essays on current architecture topics: discussion forums are aplenty but the dialogue tends towards soundbite carping and incrowd chat. this is a forum with a differance. readers can enter the ring but a certain reflection is required. we can't promise stunning articles. judge for yourself.
we kick off with a piece on iconic architecture. stimulate the debate by sending in your own pieces. minimum words 500. make them good. please.
Iconotastic Reflections - Signatecture
[adrian welch]
The discussion about
iconic architecture rumbles on: like many debates
before it, most participants on meeting head-to-head end up searching
for the common ground, a positive human characteristic. A recent debate
between iconics and anti-iconics appeared to end with agreement that it
is primarily quality that can make or break
any building, not stylistic typology. But there is more to it than that:
there has been an increase in iconic architecture and it is timely to
evaluate it in relation to key built environment issues and current debates.
One of these issues
/ debates surrounds the concept of ‘place’, and methods of ‘place
making’. If you consider most Gehry
or Alsop schemes, for example, I would hazard
a guess that you think of the building before the spaces in and around.
Iconic architecture isn’t necessarily inimical to good place making,
but they are rare bedfellows.
A third issue / debate surrounds ‘sustainable buildings’ and ‘sustainability’. Again, much iconic architecture appears inimical to this key built environment issue. Do most iconic buildings push the boundaries of sustainability in a positive way? Apart from the occasional exception – such as elements from the Scottish Parliament - I would suggest not.
Take an example that
I worked on, so can write with some assurance: the ‘Fred
& Ginger’ building by Gehry
in Prague. Glamourously splashed across our
magazines the building is hailed a success. But look more closely. Working
on the interior, I found the building inefficient in terms of structure
and of space planning. Complexity of form has created waste spaces, over-structured
elements, leftover spaces onto the street and problematic office planning.
If true, why would any self-respecting developer spawn such a thing?
The answer is that a building like this simply could not come to fruition
unless the developer could sell the product in terms of ‘signature
architect’ and ‘iconic building’, thus overcoming any
shortfalls in key parameters of what makes a ‘good building’.
You could say in some circumstances that a weak building can be procured
provided it is sufficiently branded and marketable. Thus iconic architecture
can sometimes appear to swim against much of the needs of clients and
wider society, but hey they’re exciting. And so the world of iconitecture
continues to breed ever more wacky encrustations and the concept of a
‘good building’ is considered old hat.
Which brings us on
to what is ‘good building’? Who
am I to judge? I can only offer my opinion based on objective and subjective
stimuli, but at an Architecture Debate in 2005 I was interested to hear
Christoph from Will
Alsop’s office saying he wanted to make ‘interesting
buildings’ whereas the AJ writer Austin
Williams talked about ‘good buildings’. I tend towards
the latter language, and feel that the first year at architecture school
weaned me off simply trying to make ‘interesting buildings’.
That trap can lead to simplistic form making, dropping funky ‘statements’
into bemused cities.
Another issue is humbleness and the tick of the clock. Shown
round the Westport building by architect
Neil Gillespie he told me that he claimed
to do 'buildings,
not architecture', and I agree with this general idea, that we have to
allow some years to pass before judging too precisely. This picks up on
another old debate re listing and awards, and about architectural
journalism: I feel we should all try and shift the emphasis back a
few years so buildings are principally – but not wholly - judged
after a period of occupation.
We still need awards and articles up to - and upon completion - but, too
many people still consider architects as aloof. One way architects could
perhaps reduce this perception is by fully and consistently engaging
with matters that the public consider important and ensuring they are
properly informed: many architects now do this but some don’t. Casting
all award juries with at least one layperson would also open the profession
out, making it appear less exclusive, less solipsistic. The architectural
press could help too by including a higher percentage of post-occupation
building studies analysing a wide range of parameters that go way
beyond style.
Taking a step back from the profession’s topical debates, I feel
there are more important issues for us to
tackle than iconic buildings. Whilst I prefer the simplicity of Richard
Murphy Architects’ Maggies to
Frank Gehry’s, or Jacobsen
& Aalto to Gehry
& Alsop, these are subjective opinions
of talented architects all pushing boundaries, not just of style, but
of building. Instead we should turn our focus on the real failures: the
great mass of building, the suburban houses, the sheds, the messy farm
buildings, the feeble supermarkets. Suburban houses have been the subject
of much debate along the lines of ‘don’t complain, get involved’
and I would subscribe to that view. With architects such as Richard
Murphy and Malcolm Fraser entering
this ring we can feel more optimistic but the great mass of housing is
still obviously poor quality. However, let’s take another pathetic
contributor to our built environment: the shed.
