some may like the glass box or the big Apple sign for a facade, but the Old Georgetown Board is right to dismiss such nonsense out of hand. Even the last design submitted is no more than a false facade that will only serve to be a store and nothing more. Sure it might make for a great billboard for Apple now, but what happens when the company goes out of business, or decides that having a storefront is no longer a viable business model? Could any of these designs be used for something else?

Georgetown as a community would then be stuck with a building that is either a curiosity, no longer of any use, or a new owner would have to spend significant money to build yet another building. In these days of environmental awareness, wouldn't the issue of convertibility in the future be considered?

The issue is one of permanence and a neighborhood as a larger work of art. The issue is not as one commenter called it "historic preservation gone mad" but that Georgetown as a neighborhood has a certain character that is defined by its buildings, that is larger than any of its parts, but also composed of them. Historic buildings are not valued in Georgetown simply because they are old, as some would falsely claim, but are valued because they are beautiful and display a humane scale. The combination of so many buildings with such characteristics is what gives Georgetown a harmony that few other places have, a harmony that is destroyed by buildings such as Apple's design.

Apple, not the Old Georgetown Board, are to blame for not getting a store built in Georgetown because of their lack of understanding this simple point. That buildings are not like a work of art to be displayed in a museum or in a vacuum, but that buildings are a part of a larger work of art, the art of a city.

Only Architectural Record Could Define Boring Modernism as "Defying Convention"

2009-02-04T21:02:00.006-05:00

Krueck + Sexton's 1100 First Street NE

Architectural Record reports the office building shown here with the following headline:

"Krueck + Sexton Defies Conventions in Washington, D.C."

Am I the only one not in on the joke? Perhaps its due to the economy, perhaps its due to Architectural Record's endless fawning over starchitecture, but I fail to see how this building "defies convention." Quite the contrary I see a very boring and conventional building being given a label of "unconventional" (good) simply because of the resume of its architects. Krueck and Sexton are the architects of both the Millennium Park’s Crown Fountain and the Spertus Institute (both in Chicago). I wont get into the individual demerits of these projects, but its clear from the press that the DC building must be receiving praise because of Kruek and Sexton's reputation.

Clearly it can't be the building itself, a glass box, cantilevered over the sidewalk below, are are a dime a dozen in Modern architecture ala Mies. Cantilevering the walls out above the first floor has been a staple of modernist architecture for so long its practially become second nature, but somehow this passes as something wonderously new, as the article makes pains to point out.

The one design feature that is somewhat different is the shifting of the mass of the building outwards as it rises, but this alone is hardly a unconventional element. Now it does not appear in the rendering shown, but the article points out that the building features "a diagonal refracted crease in its north-facing glass curtain wall." This I suppose is unconventional, though not for Krueck and Sexton (apparently this is their "signature"), but these two bits of architectural slight of hand are hardly reason enough to heap praise on this building.

Why then the praise? Well the same old one trick ponies get trotted out. The opening act is an attack on classical and traditional architecture by "a new crop of glass-walled D.C. offices casting off perceived obligations to impersonate somber monuments and government landmarks." So to the casual reader, the enemy is imitation of the old, but anything new is to be preferred. So the hegemony of the modernist critics and academics would have you believe.

I myself work in downtown DC and can tell you most of the office buildings in the area are NOT imitations of monuments and landmarks, far from it. Practically all of the buildings there are of the most banal and lifeless modernist glass and steel Miesian imitations that one could find. Limestone or brick is rarely to be found and when it is (as in my building) it is an oasis in a desert of the bland.

Hiatus interuptus

2009-02-04T13:15:00.002-05:00

Greetings all, sorry for the long hiatus from blogging here. Its been a rough few weeks for thinking about architecture. Honestly thinking about it just gets one a bit anxious with the way things have been going. The past few weeks were extremely busy though with work, finishing up a few proposals and with luck they'll come through and I'll continue to have a good excuse for not writing.

I leave you with an excellent article I found some weeks ago by James Matthew Wilson that I've been meaning to write on. Please read through it thoroughly as I'll be exploring some thoughts that were aroused in further posts, and tying it back to earlier ideas brought up by Driehaus Prize Winner Al-Wakil.

