|
...previous posts
...archives
|
|
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
James Howard Kunstler @ Cleveland Public Library March 14th
325 Superior Ave. N.E. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Sunday, March 14th, 2010 2pm
An author, journalist, and urban planning expert, James Howard Kunstler is one of the foremost social critics of our time. The Geography of Nowhere (1993) and Home from Nowhere (1996) established him as a fierce critic of suburban sprawl and the high cost of our automobile-dependant culture.
His bestselling book, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century (2005) addressed the ongoing global oil crisis by exploring the sweeping economic, political and societal changes that will result from the inevitable end of access to cheap fossil fuels. He expanded on his previous criticisms and detailed the impact the crisis will have on the way we live, work, farm and build.
The 2008 publication of his 10th novel, World Made by Hand, placed those ideas and his critique in a provocative fictional setting. Given the wild fluctuations in prices and concerns over the world’s oil supply, World Made by Hand is both timely and portentous. Through the eyes of the citizens and mayor of Union Grove, Kunstler imagines what will happen in Small Town USA when the oil wells dry up, the climate changes, and the economic system collapses. While it is “grim with portent,” the San Francisco Chronicle said, World Made by Hand “is an impassioned and invigorating tale whose ultimate message is one of hope, not despair.”
Kunstler’s earlier novels include Maggie Darling (2004), Thunder Island(1989), The Halloween Ball (1987), An Embarrassment of Riches (1985), andThe Life of Byron Janes (1983).
A former staff writer for Rolling Stone, he continues to be a prolific journalist and essayist whose writings have appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, Orion Magazine, The New York Times Sunday Magazine and on Slate.com.
A native New Yorker, he resides in Saratoga Springs. Labels: Alt. Transportation, Cleve. Events, Design Rants, Environmental
Monday, February 15, 2010
Ohio's 3C plan, lack of bold vision posistions plan for eventual failure
I love trains. I am a complete sucker for convenient rail travel. When ever anyone asks I feel the urge to gush forward on the amazing journey I had from Akron to Milwaukee back in 2001/2002. The seat was wide and reclined so nicely that catching a train at some ungodly and chilly morning hour didn't bother me so much. I was on a mission, to see the land that Pabst created, it was a holy crusade of sorts and I wasn't going to let something as trivial as a logical or convenient timetable get in my way. Of course my ever trusty VW Polo (called a Fox in these here states) was in a constant state of disrepair as undergraduate school meant funds were allocated towards, lets say social gathering research, rather then personal transportation.With eager ears I awaited the news of Ohio's 3C corridor "high speed" rail plan. Who wouldn't? I am extremely excited about taking the train to OSU or Cincy to catch some of the amazing architecture lectures available for public attendance at those fine institutions. It isn't that I don't enjoy driving, I just don't like the vast majority of other people on the road. Going slow in the high speed lane, not using blinkers, not letting anyone merge so a complete and utter clusterf@*k occurs slowing EVERYONE down, etc. I would rather sit comfortably in my oversized reclining chair, listening to something drone on the headset and watch the Midwest do what it does best, roll gently by a window. Heck, I could even read a book or trade magazine, perhaps do some writing. At the very least I could be mildly productive which for the 3 hour trip is roughly 1/6 of my waking time that day (one way).Of course that only makes sense if I can get back at a reasonable hour. The timetables so far suggested infer that if I were to catch a lecture at Knowlton School of Architecture at OSU, which are mostly in the early evening (say 6pm for this example), I would have to catch the 6am train. 3 hours of travel mean I arrive in Columbus fresh and ready to learn by 9am which is perfect if I had a morning meeting, which I probably wouldn't. That would leave roughly 9 hours to explore Columbus, without a car, which would probably be interesting once (not to be cruel but I honestly would spend most of the time fretting about getting to the lecture on time). Somewhere in there I would have to spend more money to get to the lecture. Fine. So say the lecture is amazing and ends at 8pm with a rather invigorating Q&A session. I grab a couple of drinks to digest and start thinking about how to get home.I have to then wait in Columbus for 19 more hours as the return train to Cleveland doesn't depart until 3pm.There is the flaw in the plan. The limited schedule makes me question who the target demographic for the system is. I have no problem if my plan is to catch an exhibit at museum or even perhaps a late morning to early afternoon meeting (although giving up my whole day for a single meeting due to train schedule is asking a bit much, it better be an amazing meeting, with doughnuts and really good coffee and boxed lunch) but there is very limited availability to say catch a college football game at OSU (I hear they have a team) or a concert or do any of the other tens of things that tourists want to do. I would argue that the train line is more work/commuter oriented but if that were the case a line from Cleveland to Akron would a tad more sense, running from 7 am and again at 7 pm.Or course this proposed schedule is just the beginning, proposed schedule, all aspects subject to change, nothing in stone, we don't even know what trains will run on the tracks but I want the system to succeed dammit. I want to be able to take a train to Philly and Toronto and New York. I don't want to depend on my car more than I have to (I still don't even like owning one actually but working in Cleveland, especially when one has to visit job sites makes that extremely difficult). I want to not even have to plan that far in advance. I would love to just realize that it is Saturday morning, grab the MarJ and hop a line to, I don't know, Chicago, for the day. Have our fun and catch a train back, sleeping on the return trip so we can reasonably enjoy the rest of the weekend. I don't even mind if the commute is slightly more time consuming than driving (thinking of the time saved trying to find parking, also being able to converse with someone without having to half wonder if the Chucklehead in the Explorer is meaning to be in your lane or the lane next to you as he wanders about in a self absorbed stupor).It all seems so very sensible if done correctly. Or half correctly. The one thing we cannot have at this juncture is the possibility of implementing a system that could for all wants and purposes alter our society's way of moving about, paid for with our taxes, designed for users that really don't exist. We need a more cohesive schedule to allow movement back and forth for tourists, sports fans, urban explorers and business people in a timely and realistic manner. If it means that more trains have to added and costs per ride have to increase slightly then be it. I would rather the system be a more expensive realistic option then one that I can't possibly use.And yes this is all about me. I want this project to succeed more than anything in the region right now. I think this could make Cleveland a much more fantastic city then developing the waterfront or putting in a med mart or redesigning public square or even connecting the East and West side with bike access to a major bridge project (although, that one should be a gimme), as it would connect this city to the rest of the nation in a cheap and effective manner. I cannot, however, understand the logic behind the current planning/schedule and that annoys the heck out of me.resources: WCPN 2010.02.02 Sound of IdeasAccess for All music video Labels: Alt. Transportation, Design Rants
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Celebrating what we do, it shouldn't be that hard, really.
While perusing one of the online blogs I frequent daily (A daily dose of architecture) I realized that as the author (John Hill) is currently putting together a book on new architecture in New York he had stumbled across an occurrence that made me pause for a variety of reasons. While compiling a list of projects Mr. Hill had asked for his reader's to help out and suggest a few projects. The interesting part wasn't that quite a few projects unknown to Hill were suggested by his readers instead what was interesting was that it was incredibly exciting to see a wide variety of newer projects, ones that may not have gotten much press. To be fair quite a few smaller projects allow designers to take some chances with form or material or program layout, etc. and don't get the exposure or recognition they really deserve.
And here is where I wonder about local application.
