Why did NCARB’s fees increase?

Well, that depends on who you ask. NCARB has stated that the development of new test content by the recent ARE cheating scandal and the digitizing of NCARB member’s records is the cause for the recent fee increases. Although there may have been an upfront cost for digitizing NCARB records, this will no doubt have a long term cost savings for the organization. The real reason that NCARB is increasing fees across the board is quite simple, they are unable to control costs.

Case #1: A New LEED Silver Certified Office Space

In December 2008, NCARB published the following article on their website: NCARB’s New Office Earns LEED-Silver Certification. PDF version. For those architects whom are not familiar with tenant agreements for commercial office spaces, it is common practice for the leasor to grant the lessee a predetermined amount of funds for certain tenant improvements. I must note that the following is purely speculative and opinion based on my own personal experience, but it is not typical that this predetermined amount is enough for a complete office remodel, certainly not enough for them to hire Gensler as the design architect, and most certainly not enough to fund the construction of a LEED Silver Certified Office Space located at the center of Washington D.C.

Case #2: My Site Statistics

NCARB could save some money by spending more time working, and less time surfing my site. If you run a website, you should know who is accessing your site. I personally use a free service called Stat Tracker. NCARB has been spying on my site since its inception, what they do not know is that I have also spying on them. Stat Tracker saves a limited amount of data in its free form, so I am only able to obtain statistics for the last thirty days. Below is a summary of the last 30 days for computers accessing my site from NCARB:

Over the last thirty days, there have been thirty visits to my site from computers hosted by Ncarb, this most recent visit lasted for 1 minute and 7 seconds. It is important to note that that is the time spent on the first page. There is no way for the script to know how much time was spent reading the article, because the script requires a page reload to create an end time stamp. I have seen visits where NCARB has spent hours on my site. Common! You could at least make a donation to my site, advertise on my site, or give me a break on my NCARB fees, if you are going to spend that much time on my site. Also, the no referring link, usually means that someone is accessing my site from their favorites, at least they like my site.

One last thing, the script can determine what operating system a person is using when they access my site. Apparently, NCARB is not hurting too badly for money, because they are using Mac OSX. A good way to cut cost would be to buy a bunch of cheap Dell computers like the architects that you regulate.

Case #3: FORM 990

“IRS Form 990 is an annual document used by approximately one-third of all public charities to report information about their finances and operations to the federal government. GuideStar uses data from Form 990 to populate its database with financial information about nonprofit organizations. Posting Form 990 images on the GuideStar Web site is an ongoing process.”

After receiving the most recent e-Connection from NCARB I decided to do some research, and obtained copies of the Form 990s, which are a part of the public record and Open to Public Inspection. Due to an agreement with GuideStar, I cannot post the documentation directly, but only excerpts from the documents. You can create an account with GuideStar for free, and obtain direct access to the Form 990s. NCARB’s Employer Identification Number is 73-0684309, this may help you in your search.

There are some interesting statistics found in these documents which I have listed below, if you find any other statistics in these documents that you feel are shocking, or worth mentioning, please comment below or email me directly and I will add to the list below:

Expenditures:

• In 2008 NCARB lost $1,051,424 in investment securities!
• NCARB spent $46,288 on subscriptions and dues!
• NCARB’s old office space was $765,982 a year, their NEW office is $1,305,799, that is almost half a million dollars more a year!

Salaries:

• NCARB has 10 employees that make salaries ranging from $137,822 to $319,435!
• NCARB employee Gordon Mills works 21 hours a week for a whopping $153,294!
• NCARB employee Douglas K Engebretson works 12 hours a week for a whopping $81,972!
• In 2004 the NCARB board and senior staff were reimbursed for nearly $57,000 in expenses, by 2006 this number had nearly doubled!
• NCARB expenditures doubled again in 2007 to a whopping $343,000!
• In 2008 NCARB had $2,832,306 in travel expenses! This number does not include the $912,901 in conferences, conventions and meetings!
• NCARB employee H Carleton Godsey and Peter Rasmussen made $13,199 and $11,947 for working NO HOURS!