The Year of Palladio

2009-01-07T09:08:00.011-05:00

Palladio's Villa Rotonda (E. Bootsma)

So ends 2008, declared by the Institute of Classical Architecture/Classical America to be the Year of Palladio. Andrea Palladio, an Italian architect of the Renaissance, is considered by many historians and architects today to be one of the greatest architects of history, if not THE greatest. Though the Year has ended, museums still are holding exhibitions in honor of the noble architect.

Praise has been filtering in from across the globe from architects, academics and from the architectural press. In NovemberRoger K Lewis of the Washington Post extolls the greatness of Palladio in terms of his masterful use of mathematics and harmony. Architecture critic Jonathan Glancey (Guardian UK) is not at a loss for words to praise Palladio.

However just as lauds are given to Palladio, they are always given in terms that reject any acceptance of classicism today. A caption for a photo accompanying the Glancey article reveal the bias of current architectural critique:

"...Palladians, were drawn to the crystal-clear design, free of the pomp and lavish baroque that preceded Palladio"

This is a typical line of argument in architectural history given by Pevsner, that great architects in the past were part of a great sweeping movement towards an inevitable Modernism of today. Truly great architects were not ones that practiced using tradition, precedent or beauty, rather
they are reformers, rebels and rare geniuses (Michelangelo is always seen as the solitary genius).

Palladio is always seen in terms of his stark churches, pure and white, as if he was sort of a Corbusier of the 16th Century. Rarely is it mentioned that Palladio preferred a church to be pure and white for theological, not architectural, reasons. Nor is it said he preferred for houses, lavish paintings and decoration, for this would not fit well with his reputation as a "purifier" of architecture, or as Glancey calls him, "a proto-modern."

The critics and academics make it clear that Palladio is NOT to be praised as great without reference to his time. Palladio is only to be understood and praised in so far as he is part of the development towards modernism, designing in the tradition of Palladio today would be "controversial" or simply verboten.

Glancey makes it clear:

Even today, there are architects, notably the father and son team Quinlan and Francis Terry, who continue to work in a tradition descended from Palladio. In fact, the Terrys attract controversy precisely because they insist on pursuing a line of Palladianism ... as if the days of Palladio, or at least his ideals, were still part, parcel and pediment of everyday life.

Palladio's ideals, beauty, harmony, order, learning from tradition, do not apply today, according to Glancey. He is wrong. The principles of beauty and order are as true today as they have been for centuries, and we call architects great not because they have created something new ex nihilo, but have uncovered or understood the great truths of beauty which is not created, but discovered. The truth about beauty is that is not changing, not different for different times or men, but is universal through out time and place.

Pastiche Ban a Stealth Ban on Classicism

2009-01-02T12:40:00.008-05:00

Over at Greater Greater Washington a debate has been raging about an editorial penned by the English architect Robert Adam about the use of the term "pastiche." Adam makes the argument that the term pastiche, at least in the British dominions, has become a sort of buzzword used by contemporary critics to lambaste the New Classical architecture as some sort of schlock. Adam is justifiably incensed. Even the most elementary student of rhetoric would know the use of the "P word" is the worst sort of straw man argument.

Pastiche, which Adam defines as “a composition made up of bits of other works or imitations of another’s style,” is indeed a ignominious thing. Certainly the term is properly applied to a lot of bad architecture, as a commenter on GGW noted:

"Essentially, the clearest embodiment of pastiche is the McMansion. Where builders use "traditional" materials and forms, picking a little bit of this and a little bit of that, layer them all on top of each other without rhyme or reason, put them all together and in their marketing materials call it the King George Plantation model 5-bedroom, 3-car garage "traditional architecture." That is pastiche."

McMansion showing typical lack of harmonious composition.

Clearly, there is a lot of this sort of architecture out there, especially in the US. Such a thing rightfully should be avoided, but when this sort of bad non-architecture is connected with all New Classical architecture, the straw man pops his head out of the cornfield. This crow however is not fooled such scarecrows.