Now, by no means do I profess to know everything about what is going on in Cleveland when it comes to architecture. In all honestly I wax and wane between paying attention and wanting to ignore the whole situation. I wouldn't at all mind though knowing exactly what was built or renovated in the last year just to see if anything interesting had indeed occurred.
I don't think I would be the only person interested in the information. I would even suggest that if a list was provided or created that there would be enough archi-nerds to take photos and post them online and maybe even offer us some critical non-snarky commentary, which, in my opinion, would be rather amazing.
So, what would be the best way to go about this? One option is asking the City of Cleveland Building Department for a list of projects that filed for Occupancy Permit and then sort out the smaller residential projects, etc. to get the list down to an interesting and manageable sort.
The other option would be to ask all the firms in Cleveland to help list all their recent projects. This is a little unfair because the projects would undoubtedly undergo some sort of scrutiny to make sure they reflected a specific image for the firm instead of seeing and learning about all the projects that make up the fabric of the city.
Of course perhaps this is already being done and I am completely unaware of it. If that is the case I hope some nice person will inform me. I have seen older blogs that had started and then stopped for various reasons but nothing recent.
Celebrating local architecture should be paramount to informing the public about what hiring an architect adds to a project (in quality, not cost) and can be best done by showing the wide variety of projects (types, styles, etc.) that are being done locally. Attempting to intelligently converse about these projects may not only inspire practicing architects but perhaps those looking towards a new career path. Perhaps discussions of this sort could even help further the disparate but all slightly connected branches of design and create a cognitive culture within the city. I know this is all waxing poetic but lets be honest, the city would be more creative seeming and interesting if this were to take shape, or form, or exist. There are so many interesting ways of solving problems (something designers are specifically trained for in various ways) that existing in an insular self-referential fashion does nothing for one's own experience or knowledge let along for creating the best product/project solution possible.
Sigh, dare to dream, eh? Labels: Design Rants
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Saving Ohio's Public Transit
Today's e-newsletter from the GCRTA asks me to click a link so that I can inform my legislative representatives that I think more money should be supporting public transportation. Which I do. I believe that wholeheartedly. I believe it with a deep seated burning passion that easy and logical public transit is paramount to livable communities. When I say "livable communities" I don't just mean those places you just feel safe and warm all alone in your house watching (ironically?) episodes of House ignoring your family and neighbors before you go off to work and have your electronic twitter relationships with people you will never see (but will know intimate details of). I mean livable as in you can be alive there and people would know because other people are being alive there. They are interacting and seeing each other and perhaps even conversing and god forbid touching (not in a perverse manner, just in the lend a hand, hold a door, shake hello sort of manner, geeze). There is a humanity to a "livable" community because your life means something to other "real" people and this knitting of existence gives some sense of purpose. Your couch will not win the eternal battle with gravity and fly off into space without your butt holding it firmly down. I swear, you have nothing to worry about. Also, contrary to popular belief, television actors have no idea when you are not watching them during their antics. They cannot see or hear you. Even at a movie theater (I don't understand the clapping thing). However apparently all this costs a ton of money. All the making people live by each other and want to talk to each other and see each other and accept the fact that although some of the people may look and act just like the people you may see on the television or interweb they may not be as funny without the team of mac/hack writers at their disposal and the cold harsh reality of paying attention and being polite may be a burden to bear but there it is. At some reasonable point I think the logic behind the argument of how tough sprawl is upon infrastructure (including transit and what not) is going to become more of a reality to those who depend upon it the least. Those of us who find public transportation an option because we own a car or bike or have legs that work pretty reliably will eventually notice that it won't be an option because it will be completely gone. Our city won't have been able to take the strain as it spreads out and spreads thin. Will gas be (I actually hope that soon it will be) $10 a gallon by then? What will our human reaction be? Hide in a cave and pray to Dr. House for sweet merciful death or will we try again to concentrate into a dense area to interact and shop and play? Why is a state so unwilling to fund public transit so full of people willing to invest millions and millions and more millions and then a few extra millions and how about a secret few billions of dollars to expand highway infrastructure (making it easier for people to spread further and increase the burden upon our infrastructure which is GOING TO KEEP COSTING US MORE)? Is this a quick fix to a problem I don't understand? Are the sprawling suburbs of the state so damn enticing that our suburban tax base is going to grow enough to offset the constantly starved and ill treated urban cores? Seriously? I would like to know what the heck people in NOACA are thinking promoting interchanges in Avon and the like. How about trying to imagine what it will take to keep the ridiculously vital parts of the region (such as Cleveland) not just shuffling along on Life Support but actually work to inject some sort of this LIFE everyone keeps talking about. I want to live.So when you are writing your emails or snailmail or texting or twittering your state reps and the like about how you wouldn't at all mind being able to take the bus or train to work instead of having to find a new job or just move out of state ask why it is so very hard to inject a little humanity into planning/money allocation process as well. I mean, this is all being done for us people, isn't it? Isn't it? Labels: Alt. Transportation, Design Rants
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
CMA expansion clarified
First off I appreciate the comments. I wish I got less comments from the guy named Anonymous but I can't pick and choose who comments here. Actually I can, I have that control.
I am posting this as a full post because I didn't type anything up tonight and part of my new resolutions is to write more on this thing again and also because my response was so long that by the end putting it in the little comment box was driving me batty.
This isn't me yelling at the person who asked the understandable and defendable question:
If Breuer refused to acknowledge the 1916 buliding, why should Viñoly have acknowledged Breuer more than he has?
...this is just my knee jerk, its been a long day and my proofreading skills are at the nocturnal low responsiveness level. I am quite nice in person, I swear it so take any strange aside commentary just as you would an uncle at Thanksgiving who has had a little too much everything interrupting his primary story to tell you about the time his day sailor tipped over in the bay and he lost the pocket knife your aunt gave him when they first met but he was too ashamed to tell her so he saved all his money and bought a new one on his own, pretending its the same one ever since. It's all meant to be a cute allusion. There, just like that.
Anon,
One architect "refused" to acknowledge an existing building during their phase of an addition (if I can utilize your interpretation of Breuer's addition, 60ish years after the original which drastically altered the layout and facing of the museum). The third architect to the mix (Vinoly's office) gave a "tip of the hat" to the addition but failed at all to react sensibly enough to distinguish and or assimilate; the addition is too similar to stand on its own and too dissimilar to be a strong interpretation. Similar to when a really poor addition is done to a public school or when an institution has run out of funds during an expansion and substitutes cheaper, off color materials (can't afford to match the brick) and the whole concoction feels slightly off putting. Sure everyone says that it's all become a cacophony of material and joyous expression but what it ends up feeling like is an unplanned tumor, not strong enough to have an ego of its very own but still slightly sapping the life out of the main body. Jagged boxy edges of the perfect square modern box sitting on a curved retreating wall isn't interplay or even intercourse but indecision as how to react to an urban pedestrian problem. Creating a “slice” or “valley” in order to separate two forms would go over better if the two had some sort of dialogue stronger then just a seemingly coincidental geographic location. Just because you sit next to a pretty girl on the bus doesn't mean she is going to have dinner with you, you need to start a conversation.
It's the whole "finish your business or get off the pot" concept, either make a statement or agree with the person before you, don't mumble your business and hope that no one takes offense.
Cultural institutions are some of the last bastions (or were at least when this was all being planned) of physical built expression. Not everyone likes the ROM but you sure as hell want to react to it and from an urban/placemaking/experience level that is pretty dang interesting. It could all be dismissed as trend/eyecandy but a cultural institution exists quite a bit on making the bold statement of “this is what I am, this is what I do, this is where I am, come and visit, explore, support”.
