Back to School - Alternative Practices

Two days ago I happened upon a new book that just came out, in direct relation to my first class of the semester tonight with entitled Alternative Practice, entitled Future Practice.  As mentioned in the blurb, this is a book regarding the variety of directions individuals take after receiving training in architecture.  As mentioned, "year after year, as new graduates embark on their careers, more and more of them are questioning the traditional role of the architect, even before working in a firm or taking other supposedly required steps toward licensure."  This seems almost identical to the description of Alternative Practices, a course that "offers students the opportunity to investigate the range of emerging career roles in architecture and allied fields, including both shifting opportunities within "traditional" practice as well as the broad range of career choices that can usefully build on a foundation in architecture."  Indeed upon forwarding the blurb to my advisor I discovered that articles from the author are often used in her class and she looks forward to reading the book, as do I as soon as it comes out.

This book does not, however, deal with how to set up a non-traditional firm, advice that might be referenced in a course I'm currently waitlisted for entitled Launching Design Practices.  Interestingly enough, as the blurb points out, these alternative practices (so to speak) are rooted in one primary concern: "the various practitioners want to improve conditions for people."  This is something that I too share with these practitioners, though, as I point out time and again, I wish to incorporate this into all facets of architecture, not just the smaller firms or the non-profit organizations.  It will be interesting to find how this class, and the book in the future, affect my currently naive outlook on architecture and architects in general.

Everlasting Not So Big House?

As we ring in the new year, online Architectural websites post a variety of articles on 2012 including the "Buzz-worthy Buildings of 2012" many of which were in China including the Dalian International Conference Center where I used to live in Dalian, China.  Looking through these articles I happened upon one that seemed particularly interesting on Endangered Buildings We Hope Make it through 2013.  Many of these buildings were used for their original purpose only for brief periods of time before being abandoned and vandalized, including The Casa sobre el Arroyo by Amancio Williams, National Art Schools by Ricardo Porro, and works by Frank Lloyd Wright.  As someone who used to work as an interpreter for the Robie House in Hyde Park I feel I have a unique understanding of this dilemma.  Many of these buildings are amazing works of art, like beautiful portraits which Frank Lloyd Wright compared the Robie House to as he tried to save it from demolition.  On the other hand these buildings were totally useless for their original intent.  The Robie House, for example, had a basement that flooded and close to no storage space whatsoever, these are just two examples of the lists of reasons I can see for these buildings to no longer be wanted as anything else aside from a Historic Landmark.

The fact that these uniquely designed buildings are now endangered makes me question the designing of unique buildings.  In constructing a Not So Big House as opposed to a house that looks very similar in many ways to that of its neighbors does one diminish the opportunity for such a house to be resold?  Is one not simply increasing the likelihood that such a building would be torn down in order to be built to someone else's needs?  Should we, like was being done in Dalian when I left, construct buildings that won't last longer than 10 years in order that they can be built to a certain user's needs and then changed for another user?

Yet at the same time I suppose buildings, just like any other artifact, become endangered all the time and it is more important to focus on other aspects, such as the quality of material.  One rather common place material that has recently been changed is concrete.  The prevalence of this material makes it necessary to find ways to use less of it in more efficient ways, as such individuals have done recently.

Philadelphia Museum of Art Experience

I've been to a large number of museums in my time, throughout Asia, Europe and the US.  But throughout these museums I've never experienced one like the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  It is not uncommon for a museum to decorate its walls like the below image that I took at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

This image may at first glance appear to include elements of Trompe-l'œil, "art technique involving realistic imagery in order to create the optical illusion that the depicted objects exist in three dimensions."  However, this is not an optical illusion.  One can actually walk into the next room and around the columns seen below.

It is also not uncommon for rooms of a museum to be decorated in a certain way.  For example, walking through a Frank Lloyd Wright home and having part of it roped off as it displays the look of the original room with objects and furniture in it somewhat like the below image of a Chinese building, which I have seen many versions of (though all in Asia).

It is also not uncommon to see replicas of rooms (like the above) or individuals, similar to a wax museum.  I do question how some of these elements are included.  For example, was the below image built into the walls when the museum was originally constructed?  Or was it added as a later renovation?  Or what?  I also seem to be unable to find much literature written on these aspects of the museum.