The distinction missed in the connection is the "rhyme or reason" of a properly educated architect. The trained eye of a Classical architect knows the difference between good and bad architecture and knows how to compose a beautiful building. The untrained eye sees no difference between the "McMansion" and a historic Alexandria Georgian manor house.

Kingfishers House by Robert Adam Architects (1998)

So too the critic blurs the distinction between the untrained cacophony of most suburban tracts and a harmonious composition made by one trained in the principles of architecture. However, unlike the merely ignorant, the critic blurs this distinction mendaciously.

This is what raises the hackles of the New Classicist Adam, that the critic knows better, but lumps the good in with the bad, so the critic's own ideology remains triumphant. But this triumph rests on shaky rhetorical grounds, and one wonders what other assumptions of the current architectural status-quo have equally shaky foundations? It remains to reform education about art and architecture, as well as understanding of rhetoric to counter such mendacity, that however is another discussion.

Happy New Year

2009-01-02T12:22:00.004-05:00

Happy New Year to all my readers. I know that I've been on a bit of a hiatus, but I have made it a New Year's resolution to post here on a regular basis. So after all the Christmastide revelry, gallons of eggnog, countless hours of college bowl games and such, it's time to get back to the business of architecture.

Posts coming up today and in the next week or two will be focusing on:

Architectural theory - Doing my best to discover a "new" theory of architecture.

Pastiche - Responding to a series of comments on Greater Greater Washington about Robert Adam's criticism of the word.

Beauty - Following up on Abdel El-Wakil's comments on the first principles of architecture.

Historic Preservation - Keeping up on the DC area debates about what constitutes architecture worth preserving.

Architectural Education - Trying to define some basic principles in educating architects of the future.

Welcome back, lets get the ball rolling in a New Year!

Thomas Aquinas College chapel update, Tabernacle revealed

2008-12-11T19:31:00.004-05:00

A view of the crossing dome, showing the tondi of the Four Evangelists.

The chapel of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity at my alma mater Thomas Aquinas continues to shape up. Here are some photos I was sent of the interior as it is nearing completion. Do notice that a lot of things have yet to be built so please don't jump to conclusions about the liturgical orthodoxy at TAC. Yet to be built is the baldaccino, and beautiful colored marble altar rails are being crafted right now.

A view down the side aisles. You may notice the carved panels of the Stations of the Cross. The aisles are meant to be used as aisles for regular use, but during special occasions movable seating will be set up to double capacity. (I believe)

Note the Papal Coat of Arms in the floor of the center aisle.

Statuary over the main entry that you can see here.

Now I just got these images today from my special inside source so I'm bringing to the world completely exclusive images of the renewal of sacred art going on at TAC. These are a few images of the Tabernacle that will be installed in the apse of the chapel. Truly a jewel inside a jewel.

Christ Triumphant surmounts the tabernacle,
as St. Charles Borromeo called for in his Instructiones.

"This is my body"

Doors echo those of the Baptistry in Florence.

Domus Dei.

Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil wins Driehaus prize for Classical Architecture

2008-12-11T13:54:00.000-05:00

A short time ago, the University of Notre Dame announced that they have awarded the Egyptian architect Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil the 2009 Driehaus Prize for Classical architecture. El-Wakil is rightly praised for his beautiful mosques and homes throughout the the Middle-East, and for his Islamic Studies Center at Oxford. The Oxford building is particularly beautiful and does an amazing job of blending classical Western forms with Middle Eastern motifs.

The Oxford Islamic Centre

Lost however in the justified praise for his buildings is the depth of El-Wakil's thought. I came across the following quotation at work the other day and found it particularly apt, considering what I said in the previous post.

"People who speak of origniality do not really mean to be original, they mean to be different. The very word originality means something going back to its origin. the true path of originality is the path extending from that from which all forms come. What people today mean by original is to be different in a very introverted and individualistic manner... All basic architecture especially the sacred, has followed archetypal forms which relate to cosmological order"

El-Wakil hits the nail on the head with this one. The originality that most architects seek is that of their own genius, the originality that El-Wakil seeks is found in the beginning and is found outside oneself.

This is the most fundemental distinction between the Modernist and the Classicist. The Modernist claims that forms are invented or created ex-nihilo by himself. The causes of beauty are whatever we say that they are because fundamentally beauty is only a product of our mind and our creation.

