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...
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.
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.
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.
posted by Unknown at 11:51 AM
1 Comments:
Well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home