The shame is that it isn't even that I don't like it. I just can't be bothered to care. That is the real crime. At least make me care, not just yawn and go “I remember when Breuer was reacting to the faux-classicism that Cleveland embraced so wholeheartedly back when it was a booming city with eyes wide open towards the brightest future, where it would last the ages so our buildings, our built representations of how we wanted people to see ourselves, would echo the sentiment of what our interpretations of timeless, classical beauty are. Lo, we are timeless, we are Cleveland! (Spartacus theme) So the idea of creating the insular solid, heavy box seem thin and light, stone alternating as it turns the corner to reveal that it is but a thin veneer, impossibly compressive cantilevers over entry ways, the faux is the celebration. We can recreate the exuberance of the past by celebrating that we acknowledge the lies. Our stone buildings are built by machines, fastened by technology, harnessed by knowledge instead of might.” Breuer knew what he was building onto and used the contemporary style to comment upon it.
If anything I wish Vinoly would have reacted half as cleverly as Breuer did. Then I could have cared or at least not dismiss it.
Of course, who the heck am I? Maybe there are some clever twists in there. Perhaps the poorly met joint work, the sad panel system is meant to convey something. Maybe the way some of the stripes align and others don't quite make it, but aren't off enough to create a sense of deliberance, as if the building is already is a state of slumping decay, like a ruin left to the elements, stripped of frescoes and sculpture and icon by conquering armies and we are to stumble upon it and make it our own secret treasure. Perhaps it is Vinoly's own commentary upon Breuer stating “No Marcel, you have it all wrong, the responsible reaction is that we can build something quite solid and dense and we don't have to comment upon it because we are to be completely apolitical as architects seeking patrons.”
Maybe. I sure as hell hope not, it seems such an easy way out. Labels: Design Rants
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Happy Holidays 2009
Just a quick note to wish everyone a Happy Holiday Season.
Cleveland itself has really begun to push towards some new sensibility with its self image. Projects such as the Euclid Corridor are starting to show their strengths as other projects such as the Lakefront Development Plan, East Banks Project and the Medical Mart struggle to gain traction but are still slowly pushing forward. Investment in public spaces are starting to take some precedent such as at Cedar Hill RTA Station or Public Square but are currently being reviewed as ancillary such as with the Medical Mart project. In a very unique twist Philip Johnson's (a Cleveland native) only Cleveland based project is currently being threatened as the Cleveland Clinic gobbles up land with its ever expanding campus.
New projects reach completion, most noticeably a series of townhomes and a major art museum expansion represent Cleveland's reaction to the apparent burden of contemporary design and Cleveland's struggle to create it's own vernacular or at the very least a local flavor.
These are things I look for in the new year.
Here's to 2010!
Labels: Cleve. Events, Design Rants
Thursday, November 19, 2009
What is design? An answer to the Sarah Rich lecture at CIA
I was so easily disappointed, and I really didn't want to be. In fact, this was one of those rare occasions (similar to Episode One) where I went into a room expecting to like everything, or at the very least, the vast majority and instead felt worse for the experience. I enjoyed Dwell magazine when I had a subscription, I get Inhabitat daily emails (and weekly, which I can't seem to stop), I enjoyed the book Worldchanging (which was destroyed in the great flood of '07), I am completely in love with decentralized digital design production, oh hell, it doesn't even have to be digital, I love things that have been thought about and designed.
And I DO enjoy Dwell. It is sort of the vanilla/chocolate twist cone of design magazines. Just enough "normalcy" to make it tangible/accessible with just enough "strange" to make it exciting. I believe Dwell has introduced what design means to millions of people who wouldn't have taken the time and effort to seek it out on their own. Granted, it isn't much more than a changing Ikea catalog, I mean, there isn't much of a stance being taken, no one will be offended by pretty pictures and product placement, which is fine. I'm not expecting a cerebral twist on what "thoughtful" is all the time, sometimes I just like some eyecandy. Heck, any magazine that illustrates the importance of hiring professional designers to design things is alright in my book.
It is just that I wanted the lecture to have more import. The first half hour wasn't bad at all. Discussions on product transparency, utilizing information as empowerment, utilizing social media as community building to creating design communities and funding opportunities (community based investments), talking about invading and conquering food deserts and redefining consumerism by "sharing" were all good topics. I was into almost every nuanced word. My notebook reads like a grocery list of sites and projects to research.
The built projects were the downfall. As soon as we got to "architecture" I lost all interest, which is strange really. There was such a suspect application of sustainable (very rural seeming projects) and after reading Lloyd Alter's piece regarding Prefabricated Housing in Treehugger (I knew as soon as I started appreciating it, it would be a bust) I found the lack of critique horrendous to endure. So what? So I knew I shouldn't have expected more but I really wanted to hear some thoughts on how a modern commune worked, how the Yum Yum Farm live work house was more than pretty pictures, how horizontal wooden slats were incorporated THIS TIME in a NEW and EXCITING way.
Sigh, I wanted more. I wanted a lecture on design to be about the intent, the impetus, the resultant, the validation more than just the pretty. The sugary sweets always leave you hungry for something of substance.
Sarah Rich stated that she would put her presentation up on Slideshare (which is good because some was cropped by the projector). As soon as it is up I will link to it for you. Otherwise check on your own. Search for "sarah rich". Labels: Cleve. Events, Design Rants
Friday, October 16, 2009
Today's blog has been interrupted by the author
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Random views around Cleveland
I apologize about how I have been slacking a bit lately on the blog posts but I have been suffering some computer issues and am attempting to sort it out. Which I hope eventually to.
In the meantime enjoy this photo of the the old metal panel skin being taken off the building at 2000 East 9th Street on the Southwest corner of Euclid and East 9th exposing the brick/block beneath. I fear they cut some of the decorative pieces where it interfered with the metal skin. I don't know what the future really holds for this building, I don't work downtown anymore but it is nice to see things happening along Euclid.
Yay!
Labels: Design Rants
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Architecture for Humanity: Typhoon Ketsana (Ondoy) Rebuilding Appeal
Architecture for Humanity is responding to Typhoon Ketsana-Ondoy, which has affected the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia. Millions of people have been displaced, with the threat of more typhoons on their way possibly affecting even more people. We are raising funds for transitional and permanent reconstruction of areas affected. Please note this funding will be focused on longer-term recovery rather than emergency relief. DONATE HERE http://www.architectureforhumanity.org/updates/2009-10-01-typhoon-ketsana-ondoy-rebuilding-appealHere’s how we can make an impact:$10,000 will provide a rebuilding team for six months on the ground.$20,000 will provide a team in two or more countries.$50,000 will build a clinic or school.$100,000 will build multiple community structures.If we raise less than $10,000 then we will distribute it to local groups focused on reconstruction of affected communities.After the 2004 South Asia Tsunami we raised close to $500,000, which enabled Architecture for Humanity to build community facilities and homes in more than 20 villages in India and Sri Lanka.Can’t Donate?1. Offer your services – link to offer services2. Tweet this: Support Architecture for Humanity's Typhoon Ketsana (Ondoy) Rebuilding Appeal: http://bit.ly/3oYvyq 3. Update your Facebook status with: Support Architecture for Humanity’s Typhoon Ketsana (Ondoy) Rebuilding Appeal: http://bit.ly/3oYvyq4. Email 10 friends.5. Host a bake sale (Over $200K was raised through bake sales and lemonade stands during the 2004 Tsunami).Thank You,All of us at Architecture for Humanity Labels: Design Rants
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Waterfront Response '1'
I have had a bit of time to look over the waterfront proposal. As it is I remind you that I have not gone to the formal presentation and therefore a lot of these questions/issues may have been answered, however without knowing this for sure I thought I would bring up the two most obvious queries/suggestions that come to mind.