Bonuses:

• NCARB employee Lenore Lucey received a $25,000 bonus in 2008!
• NCARB employee Mary S Desousa received a $17,500 bonus in 2008!
• NCARB employee Stephen Nutt received a $17,500 bonus in 2008!

Raises:

• In 2004-2005 NCARB employee Lenore Lucie’s salary and deferred compensation was $233,000.   In 2007-2008 it was $313,000.   That’s up 34% in four years.
• In 2004-2005 NCARB employee Mary de Sousa’s salary and deferred compensation was $118,00.   In 2007-2008 it was $207,000.   That’s up 75% in four years.
• NCARB employee Stephen Nut was hired at $159,000 in 2006-2007.  In 2007-2008 he made $201,000.  That’s a 26% raise last year. 

So, you might be thinking, is NCARB Hiring?

Closing:

NCARB is one of my favorite topics to write about, in fact it is one of the favorite topics of any young architect to talk about, because it represents a necessary evil. It is the Big Brother of architecture, the proverbial machine of The Man. One of the things that I love about architects is our rebellious nature, we all believe that the world can be made better. We secretly conspire and dream up ways to revolt against the system. That is the reason I run this site, and that is the reason that I am writing this article. The system is broken and corrupt, and it needs fixed.

The beautiful thing about living in a capitalist market is that you cast your vote with your dollar. If you have your license do not renew your NCARB membership. I am NOT renewing my NCARB membership this year, and I hope that every person that reads this article follows suit. Special thanks to areFAQ.blog, which I found during my research after Googling NCARB’s EIN. I have republished some of the stats originally published on his blog in addition to the latest Form 990 available for public download.

Related Photos

Download: LEED AP 3.0 Vector Logo Set

(ai file format 61kb)

Download: USGBC Logo Set

(ai file format 910kb)

Download: USGBC Member Logo

(ai file format 898kb)

Download: GBCI Logo Set

(ai file format 868kb)

Related Photos

Why I Did NOT Enter This Competition:

The main reason that I did not enter this competition is that it is the worst kind of competition that exists, an ideas competition. It is also a competition that exploits those who enter it, profiting from their naivety. The registration fee for AIA members is $100.00 and 150.00 for nonmembers! This is a large sum of money for an ‘ideas competition’ that targets young professionals. The winning design will not be built, and there is no cash prize awarded to the winner! It was obvious upon reading the competition brief that the AIA was using this competition as a cash cow. Even if the money went to the jurors to pay for flights and their time, why would you enter a competition where there is nothing to gain except for limited exposure at the AIA convention? I have seen how these types of competitions play out, you are better off designing something great, and publishing it on your own blog.

No,  I am not against design competitions, I enter 1-2 design competitions a year, and win or place in half of those. I am a prodigious proponent of design competitions, and I believe that they are a great way to both gain integrity in the profession and improve your design portfolio. Design competitions also expose entrants to different building types and sites that they might not otherwise have the opportunity to design. Design competitions require an investment of time and resources that few are willing to commit, because of this fact I attentively select the competitions that I enter, in order to give myself the best chance of winning. After reviewing the competition brief posted on the AIA website, I thought that this competition had waste of time written all over it.

Aside from the the above mentioned facts, the competition had no focus. Within their own competition brief it is unclear whether it is an ideas or sketch competition. Even the title of the competition “Temporary/Permanent Relief Housing” is vague and sends up red flags. Not because of the obvious contradiction in terms temporary and permanent, but because competitions that have a lack of limits in its program, such as this one, are difficult to win. The competition brief also states that the entrant should look at how the units can be used to develop a community. That should be another red flag, so this is both a housing competition and urban planning exercise? I always avoid competitions like this, because they do not have a defined program or site, and you never know what requirements the judges will favor. Although this exist to some extent in every competition, competitions with a loose framework are especially vulnerable to jury interpretation. An example of such loose limits is in the site of the competition, although the competition says that the site is the Astrodome, the program also permits entrants to use the adjacent parking lot, which in effect creates a site with zero constraints. There must be enough limits imposed by the competition program to allow the entries to be fairly judged against one another. Rather than being judged on design, entrants are often judged on the sensationalism of their ideas rather than design skills and feasibility.

