Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: The Architecture of Happiness
“In literature, too, we admire prose in which a small and astutely arranged set of words has been constructed to carry a large consignment of ideas. ‘We all have strength enough to bear the misfortunes of others,’ writes La Rochefoucauld in an aphorism which transports us with an energy and exactitude comparable to that of a Maillart bridge. The Swiss engineer reduces the number of supports just as the French writer compacts into a single line what lesser minds might have taken pages to express. We delight in complexity to which genius has lent an appearance of simplicity.”
– Alain de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness
I ran across this quote while developing a list of potential quotes for discussion. Since I’m in the middle of designing my third house, I appreciate the views of other architects and artists as to what is “good” vs. “bad” architecture. I’ve found the British author Alain de Botton’s book interesting, as he relates architecture to various other art forms, most notably common items such as bowls, plates, and water jugs. He properly criticizes architecture based on elitism and the self-congratulation of architects such as Le Corbusier, whose flat roofs leaked within one week of being occupied. Yet, de Botton properly related Le Corbusier’s 1931 interior staircase to a 1768 design in Versailles nearby. Even Modernist architects looked to architecture to support a way of life that appealed to them.
Most anyone would see the Robert Maillart designed 1930 Salginatobel Bridge above as beautiful. It was designated as an International Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1991. Like many breakthrough designs, it lacked durability, such as bridge deck waterproofing, low concrete coverage, and poor drainage, which led to extensive repairs in 1975-1976. Unfortunately, de Botton compares this bridge to Isambard Brunel’s 1864 Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, England. Yes, Brunel’s was crude, but it has stood the test of time, and led the way to the beautiful 1883 Brooklyn Bridge.
Nevertheless, de Botton’s book is a quick, thought-provoking read. Near the end of the book, de Botton summarizes his major themes:
The failure of architects to create congenial environments mirrors our inability to find happiness in other areas of our lives. Bad architecture is in the end as much a failure of psychology as of design. It is an example expressed through materials of the same tendency which in other domains will lead us to marry the wrong people, choose inappropriate jobs and book unsuccessful holidays: the tendency not to understand who we are and what will satisfy us….
The places we call beautiful are, by contrast, the work of those rare architects with the humility to interrogate themselves adequately about their desires and the tenacity to translate their fleeting apprehensions of joy into logical plans – a combination that enables them to create environments that satisfy needs we never consciously knew we even had.
So how should we evaluate buildings and structures throughout the ages? Are there famous buildings (such as the Sydney Opera House, Fallingwater, Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, etc.) whose value is diminished by roofs that leak? Does long-term practicality trump immediate notoriety? What “modern” buildings will be celebrated over 100 years from now?
Published in General
As an Architect, I think there are several levels of discussion relating to the Architecture of Happiness.
Above all else, the issue of today’s architecture and it’s merits is much like that of Contemporary Art, Literature, Theatre and Politics – today’s Avant-Garde and that of the last 30-40 years or so have abandoned the “Truth and Beauty” school where one was seeking some sort of truth through beautiful design for the “Deconstructionist” school of Nihilism that repudiates beauty and truth as irrelevant to todays needs. We are told we must empathize with the downtrodden by designing oppressive, dysfunctional and ugly buildings so we can all feel their pain. This school is responsible for the work of Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Thomas Mayne, Michael Rotundi and Eric Owen Moss.
Another level of this discussion that many of you brought up is the traditional versus contemporary argument. Believe it or not many of the contemporary architects many of you wanted to revile were “Truth and Beauty’ guys like Corbusier, Mies, Wright, Gropius, Phillip Johnson, Alvar Aalto, Oscar Niemeyer, James Stirling as were more contemporary guys like I.M Pei, Cesar Pelli, and Norman Foster. At least these guys were striving for beauty.
Much of the issue I think with contemporary design is that many of Contemporary Design’s Icons were infatuated with the idea of the Machine; after all most of these Icons grew up at the height of the Machine Age when the machines seems to be making the world a better place.
What becomes a problem though is too much of the Machine Aesthetic snuffs out the evidence of creativity and inventiveness that gives design it’s delight factor. In the design for the Salginatobel Bridge by Robert Maillart , pictured above the creativity , inventiveness and beauty of Maillard shines through even though it is a contemporary design. But then again on the other hand, when the City of Brasilia was built in the 50’s – an all contemporary Oscar Niemeyer designed city – even though it has beautiful pieces of architecture, Brazilians refused at first to move there and took a very long time to get used to it because of the relentless inhumanity of it.
Evidence of human creativity I think is what people respond to. That is what delights them. Good Traditional design obviously has the human touch, oppressive Contemporary Design does not.