1. Injecting a neighborhood/development of this scale with only 3 vehicular access points may severely minimize the possibility of success. However if an attempt to create more cohesion and integration into the surrounding neighborhoods was undertaken than perhaps a stratification of the region could be avoided. Illustrated in the diagram is simply a pair of railroad crossings tying the proposed neighborhood into the flats east bank development area (along Old River Road and Main Ave). This would allow the flats neighborhood to stretch through to the lakefront, create alternative entrance points circumventing downtown public square (alleviating traffic, etc) and strengthen the development along the rivers edge by cementing it to the lake access at the north. Oddly enough this would also allow for differentiation of development type based upon proximity to water and elevation above the lake, whereas the flats and lakefront area would be of a smaller scale/density and based more upon residential development downtown would remain a distinct "downtown" commercial district. In some regards restricting height of development upon this lower elevation would preserve views from downtown, but would also preserve wind patterns (Tokyo suffers from tall development along the harbor which restricts fresh and cooling air from reaching the center of the city). It also makes a bit more sense to center taller/denser development along stronger access and transportation routes.
2. The second 'suggestion' would be utilizing this development as stimuli for moving the Amtrak station adjacent to the Convention Center (Mall C) and install a bridge system to allow not only access to the station from the waterfront side but also from the city side. This construction could fulfill two functions. It would grant visitors to the city a grander entry and more proper front door through the new Cleveland Convention Center/Med Mart but would also allow pedestrian passage to the Waterfront near the Stadium (enclosed and on surface grade via the Mall). In essence the new passageway would extend a portion of the Mall over the tracks to the Football Stadium and Science Center. This suggestion may actually be able to capitalize on the 3C stimuli monies being sought to tie major cities together via rail and would bode well for the city to make the most out of such an investment.
Again, these comments are made in the vacuum of only seeing the pdf of the presentation and such topics may have already been discussed or are being considered by the design team. Labels: Cleveland, Design Rants
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Prarie Avenue Bookshop facing Closure
I find the lacking of a decent architectural/design bookstore in Cleveland abhorrent. The national chains typically have the same bland stuff derived mostly of books destined for coffee tables or fans of Frank Lloyd Wright. Granted Visible Voices in Tremont has some respectable titles (both books and magazines) and I haven't yet been to Horizontal Books on West 25th however one can hardly fault a proprietor from not wanting to open a specialty niche shop during these economic times in our roughshod town.
This was stewing about my head when I first heard that Prarie Avenue Bookshop in Chicago is facing closure if not purchased by a new investor/owner soon. Prairie Avenue was an amazing place to visit whenever I was in Chicago. The used/classic section was always amazing and it was a truly wondrous experience to browse shelf after shelf of eye-candy and thoughtful extrapolation. I was usually quite, well, poor (not that I am affluent by any means now), and hadn't a chance to purchase much but I always looked forward to the newsletter to see what new titles were on the shelves.
One could spend hours lounging about exploring the shop, striking up a conversation with fellow patrons, shop owners or employees who were all sure to share a common interest/infatuation with design and the printed word.
I don't know if the store will be saved and I admit to being crestfallen at the prospect of losing another source of fine books. While the Internet has its uses you can't get the same tactile experience you can from books and magazines, (or, if you are like me) dog ear pages and make notations in the margins (blasphemy, I know!).
All in all another sign that the times are changing. A touchstone for the design community slips away as architecture/design becomes more commodified and the intrinsic value of good design becomes harder to sell as corners are cut and sacrifices are expected. It will be a sad day indeed.
cite yer sourceLabels: Design Rants
Friday, July 24, 2009
Words words words words and some pictures..Publishing Practices - Book Survey
For all those designers out there saddled with the copious eye-candy, theory, fun time reading books that you remember mostly when either destroyed in a flood (sucks) or when you have to move them from one place of residence to the next (sucks as well however possibly less), Michael Kubo is gathering information via a book survey about your 5 most important books, where you got them, etc. which will be showcased as an exhibit in the Pink Comma Gallery in September (my birthmonth) 2009. You can find more information about the exhibit on the Publishing Practices Facebook Page which goes into greater detail.
Surveys are due August 1, 2009
SurveyLabels: Design Rants
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What's in a name? Architecture firm names that shouldn't a-been:
On the slant of what is architecture I thought I would pass on some firm names I had run across. Back in the olden days, professionals would attach their own name to the firm. This (supposedly) gave the firm a sense of legitimacy as one could easily discern who the person in charge was as well as added the professional air, similar to a legal firm. When architecture firms would pass on to new owners the name would either change to reflect the new ownership or the old name would be kept, reminiscent of the firm's past work and established roots. Which choice was better? I don't know if one could decide.
However the influx of wacky names to promote some hi-tech ideas or to give the name some catch or zing is all the rage and doesn't have to change when the firm ownership does, meaning that established firms can maintain whatever ethical/aesthetic guidelines they were founded on while changing ownership (and the whole thing isn't designed to stroke personal egos).
Sometimes though I see names that while self descriptive in some manner are a little, well, odd. I was going to compile a giant list but to be honest I haven't the time to parse every firm out there. Instead I thought I would get the ball rolling:
Greeen!Architects (I think the "green" thing officially got out of hand in 2007. Yes the "e's" stand for something)
AAA Architects Inc. (Follows the Yellow Pages mentality to be located at the top of the list)
Architectural Design (So, what do you do there?)
Architectural Design Group
Architectural Design Guild (I am a 42level dark elf drafter)
Architectural Design Inc. (like KIDS incorporated)
Architectural Design Matrix (Keanu Reeves jumps on the celebrity architect band wagon)
ArchiTexas
Architique (this is running with the "architecture" remix branding exercise a little too fast)
Architron (fighting the Master Control Program since 1982)
Art and Architecture by Design (The business card reads like a bad pick up line waiting to happen)
Feel free to add to the list in comments as you want. As you can probably tell I just started going through a list of firms (and giggling).Labels: Design Rants
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Sacred Architecture Tour - impressions
Last Saturday, April 18th, AIA Cleveland and the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America held the first in what I hope are to be a series of Tours that showcase the Cleveland Catholic Churches which will be suffering closings as ordered by the Cleveland Catholic Diocese. Recently it was also announced that the appeals which had been filed by parishioners on behalf of their places of worship have been rejected with nary a structure spared.
I did a miserable job of catching everyone's name however listed on the flier that went about a week ago the tour was to be led by Tim Bennett. Whomever the speaker was did a rather fine job of keeping the discussion light enough for everyone in the audience and sprinkled in enough humor, history and gossip to keep our attentions sharply focused.