Why is it that a city
such as Edinburgh spends millions of man-hours
legislating and managing the process of building in the city centre to
leave the peripheries so neglected? I’m repeating myself as I wrote
this years ago in my website editorial, but why do our cities have dull
boxes forming its gateway from the south-east? By presenting our communities
to the world using unadorned sheds we are as dumb
as the dull sheds.
So what do we do? Rather than complain, can we produce tangible improvement?
Of course we can but we can’t rely on the traditional residents’
campaign as these sheds reside in no-mans land. Councils with the clout
of Glasgow or Edinburgh
must grasp future Braeheads or Fort
Kinnairds and demand considered proposals. Just because the Ocean
Terminal is ostensibly urban does not mean the concept of thoughtful
mall and limited surface parking can’t work on the edge of town.
And don’t think these mall developers will say ‘we won’t
come to your town then’ if the Council gets too hard: the market
will somehow provide these malls unless legislated out per se. The city
fathers have to set much higher standards for retail parks. They are not
unstoppable branded beasts marching across the country, unable to tweak
a fascia board or bother with their rear elevation – let alone any
elevation!
Which brings us on
to branding. Bilbao
considered the ‘signature architect – iconic building’
equation and put their city on the map. Thus ‘iconic architecture’
now equals ‘successfully branded city’ for councils across the
globe. And it works in visitor numbers but does it work on other levels?
Does the Bilbao Guggenheim form ‘good
public spaces’, let along make ‘good architecture’? This
is where I feel the architecture community can try and guide councils
– and other clients – to go for a deeper and more long-term
view. Rather than simply shrug one’s shoulders like Mr
Jencks, and accept that the world has changed, we can be
part of challenging thoughtless consumerism and tokenistic facades,
there is a choice. Why learn about place making and solid, integrated
design at University to throw it away because savvy Clients demand glib
one-liners? We have a generation of students who are blasted with the
brash statements of world-famous signature architects and many are understandably
mesmerised by it all.
There is a suggestion iconic architecture is a pure
resultant of current capitalist forces: but is it not a fashion
– like Modernism was – that is interlinked to the zeitgeist?
It is clearly not the only answer predicated by our times. Technology
allows complex shapes and any colour we wish, but fashion largely dictates
the result. Blaming outward economic forces is wrong:
some architects who eschew sensitive interventions – whether neoclassical
or neomodernist – are only too glad to design ‘look-at-me’
wow buildings. Like bees to honey - with fame and fortune in the pot –
architects can link arms with ambitious clients and wack their signatecture
into any old site they can find.
I grew up with the work of Aalto and Mies, Leiviska and Wright, and would consider their work considered, that the Barcelona Pavilion, say, deserves the tag ‘iconic architecture’, but not the mishmash splashes of paint across needy northern towns’ new sheds. An ‘icon’ such as Sydney’s Opera House works on so many levels other than the ‘sail’ symbol. Feedback from friends and colleagues suggests another city’s icon - Bilbao Guggenheim - doesn’t succeed at multiple levels. We’re back to the subjective issue of quality and this is why I’m not a signed-up ‘anti-iconic’ but wary of aspects of a broad sweep of current iconic architecture, and its increasing role. Multiplying faux-icons devalues real icons such as cathedrals or parliaments. Iconotastic cities with bloated signature buildings become devalued, dystopic cities.
It was a surprise that neither the Scottish Parliament nor Maggies Dundee were much discussed at the Prospect debate – they seemed the obvious local iconic candidates. Miles Glendinning certainly dislikes the former but some question whether it is iconic. In an interview with Building Magazine in 2001 Miralles stated he was “searching for iconographies”. Look closely at the building and you see numerous leitmotifs repeated ad infinitum, but is it not a series of layered icons rather than one clear icon like the Eiffel Tower or World Trade Centre Towers? Look deeper and you can see Miralles’ signature – almost literally – as the soft double arches of his surname’s initial are to be found everywhere!
Bizarrely no critic or reporter seems to have spotted this elusive M, repeated across our national assembly like McDonald’s golden arches across the globe. It is in the profile of the trigger panels, the plans of Chamber and Press Tower, the soffit of the MSP rooms, the Garden Foyer desks, the lochans, the railing plans, the balustrade sections, etc., etc. The building is indubitably branded beyond belief and Enric is chuckling to himself somewhere. Benedetta probably would not want to discuss the magnetic M: she cunningly tried to evade questions about the trigger panels, the vague mention of ‘curtains’ preventing further searching questions. Dig deeper and you see these same hairdryer panels in Italy, on an EMBT building. Beware claims that a certain motif or element relates to its urban context. Just as Benson + Forsyth’s homage to Scotland popped up later in Dublin, albeit slightly reshuffled, so the trigger panel shares no DNA with some local religious skater! A city wishing to brand itself through new buildings should grab a handful of salt and research their chosen designers past work and current intentions. But before worrying about iconic meanings they should surely start by banning identikit boxes.