However, one thing that I can say I have never seen is a building inside another building.  The Philadelphia Museum of Art is home to the tea house of architect Ögi Rodö which originally stood on the grounds of the architect's private residence in Tokyo.  It was sold to the museum in 1928 and installed in 1957, complete with growing bamboo and flowing water.

This is no replica.  It is the actual original architecture of a tea house within an art museum, which is amazing to me.  While none of these elements is unique in and of itself the combination of all of these elements within the museum gave me a museum experience truly unlike any other.  This is an experience that allows one to "Travel to the far east and around the world without leaving Philadelphia."  The experience moved me almost to tears as I recalled all of the places I had been in my travels like these.  Along with these architectural elements the museum had collections of Picasso, Manet, Monet, Renoir, and Van Gogh as well as Contemporary Modern Art and a collection of Arms and Armory.  This museum truly has something for everyone and I would definitely recommend it as an experience for everyone.  (Note: All images included here were taken by myself.)

One-Stall Restrooms

This is actually a post that I wrote back in August, 2011 but I apparently didn't post it.  So I am posting it now.

The last time I, a cis- (not transgendered) female, went into a multi-stall men’s restroom was on occasion as a small child when the only person to take care of me was my father.  On the other hand, to this day I often choose to frequent one-stall men’s restrooms.  What’s the point in standing in a long line outside the designated women’s restroom when the men’s restroom is no different and is designed for only one individual at a time?  Why not just use the men’s restroom?  Aside from the occasional strange look one may receive when exiting the one stall to find a male waiting to use the room, who honestly cares?

So far this may seem to be a gender-related issue.  However, this is also a disability-related issue.  In June of 2011, I visited a restaurant called Tasty Dog in Oak Park, Illinois with my family.  As the daughter of a wheelchair-bound mother with Multiple Sclerosis, I immediately recognized the wheelchair accessible entrance and found a table where my mother could join the friends that my parents were in town visiting.  Thinking wheelchair accessibility to no longer be a problem for the venue, I relaxed and went about the daily routine of eating a meal with my family.  We went up to the counter to order something to eat, sat down and had a great conversation with our friends.  We ended up sitting and chatting so long that my mother eventually had to use the restroom, again not surprising.  I walked to the one-stall bathroom to open the door for my mother and see if she needed my help.  She did not, so I left her to use the restroom in privacy.  Soon there was a female standing outside the door waiting for my mother to finish using the restroom, my father suggested that I let her know that it might be better for her to use the men’s so I went over and told the woman.  She was very kind, thanked me for the information and used the men’s room.  This happened several times until I met with a disgruntled woman who refused to use the men’s and insisted on waiting for the women’s room.  Despite my warning and explanation to the woman, she became upset with me and went to the restaurant employees to complain about my mother.  Soon the employee came out to investigate the matter herself, I again explained that my mother was handicapped and often needed a longer period of time to use the restroom.  Fortunately, the employee understood and explained to the customer that she would have to wait.  Of all the years my mother has been handicapped I have never experienced such animosity over a simple matter.  What would have happened had the employee not understood?  I do not even want to think about the embarrassment this may have caused my mother.  It is from these experiences and my own personal experiences in both men’s and women’s one stall restrooms that leads me to implore owners to reconsider labeling one stall restrooms with gender neutral signs.  If one is in need of a sign at all for these rooms, please consider the family signs or signs for both men and women that one can often get from the same locations.

Architectural Drawing

One issue that I have with architectural drawing was mentioned briefly in a recent article from the Journal of Architectural Education entitled On Obeying the Rules by Michael Webb.  The first paragraph of this article is especially interesting to me.  The author states "We, the survivors of architecture school curricula, are all too familiar with the syntax that applies to the making of orthographic projection drawings. We follow a universally accepted set of conventions that, when applied, makes drawings easier to read—at least by other survivors. For example, the section and the elevation are to be placed above the plan, not beneath it; or lines defining the edge of a plane should be stronger than those not defining the edge.  But if the depiction of motion, that fluctuating concern of architects since the Futurist movement, is what we would wish to represent in our drawings, then a relentless adherence to those conventions results in the drawing becoming not easier to read, but interestingly difficult."  In other words, while these universally accepted set of conventions allow the drawings to be easier to read by individuals who have gone through the architectural school curricula, they make it more difficult for others, including users and clients, to read.  From the few architectural drawings that I have been exposed to it is not the organization of drawings on the page or heaviness of a line that makes it difficult to read.  Instead it is the lack of labeling and legends or keys.  For example, if one were to look at a graph the legend labels what each color corresponds to.  This is often understood by architects such that the legend is entirely left out.  If these elements were included it might make the drawing more understandable.