The Classicist on the other hand believes what we call beautiful is so because it IS. The forms, the order are pre-existent to our being and are actual and there to be found in nature. Beauty is not a construct of our mind, it is the comprehension of cosmological order. In art we imitate nature, not simply drawing animals and plants and such but rather, what we imitate in the highest arts (architecture and music) is the most ORIGINAL of things, the nature of the universe itself.

How do we do that? Well to do that we need to define beauty and how it relates to the universe and metaphysics. That however is too much to write on during my lunch break. More on this later.

Swiss National Museum's new wing already out of date

2008-12-08T21:20:00.008-05:00

Often a criticism weighed against contemporary architecture is that the buildings built today will within a few years time appear dated, out of style and silly. Rarely has that criticism being levied against a building that isn't even built yet.

The Swiss firm Christ & Gantenbein Architects was reported to have just received funding to begin construction of an addition to the Swiss National Museum in Zurich. The only problem is that in the time waiting to wade through the red tape of government bureaucracy the design has apparently grown mold sitting on the shelf. According to the article in Architectural Record, the critics, and the architects themselves admit the design is a bit stale:

"Given that the design is now six years old, [architect Emanuel] Christ acknowledges that what seemed striking and original may appear less so today."

I couldn't agree more, excepting that the design was probably never terribly striking or original, looking like a rather boxy knockoff of any random Lebeskind museum.

It begs the question whether a more traditional design would have elicited such a response to the design languishing in governmental committee? Would a design that harmonized with the original museum have to resort to such chicanery as the architects propose to repackage their design?

"Indeed, the Swiss Nation Museum extension’s tessellated planes have become a common motif in contemporary design. As a result, currently the studio is considering slight changes to its addition, such as cloaking it in a gradation of color that would dramatize its geometry."

In other words, the design no longer is fashionable today, with its bare concrete walls of angling planes, but rather should be like this years fashionable colored buildings.

Architecture is not fashion. Architecture is the expression of the highest ideals of humanity, those ideals which are unchangeable and as such architecture is unchangeable. Sure, tastes and styles change, but a truly good building will age well and continue to tell the same story and express beauty in the same way, whether it's six years after it's design or six hundred.

Capitol Visitor Center Opens

2008-12-02T13:36:00.007-05:00

This morning the National Capitol Visitor's Center officially opened. While the ceremony was today to officially inaugurate this project, the Center or CVC as it is banally called inside
has been open to visitors for the past few weeks. I was able to take a tour through a friend here at Georgetown and frankly was unimpressed. While I had heard of horrific rumors about the content of the museum and the experience as a whole, I found it less offensive as I had thought, but then upon reflection found this milquetoast reaction to be the most distressing thing about the experience.

To begin with, the entire center is underground. While I understand that the architects wanted to avoid sullying the iconic profile of the Capitol, I wonder why architects today cannot make an addition to any building without it being political suicide? Because Modernism cannot make buildings that harmonize with their surroundings, and in fact make buildings that ruin anything they touch. Thus, to avoid an inevitable and justified public outcry, they push the building underground, hiding it from view and from criticism, or at least the need to criticise.

I ask, why do architects feel that they cannot make an addition to a building that won't elicit universal scorn, when for generations before architects were able to do just that. Both the Capitol and the White House have been added on numerous times, but yet the buildings were not ruined, but rather enhanced! This is because contemporary architects are so enamored with Modernism/Postmodernism/Deconstruction that the idea of making a truly sensitive and harmonious addition is both philosophically and technically impossible to them. This is because such an addition would necessarily be classical as the classical is the only mode of architecture that allows for both harmony and balance and beauty in a composition, while Modernism allows for only subjection, rejection and subversion.

Ok, so enough on the modernists. On to the building. As I said the building is underground, clearly for aesthetic concerns but ostensibly to allow for visitors to assemble to enter the building under cover and in airconditioned comfort. As Harry Reid said rudely, visitors during the summer come into the Capitol covered in sweat frankly stink. Two questions I have are this, couldn't a visitors center been constructed on the edge of the grounds like a gate house of some sort? This would allow visitors to go through security then roam the grounds as they wait in the shade of the trees of a beautiful park.