The vague site as noted in the competition brief:

While successful site adaptability is a key goal and criterion for this Competition, the specific site to demonstrate the solution consists of approximately 200 acres. It includes the Astrodome and the surrounding parking lots. Entrants may include modifications to the structure of the Astrodome in their proposal, may allow the Astrodome to remain untouched and focus solely on the surface parking areas, or may have some combination of the two. Individual entries may focus their solutions on the provision of either temporary or permanent housing. Entrants are encouraged to address issues of uncertainty associated with either types of housing and with temporary solutions that become permanent.

It is important to note that none of the winning solutions addressed the Astrodome in their design. This is unfortunate, because this is the one feature of the competition that made it unique. Rather than define a site, they simply should have stated: this is a competition for temporary relief housing, the site is irrelevant, but the competition brief urges entrants to think about the development as a whole, which is something that none of the winners did. In fact, two of the three winners failed to address major concerns of the design problem:

As such, the design solution should embrace and provide the opportunity for access to those functions and services this community will require: food, medical, social, financial, etc. The design should consider how this is a “livable community,” where the amenities essential to the daily life of the residents are integrated in the design. Successful solutions will demonstrate broad applicability and responsiveness to the widest possible range of various site and climatic conditions.

Why does this matter? It matters to the architects and interns that spent hundreds of hours, only to be taken advantage of, and worse, they had to pay for it.

Now for the Winners:

I do not want to turn this article into an attack on the winning designs and designers, because that is not the point of this article.  I am not going to critique these projects in terms of design quality, although there are a couple items that I may not be able to resist critiquing. I will try to critique the projects in terms of the competition brief and how they respond, or rather in nearly every case, how they have not responded to the competition brief.

I would like to give credit to the winners, but unfortunately I cannot, because the designer’s names were not issued in the media brief that I received with the competition winner’s images. So much for publicity being your reward. If any of the winners happen to see their projects, please contact me so that I can give you credit for your designs.

Woven Shelter:

Aside from looking like a web of . . . you know what, this is an interesting project. The designer states that this is the next evolution of the modern tent, but I see this more as the next evolution of the mud hut, or the sand bag. This technique would actually be an amazing design if the competition were to redesign the sandbag. The woven capabilities allows the sandbags to structural act as one, rather than a series of stacked bags. This has promise in that application.

Unfortunately this design is a pipe dream when it comes to making architecture out of it. The designer claims that the structures can be quickly built, and is the next evolution of the traditional tent. I can imagine it now: the National Guard dropping this off at the Astrodome, telling a bunch of angry Americans to fill this up with trash and build a house. The angry mob screams I’d rather live in the Astrodome than a mud hut. If you thought Kanye West was pissed about Katrina, could you imagine what he would have done if George Bush told them to make a house out of trash? Speculate for yourself, because if I typed it, this blog would end up on the Secrete Service watch list. Most Americans are not capable of erecting a tent let alone this complex assembly. How long is it going to take to build this structure? Days! By the time you build 500 of these, the disaster will be over, and you’ll have 500 piles of trash stinking up the city.  Unfortunately this design simply does not work when applied to a house, and does not allow for long-term user occupancy despite the designer’s claims. Do you know what these structures would smell like after a few days?

The project also fails to address other major requirements of the competition. The site is a parking lot, where is the dirt? If it is a flood, there is no dirt, then what? What kind of community does this create? How are services such as water, food, healthcare, security and infrastructure dealt with? The brief states that the primary goal is to “consider how this is a livable community.” This project neglects this requirement. The construction technique proposed by this talented designer is unique, but should not the winner of this competition based on its brief.

