design, architecture, urbanism… with a grain of salt

I was  busy reading my Daily Dose of Architecture, and this passage appeared; 

“Architecture used to be about beauty. Now it’s just about money. What has changed? Well, everything, really, in three revolutions: social, theoretical, cultural. The social revolution occurred when democratic capitalism took money from the hands of a cultivated aristocracy and gave it first to the mercantile classes and then to the plebs (us). This fitted architecture with an entirely new client-class, which is really two classes — the developers who build, and the people who buy. Neither of them is especially interested in architecture, urbanism or the making of place.    

[...]The second revolution was, if not theory-led, at least theory-coated. In the mid-twentieth century, design-meisters Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius jointly marched architecture towards an engineering aesthetic of bare functionalism. That they did not practice their creed made their preachings no less effective, and led, inevitably, to a wholesale burning of the books. Which was the third revolution. The people are not the only ones who know what they like but can’t get there. In schools and academies across the planet, ignorance of the ancient (or indeed, modern) canons of beauty is profound. Which is not to argue that beauty as a rule thing. It’s more that old tenet that knowing the rules is especially essential for those who would break them.

The problem, therefore, is not just a lack of clients-with-taste-and-money, though that is real enough. It’s that the knowledge itself is no longer architecture’s dilly-bag. Beauty has become an embarrassment never to be discussed outside those inner-sanctum slide-nights when architects warm their hands against the tiny flame that flickers now at the profession’s core, blowing protectively on the coals lest the chill winds of commerce extinguish the flame forever.”  

- Elizabeth Farrelly in Blubberland (MIT Press, 2008)

If you would like to buy it, click on the link. Then read it. Then come back here and make a comment.  I’ve ordered the book. It appears that the author is an Australian. I look forward to reading it. One 5 star review has already been given on Amazon.  

Architect’s working on a plethora of buildings types in the western world are sure to have encountered Energy Efficiency, Green Star Ratings etc. etc. blah. blah. blah.

I am a strong believer in steps toward energy efficiency as it is obvious that these more ‘considered’ environments contribute to better workplaces and higher standards of living. Though the whole process is still lacking credibility.
For instance. Although still in their early stages of development, no Energy rating systems take into account the concepts of Embodied Energy.

It boggles the mind that a residence with a total livable footprint of close to 700m2 can be rated in the same fashion a residence one third of its size accomodating the same amount of people. What about all the extra concrete, the extra energy used to create all that extra steel, the extra water used on site to prevent dust, the extra energy used to create the vast quantities of glazing? Bricks? Timber? Ikea furniture?

But then the whole concept of carbon trading waters down any “Green” thinking. How can you justify polluting, by offsetting it somewhere else?

I’m sure all of this will settle eventually.

I think the greatest benefit from “Energism”** is an awareness of the pollution in the first place. Speaking of awareness, I’ve sourced this image from the blog AnArchitecture. They wrote a succinct little summary including these figures on carbon dioxide per metre square of construction technique;

Adios amigos!

**Energism. I coined this word just then. As the “green” in our society could be a passing movement. Urgh, I hate how green Architecture has this kitschy aesthetic. More on this later.

another link to the blogroll. Only the best blogs make it on here. This is a great architecture site.

http://architecture.myninjaplease.com/

Does that title even make sense?

Click here to read an interesting article

A little more archiporn. Though this is quite nice. Client Takeo Obayashi’s new domus, somewhere in New York City. A ceramic tiled courtyard space.

[Photo by Robert Mcleod, sourced from Archidose]

Tadao Ando - nice work - always. This guy is self-taught. Most Architects are in some ways, this guy didn’t go to Architecture School. He grew by drawing the modernist works namely most of Le Corbusier’s works.

Head over to this post for more sexy pictures.

A Danish firm with a website well worth checking out. Great body of work, and giving the big guns a run for their money. They recently knocked Norman Foster and Perrault off in a competition to design Deutsche Bahn’s new building in Berlin. www.3xn.dk. An effortless piece of interactive design. Too often these sites are convoluted and hard to navigate. Not this example.

A nice precise article on the decentralisation of “work” by Tim Harford of Wired. Click here to view the article.

I agree that the complexities of the modern world have hindered working remotely, creating more of a need for meetings. I’m sure we are currently testing our collective boundaries, and will move towards simplicity, generally speaking.

An article, and a nice photo of how Rem’s CCTV is going over in Beijing.

Head over to USA today for an Update

[CCTV - Photo from USAtoday]

To see a schematic breakdown of the job from Arup, click here

Thanks to Archinect for the heads up.

Yes, some certainly are. Like Zaha’s latest creation. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. Hell, you’re reading mine right now. It is the modern world’s way of showing us yet another perspective. That is what all designers want isn’t it? Another perspective to critique? No, yes?

Liking something or not liking something doesn’t tend to matter anyway, so what is the point in asking. Although it is the question that drives us. Just like it drove Neo in the first Matrix movie. The good one.

Anyway check out Zaha’s blog by clicking here. If anything you’ll wind up liking her latest additions to Innsbruek.



She is the ultimate designer of transient space. The blog is very informative, though selective of her work (derr, obviously). What I want to see is, where she takes inspiration from, and who is in charge of detailing her buildings. Who the hell is her concrete consultant (if there is such a thing)? Many questions still left unanswered. The way a great designer wants it to be.

DJ.
4.12.07