The churches were both quite beautiful and quite different and I imagine the merging of St. Colman's into St. Stephen's will be quite a shock (for those who had grown up in the grand open space that is St. Colman's) however perhaps the Gothic touches of St. Stephen's will counter with a rather fine and auspicious sense of wonder at the delicate balance of the the structure's graceful arcs and lines. Both buildings are quite beautiful and it was with heavy heart to sit among the throng and realize that even if I were to be an atheist, it would be difficult to not sense a greater purpose or being in a shrine such as these. They were garish in their ways, as most representations of true devotion are, but there was a noticable love in the care and craft and the intention of each item's placement that made amends for the decadent bauble and gild.
It makes the argument that we live among no great built works one hard to accept. It also adds a sting of biting remorse to acknowledging the undeveloped or undercooked "contemporary" design that has become our status quo, our "background" fabric.
When these treasures are stripped or their ornament (perhaps even are unfortunate enough to endure a dance with the wrecking crew) they will be gone forever and in their stead lay no certainty to worth or value, either as inspiration or as grace upon the eye. So I will look forward to the next tour, as an excuse to remember that great spaces can invoke a sense of wonder and awe, (as horribly easy as that is to forget).
I believe the next one is to be planned for early May 2009.Labels: Cleve. Events, Design Rants
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Richard Sommer named dean of University of Toronto with clear indication of cause
Blueprint for a New Architectural Dean Complete
University of Toronto recently named Richard Sommers, formerly of Harvard University Graduate School of Design new dean of U of T's John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design. Undoubtedly Sommers was brought in for a myriad of reasons however his connection as a designer specializing in urban areas was a reason specifically cited by University of Toronto. In fact University of Toronto put together quite a nice "mission statement" of goals for the new director which are meant to play to Sommer's and the University's strengths.
Univ. of Toronto's work to get out the news about their happenings, including events, and of course lectures, rather inspiring as a good Educational Institution should act as an extension of the community in which it resides and serves. Even though I am was never a student at UofT I find their program extremely interesting and of course love the city in which it resides. All of which is helped by the exposure that UofT works to attract to their accomplishments and community.
It is refreshing to see and a fine example of what a design school that wishes to use their location as an asset through involvement can achieve. I hope the local design community appreciates what they have.Labels: Design Rants
Monday, April 13, 2009
Pritzker Prize 2009 Laureate - Peter Zumthor
Photos and information can be found here on the Pritzker Architectural Prize WebsiteLabels: Design Rants
Thursday, April 09, 2009
any press isn't always good press - cia addition makes list of dubious honors
I had this article pointed out to me a couple of days ago. I was trying to find the article online but couldn't so I apologize for the crummy scan (which you can click to enlarge to readable size).
Not to be outed about it but I actually liked MVRDV's "bump and kiss" proposal and found it to be a much more interesting addition to a cultural institution than the proposed Burt Hill addition which is rather disappointing (especially when compared to OSU's newer Knowlton Hall design studio's building which embodies what a studio workspace could be if it were designed for working or designing in).
Article thanks to ID Magazine who I hope won't ask me to pull the scanned page right away so that Cleveland can enjoy being architecturally infamous, again.Labels: Design Rants
Sunday, April 05, 2009
groundbreaking vs groundbreaking
What is a groundbreaking anyway? A true marking of the beginning of the construction of a project? A milestone to simply mark an symbolic "beginning" with some kind words and the moving of a shovel full of dirt?
 27 coltman
 circle 118
Above are two images from two almost adjacent projects. Circle 118, which exists on the corner of Euclid and East 118th and 27 Coltman which are being constructed on Coltman and East 119th near Euclid Ave. The Euclid Avenue and the Red Line are all that separate the two sites.
It was interesting to note that Circle 118 broke physical ground in mid March and has already begun excavating (or at least started pushing giant piles of dirt around) and seemed to completely bypass the public groundbreaking ceremony. Meanwhile the Coltman project had its groundbreaking ceremony March 27th which consisted of the standard blessing, photo ops and party (held at the Sculpture Center) which drew a pretty large crowd (estimated at around 300). However the Coltman project still doesn't have any equipment on the site.
Word on the street (from a single unverified source for whatever that is worth) is that both projects have units moving and should both be realized, which would be quite an interesting achievement in this market.
So what is a groundbreaking? Is it the actual beginning of construction? A milestone that indicates that funds have been allocated and are being utilized in the building of the project or a large ceremony which attracts a large crowd and fanfare but does not indicate any actual construction? I ask because I find both happening in the absence of the other rather interesting and perhaps a little telling about the life of building projects in Cleveland.
I am leaning towards the physical moving of earth in preparation of building to indicate a true groundbreaking and even though the Coltman project threw one hell of a party, I fear they have a bit of catchup.Labels: Cleveland, Design Rants
Friday, April 03, 2009
Craig Scott lecture reaction - KSU spring 2009 lecture series
This last Thursday, April 2nd, Craig Scott of iwamaotoscott gave a lecture/presentation at the Micheal Schwartz Auditorium at Kent State University.
The lecture happily consisted of much more than a simple traipse through a project portfolio as Scott illustrated not only a series of projects ranging from art installations and large scale masterplan proposals, but also the rigor and trials that exemplified a well thought out and practiced approach.
An aspect that permeated the projects shown was an almost childlike sense of awe at exploiting the constraints of materials. Utilizing digital media to create electronic models, ideas were quickly studied and metrics of evaluation were formed. However, what makes iwamotoscott architects so very interesting is the then deliberate exercise in physically studying the material constraints and exploring the visual and tactile relationship of construction.
From the Voissuir Cloud installation at sci arc (which employed a rigorous structural study and painstaking craft of construction to execute) to the REEF ps1 proposal (which required a half scale model to verify that the inferred material properties would react in a predictable fashion) the love of crafting shines through. Somewhere through their history, Lisa Iwamoto and Craig Scott's desire to discover the pure truths of material exploration has ingrained itself richly within the partner's ideals and it is a testament to the tenacity of the firm that these explorations are so finely executed.
I suggest that greater attention is to be paid to the impetus behind these and other proposed projects including the Ordos 100 villa, Hydro-Net (designed for the History Channel's City of the Future, and the proposal for Battery Park South (whose images should be released soon) for each project, as diverse in construction or scope as possible, rely on a sense of desire to empirically explain the truth of and through materiality and then fashion the proper technique to celebrate it.Labels: Cleve. Events, Design Rants
Saturday, March 21, 2009
scale: amenity and destination
During an interesting conversation regarding the dissonance of what constitutes a community amenity and a destination, the simple fact that a personal lens of scale creates the metric of difference came to light. Whether applied to the marvel that was the enclosed shopping mall, the strip mall, the arcade mall or to a grander plan such as a convention center or even theme park, the hubris of identifying the personal boundaries of space constituted a more appropriate understanding of determining which population is being served and whether said population forms a "local" community or not.
To be fair the main purpose of the aforementioned conversation was whether a destination could result in direct community amenity, in this case "Would the Cleveland Med Mart truly bring some life to downtown Cleveland?" The lens through which the incident was being initially studied was as a Clevelander who would like an excuse to go downtown more but find it a bit boring. What would the Med Mart do for people like me?
This acknowledgment was immediately a mistake. I am not part of the community that the Med Mart would serve, there is a larger National/International Medical community to which is being targeted, I belong to a second localized group, one that is tied via geographic location which according to my previous statement of "finding downtown Cleveland boring" can easily be overridden. Here usage beats simple proximity. Would the Medical community be drawn to the Med Mart? If it offers ease, convenience and purpose then one could assume that the community would definitely visit. Is there a geographic based penalty (distance = less opportunity to visit)? Possibly but again, geospatial location can be easily overridden (through the marvels of planes, trains and automobiles).
