The
making of Authentic Architecture
Introduction
and Overview - Part Two
go to
Part One • go to Part Three
|
| Part
One of this overview provides context for this Thesis
and two of six Sections: Principles and
what is Distinct about my approach to architecture. |
| Part
Two will cover a Criticism of many architects
and their work, Illustration of my work
(built and un-built) in several categories of building
types, specific Lessons learned in my 48
years of work, and a look to The Road Ahead. |
| Each
of these six Sections, in parts One and Two, link
directly to URLs of their own where greater detail
is provided. |
| Part
Three will focus on the the technical aspects
of my work. This will be approached in four subsections;
the
first, on the Patent and mind/brain theory that forms
the foundation of the Taylor method and, thus, the
concept of human processes upon which my concept
of architecture rests; the second, on certain
aspects of design
and design processes
that form the basis for my approach to this task;
the third, on design/build techniques essential
to integrating the various work processes necessary
to the task of physically making architecture; and
fourth, on the business and organization aspects
of building and employing ValueWebs for the creation
of ARCHITCTURE. |
|
| The
following criticism, which follows Brazon’s [link] and
Elliot’s [link] dictates,
looks at the legacy of Frank lloyd Wright [link],
Bruce Goff [link],
Rudolf Schindler [link],
Lloyd Wright [link],
John Lautner [link],
Renzo Piano [link],
Antoni Gaudi [link],
Rudolf Steiner [link],
Bucky Fuller [link],
Bernard Maybeck [link],
Filippo Brunelleschi [link],
Frederick Law Olmsted [link],
Christopher Alexander [link],
Frank Gehry [link],
Ero Saarinen [link],
Henry Hobson Richardson [link],
Daniel Burnham [link] Fred
Stitt [link] Palo
Soleri [link] and
Louis Sullivan [link].
All of these demonstrate unique qualities both in
their work and in their practice model. I also will
comment on the work of some of the larger, global
architectural firms, as well as, certain historical
architectures such as Japanese, Islamic, Greek, Roman,
Egyptian, Renascence and Medieval Europe, and indigenous
cultures. In addition, several engineers, industrial
designers and inventors will be looked reviewed. |
| Even
this long list suffers a certain provincialism and
cultural bias; nevertheless, a great deal of value
can be extracted from the examination of the lives
and body of work that these individuals created. |
| As
noted, I will offer a critique of my own work of
the last 48 years - both projects and built works
- in the Illustration Section that follows. |
| In
this Outline, both the Criticism and Illustration Parts
will be presented as a brief overview. This is so
each subject can be seen as an aspect of a
larger fabric. A more detailed analysis can be found
by following the links provided with each subject. |
My
relationship to Wright is personal
and intimate. Not because I knew
him that well but because he was
the Master [link] that
I discovered at that moment in
time when it
was
essential for me to find my muse.
This is how continuity, from century
to century, is kept even as innovation
is unleashed [link].
There is a rare chemestry in
the relathonship between Master
and
Apprentice and this is, in my
mind, essential to the development
of
any art. We lose this value
in our world of training, tests,
rank
and hurried
achievements. I think that there
can be only one relationship
like this in a lifetime and it
is important
to choose one’s master
carefully. Mr. Wright never disappointed
me
in this regard and he continues
to instruct and delight me to
this day.
In
my mind, a great deal that has been
written about Wright is misguided.
It does not describe the man
I know nor the work that I saw
and lived in. In recent years,
authors have started to address
this deficiency. The scholarship
has improved immensely and it is
becoming accepted that you have
to take him whole, in the context
of his times and that you can
rely on his explanations far
more than had been accepted before.
Frank Lloyd Wright was a complex
man. He was authentic. He is
not easily understood from “outside.”
From “inside” it is easy and
what you see is what you get. |
|
|
Bruce
gave me a great gift which was
one full week of his time uninterrupted
by any distractions. By far,
I received more direct instruction
and education in the art of
architecture from him than the
sum of all that
others taught me. More than any
architect that I have met, Bruce
knew just what he was doing and
why. He could articulate his
thinking
processes and set it the broader
context of history, philosophy
and art. He was close to the
ideal teacher: passionate, informed
stimulating
yet willing to let the student
develop on his own in his own
way. He,
like Schindler lived a life totally
dedicated to architecture and,
of all the great American architects
of his time, practiced with the
least ego, in the negative sense
of the word, and served his clients
with great dedication.
Goff
left a great unrealized dream
and that is of a colony-school
where all the arts could be integrated
and practiced with architecture.
This vision had also come
to me [link] just
months before meeting Bruce for
the first time and became the
our closest connection. |
|
|
I
have a great sense of personal
affinity with Rudolf Schindler
and his work. I believe he was
enormously underrated
in his lifetime and it is a tragedy
that he did not receive more
commissions that would have provided
him the chance to exercise his
full talent.
However,
what he did do, with the commissions
he was offered, was amazing and
constitutes a remarkable body of
work. More that anyone that I can
think of he provided his clients
with great architecture that
was affordable. His own house
on
Kings Row is full of innovations
and can be legitimately considered
a precursor of Wright’s
Usonian house by a decade. It
also was an intimate response
to a time and place which was
Los Angeles in the 20s. |
|
|
| Lloyd
Wright was also greatly under rated.
He, with Schindler, Lautner and
others had an enormous impact
on Southern California Architecture.
His Wayfarers Chapel is without
question one the best works of
the 20th Century. |
|
|
| I
have been slow to absorb Lautner
and I regret that I neglected him
when I first lived in Los Angeles.
Our time overlapped and I should
have sought him out. |
|
|
| I
like Renzo’s work; I like the variety
of it and I like his practice model.