Second, why then has the security for the center been placed directly at the entrance, making visitors queue up in the open air anyway? After entering there is a massive area between the immediate security stations and the politically correct Emancipation Hall, why couldn't the security be placed further in the building to allow for visitors to be under cover?

Aesthetically the Hall of Emancipation, the only real "architectural" space of the addition is a sort of mishmash of pre-war Fascist modernist classical mixed with all of the charm of a standard shopping mall. The columns are stripped down lacking any real architectural treatment, while still being covered with luxurious marble constructed in such a man manner to make it clear that the surface is merely a facade. Light comes in through the immense skylights, which is nice but still has the feel of being inside a mall, as you can only see the sky above. Light fixtures are either bland modern or are off the shelf from Home Depot can lights, the worst sort of lighting possible. Decoration is nonexistent other than a few inscriptions of the most politically neutral sort. Thankfully, as BeyondDC had reported incorrectly, E Pluribus Unum was not translated to mean "From One Come Many."

The Emancipation Hall is as said, filled with all the most politically correct statues from the states, from Sarah Winnemucca, Sacagawea, to King Kamehamea, very few white males are represented here. While one may argue about the points of this, it says a lot about the confidence the artists and architects have in the culture of America. Now this being said, full size plaster model of Freedom, the statue that tops the Capitol dome, is magnificent to see right up close and thankfully provides some sort of focus to an otherwise banal experience.

The whizbang museum fits the standard sort of rambling multimedia experiences one comes to expect in today's culture of the short attention span. However the models showing the sequential growth of the site of the Capitol are really quite extraordinary. Not quite as impressive as the McMillan Plan models at the Building Museum, but nice nonetheless. But I may just have the bias to such things as an architect.

Before one enters the Capitol proper however, one is subjected to at 10 minute film in one of the two theatres in the center. Now I was expecting the worst, possibly a preachy type film about how bad America was, but thankfully not. But unfortunately the film as everything else seemed as beige and unoffensive as the rest of the center. It seems they have brought giving no offense to a high art. It seems that one is ashamed of saying that America is a great place.

Now the final criticism of the Center is the most damning in my opinion. The Capitol's original plan by Thornton have the two branches of Congress mediated by a central Hall, the Hall of the People. Now once upon a time, that Hall was the most hallowed and sacred space in our Republic, but as such was absolutely open to all. Anyone could wander into the Hall because in a very real sense it belonged to everyone. The ascent up the steps was an act of civic sacrament, like the Papal Procession climbing the steps of the Campidoglio in Rome, sacramentalizing such a place. But now, one doesn't enter the Hall from the grand steps, one comes in through the ground and rides a set of escalators to the rear entry, climbing only a secondary entry to the great Hall. One cannot say enough about the disaster of such a change architecturally. The entire meaning of the place, the sacredness of the space was because of the People entering it, that they were the core and the enervating heart of the country. Now, we are simply the janitors and visitors to our rulers who have closed off this place to be their fortress, surrounded by moats, guards and walls to keep us out.

Architecture is the expression of meaning in stone, we have killed our ability to have it in the heart of the Capitol.

Progress photos from Thomas Aquinas College Chapel

2008-11-28T08:31:00.012-05:00

Work is finishing up at Thomas Aquinas College's Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity Chapel. Some great work by New Classicist architect Duncan Stroik, another major work finished just under a year after Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Here are some photos I was forwarded the other day from a fellow alum. The solid marble statue of Mary sculpted by Tony Visco is being hoisted into place to crown the facade of this great new project. Reports I hear say that the interior is nearly finished, though the baldachino and the altar rail are not yet installed.

UPDATE: I've been corrected, Tony Visco is not the sculptor for this piece, though was to do some work here, circumstances worked out that his work was not used.
This piece is by Giancarlo Buratti as well as all the other exterior sculptural work.