What then about local community amenity such as grocery stores, libraries, schools, etc. Some offer function that cannot overcome geographic location (schools typically serve a specific community), some destinations must serve those with limited transportation options (libraries, grocery stores) some overcome geographic limitations by constructing their own transportation system (hosptial/healthcare). Here the scale of the community being served is lessened as there are multiple destination/amenities created to serve multiple communities. There are more than one library, grocery store, school, hospital, each created to serve within a certain geographic location. Here the argument that the community is smaller and possibly more distinct allows this scale to be seen as the distinction between amenity and destination. However if the community (say the International Medical Community*) is highly mobile and there are less fewer amenity/destinations then the label may change depending on if your metric for scale is based upon local community or the more specific International Medical Community.
So what of the all important automobile? This creation really threw a monkey wrench into the scale argument of community amenity and destination. Initially the sense of scale shrinks to include only those that are located within the automobile. As most communities do not strictly delineate with signage at the borders the automobile creates this highly mobile but highly contained sense of space that defeats the geographic limitation (average daily commute in the US is around 48 minutes) exposing the auto traveler to multiple communities in one journey albeit usually only to limited areas (those with the quickest passage through). Previously to the advent of the auto (and for most citizens until they turn at least 16) the local community is defined by a radius that is easily walked (or ridden by bicycle) which allows not only the option of a more meandering path (and greater intimacy with the community) but also sets specific delineations of where the acceptable "edges" of the community are (based upon physical exertion, spatial familiarity and geographic properties). Again, another scale is developed that must be supplemented by an eagerness to travel once auto access is granted.
Public transportation is an anomaly that stitches the difference between pedestrian level travel and auto travel. The community is expanded to include whomever is on the bus/train and the continuous stops and less engaged operation (for the passengers) allow more time to identify with fabric along the route. Still travel is limited to a predetermined path, however it becomes more than simply a destination to destination journey as there is the introduction of a larger population (passengers) and more frequency of interactive changes (stations).
Regional access allows the metric by what we consider an amenity to shift based upon our mobility however the way that we also define ourselves alters what the basis of our communities are. Simply put, if we were to only define ourselves as Clevelanders, then our community would be simply Cleveland. If were to expand our self definition to include cultural attributes such as hobbies, occupation, or interests then our sense of community would expand and by extension our definition of amenity. The argument that is most often heard is based upon an assumption of which community is being served and in which manner, regardless of whether the "target demographic" is stated. Air travel and the ease in which some may attain access to other parts of the world have created a lens that can encompass a larger community, stretching from the city region to encompass entire nations. There is a direct connection between our mobility and geographic limitation and what can be logically considered a "community amenity" if the community is being defined by only geographic terms. This makes an important distinction between the attempts to capitalize on existing cultural/community amenities in order to create greater exposure to a larger "culturally based" community.
Again, to make a proper argument a sense of scale must be defined in order to validate the assumptions made when considering what a community truly is. Today's modern society is highly mobile and exploratory and has found easy ways to breach the geographic limitations that have been placed upon it in earlier decades. This isn't to say that local geographic communities would succeed if they abandoned all local amenities, but it is to suggest that cultural destinations are rapidly becoming cultural amenities and population migration will shift in response to such.
*to be fair I do not know if there is an International Medical Community but it sounds scary to me.Labels: Design Rants
Saturday, February 21, 2009
a critical impasse of cynicism
It has been an abnormally tedious journey the last few months for someone interested in architecture, design, planning and the various aspects that can be considered simple accoutrements to existing in a city one attempts to care about.
The economic “shakedown” coupled with the already depressed local market has instigated an abnormal despondency towards optimistic planning which has been amplified through already mishandled large scale urban projects. Just going back a couple of years points at milestones made in Cleveland’s development that are contradictory to the general understanding of progress.
The botched County consolidation, which included the Ameritrust Tower weakened an already precipitous public trust towards elected officials (possibly magnified by discrepancies of character in regards to national politics). The project was not transparent enough, nor deemed necessary enough, to justify to the general public the scope and intent intended. I admit, my skepticism for the project holds strong and I still feel that the edifice to personal ego was greatly misplaced (via the proposed location) and squandered an amazing opportunity (to construct a marvel atop the stone base of the existing structure which some had intoned was the original plan).
On the other hand the Euclid Corridor project (which I will probably never call by the purchased “Health Line” name, it just sounds stupid to me) also suffers from a lack of understanding. That the majority of Federal funds went towards long overdue infrastructure improvements and not the actual bus line. This is important to understand for a number of reasons; the first being that the actual cost of the bus line itself was a small portion of the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure spine along Euclid. A cost that will no doubt be recouped when understood as preventative measures to counter possible failures (of power, water, sewer, etc.) and the monies necessary for the emergency repairs. Secondly it granted Cleveland a “premier” street (similar to a Main Street) which creates an inferred value and address of import for businesses to locate to. In fact, quite a few grand projects were planned before the mortgage crisis sunk our current banking system with the planned speculative projects in tow.
Now the cynicism that goes along with misunderstanding has found a “new” target, the planned location for the Medical Mart, a project that again has not been forthcoming enough to gain public support and will therefore squander the opportunity of the backing of the general public. Mention creating jobs downtown and heads nod, talk about bringing thousands of visitors to spend money and corners of lips start to twitch into low smiles, add that the plan includes attempting to beat New York City to market and hands start to wring together in joy but if one hides the details of the bargain (by not repeating it often and enough) people will start to question the ideology of an administration already suspect.
At the last public meeting regarding the Med Mart I saw quite a few familiar faces, those that hold the future of the city dear to heart and honestly want to rebuild the city’s image to one of a bright future, an urban wonder. I also saw some faces that I usually don’t at these meetings such as members of professional institutions who should be leveraging their skill sets towards creating a better project (and by extension better city). I left the meeting during the public comment portion, mostly because the questions that I felt were most necessary to understand to judge the merits of the project were bound to be asked in an incoherent and muddled way. The presentation itself was straight forward and actually gave enough reasons for my curiosity via the site selection to be sated. Whatever going ons I was not privy too were either concealed well enough under the presentation to not make a difference or did not hinder the choice enough to be considered “dealin’s”.
I will inquire (again) as to transparency. Where is all the information regarding the deal? Search for “Cleveland Medical Mart” and you end up with dozens of Plain Dealer reports with sporadic information (and enough public comment to make your head spin). The web sites and blogs that show up (official) do not contain any information and at the time of this writing the County website is down.
The interesting aspect of this condition, however, is that the answers are out there. I have seen online reports, proformas, cost calculations, estimations of income and various strategies for structuring the construction and operating costs and find some confusion as to why these reports are not centralized so as to be easily referenced. Now would be a pertinent (albeit late) time to collect and disseminate the information in order to garner public support. However the onus is not entirely only on the project. Those hoping to counter will do well to import research into their arguments as well. Anecdotal responses do very little to further the argument (except to reveal a misunderstanding of the precedence as well as the conversation at hand) except to attempt to personalize it. The “how does it directly affect me?” argument shouldn’t be the main concern, instead we should question “how does it immediately affect those around me, those I care about, those whom I have and share concern for?”.
