Architects vs. People. Whose Side are You On?!

Look, the title of this post is a joke, O.K.? I know that most architects are people. No need to remind me.

Anyway, I got some passionate e-mail in repsonse to my diatribe against the movement to make Boston's City Hall a landmark. I'll post a couple of notes here, with my replies below...

Yeah! Let's tear down every piece of "Architecture" than anyone who can reasonably describe themselves as an 'average joe' doesn't like and replace them all with identical red brick boxes!! Remember - the only hope for true equality and the banishment of elitism is if we all accept the lowest common denominator.

-Heather

Ooooohhhh, touched a nerve, did I? :)

How about a compromise: Since I live/work in the neighborhood that the building is being sited, I'll sit in on a few civic association meetings (with the rest of the folks who make up the "lowest common denominator") where the designers can come to us and find out what we would like to see.

Since we don't know squat about how to build a building or incorporate aesthetically pleasing design elements, we'll ask the professionals to do it for us. If they're good at what they do, I'm sure that they'll be able to come up with something that is innovative, interesting and useful while still respecting the unique character of the folks who will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Here's another deviant building that society has been forced to deem acceptable. People are continuously bullied into traveling across continents specifically to see this horrid structure. They've obviously been brainwashed by elite insiders...

The tower was met with resistance from the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore. (Novelist Guy de Maupassant -who claimed to hate the tower- supposedly ate lunch at the Tower's restaurant every day. When asked why, he answered that it was the one place in Paris where you couldn't see the Tower.) Today, it is widely considered to be a striking piece of structural art.

Seriously though, this business of distinguishing between Regular Folks, "untrained" folks vs. "elites" and Big Wigs is just a way of saying that the professional field of architecture is basically worthless. Anyone can do it, right? It's all about personal taste & people know what they like! It's kind of like going to a museum and overhearing the Regular Guy say "It's just a red square- I could've done that!"?

-Kelley

An understandable sentiment, but, unfortunately, your comparison doesn't track.

The Eiffel Tower is not a utilitarian structure; its public art. City Hall is a building that, by its very nature, needs to be completely functional, as well as welcoming. Anybody who has ever had to do any business at all there knows that it fails -miserably- on both counts. Switchback halls, irregularly-spaced rooms and other quirks make it only only confusing to visit, but difficult to heat/cool and a chore to navigate.

And that doesn't even get into its external aesthetics.

Public art absolutely should evoke strong emotions. If there isn't a hue and cry against a piece then, frankly, the artist hasn't done his/her job. But is a building that people have to work in and/or live near really an appropriate canvas for somebody to make a bold statement on?

The idea that if designers acquiesce to their clients (who, in the case of a public building, are the citizenry at-large) then we will be stuck in a city of uniformly Federalist and Greek-Revival structures is as laughable as the idea that the people who have to live in the city aren't willing -or can't be inspired- to explore daring design opportunities.

The problem today with Boston's development process is that it is very adversarial. Developers are forced to almost literally jump through hoops by local groups to get projects off of the ground and this leaves them very unwilling to try and engage folks in a conversation about buildings as functional art or the benefits of having a master plan for their neighborhood. And why should they? They're only trying to make money... On the flip side, people in areas where a lot of development is taking place are usually trying desperately to hold on to their neighborhoods. The streets that they have walked for their whole lives are being changed, houses are being razed and their taxes are on the rise because multi-millionaires want to sell more condos on the next block. Why should they give a crap about some award-winning firm's bold new Neoeclectic-meets-Spanish Revival-meets-Geodesic experiment that is all the rage?

What we need is a city-wide diplomatic surge by government and developers to attack this problem. Civic associations are Ground Zero for the permitting process and they meet every month, so start there. Let's develop a master plan for every area of the city so the people who live here can have a say in exactly how their city should grow over the next 50 years. Residents will need to come in understanding that growth is inevitable and necessary; while the builders/designers will need to understand that people choose to live in a place for a reason and are not always keen on having those reasons torn down and turned into Class-A office space, no matter how attractive they may be.

If only there was some sort of Society out there... made up of Architects... based in Boston... that could spearhead such an effort.

Back to what started all of this: Construction of a new City Hall would be an amazing opportunity for the people of Boston have just such a conversation. Instead of an international search for a design, why not start the other way around? Why not have a series of public design meetings in every neighborhood of the city, attended by every firm that wants to take a crack at the project? Only after all of these meetings could designs be submitted. Finalists would be selected by a large committee made up of not only learned architects (I'm sure that there are a few design school deans out there who wouldn't mind being involved), but representatives of every civic association in the city... The winner? Decided by popular vote, of course.

Architectural Back-Talk!

The message boards over at Boston.com are humming with feedback about the tragic idea to make city Hall a landmark. You can see all of the posts here.

Some of my favorite comments so far:

"Boston City Hall manages to be ugly, shabby, and completely dysfunctional all at the same time."

"Even by the dubious aesthetic standards of modern architechture, City Hall is a hideous monstrosity, an enormous eyesore at the center of a largermistake in urban planning, namely the entire plaza on which the building in question rests."