ND Architecture School's redesign for DC's Carnegie Library

2008-11-27T23:05:00.011-05:00

Great work here by fellow Notre Dame School of Architecture students for the Carnegie Library in DC. The library has fallen into disuse and last fall, with the help of the National Civic Art Society, graduate students at ND came up with several great ideas for returning the library to its intended use with additions that are designed to HARMONIZE with the existing building.

7 Mod Architecture Firms Shortlisted for Eisenhower Memorial

2008-11-24T18:50:00.004-05:00

According to BD Online:

"Frank Gehry and Moshe Safdie are among the seven architects who have made the shortlist for the competition to design the £60 million National Eisenhower Memorial in Washington DC.

The other five are Ralph Johnson of Perkins & Will; landscape architect Peter Walker; New York firm Rogers Marvel Architects; Ron Krueck of Krueck & Sexton Architects; and San Francisco-based Stanley Saitowitz."

This news is dissapointing on two levels. First the continuation of the dominant status quo in architecture of whizbang modernism, without any deference or respect for the depth of classical architecture. Doubtless some classical architect out there, and there are many that have the resume of Gehry et al (many in fact have more significant projects built than most of the finalists), submitted some sort of design for the project, but why only modernist firms? The complete disregard of ANY sort of classically minded firm is shameful. Americans love classical architecture, as a recent poll proved, but are sneered at by the press as being ignorant. Why shouldn't America get a chance to have a classical monument, like the ones so beloved by the country that exist in DC already?

The answer? The deck is stacked. Which leads to the second dissapointment, the process. The process to select the design was not as one might expect, an open competition of designs. The commision used the architectural establishment's little dirty secret, the RFQ, a "Request For Qualifications." This process does not weigh competing designs, weighing them on the merit of the proposal, the beauty or the genius of the design, but instead looks for "qualified" architects. This gives you one of two things, a "qualified" but banal designer, who has a lot to show, or apparently in this case, a lot of flashy names who's primary qualification is that they are famous.

The designs? Oh they'll come later. According to Archpaper.com: "None of the finalists have presented designs, and most likely won't before the winner is selected. 'I haven't really though of it', said Saitowitz. How can one get a great memorial for one of our most distinguished President's and General's if we don't even have a design? I believe that competitions, while not perfect, certainly bring out much better design than simply just naming someone and hoping that because he/she is "qualified we'll get a great place and memorial. I suppose that doesn't matter to whoever the jury were (they weren't revealed), I guess that they just want to have "A Gehry" or something whizbang to show that DC can be stylish like New York or Chicago.

The RFP system should be scrapped for all Federal projects, especially memorials and smaller buildings. Instead we should have open competitions, where common people get to decide. We would open the arts to architects and artists that appear to be now "unqualified" but would be able to adorn our Capital with great monuments again.

AIA Discusses Historic Significance of Modern Buildings.

2008-11-20T19:53:00.012-05:00

This has been a dominant line of argument of late in the Historic Preservation movement, that "significant" buildings are worthy of preservation. However the confusion of "significance" for value does a tremendous disservice to the state of architecture in the world. After all what is "significant" is not always good, certainly Smallpox is a "significant" thing, but I seriously doubt that anyone would consider it a "good" thing.

A building can be significant in three ways:

1. A moment of history occurred there.

2. The building is an example of a style or movement or an architect's work.

3. The building is great as a building and a part of a larger environ, either rural or urban.

The first two ways of being significant are the most common ways that preservationists argue for the inclusion of modern buildings. These ways clearly are completely extrinsic to the building itself, so then the question of the building's intrinsic value is then apparently moot, or so it would seem.

The problem is that the building is a work of art created for a specific purpose. A building is made as a office building or school or church. A building also has to stand up to the elements and finally, a building as a work of fine art, has to move us to something greater, something that tells us about what it is to be human. (more will be discussed about this as time goes along)

A building must possess all three of these things : (as Vitruvius said: Utilitas, firmitas et venustas) These three things, brought together, lift a building to the realm of Architecture. In my opinion though, venustas (beauty) really is the spark that enervates a dead pile of brick and stone to architecture, but more on that later on.

However we live in a day that these things are really lacking in a LOT of buildings and in a lot of buildings that the critics call the great architecture of our day. There are a lot of buildings however, like smallpox, are so bad that they are the opposite of architecture. These are, seemingly without exception, the buildings foisted upon the world in the past century of the Modernist experiment. These are the buildings that are "significant!"