As such I ran a very quick comparison between the physical location of convention centers in competing urban centers, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto (because I love Toronto) and Pittsburgh in an attempt to understand the correlation between the “assumed downtown center” and the convention center (as a case study for proximity and connectivity). Just a series of Google Maps represented that most of the convention centers are located relatively close to the center of “downtown” but not exactly, as they take up quite a bit of room (most of them are tucked to one side against a freeway or some other unbuildable area). What does this study show? Quite a bit if the proper questions are asked. How is the city connected to the convention hall? What amenities are nearby? How does this tie into the city as a whole? What is the correlation of public building to privately owned commercial structures? Then one can ask how many conventions are held each year, for how long, generating how much income? These are the sorts of studies that probably have been done (we would love to see them, to learn from them and point out congruencies and inconsistencies within the fabric of Cleveland). I mention this as an acceptable counter to the anecdotal information, my favorite so far being that a shopping mall in downtown Columbus is closed down for lack of use so how could a Convention Center in Cleveland succeed?
There is a time and place for unbridled cynicism. To be honest it is an easy way out of an argument, one you may not want to engage in simply because you fear what your own thoughts and opinions may reveal about yourself. I know I am guilty of throwing out the blanket statement of how everything in relation to the particular topic sucks. However the level of discourse that is being avoided may be the conversation most necessary to accept in order to exchange ideas and create solutions; which is where we with today’s problems of financial meltdown, environmental and social crisis, waning power supplies, exponential growth in technology (which may ironically be leading to more acceptable isolation).
We simply cannot afford knee jerk cynicism anymore, we require optimistic yet realistic solutions grounded in research, precedence and some expectation of altruism.Labels: Design Rants
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The ethics of the aesthetic - container housing
The movement for the "container" house, one I remember first truly being intimately exposed to (which I consider more then a blankly thumbing through a journal article) is based upon a lecture given by LOT-EK at Kent State University in 2003. The premise of re-using an existing pre-manufactured material (shipping containers) and extending their viable life was interesting. The modular construction meant that solutions were simply limited to creatively finding a manner to fit out the interior as usable space, structurally join and frame units, insulate and puncture the skin and carve out the necessary allowances for infrastructure (mechanical, communication and electrical services). The argument that these containers were more likely to be discarded than reused (which means typically shipping empty to where they were packed and sent from in the first place) was compelling enough to accept that creating a new truly machined modular aesthetic was secondary to the primary goal of salvaging resources.
In fact this was typically more comfortable to my own sense of performative architecture (performative meaning where a secondary goal of accomplishing more then simple shelter or space making is attempted through rigorous study and may therefore actively affect the primary goal) than the argument for modern prefabricated housing being cheaper and less wasteful and resonates with the associated aesthetic much more responsibly. A container is expected to be shaped as an extruded box, with the various elements being broken along the module of the container (typically as the primary element) with adjoining or adjacent accoutrement being given a secondary value. However the logic of modern prefab housing emulating this modular construction based solely on imitation severely limited the aesthetic and even the imagination of the form. In fact the argument that the less wasteful more cost efficient design was successful in use somehow took a back seat to alluding to successful contextual vernacular which had evolved over what ever time human habitation had occurred within the region.
The container modulus as aesthetic had somehow taken over. The building was supposed to be prefab and in order to sell the idea it also had to look prefab. The Sear's homes of the early 1900's, themselves a glowing example of successful prefabricated housing technology and construction, look nothing like how one would expect a factory built house to look. If anything the close allusion to standard housing construction was a more successful argument of the "machine aesthetic" because it was an attempt to prove that through machination that industrialized home building could indeed replace the craftsman builder and offer a more efficient alternative.
The natural evolution of the Sears home was that the model could not weather the boom and bust economic cycles where local tradesmen were able to offer home building at more cost efficient options whilst allowing for customization and personal design to take hold (again the cycle repeats and whole developments of hundreds if not thousands of homes are based from 3 or 4 master house plans and customized through use of applique to give each it's own distinct identity. Wanting to be different, just like everyone else wants to be). So follows the modern prefabricated house. Offering so much in the way of options that the cost effective argument is moot. There is no metric from which to base an empirical study and no manner of record keeping to prove that the designs are more efficient in use nor construction.
Thus the shipping container model strengthens its argument if only in need to re-use existing materials the designs are offering what no other prefabricated system can, a logical reasoning behind the obvious module. While I may or may not agree with the aesthetic per se, I can understand and even appreciate the argument behind it.
Imagine my surprise however when confronted with the polka dot structure whose image is shown above. A foray into the prefabricated modular home building arena which stresses to argue against the very logic for its existence. Aggregated in ConHouse, a how to guide for container housing with the agenda that everyone can (and possibly should) afford themselves a shipping container home, this particular design by jure kotnik architect for a "weekend house" is based from a specially designed and constructed container, built solely to be used for housing. The idea of reusing materials is thrown away for the argument of cost. While the actual pricing area is a little unknown the argument that this particular module is the most cost effective and spatially adaptable seems highly suspect, especially when proffered that this particular design can be altered "as needed so that the ConHouse can grow or contract...". The resultant is a home that has an arguable cost and use but confines itself to an aesthetic that it doesn't not actually belong. So why follow the aesthetic? Is there something terribly romantic or historic that the container offers? Is there more opportunity offered by the structure or design that would become unavailable if there were a pitched roof or more articulated footprint? When the reasoning behind the base system is deviated from what makes the new system have any inherent value (other than allegorical)?
When giant pink polka dots are the least offending portion of an offered scheme one must consider that something is truly amiss.Labels: Design Rants
2008 TOIstudio Year in Review
Trying to quantify the meanderings of Cleveland architecture and design for an entire year into a couple paragraphs shouldn't really be that difficult. There were plenty of art openings within the various art districts that form a commercialized "culture" necklace around the closing throat of our fair city.
The economy stifled Stark's and Wolstein's plans to interject mixed use living downtown as well as put the brakes on the plans of many local design firms (that itself is topic for another separate discussion).
We did see the beginning/completion of some projects, promising and otherwise. The Euclid Corridor HealthLine/SilverLine finally opened for business and is undergoing the throws of the public judgment of change (or not enough change depending on where you stand).
Robert Maschke finally built something on the hill overlooking the Lakeshore that at least attempts to challenge the standard operating procedure of custom built homes and conveniently acts as a billboard for more modern design than the average Cleveland citizen is used to.
Cameron Sinclair gave a tremendous talk at Ideastream about the work of Architecture for Humanity which I think gave quite a few people pause to question the ethics of their actions.
Winny Maas of MVRDV learned a little something about working in Cleveland as he watched his design get, well, sank. I was actually excited for the original design and now, well, I am a little sad at the tentative, boring uninspiring design that will take its place. Whether or not you attempt to cover it up with banners and supergraphics the building underneath will still be there.
Foreign Office Architects also are working on an anchor building to University Circle, designing the new building to house Cleveland's Museum of Contemporary Art. Not a lot about this project is generally known but if FOA's previous work is any indication the Cleveland.com blog will be on FIRE (in the hilarious and somewhat embarrassing for humanity way it typically is).