The Community Unit:

This design comes the closest to addressing all of the issues in the design brief. The designer alludes to how these units could be assembled to form a community. The designer gives some idea of how other systems and services are integrated into these communities. What the entry does not address is how the Astrodome is incorporated into the development. If the site could be anywhere in the world, then just say that the site is anywhere in the world, and forget the Astrodome. If this is a competition focused on the Astrodome, then make all of the entries respond to the requirement. Despite the visual strength of this entry, it is the worst spatially, and provides little room for living spaces. The styling of the form is the key feature that distinguished this entry from others that I saw that better responded to the competition brief. Unfortunately the curving surfaces are not functional, and add nothing of value to the project, pure style points.

FREE:

FREE, is just that, free housing. The design, however falls short in many of the ways that the Woven Shelter entry falls short in regards to responding to the program. It does not specifically address the site, it does not address how the design creates a sense of community, nor does the designer show how other services and functions are incorporated into the design. The units do include photo-voltaics, which is applicable in Houston, as Texas receives a lot of sun throughout the year. Other than the “green bling” this design does not address any of the other competition requirements.

The Winners in Closing:

Based on the selections of the jury, it is clear that the jury tended towards the solutions that focused on the individual units, rather than solutions that focused on how to create a community after a natural disaster. From the entries that I have seen, the solutions that incorporated the Astrodome looked at solving the problem at an urban planning level, developing infrastructure, generating food, energy and drinking water. The winners for the most part focused on the living units and neglected the urban context. I only state this, because the intentions of the competition are not clear and do not align with the chosen winners. This is unfortunate for those who addressed the problem statement of the competition brief.

Shame, shame, shame…

Lastly, shame on the jury. The AIA and YAF DID do an excellent job of finding competent jurors for this competition: Barton Phelps FAIA, Lawrence Scarpa FAIA (sorry Larry, but you no it is true) and Mehrdad Yazdani AIA Associate, they should never have agreed to sponsor a design competition that exploits architects for free work. Any of you three want to donate a hundred hours to design my house? By the way, I’ll post fliers in my neighborhood that you designed it if you win! Sorry, did I say free, you each need to pay me $100.00 to enter. I thought I would feel better about this situation after writing this article, but I do not. The profession of architecture is slowly dieing in the United States. It is well known that clients exploit firms for free work, it is also well known that architects stab each other in the back by whoring their selves out undercutting other firms to buy projects, but now the AIA and our piers are taking advantage of the competition system to exploit the few young architects in our profession. The United States needs a system similar to the ones in place in Europe that regulates design competitions. It seems that every architecture blog and Columbia graduate is running a design competition. There are large amounts of money earned from these competions, and NONE of it is regulated. The AIA should refund the money to those that entered this ‘ideas’ competition, or offer a cash prize to the winners. Sadly neither of these things will happen and the image of the American architect will continue to fade.

Related Photos

Even before my formal architectural education, I have always had an appreciation for graphic design spanning all mediums (movie posters, websites, baseball cards, books, album covers, etc.). But it seems that high design greeting cards are one of the rarest commodities. Every once in awhile I will find a small stationary store that has a collection of amazing cards, designed with beautiful graphics, and devoid of cheesy sayings. Simple graphics adorned with a ‘Thank You’ or ‘Happy Birthday”. I usually buy them all when I find them. So, it was an exceptional surprise when I saw the architecturally graphic greeting card by Ted Naos of Naos Graphics Inc. I strongly urge you to visit the site of Ted Naos, especially the games section, his portfolio contains a beautiful collection of objects and cards that represent his exceptional talent as a graphic designer.

Image 1:

The profiles of the New York City skyline are contrasted against a crisp blue envelope that creates a strong graphic figure. The detail applied to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is a visually graphic representation of the structure, the technique with which the graphic is composed is suggestive of sketch created by an architect. The graphic contains the minimum delineation required between figure and ground, placing an emphasis on the subject. Another strong move by Naos is to place the Guggenheim Museum at the center of the card vertically, which further emphasizes the museum within the composition.

Image 2:

The design is simple, clean an elegant. The card solves a structural problem neglected by other greeting cards. Naos makes use of two folds, rather than one, which allows the card to remain structurally stable when standing upright. The card when upright has depth, shade and shadow.