After publishing this entry a friend pointed out that I neglected to mention that just like architectural writing, audience is important to architectural drawing.  One must write or draw to one's audience.  If the audience is other architects than it's totally fine for drawings to lack labels, legends and such.  If, however, the audience is non-designers of some sort than labels may be more important.

Architecture in the Digital Age in Brief

Looking through recent articles in the NY Times and speaking with friends getting their MArchs, it seems that the concept of architecture within the digital age is one that has been at the surface of many conversations recently.  At first glance the topic seems to be of little interest to me personally.  However, I question how the move to architecture in the digital realm is affecting the value of architects.  Due to the fact that architecture is so focused on being defined solely as design, the prevalence of software programs like AutoCAD seems like a possible issue.  If architects are indeed moving away from freehand drawing and towards solely using these programs, are they indeed working to make themselves more redundant?  What is the difference between an artist or individually creatively designing a building with the use of AutoCAD and an architect?

Response to "Why Don't We Read About Architecture"

Why Don't We Read About Architecture? is an interesting article that speaks largely to many of the aspects I wish to address within my dissertation.  Author Allison Arieff begins the article by pointing out our role as users of architecture.  As users of architecture our role is not often included amongst the current architectural, design, or construction process.  Currently buildings are designed by architects, or others in construction fields (developers, engineers, designers, etc) in combination with a client.  In other entries I have spoken to the complications that not including users in this process has created, for example with the Mansueto Library. 

Instead of including user functionality, as Arieff later mentions it should, architecture is currently understood primarily in an economic context.  As Arieff explains, "architecture is conveyed as little more than something that costs a lot and causes a lot of grief, rather than something with the potential to enhance our daily lives."  I believe this can be traced back to the fact that architecture is currently defined by education as little more than an art as opposed to being something that can affect social changes and, as she mentions, enhance our daily lives in more than just its design.  Currently architecture seems to be attempting to fight its premise.  With the definition of architecture that the current education system embraces, architecture is not much different from other forms of art that, according to Arieff, "need only please or provoke its audience."  What the current architectural education system should do is embrace the fact that architecture must include user functionality and other business aspects like LEED certification to be valuable.

Arieff points out that another way to make architecture more valuable is by returning to "Bold, opinionated, thoughtful words" with strong architectural critics who act "not just as writers but as advocates."  This is as opposed to the way architecture is currently spoken about, which is almost completely unintelligible, noting that "Indecipherability signifies superior intelligence".  As a recent graduate of the University of Chicago I, like the author, can attest to this fact.  At the University of Chicago I was often surrounded by individuals speaking in what often seemed to me to be indecipherable ways.  Many of these individuals didn't understand the necessity to "dumb down their speech" as this was "condescending" to those they spoke to.  As a friend mentioned recently there are two problems with this kind of language.  The first is that it can often be entirely indecipherable even to the author, looking back on such writing years later.  The second is that when decipherable, the language is often so full of jargon that only others in the same field can understand what is being said.  This makes the writing, or speech, often only understood by a very small audience.  In order to diversify and allow for these, often brilliant ideas, to be expressed to a larger audience the University of Chicago has a very well-known class entitled the Little Red Schoolhouse.  This is a course in which individuals are taught how to write.  It does not, however, teach individuals how to use better grammar.  Instead the course teaches one how to write with a specific audience in mind.  This includes taking emphasis off nouns, which Arieff points out as "hallmarks of a pretentious ass" and on to stronger verbs.  For example, the piece which Arieff points out as difficult to understand has no verb "ANALYSIS: a territorial and social fragmentation, a typical “no-man’s land” undergoing the urban exodus, the settlement of the old and inactive persons, the absence of public place in the body scale substituted by the car."