I would like to sidestep the wow factor bandwagon for a moment and argue for sensitive interventions into all of our urban and rural environments, not just the city centres. Take farm buildings, freed up from much planning encumbrance in the eighties, free to destroy the landscape in a way that rural houses would never be allowed to. It is time we imposed more regulation and guidance here yet the debate seems stuck on wind farms. The everyday rural buildings – just like the urban sheds – are neglected in discussions from Parliament to Prospect because they are perceived to be untopical and uninteresting.
Let’s change
that; let’s change our focus onto the ordinary buildings,
the corner shop and the cash and carry, the post office and the town hall.
I recall Gordon Murray intervening in a debate
about the RFAC to ask why massive redevelopments such as the rehabilitation
of Ravenscraig Steelworks weren’t being
discussed rather than topical city centre schemes that seem to excite
architects.
There is a time and a place for these ‘architectural discussions’
– and I’m as guilty as any - but architects could, I feel, improve
their lot by engaging in everyday aspects of people’s
lives. If every street is perceived as a ‘gallery of buildings’
then we all know many galleries are bereft of architects’ works:
to muscle in architects have to routinely provide a superb service to
clients and the wider public that produces real value, not just peer approval.
Legislation could fundamentally assist architects in opening up new workfaces,
whether it be bedsheds or cowsheds. Then architects should again become
fully respected, not peripheral figures dealing with only certain typologies.
As it is, many of us look like we care more about fashion
and peer approval than what is really of worth.
Time to change the debate. Time to try and change the state of all typologies
within our built environment.
jun 05
texts - no limit to words, we supply the colours: info@e-architect.co.uk
Adrian Welch is an architect but also runs www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk
+ www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk: a forum + resource for Scottish architecture
Good things can happen by accident
- Art Galleries
[alan dunlop] glasgow / jan 07
Memory Marker - Freedom
Tower
[adrian welch] edinburgh / jan 06
Good Buildings - Iconic
Architecture
[charles blanc] glasgow / oct 05
Degrees of Change - Olympic
Site London
[alan hills] london / sep 05
New Urbanism - Neoclassical
Architecture
[adrian welch] edinburgh /aug 05
UK Tower Proposals - Tall
Buildings
[michael short] manchester / aug 05
21st Century Glasgow - River
Clyde Architecture
[adrian welch] edinburgh / aug 05
Scottish Slate - Foudland
Slate Quarrries
[mark chalmers] aberdeen / jul 05
The Great Escape - Iconic
Buildings
[colin gordon] edinburgh / jul 05
Elevator Pitch - Architecture
& Contingency
[jeremy till] sheffield / jun 05
Iconotastic Reflections - Iconic Architecture
[adrian welch] edinburgh / jun 05
Contextual & Humane - Scottish
Provident
[john deffenbaugh] edinburgh / jun 05
Fairytale in the Woods - Reusing
Buildings
[adrian welch] edinburgh / jun 05
Deconstructing the deconstructivists
- Frank Gehry
[mark chalmers] aberdeen / jun 05
Contemporary architects
Modern houses
Architecture competition
Architecture books
Famous World Architects:
Santiago Calatrava
David Chipperfield
Terry Farrell
Foster & Partners
Future Systems
Frank Gehry
Zaha Hadid
Michael Hopkins
Toyo Ito
Henning Larsen
Daniel Libeskind
MVRDV
Rennie Mackintosh
Richard Meier
Enric Miralles
Ian Ritchie
Richard Rogers
Moshe Safdie
World Architecture - City Guides:
Barcelona Architecture
Cambridge Architecture
Copenhagen Architecture
Hong Kong Architecture
New York Architecture
Paris Architecture
World Architecture : e-architect
- a guide to key buildings across the globe
Make sure your architectural structure is safe by reviewing the building
code. You can also find advice on how to choose
a contractor. There is an important construction
defect checklist that should be reviewed. When designed your home
you want to be aware of building
energy code enforcement.
Comments for the Architecture Debate page welcome: info@e-architect.co.uk
Architecture Debate - page
: adrian welch / isabelle lomholt