You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘architecture’ category.
It’s been a busy week – four days in Boston for the APA Conference, then home just in time for a short bout with stomach flu and off again for HPP (Historic Preservation and Planning program) Work Weekend! Two out of the three of those were a great time.
South Boston
For Work Weekend, our caravan of cars headed up to Medina Stone Farm, a 19th-century farmhouse and barn property now managed as a B&B and performance venue. While we only had limited time and a semi-skilled crew, we were tasked with 1) stripping, re-glazing, and painting several historic windows purchased in Ithaca and brought up to be installed in the small barn; 2) preparing to repair an old stone-and-mortar fence by putting rocks into piles by size; 3) painting the exterior of the small barn; and 4) documenting the site through drawings, description, and photos.
Medina Stone Farm
We weren’t able to do the exterior painting because it rained all day on Saturday, but we did good work with the other three jobs, and met some interesting animals along the way (an orange cat, some horses, a couple mules, a couple goats, some sheep, several chickens, and two dogs).
My favorite job, and the one that really made me think, was the several-step process of restoring the old windows. They came in various conditions, from ready to repaint and install, to missing panes and with significant wood damage. Most had original glass, but needed to be re-glazed and repainted – meaning the lines of putty which hold each pane in the wooden frame needed to be scraped out, the frame re-sanded, and the glazing putty re-applied. There wasn’t time to complete all the windows and install them in the barn, but we at least put new glazing in (I think I’m using the correct terms) and primed them for painting.
In addition to feeling great for doing some actual tangible work – in contrast to the mile-high stack of words I’ve been reading for the last two years – I really enjoyed learning more about how old windows work, and why taking the time and care to repair the elements of an old building is a good thing.
Windows are a critical part of any building: they provide natural light and interesting views for the interior, if they open they help cool and circulate air in the rooms, and can be a major site of decorative detail. While contemporary windows (not counting large glass-wall style windows like those in office buildings) are generally designed as one big energy-saving unit, but old windows are complex, multi-part technological systems in themselves. Windows are often one of the big projects of building preservation because, unlike modern windows, they are a versatile and fully-repairable piece of building technology, whether damaged during bad weather or simply aging over prolonged exposure.
A modern, manufactured window must be replaced wholesale if any part of it is broken, its insulating vacuum seal infiltrated, or if it or the frame eventually warps. An historic wood window, however, can be taken apart and reconstructed by hand. The wooden frame can be rebuilt, including the small dividers between window panes; the glass panes can be removed, cleaned, or replaced if broken; and the glazing can be pried out, sanded down, and reapplied. This makes the window more versatile, generally longer-lasting, and over the span of several decades less costly than replacing it with a new one. Because the windows in a wood-frame structure were also designed specifically for that building, historic preservationists also argue that it is better to keep original windows because they will fit better, shifting with the rest of the structure and providing a better seal against the elements than a retrofitted contemporary window of different materials. Well-maintained older buildings tend to be energy efficient and structurally sound if their constituent elements are preserved, as they collectively represent a technological system which is meant to function in a certain way.
Working on Windows
Working with these windows, some of which had their original panes and glazing from probably before 1900, made me really appreciate preservation as a means of saving technologies and putting it back to work. When the average person thinks of preservation, the reason for saving something tends to be along the lines of historic sites like battlefields, or for aesthetic and architectural purposes, the classic phrase “an excellent example of early/mid/late ___ style.” Where preservation is meant to keep a building functioning, however, the technological aspects of preservation come into play as well. This view of preservation doesn’t seem to have much recognition outside the field, but as interest in sustainability and energy efficiency grows in the public discourse (including a session on the value of historic buildings at the APA conference), it seems important to highlight this aspect of preservation as part of why historic buildings (and other structures) should be kept. Not only are they valuable from a real estate and economic development standpoint (in terms of maintaining land values and sense of place), they are also valuable technological systems which were designed by people wise enough to know about energy efficiency and recycling long before the “sustainability” buzzword came along.
Windows are a good thing!