Now I'll allow, that there are SOME circumstances that allow for a bad building to be preserved for historic reasons. But I think those reasons need to be a lot more significant than "LBJ slept here one night." A hotel where MLK was killed or the Berlin Wall come to mind. These places have such a tremendous historic significance that the place rises above mere encyclopedic record, but it tells us something about being human, which is of course what art should do intrinsically. Here the lesson is extrinsic but somehow overwhelms an intrinsically bad architecture.

But the Berlin Wall, though a historic artifact did such incredible violence to the city that prudence practically requires us to tear it down. Document it, preserve it in memory and in archives, but don't sacrifice the city and our human endeavors to it. We need to have this sort of reason in dealing with the detritus of Modernism. Realizing it may be significant as in terms of a mistake, we should document it and tear them down.

This too goes for the second reason listed above. The significance of a particular work of architecture by a "famous" architect is even more removed from the intrinsic value of a building than its history. The IM Pei Third Church of Christ Scientist is the best example. The building is a failure on almost every level of Vitruvian goodness, but because it was made by "the great Pei" it should be preserved. So what? Because the building was built by a somewhat famous architect the owners and the rest of the city has to suffer an incredibly bad building?

A building's worth should be judged FIRST by its intrinsic worth. Does it work as a building, keeping out the wind and rain and keeping people comfortable? Does it stand up to time, or do we have to spend twice the initial cost every ten years keeping it up? Does it work as architecture, does it inspire us to something higher than the mundane and tell us about ourselves?

Or does it simply serve to stroke the egos of so many architecture critics who know better than the educated rabble?

What Beauty Is

2008-11-01T00:57:00.003-04:00

Aristotle on Arts
Ethics Bk VI: Ch. 3

“state of capacity to make, involving a true course of reason. ”

St. Thomas on Beauty
Q.5. A.4
“Obj.1 Its seems that goodness has not the aspect of a final cause, but rather of the other causes. For, as a Dionysius says, Goodness is praised as beauty. But beauty has the aspect of formal cause. Therefore goodness has the aspect of a formal cause.

Reply Obj.1 Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally, for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and this is why goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for goodness properly relates to appetite (goodness being what all things desire), and therefore it has the aspect of an end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to a cognitive power [intellectual virtue], for those things are said to be beautiful which please when seen [or heard]. Hence beauty consists in due proportion, for the senses delight [pleasure being key to learning here] in things duly proportioned, as in what is like them – because the sense too is a sort of reason, as is every cognitive power. Now since knowledge is by assimilation, and likeness relates to form, beauty properly belongs to the nature of a formal cause.”

Aristotle on Beauty
Metaphysics XIII Ch. 3

"Now since the good is distinct from the beautiful (for the good is always s in action but the beautiful may also be in what is immovable), those who assert that the mathematical sciences say nothing about the beautiful or the good speak falsely. For they do speak about and show these, and in the highest degree. The fact that they do not use the names, while they do exhibit construction and theorems about them, does not mean that they say nothing about them. Now the most important kinds of the beautiful are order, symmetry, and definiteness, and the mathematical sciences exhibit properties of these in the highest degree. And since these (that is, order and definiteness) appear to be causes of many things, it is clear that the mathematical sciences must be dealing in some way with such a cause, that is, the cause in the sense of beauty."

Poetics
“that which is beautiful, whether an animal or any other thing which is composed of a number of parts, should have not only these parts [properly] ordered but also a magnitude, and not any chance magnitude. Indeed, beauty exists in magnitude as well as in order;”

“for the visual grasp of it and of its parts does not take place simultaneously, so its unity and wholeness are lost for the viewer.”

“The proper limit of [a good tragedy or plot] according to its own nature is this: the greater the length up to the limit of being grasped as a whole.”

Leon Batista Alberti
Ten Books of Architecture Bk VI Ch2

"I shall define Beauty to be a harmony of all the parts, in whatsoever subject it appears, fitted together with such proportion and connection, that nothing could be added, diminished or altered, but for the worse."