"The fact that this building was designed by a well known architect cannot serve as a reason for its protection, even David Ortiz strikes out once in a while."

"City Hall Plaza is an utter embarrassment to the concept of architectural design. The building is acutally demoralizing to the spirit of Boston."

Keep 'em coming people... and remember to forward to your comments to the Boston Landmarks Commission and your City Councilor (if you're a Boston resident).

The Radical Architectural Agenda

We've got to stop the radical Architects who want to make deviant buildings like this acceptable to society. The Globe is running a story today about the movement to make Boston's City Hall a landmark.

Yup, you read that right... a freakin' landmark!! So now this Brutalist waste of valuable real estate is on par with Fenway Park and the Old State House?

According to City Council President Maureen Feeney, not only is the building deserving, but it's signifigance is beyond the grasp of Regular Folks like... well... Regular Folks:

"There is little debate that its 200 million pounds of concrete and steel is a great physical and defining presence in Government Center," she wrote. "In history and architecture, its national awards stand as credentials to its significance as a masterpiece, albeit a rather less than aesthetically pleasing one to many an untrained eye."

I may be "untrained," but I know a useless, out-of-place building when I see one. I don't know what's more offensive, the movement to make it a landmark, or the additude of people in power who back the "elites" for the sake fo sounding smart.

I live in Maureen Feeney's district, so I called her office to try to talk to her. Of course, because she is the council's president, she's out a lot and wasn't available to speak with me, but a staffer did try to defuse her comments.

"There was no intention to be offensive... The comments were made with an element of humor... She would not set out to offend people without an architechtural degree, of whom she is one."

Of course she wasn't trying to be "offensive," but she came off that way. I understand where she's coming from with this. She's the head of the council now and all of the Big Wigs want her in their corner. She's rubbing elbows with the movers and shakers in every area and the folks who design the buildings in our city are a haughty, tight-knit group indeed... And since they know what they're talking about when it comes to "significant" buildings, then their opinions must be right! Right?

Ugh.

Be extra careful with Hookers

A public health alert was released by the Feds yesterday that all frequent patronizers of local houses of ill repute should heed.

Freedom of Speech Lives!

One does tend to feel a little sorry for Don Imus.

Yes, he’s an old, pompous loud-mouth who isn’t really relevant to the public discourse anymore. But he’s a guy who has been doing the only thing that he knows how to do for the past 4 decades… and doing it relatively well, if you check out his ratings.

“Shock Jocks” aren’t called that for nothing. They are out there to attract listeners by playing to people’s tendency to rubber-neck at a car-wreck. “What will he say next?” is probably the biggest reason folks like Opie & Anthony, Howard Stern and Don Imus are on the air. What is said is almost always off-color and is often patently offensive to some group or another. These guys are professional verbal bullies.

As distasteful as the idea of folks like this are, there is a place in our society for them. “Mainstream” media tends to look down on them, but their numbers can’t be denied. Imus was the last of the Big Three on terrestrial radio, but the other two, Opie & Anthony and Howard Stern, have moved over to satellite radio and helped Sirius and XM quadruple their overall subscriber base. Clearly these guys, and their stock in trade, have market value.

So that’s where the sympathy comes from. A pioneer in his field who was one of the first of his kind, and is one of the last ones standing, has fallen. That he was done in by his own hubris makes it no less tragic.

But…

This guy is an ass. His blatantly racist remarks were beyond the pale. Referring to women as “nappy-haired hos” is not something that I want to hear from an old rich white dude talking to his old, rich white buddies. Which is why I did not listen to his show. Frankly, I don’t think that the public airwaves should carry that sort of vitriol and I’m glad that he’s gone.

To those who worry about the chilling effect that CBS’ firing of Imus, you need to… well… chill. Local talk show jerk Jay Severin was quoted in today’s Globe:

Some radio hosts railed against the cancellation yesterday,
saying a politically-charged climate put a damper on free expression. On the air yesterday afternoon, as the Imus news broke, WTKK's Jay Severin said he believed his own show was in jeopardy.

"We will be the Alamo here," Severin said. "Let there be no doubt about that. You can count on us. The question is, for how long can even we at 96.9 hold out? How long can we hold the barbarians at the gate?"

This is a load of crap. Corporations and radio stations in general have absolutely no obligation to allow anybody to say everything that they want on their airwaves. If he wants more “freedom of speech” he can broadcast on his own radio station. Low-powered signals are cheap to obtain licenses for (something like $100). If other stations want to pick up his show and pay him a fee for the rights to rebroadcast, then they are free to do so. But since he’d still be broadcasting over the air he’d still be under the auspices of FCC regulations.

Want even more “freedom?” Even if the satellite companies won’t take him, he can start up his own website and broadcast online. If there’s an audience for him, they will migrate there. Just ask NPR’s Christopher Lydon.

Lydon was axed from the show that he created on NPR, “The Connection,” when he argued about who owned the show and demanded more money. NPR retained the rights to the show and let him go. As the owners of the radio stations that carried his signal, they could choose who and when people are heard for any reason that they want.

“Fine” Lydon said, and off he went to the Internets, where decent numbers of his listeners followed him. Clearly, his voice and perspective had market value because “The Connection” folded without him. Eventually, NPR asked him to come back and now they broadcast his show again under the name “Open Source.” He’s even back in his old time slot.