In the view days of calm before the storm, also known as Spring Break, I spent a lot of time working, and a fair amount of time sleeping. But I also spent some time (a little over a full day) seeing parts of Upstate with a couple friends. We passed through a lot of farmland and saw a lot of lovely historic architecture, unfortunately a lot of it empty or at least not what it once was.
We stayed overnight in Rochester at Reen’s B&B and saw a bit of the city, including the Eastman House, the random assortment of buildings downtown, the Public Market, AAAND the flagship Wegman’s Grocery Store in the suburbs.
Here are three representative images from the trip:
Barn in Upstate
Downtown Rochester
Eastman House, Rochester
Back to work and blogging soon!
… Possibly the most pretentious post title yet!
So it’s officially Week 7 that I’ve gone without a car . . . that is, it’s still in the shop with transmission problems. (The lesson to be drawn from the past two summers’ worth of car problems is, do not buy a Subaru without a good warranty and a steady income!) As a result, I’ve spent a lot of time on public transit going one place or another, and have taken advantage of the lovely service of the public library.
Earlier in the summer I was avoiding “work” reading (planning-related books), in favor of easy fiction and those random books that had been on my list for a while. As I reluctantly realize summer is ending, however, I’ve started turning back to the city books. Rationale: there’s a long list of planning-related things I should read. I won’t want to read them during the school year, because that’s all I’ll be doing anyway; light fiction and some “escapist” stuff (easy to pick up and put down and pass out in the middle of a chapter at the end of the day) will be a better idea. Therefore, better do it now!
One book I picked up (per a friend’s suggestion) is Nan Ellin’s Postmodern Urbanism (Princeton Architectural Press, 1999 rev. ed.). It’s pretty theoretical and there’s a fair amount of academic name-dropping — even some stuff from the old cultural history reading list! Hobsbawm! — but it makes some interesting claims about the goals of (post)modern design, what it’s actually doing, and why it’s ultimately still part of the Modern Project. That is, it might look different than modernist buildings, and it might attempt to return to pre-industrial city form, but it still takes a rational and technocratic approach to achieving its aims. And it inescapably operates within a market-oriented, consumer-based structure which essentially dictates the outcome of design and planning exercises, however inclusive. [Insert lots of David Harvey block quotes here.]
Here are a few things to think about. I still am.
“Recent urban design inarguably advances the modern project because it refuses to relinquish the vast possibilities offered by the new technologies because it is embedded in larger market forces. Despite its prevalent romantic imagery, its mode of production, distribution, and consumption remain highly rational as do the lifestyles of the people who use it (with a few scattered exceptions). In architecture, an abandonment of the products and promises of the modern project would constitute an undeniable regression because its evolution has gone hand in hand with that of new technologies. And a challenge to the modern project on the part of planners would violate the very bases upon which planning rests since the profession emerged during the modern period and is predicated on modernist notions of rationality and progress. It is not surprising, then, that the architecture and planning professions have largely avoided reflecting too deeply on the continued validity of the modern project.
“Pressed to ascertain whether this recent swing of the pendulum in urban design theory and practice has actually posed a challenge to the modern project or whether it has affirmed it, we must concede that as long as architects and planners seek technical and creative solutions to social problems in pursuit of progress, they continue to pursue the modern project. While contemporary urban design may break from the modern project formally and rhetorically, it actually continues it technologically, politically, and economically, perhaps with the exception of a growing sensitivity toward social diversity and toward the environment. Symbolically, contemporary urban design both continues and breaks from the modern project for it suggests to the general public a re-valorization of history, urbanity, the vernacular, and the community, while in fact only cosmetic changes are effected. In sum, while contemporary urban design may constitute a symbolic break from modernism, in actuality, it continues the project, as is revealed by architects’ and planners’ goals, their means for implementing these goals, their products, and their means of assessing the relative success of these products.