Image 3:

The image of the card unfolded reveals the graphic nature of the greeting card, and why this card is so beautiful. It would be interesting to see architectural graphics and diagrams incorporate the techniques used by Naos. The abstraction of context, color and distillation of details are perfectly executed in his design. As a pure graphic it contains the minimum information necessary to convey the building and its context, communicating clearly that this building is different than the rest of the city.

Related Photos

Photo Gallery:

Architectural Context:

When talking about architecture, architects often speak of the success of an architectural design in terms of context. Unfortunately, many architects forget that there is more to a structure’s context than its relationship to adjacent buildings and the site. Herzog & de Meuron understand context to be social, cultural, and architectural. They are even concerned with how their parking garage relates within the experiential context of the ceremony of driving, parking and emerging as a pedestrian onto Lincoln Mall from the automobile. They recognize these various contexts in the design of the 1111 Lincoln Road parking garage, a project with so many complex contextual relationships that they only become clear upon visiting the structure and spending enough time looking and experiencing.

When designing structures within a historic context it is best to either match the historic style of the architecture as close as possible, or to design a structure that is of “the spirit of the times” (zeitgeist). Upon visiting the 1111 Lincoln Road development, it became clear that the design of the parking structure is foreign in style and form to the surrounding collection of 800 structures located in South Beach’s Art Deco Historic District. There is nothing formally contextual about the 1111 Lincoln Road parking structure. It stands by itself, as if it is better than its architectural neighbors. It has an attitude, a demeanor that suggest it does not care what you think of it, because it knows it is better than all of the other buildings that you have ever parked in. Herzog & de Meuron avoid the pitfalls that have plagued other architects, by understanding that architecture has to be sensitive to its context, but does not have to look like it. The 1111 Lincoln Road parking structure contrasts with its architectural context in nearly every way imaginable.

The sharp angles of the concrete structure contrast with the streamlined forms of the expensive parked automobiles and neighboring Art Deco structures. The historic forms of South Beach are solid masses that have been carved away, while the parking structure is a delicate exoskeleton, allowing light and air to penetrate deep into its core. While the neighboring Art Deco structures are concerned with surface, Herzog & de Meuron create a structure that is composed of line and edge. The poured in place concrete forms are left raw and exposed to the elements, in contrast to the brightly painted buildings found on every block.

The parking structure of 1111 Lincoln Road is part of a complex of three buildings: Apart from the existing SunTrust office building there is a two-story building designed by Herzog & de Meuron, with a SunTrust Bank branch on the ground floor and four large condos on the second floor. The two-story building has no visual relationship to the parking garage. The solid white box blends in with the existing context, so as not to weaken the image of the parking garage. The modern SunTrust office building is a poured in place concrete structure, but it is painted white in an effort to differentiate old from new. The parking structure ignores these buildings architecturally, and pulls away from them. The floor plates of the parking garage rarely respond to the floor plates of the existing office building. The stairways that connect the two structures are delicate interventions out of necessity, and recede into the shadows of the two structures. The existing SunTrust office building was upgraded to contain additional retail space at the ground level that matches the retail at the base of the parking structure, but a conscious move was made by the architects to use color and a construction joint to differentiate the portion of the concrete canopy that belong to the old and the new.

Herzog & de Meuron take a stand in the design of their parking structure, clearly delineating new from old, denouncing Miami Moderne in favor of an architecture that is responsive to the social, cultural, and experiential context of our time.

Master Curator:

Visionary developer Robert Wennett, who sees himself more as a master curator than a developer, envisioned 1111 Lincoln Road as a structure that would be a destination for art, commerce and culture, he imagined a building that patrons would experience while driving, shopping, living and being entertained. He visited with ten architecture firms from around the world sharing his vision, but it was not until he met with Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron that he knew he had found his architect.  After commissioning Herzog & de Meuron to design the structure, the three would work intimately on the project for the next five years. Wennett did not stop with commissioning a world renowned architect to design a building, like any distinguished curator, he realized that an exhibition cannot rely on a single work of art. The building includes signage by Wolf-Olins, an iron rods art installation under the stairs on Level 2 by Monika Sosnowska, as well as featuring retail spaces such as a Taschen bookstore, a Y3/Adidas boutique, and a Nespresso outlet, which all function as miniature galleries for commerce. The details of the building, which are the result of the joint technical efforts of Herzog & de Meuron and local architect of record Charles H Benson & Associates, Architects, PA become works of art that even cause non-architects to pause and admire. Wennett allows his exhibition of design and art to spill out into the plaza in front of 1111 Lincoln Road, the design of which is the result of a collaborative effort by Herzog & de Meuron and Raymond Jungles, a Miami based landscape architect, which features interactive public art by New York artist Dan Graham.