So stop crying foul all you First Amendment whack-jobs, because freedom abounds! Interest groups have every right to demand that broadcasters who use the public airwaves adhere to whatever standards they want, and broadcasters are free to choose to adhere to those standards or to completely ignore them. Advertisers are free to do the same. And potty-mouthed shock jocks like Don Imus are free to say whatever it is they want, so long as they control the venue in which they say it.

Living La Vida HD, Part 2

When I told my buddy Bry about my new HDTV, I mentioned to him that I had watched Lost in HD and had been blown away. He knows that I do not have a cable box, so he was slightly confused:

"How did you watch Lost in HD without an HD box from Comcast?"

When I wrote back to him, I found myself going on a bit of a diatribe. I've decided to post it here for your enjoyment:

Magic.

Yes, the magic of FCC regulations makes it possible to view all broadcast channels (both analog and digital) over the unscrambled basic cable wires. Unfortunately, I will need a box to watch NESN or ESPN.

Currently, cable companies are required by law to carry all local broadcast channels in their basic programming tier. Because these digital channels will allow broadcasters (as some, like WGBH, already do) to carry up to 4 broadcasting streams, cable companies are trying to get Congress to change these rules. Their fear is that stations will sell their unused bandwidth to cable networks and if they are required to carry them for free, this will negate the value of their service and people will stop paying for things like cable boxes and expanded basic packages.

This is a wonderfully valid and well-founded fear, and it is one of the few ways that media consolidation is good for consumers.

Imagine that Sunbeam, which owns channel 7 and channel 56, decided, as a way to raise revenue, to open up their 6 "extra" broadcast slots to bidding. Would Discovery or the History Channel bite? Or, better yet, imagine if NBC Universal struck a deal with their affiliates (Sunbeam is one) and/or required their directly-owned stations to have some of their cable channels, like USA or Sci-Fi, carried over these signals.

Disney owns ABC, ABC News Now & ESPN, among others. Dont you think that theyd like to open up their 'Tween, News & Sports programming to a wider audience who could pull it out of the air for free? Remember, 20 million homes dont have cable or satellite. (I dont know how many cable customers only have the most basic package, but its a significant number.)

Boston currently has 11 broadcast stations in the market. Multiply that by 4... Now, why they hell would you need expanded basic cable? And this number doesnt even count the extra channels in southern NH or RI that folks around Boston can get. The amount of free HD programming available to people who live outside the city itself will probably be closer to 50-60 channels.

Faced with the prospect of having to carry 40-50 free HD channels in every major market for less than $10 per month per household, you can see why the cable companies are keen to get the rules changed. I think that theyre fighting a losing battle and they will have to find other ways to add value; they wont be able to survive as simple content-delivery outfits.

Innovations in VOD, gaming, interactivity and personal communication will have to be their focus. I think that TV content will become like basic phone service: Something of an anachronism that is cheap, common and readily accessible to everyone without having to buy any peripherals.

Living La Vida HD

I got a "Sceptre."

It sounds royal, and powerful, and British. It must be good, eh?

My biggest problem now is that my stupid DVD player that I bought 5 years ago does not have an HDMI hook-up, so watching DVDs on my new TV after watching a show in HD is like watching shit. (I actually love my little home theatre system. Its just inadequate now... not unlike a middle-aged guy with ED.) Im going to pick up an S-Video cord today to improve that, but I am unsure if that will satisfy me. Once you try the HD, you need it more and more.

Options to satisfy my cravings will be:

1) Buy a laptop a little earlier than planned and use it as an HD player. This will be beneficial because I can download shows in uncompressed HD from the Internets (just about everything worth watching gets posted that way now).

2) Buy a new DVD player/stereo/receiver with the HDMI port. This may be a bit of a waste because if it does not play HD DVDs then Im not improving my media quality- Im just maxing out what it can do. Not sure of Id be adding enough value to be worth it. Must investigate further.

3) Bite the bullet and choose sides in the format war. I could buy an HD DVD or Blue Ray player, but I would probably go with the HD DVD. If its good enough for Microsoft and the porn industry...
Of course, after all of this is settled, I will then have to taylor my computer upgrades to it. Ive got a lot of thinking to do!

Returning from the Void...

It has been a long time since I've posted anything here. Bloggers who lapse often have lame excuses like "Blah, blah, blah... Work..." or "Blah, blah, blah... School..." or, more often than not, the ubiquitous "Blah, blah, blah... Things have been really crazy and I've been very busy."

Nobody gives a crap.

Suffice to say, this past 2-week period was the first in almost 5 months that I have not put in any significant amount of overtime at work. What does that mean to you, loyal reader? Nothing. But to me, it means that I was finally able to buy the HD TV that I've been wanting for a year. (I'll be posting about that shortly.)

It also means that I couldn't be bothered with blogging.

But I'm back now... for as long as circumstances permit me. I will try to fill in some of the blanks from my long absence (our new governor, the looming presidential race, my return to China) and to reflect on current events in a more timely fashion.

I hope that I'm successful.