Rather than avoid the drawbacks of modern urbanism, then, architecture and planning since the 1960s are guilty of much the same, albeit unwittingly. This is largely because the political economy of advanced global capitalism and the continued prominence of positivistic thinking (despite challenges posed to it) impose constraints that limit its actual divergence. A reality which many architects and planners have preferred to ignore or minimize is that rather than following function, form has increasingly been following finance. The prime mover, particularly in the more liberal economies, is less the architects and planners than the larger economic system in which they work and which functions according to the profit motive. Like the initial claims of modern design to be populist, those of postmodern urbanism have also been subverted, perhaps even more so. But designers are reluctant to acknowledge their ever-growing reliance upon the marketplace for it detracts from their potential for creative expression and for implementing change, not to mention their ability to preserve the legitimacy of their professions.” (212-213)
…
“Superficially, then, we have come full circle. This time, however, the pre-industrial-looking landscapes (some of which are more convincing than others) are the product of hyper-rational efforts. As such, postmodern urbanism might be perceived as dishonest or pretentious for trying to be something it is not. In addition, its complicity with the political economy in which it is embedded often renders its intents unrealizable, or in the interests of capital rather than the larger good. As a result, many contextual intentions are stymied and, even when realized, are judged unsuccessful by users and designers alike. When successful, though, these efforts can result in environments that harmonize with the physical and social contexts and which people appreciate for their non-intrusive quality and formal interest.
“Although the lessons of modern urbanism have yet to be fully assimilated and postmodern urban design theory is inherently flawed, it nonetheless offers certain correctives to its predecessor and has generated some built environments that are widely recognized as superior to those which issued from the tenets of modern urbanism. Most important is the renewed attention to fulfilling non-functional needs and tastes, as manifest in building on a human scale; reintroducing ornament, color, and whimsy; developing a mix of uses in one project; valuing public spaces of many kinds; and valuing experimentation with new typologies, morphologies, and modes of architectural production including various kinds of user participation, computer-aided design, and serial production techniques. Some of this experimentation has undeniably enhanced the lives of its users as well as the shape of the landscape.
“The reconceptualizations of the city and of culture over the last few decades are inscribed within the larger challenge to the modern canon in contemporary Western society. This broadbased challenge is reflected in legitimacy crises in our basic assumptions, ways of knowing, and practice, and it is expressed in the millennial meditations described above. While all indications suggest a threshold, what lies on the other side remains unclear. At its worst, the extreme relativism and disengagement that may result from a distrust of master narratives and expertise can eliminate any possibility for communication, ethics, and democratic practice. With regards to cultural forms of expression, it can detract from any emancipatory and educational possibilities. The result can be an ultra-subjective alienating sense that there is no longer a “real,” and a corresponding obsession with artifice which allows for easy manipulation by the deft imagery of advertising and other forms of persuasion. In some respects, then, the efforts among urban designers to remedy the imagery merely play into the hands of this process, ultimately intensifying rather than combating the prevailing sense of insecurity.” (291-292)
I’m looking at you, New Urbanists!!!
I saw this post today on Lynn Becker‘s blog, about building the Nagakin Capsule Tower out of Legos:
via Lynn Becker
Compare with the original building
It’s strikingly similar; and it got me thinking – what influence has Lego had on modern architecture? Old, ornate buildings like the Taj Mahal require special pieces and a lot of them, but a lot of more contemporary buildings are recognizable even with only basic bricks:
Sears Tower, via Lego.com
Famous skyscrapers, via BrickStructures
Then there’s some buildings that look pretty Lego-inspired. I searched for an hour today to re-locate a photo I saw of a new art center (or school?) in Chicago, that is basically a short box striped in Lego colors. (Anyone have any idea what it is?)
[will post photo when I finally track it down]
THEN there’s an actual fusion of Lego and architecture, in which building design is all at Lego scale, and/or Lego bricks are physically integrated into the building.
Exhibit A: Flickr pool of Lego Architecture and Design
Exhibit B: Artist Jan Vormann, who “repairs” cracked and damaged buildings with Lego bricks
Lego brick building repairs, via Urban Prankster
Exhibit C: The (now demolished) Lego House
Lego House exterior, via Daily Mail
How could one go about studying the influence of Lego on architecture – not just its color scheme and blockiness, but its modularity and flexibility? After all, it’s been around for 50 years now… by now there are multiple generations of architects who have no doubt played with them at one time or another… Would interviews or surveys work? Study of Lego sales to architecture studios and offices? Attendance at Lego conventions?