He is bringing together modern
technologies and traditional materials
and means. This is a critical issue
in architecture today. |
|
|
| It
was Bruce Goff who introduced me
to Gaidi’s work and the power of
it has grown on me over the years.
In any short list of the greatest
architects of all time, Gaidi has
to be on it. |
|
|
| Steiner
is better known as a scientist,
philosopher and educator than
as an architect. He built, however,
two remarkable buildings and can
be considered an early founder
of the organic school of architecture.
Steiner’s work
stemmed from a deep sense of the
function
of the building and its philosophical
implications. With this attribute
alone he surpasses the vast majority
of architects. |
|
|
Bucky
invented “Anticipatory
Design Science” and almost
started a revolution in how buildings
are conceived, produced and deployed.
He once told me that he would
never
build his deliverable housing
units but that I would [link].
So far, I have failed with this
charge
but
I have
not given up the pursuit of his
ideal [link].
Bucky
is a remarkable man by any standard
yet none ot the professions
that he impacted want to “own” him.
This is more a reflection on the
insular nature of these artificial
onclaves than on the man and
his worth. |
|
|
| To
this day you cannot live in northern
California without being the beneficiary
of Maybeck, his contemporaries
and the many that followed him
- he, along with Julia Morgan [link],
William Wurster [link],
Warren Callister [link],
Jack Hilmer [link] and
many more have created a distinct
architecture referred to as the
Northern California School, Bay
Tradition or Bay Area Regional
Style. Whatever you call it, this
school of work is vital today and
remains one of the most pervasive
regional expressions in all of
architecture. |
|
|
| Brunelleschi
was trained as a goldsmith. He
became an accomplished engineer,
inventor, entrepreneur, project
manager and architect. What he
accomplished
in one lifetime, given the means
of the times, calls into question
how we “moderns” employ the technology
and resources at our command. We
pride ourselves in our productivity
but this may well be a false conceit. |
|
|
| Olmsted
was “public man” in the old sense
of the word - something that is
sadly lacking from our modern social
environment. He also created the
American practice of Landscape
Architecture. These two aspects
of his life cannot
be separated if you are to understand
either one of them. This integration
is what makes him interesting and
an exemplar worth considering as
we we seek to rebuild a shattered
public edifice. |
|
|
| I
have not yet come to terms with
Gehry. Yet, he cannot be ignored.
He has almost single handedly brought
the profession of architecture
into the 21st Century by
turning the computer into a tool
in the hand of the architect capable
of crafting architecture much like
we once did by hand. |
|
|
| Sarrinen
is one of the few that managed
to be successful, in the main stream
sense of the word, without being
seduced or corrupted by it. |
|
|
| “Make
no little plans” was Burham’s
motto when he led the Chicago Worlds
Fair project. There are probably
few equal examples of architect-as-master-builder
in modern times; the scale and
scope of what was accomplished
in so short a time is impressive
to this day [rdtfBook]. |
|
|
| Fred
Stitt has devoted his life to helping
architects learn how to be architects.
This is, in our modern context,
an almost thankless task. |
|
|
| I
would have loved working as a draftsman
in the heyday of the Greene and
Greene practice - what rich delights
would have waited my drafting board
every day! |
|
|
| Palo
broke the mold of what constitutes
an architectural practice. He went
out into the desert and started
a process from the beginning.
His approach is at once very ancient
and and futuristic at the same
time. He decided to build a city
from scratch and a new type of
city at that. |
|
|
| The
father of the “chicago School” and
by extension the “Prairie
School” of architecture,
Sullivan is a tragic personality
in the story of American architecture.
The interesting question is if
this tragedy is to be fond in the
culture of the times, in American
sensibility in general, or in Sullivan
himself. The useful perception
may be that it is in all three
of these and that the story is
all too ready to repeat itself. |
|
|
| One
of the great tragedies of architecture is the rivalry
between architects with the emphasis placed on their
differences rather than on the continuity of
architectural thought and practice throughout the
ages. It seems the more serious an architect, and
capable, the more likely to fall into this wasteful
trap. We who would practice today are way beyond
having the luxury to squander our energy in this
way. Architects should be supporting each other in
the task of creating great architecture - on the
planetary scale that is now required - instead of
fighting over
the scrapes of individual commissions, the sum of
which, still adds up to failure. We need to stop
arguing about how many architects we can get on the
head of a pin and start building a new kind of education
process while establishing new models of viable architectural
practices. The competition for commissions, the petty
and false egotism found in the “look at me” shouting
of individual works, the reduction of the main stream
practice of architecture to merely that of facilitating
real estate deals has left a vacuum that can only
be filled by serious practitioners willing to do
serious work over the span of a lifetime and beyond
one’s single contribution. Imagine the cathedrals
being accomplished in the circumstance of today’s
social, economic, business dogmas. Those that I profile
above are such people. Whatever their
differences,
they saw architecture as something beyond their personal
lives - architecture did not serve them, they served
architecture. |
| They
all, at different times of my life and in different
degrees and ways, stimulated and influenced me. I
think, that if I could incorporate all that
they individually represent into one capability
that this would make an architect worthy of the name.
One of
the necessary skills of a great architect is the
ability to fuse ideas with form. This talent makes
it possible to absorb the essence of life from the
existing environment and find ways to render it as
a new expression in both practice and built projects.
It is not trivial to think of what made of the best
of these architects and seek to bring that forward
into a living presence of work. This is not merely
an intellectual exercise. It is a deep meditation.
It is a dedication. It is the desire to manifest
a continuity even as one is provoking a revolution.
A life can be redeemed. This can happen any day and
everyday. This is the unique human attribute - the
ability to recreate self and to make a better future
- and, to do this while bringing recognition and
honor to what has come before. |
 |
Continue
Overview and Introduction
Part 2 - ILLUSTRATION |
|
|
|
|
|