A couple more big names got tossed in the ring for designing the residential component of The Triangle (University Circle's public schwerpunkt) however since this is all blending together in my mind of when this all started going down perhaps this should all be filed under 2007 anyway. It doesn't matter besides, coordination is going through a local city office that isn't known for K work (the "K" stands for Kwality) and there shouldn't be any surprise if the development gets botched even after surviving the current economy.
blah blah blah, Tri-C sneaks something past the sleeping city and scurries to put up the Center for Creative Arts which doesn't offend all the senses but it tried pretty hard. I don't even know if construction is complete on it yet, I try to close my eyes every time I pass the site which is hard to do when driving on the 77 North bridge into Cleveland but I think it is worth the risk.
And speaking of bridges how about the the Innerbelt Bridge? Guess which huge infrastructure project is so completely screwed up that it the rumors ODOT is hoping the current economy forces more people to move downtown and empty out the suburbs so they don't have to deal with the bridge could be completely true and not just made up on the spot. Can you guess?
Also, ODOT basically gives Tremont the finger, closes down Highway access and keeps it that way. At least the Abbey Road bridge by the W.25th Red Line station is open again. I think.
Cleveland had two local design competitions close out the year. The second annual Cleveland Design Competition and the Fairfax Intergenerational Design Competition both got some local talent involved and even attracted some international attention.
A stay of execution was issued for Marcel Breuer's Ameritrust Tower on E.9th and Euclid as K&D Development purchased it from Cuyahoga County. No word on what the County plans to do as a new headquarters nor how quickly the Tower's redevelopment is moving as most speculative development has been placed on hold.
CSU's Student Center by Don Hisaka was razed to make way for a project by Gwathmey Seigel that I hope is executed better than the renderings for the new student center show. I was sorry to see the old student center go. At least it was interesting.
Medical Mart. Big news in 2007, big news in 2008. What will 2009 hold?
Of course the economy hasn't helped anyone. Massive cuts at design firms, speculative projects going under, major investments being lost by clients decreases the available funds for expansion and growth and cuts into budgets anyway hurting, well everyone.
Obama. What more can I say? I haven't drank all the kool-aid yet but after the debacle of the last administration having someone who can speak their mind in an articulate manner may well be welcome. Preliminary plans to stimulate the economy through infrastructure stimulus packages and oversee city and urban development can only be exciting and I am extremely excited about the prospect of our nation moving forward again.
So here is to 2009. 'F@#!' 2008. At least it can't be worse.
2007 in reviewLabels: Design Rants
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Mercel Breuer - another building in danger - Atlanta-Fulton Central Library
Timely coinciding with my completion of Fred Scott's On Altering Architecture I received notice that another of Marcel Breuer's signature buildings was in danger of demolition. After the arduous battle for the saving of the Cleveland Trust Tower/ Ameritrust Tower/ Breuer Tower which I will still defend over margarita's at lunch.
I haven't collected all the data on the situation just yet, however word on the street is that the Atlanta-Fulton Central Library is looking at razing Breuer's library in order to make way for a new structure.
The Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City — one of architect Marcel Breuer’s most esteemed works — has taken its place among the premier cultural monuments of the modern world. When it first made its appearance in 1966, among those who held it in high esteem and recognized its importance for modern architecture was the then Director of the Atlanta Public Library, Carlton C. Rochell, a man with a keen interest in and a wide knowledge of architecture. Eager to have what he called “a world class building” for the projected new library in Atlanta, and believing it possible to do so by going to a “world class architect”, he reinforced his view by making an analogy to Atlanta’s famed baseball superstar, stating that “ If you want a home run you pick Hank Aaron”. He therefore urged the selection committee of the Library Board to interview Breuer (among others) for the project. The Breuer office in New York received from Atlanta a 275 page program for the new building. The program was intensively adjusted and revised, interpreted and reinvented, by the architectural team in the Breuer office, headed by Breuer’s partner Hamilton Smith with the important contribution of architect Carl Stein. A model was built from the Breuer design, and it was considered by the Board in Atlanta to be a highly successful interpretation of their program.
The resulting Atlanta Central Public Library – construction began in 1977 and was completed in 1980 – is one of the finest buildings of Marcel Breuer’s long career. Probably because the Board members had made very clear to Breuer their admiration for his Whitney Museum, the Atlanta Library reflects an obvious great kinship with the museum. For Atlanta, Breuer reinvented the stepped profile, the grand massing, the few windows, and the severe, hard-edged geometric volumes of the Whitney. It is indeed a world class building by a world class architect. That library is now in danger of disappearing.
The significance of Marcel Breuer and his architecture in the history of modernism was already established by 1956 when he was named – along with Mies von der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Eero Saarinen, Alvar Aalto, and six others — as one of the “form-givers” of the twentieth-century. Breuer had been educated at the Bauhaus in Germany in the 1920s, practiced architecture in London in the mid-1930s, and emigrated to the United States in 1937 at the behest of Walter Gropius to teach at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard and, in partnership with Gropius, to enter into private practice. After the end of the World War II Breuer left Harvard and established an independent and highly successful architectural practice in New York City. With an international team of partners he designed the Unesco Building in Paris; he was the architect of the HUD and HEW federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and of the Grand Coulee Dam Forebay in the state of Washington. The famed complex of Benedictine buildings in Collegeville, Minnesota is his work, as is the education wing of the Cleveland Museum of Art, the United States Embassy in The Hague, and several administrative and laboratory buildings for IBM. Breuer built schools, office buildings, libraries, sacred buildings, and a remarkable number of widely admired private residences. In 1968 he was the recipient of the Gold Medal given by the American Institute of Architects. In 1972-73 – the heyday of Late Modernism – Breuer’s stature was recognized, impressively, by the Metropolitan Museum of New York, New York’s premiere museum. The museum gave him the first one-man show of an architect in its 102 year history. They titled it “Marcel Breuer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” and mounted it in three galleries with a display of photo murals, architectural models, furniture, and tapestries. In its press release the Met referred to Breuer as “One of the 20th century’s most important and prolific architects, a major influence in American architecture and Design.” As recently as 2007 – more than a quarter century after his death — the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. installed a major exhibition entitled “Marcel Breuer: Design and Architecture”, paying particular tribute to his brilliant career as a designer of furniture as well as buildings.
At the time of the initial campaign for the current Atlanta Library, Atlanta was described as “a city with a lot of buildings but not a lot of architecture.” Breuer’s Atlanta Library is unquestionably a work of “architecture.” Its heavy massing and concrete construction represent a mode of design and a material no longer in vogue in parts of this country. But Breuer had a particular interest in the sculptural potential of concrete in modern architecture, as he conceived architecture as sculpture. And concrete was a material that, at the time the Library project was underway, was very cost-effective for a public building.
Tastes change with regard to the appearance of buildings as they do for every cycle of creative activity. Concrete architecture of the 1970s is not at this moment universally appreciated. But to remove a significant modernist monument — important in and for its time and still satisfactorily fulfilling its original function to serve the community — designed by a major architect of historical importance and world renown, would be a serious civic blunder in the cultural history of Atlanta.
Isabelle Hyman (borrowed from the preservation main page, not to dilute the intent but to stir the heart to action)
If one can stand for one's beliefs in one's own region, why cannot one speak out to protect another? That is the justification for sticking my nose where it probably is not needed.
Resources:
All I wanted was an authentic Model-B3 chair (or a Knoll reproduction would be fine. Black leather please but I won't be picky) for xmas.Labels: Design Rants
|