What makes matters worse are several other factors now at work.:
• Computer Aided Drafting – now used almost exclusively by big Architectural firms favors CAD friendly design that encourages repetition, and simple shapes leading to boring, oppressive design devoid of creativity.
• Todays young adults were never taught history, so they eschew historical design, film and art and prefer modern design – good or bad. Therefore fewer and fewer young Architects are trained in traditional design.
• Today’s planners favor multi-story infill housing that to make the numbers work often must use the cheapest windows and materials in a bare bones modern ugly design.
I find this comment interesting. You would think that with 3-D CAD design that various visual angles could be checked before being constructed. I wished on my 2nd house design that I had 3-D CAD for a roof line issue.
It’s all part of the plan of the Leftists to denigrate anything Western. But isn’t possible to learn traditional design after college graduation? My degree was in Computer Science but was a Radio Systems Engineer for most of my career.
Agreed, but much of the cost is due to government interference, as Thomas Sowell rightly points out in the San Francisco peninsula areas. And if you pay more for better windows, your property taxes go up.
When I was younger, I considered architecture, but was turned off after my much older cousin graduated in Architecture Engineering but became an Urban Planner.
When I build my current home in the middle 80’s I need to significantly modify the plans I purchased from one of those home design books you use to see at the book stores. I ended up building a 3D model from wood sticks and fiberboard to get the new roof lines correct (all of the hips and valleys are hard to envision on drawings) especially when you are “selling the wife” on the final appearance after acquiescing all of the “little” mods she requested.
Vectorman, there are a ton of problems with the 3-D Cad approach.
A. There is an old ( fart like me) draftsman’s saying ” if you didn’t draw it you don’t know it”.
CAD programs often “symbolize” construction details where a standard CAD symbol is used rather than how it really is from a person who actually drew it precisely. Consequently most of the time the size and shape of the CAD building elements are not precise or accurate. So the construction details or sections or whatever when one puts them all together are often not correct, but give the illusion that they are. Elements may be seemingly coming together on the CAD program when in real life they are often painfully and expensively off in ways that are not discovered until construction.
Moreover, since CAD jockeys generally use the CAD system’s way of filling in the blanks, an illusion given to the CAD user that a design is substantially complete and suitable for building, when in fact there are gaping holes in the design that need to be addressed. The old fashioned way of looking at working drawings and design as well is that it is a process of discovery. One needs to visualize how all the building elements come together – CAD gives the impression this visualization process is not necessary. Unless one draws accurately at a large scale, potential problems and or opportunities do not present themselves. In both production and design, the process of doing details ( in production) and sketches in design helps one think and question about what is really happening in the design. CAD takes the thinking and questioning out of both design and production generally with problematic results.
When I was a young man fresh out of Graduate School, due to a deep construction recession ( the mid 70’s) I had to bang on the doors of more than 60 architects to get a job. One of the architects I went to see was an elderly man named Wallace Neff. He was working alone in an dingy, old dilapidated but two story office on Franklin Avenue in Hollywood. At the time, Neff was working on a Spanish Revival House ( No one did that then-few could even build them) and had drawn a full scale drawing of a two story ornate wood Spanish balcony and hung it from the two story plus ceiling of his office. Wallace Neff had been a major Hollywood architect of the twenties and thirties with many a celebrity client, but by the 70’s he was a forgotten old man. Yet, today he is celebrated again and a Wallace Neff House can fetch a pretty penny.
Today, often when I work on historically oriented design, I too have to draw details at full scale for the construction workers to build them. There really is no other way. Don’t tell me about CAD unless it is a very exotic and expensive program that few can use.
I like the top one better, but I know I’m out of step with most of Ricochet on architectural tastes. My wife and talk about buying a house some day. She’d like one that looks like it’s at least a century old, I’d prefer one that looks like it was built for a Star Trek movie.
Remember: Happy Wife, Happy Life!
The style is more important to her than it is to me, so I’m very willing to compromise.
Star Trek looking architecture? Back in the late 1999 to 2001, I was spending an inordinate amount of my business travel at the TRW plant in Space Park. I use to eat lunch at the cafeteria just inside the terrace patio that these shots were film for the original trek stuff.
The food still tasted like the stuff from the 20th century.
And no, I never saw a single character from any of the Trek series at “Space Park”. I did however get to see Jame Doohan @ GSFC on his lecture entitled “Engineer of the Future talking back to the Engineers of the Present”.
I think he felt we were not moving fast enough for his timeline….. Damn Physics keeps getting in the way.