Commodity, not Delight

In response to a threat to a particularly brutal example of Paul Rudolph’s work, the New York Times offered a debate on the value of preservation. The title of the collection, “Are some buildings too ugly to survive?” misses the point. Although I do not subscribe to the notion that beauty is subjective, I can accept that others hold different opinions.

However, the issue surrounding Rudolph’s building is not solely one of beauty. There is a decided irony in the fact that those Modernists who do like the building are now enlisting the aid of preservationists – those whose tactics or sentiments they often mock as being overly emotional.

Appearances aside, one of the primary issues of design is utility – the “Commodity” of Vitruvius’ triad of architectural virtues. If the existing building does not appropriately serve its occupants, can it be modified to do so? Will the so-called purity of the architectural style allow for human driven improvements without destroying the artistic intent? If not, then Commodity suffers for the sake of Delight.

If the architectural style or the effort to freeze that style in time cannot accommodate a homeowner who wishes to build a needed roof over the porch where one never had existed, then either the design was not particularly successful to begin with, or the preservationists’ charge is ill considered. Likewise, if the building does not fit well with its surroundings, by helping to maintain the continuity of the established streetscape, does it really deserve the effort to preserve it?

Home Show wrap-up

Our exhibit at the Lansing Home and Garden Show was pleasantly successful. Following the advice of a trade show expert, the booth was designed to welcome potential clients, while allowing others to self-select the other exhibitors and their services. One potential client included an adventure race organizer with local ties.

The following schematic sketches will be developed into two of the obstacles in the race, which features a variety of famous man-made and natural geographic landmarks.

The race is scheduled for late June, so the development and documentation of the designs will proceed shortly.

Broad sides

As news of the continued delay of the Slash has become widespread, stories about its supporters and detractors have begun to surface. One recent article has focused on the public’s diverging opinions on the work.

While I dislike the building, I am comfortable that others find it acceptable and even welcome its presence. Unlike many of the supporters featured in the article, I refuse to return the name calling or dismissive jabs. Rather than offering support for the building on its own merits, these supporters have resorted to mocking the apparent small-mindedness or cultural myopia of its detractors. If one shames enough people into thinking they will be called quaint, just how many will be willing to express their disdain?

I take exception to the notion that, by opposing the building, I am somehow a Luddite or a “grump.” As a matter of fact, I am a (relatively) “smart, art-appreciating” architect with significant public and private experience in building design and urbanism. Whether someone else is paying for the building is immaterial, for we all must now endure it. That it sits at the foot of my own residential street is additionally galling.

Ultimately, if the community wishes an actual dialog about the building – that is, a discussion that includes two points of view – it serves no purpose to belittle those whose opinion differs from our own. Comments for and against the museum ought to focus on the work itself. I do not believe that the building is objectively good, yet I count many of its supporters as respected colleagues.

I will close with one marginally encouraging anecdote. Recently walking along Grand Avenue with my daughters, it struck me how the museum willfully inserts itself in the existing composition featuring the statues of Cassiopeia and Andromeda, possibly completing the mythological legend. Instead of a sea monster, the chained princess in the median is overshadowed by the equally tactless, overbearing and horrific presence of the museum. If that was its creator’s intent, I say it has succeeded.

Home Show 2012

east arbor architecture will be exhibiting at the Lansing Home and Garden Show from March 15-18, 2012. Stop by and see us at booth #1662.

As of today, the booth design will look like this:

We welcome thoughts about the elegant/authentic; female/male; yin/yang display items. Please leave your ideas in the comments.

The hackneyed McMansion

Caught this story last week regarding Michigan’s sluggish housing market. I thought the in-process home shown in the accompanying photo (shown below) was telling. Its overly complicated floor plan, which indicates a poorly considered design, unnecessarily leads to an increase in construction costs and the resulting increase in sales price.

In contrast, when the layout of the various rooms are considered by a capable designer, the floor plan may be simplified, leading to a corresponding cost savings without an apparent loss of space or privacy.

Additionally, the size of the pictured home, conservatively calculated at 1700 square feet on a single floor, suggests that this will be a very large home. The “design” of the neighboring home suggests the considerable likelihood that the home will occupy two stories. In which case, this house could cost as much as $500,000.

Is it inappropriate to suggest that the slump in housing sales is driven by the building, rather than the banks?