Hmm… I bet there’s a story there for someone who wants to pursue it.
UPDATE: I still haven’t found that building I had in mind, but maybe this was it – Blair Kamin just posted about a youth center on Chicago’s South Side. I think it’s safe to say you could Lego that up pretty handily!
Gary Comer Youth Center, Chicago
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d834518cc969e201347fc43ffc970c-800wi
Christ the King School, Chicago
Geometric Showdown
or,
How to Make Your Brand-New 3D Printer Cry
Stereolithography
v.
Klein Bottle
GO!!!
I was driving south toward Indiana this morning, and on a whim decided to detour on I-55 to visit those giant silos on South Damen Avenue. The ones with the big “STATE AUCTION” sign on them, and all the graffiti. This summer, I had a very enjoyable afternoon seeing them for the first time (even slipped under the fence, shhhh), and thought I would see how they looked in the snow. Was not disappointed.
[Editor’s note: I should really start a photoblog, and save CityForward for mostly text-based posts. This fixed-width layout is killing me, as it conveniently snips off the right margin of all my landscape-oriented photos. Straw poll: Flickr, or a legit photoblog format?]
"State Property, No Trespassing" Sign
Silo through the fence, with AUCTION sign
Fence and Silos
Silo, Graffiti Detail
No Dumping Sign
Graffiti, "RIP AFRO 42"
Graffiti, "RIP EVOL"
Graffiti, Rabbit
Wreath in front of silos
Silos and building through the fence
Building skeleton
Graffiti on brick building
Brick building, with Sears Tower in the distance
Side building, river, and geese
Side building, river, and bench
Side building, river, and silos
Highway ramp toward home
In going through my New York photos, I found a couple other shots worth posting.
The first is from across the tracks at Williamsburg’s Marcy Avenue station. An old man and a hipster waiting for the train.
Williamsburg, Marcy Avenue Station
The second is a view from the High Line, of new condos going up along the (river? harbor? whatever it’s called there?).
Sunset, from the High Line
Gotten a lot of photo mileage out of those three days … will post photos of other things soon, I promise!
On Saturday (last month) I spent a lot of time in Midtown Manhattan, seeing the big sites, and some smaller ones as well. More photos from the trip.
Plaster Detail, Manhattan
Graffiti, Manhattan
Hot Dog Vendor
Palm Room, Some Bar
Madison Avenue and 42nd Street
Grand Central Station
Grand Central Station
Grand Central Station
Buildings in Midtown
Times Square
Times Square
Vogue Covers
Chrysler Building, Lobby
Chrysler Building
Well, only two weeks late with putting up some photos from my New York trip. I took way more than was good for me, so I decided to focus on some of the details in this set.
These are all from Day 1: Brooklyn Bridge, Financial District, Broadway, Soho, and NYU/Greenwich Village.
Brooklyn Bridge Cable
City Hall Park
Panda on Wall St
Brick Building
Hydrants, Financial District
Broadway and Pine
Store Window
Going to Temple
Just returned from my first official professional planning conference, the APA Upstate New York Regional Conference! I probably wasn’t as “professional” as I should have been, but it was a good time and the department comped most of it.
Most notable here: I didn’t realize how much I missed delapidated city streets until our drives and walks through the area immediately around downtown. I’ve included a couple photos (pre-processing) of my usual super abstract brick-wall-and-a-weed style.
Also, out of idle curiosity I checked out this and the other blogs’ reading stats lately… Stan&Ergo is doing better than I thought! I should post some new ones soon. Also, I found it amusing that almost exclusively, the key words listed to find the other blog were variations of “epic fail.” Good times.
I’ll post the rest on Facebook, until I finally get around to a photoblog format.
Under Construction, Albany
Brick Wall, Albany
City Forward 