Experiential Context:

On entering the parking garage it becomes clear that everything about the structure is designed to enhance the experience of parking. While driving through the structure, every turn captures a different view of the city; every ramp aligns your vehicle toward a seemingly framed piece of the Florida sky. The shape of the structural columns enhances the views of the city, pulling the eyes outward. The connection of the viewer to the city is reinforced by the architecture. After a few moments you will find yourself forgetting to scan for a parking spot, and instead exploring the city, awaiting new views that are revealed while driving through the structure. The structure responds to the city and its context in a way that differs from other structures in the city. It forces drivers to interact with the city in a way that is unique to 1111 Lincoln Road. It is this exploitation of the ceremonial experience of parking that makes it unlike any other parking structure.

After parking your automobile, the structure will urge you to pause and look out at the city. While waiting on the elevator, the sculptural stair tempts you to explore upper and lower levels; it tempts you to explore the city. Typically parking garages are repetitive vertically, featuring a consistent vertical ten foot rhythm. Herzog & de Meuron have the luxury of exploiting the verticality of the parking structure which creates a different experience at each level. It is a garage with a view and light.

Social & Cultural Context:

Herzog & de Meuron have managed to create an architectural form instilled with the spirit of Miami’s South Beach. The automobile is an undeniable symbol of status and wealth in America. The display of one’s prosperity is the whole reason Miami and the Art Deco style exists. Miami during the 1020’s in its boom could be equated to the Dubai of today. What car do you drive? How much money do you make? What designer labels are on your clothes? This is the culture of Miami and these are the things that matter. The Art Deco style in Miami was the result of the wealthy searching for a means for displaying their wealth in the homes they lived in. Herzog & de Meuron understand this, and create a structure which is as much a monument to the automobile as it is a billboard for displaying wealth. The garage is a stage for the celebutantes of South Beach to display their wealth and gain the attention of tourists that visit the mall. The structure is undeniably South Beach.

All Muscle . . . almost

Jacques Herzog describes the 1111 Lincoln Road parking structure as “All muscle without cloth”.  Spending any amount of time in Miami will validate the accuracy of this statement as a description of South Beach and its culture. Skin is an acceptable form of expression in South Beach, but the problem is that the statement by Jacques Herzog is not an entirely accurate description of the structure. From the stylized photos that have been published in various magazines the structure appears to be ALL muscle, but once at the site, 1111 Lincoln Road is revealed to be a body builder in a tutu. The beauty of the parking garage is its structure, which seems to bulge and flex in all the right places, at times responding to structural forces, and at other times responding to other forces such as emphasizing views of the city from within, and even enhancing the movement of the automobile itself.  The muscles are great, but unfortunately the tutu is not. The metaphorical ‘tutu’ of the structure is the retail space at the ground level. The angled columns of the parking garage abruptly stop at the second level of the building. The ground level lacks the sculptural spirit of the rest of the building. The structure would be more convincingly complete if the angular columns were permitted to continue down to the ground, creating retail spaces that engage the structural forms in a similar manner that the restaurants and penthouse units are treated. Instead, the muscular structure sits atop a glass box, and the iconic angular columns have been substituted for conventional circular columns and a continuous storefront system of glass and metal. A disconnect between the structure above and the retail at the ground level is the result of a compromise between the architecture and visibility requirements demanded by the stores leasing the retail space. The structure can be viewed in its purest state when looking at the building from the north, as the angled concrete columns are allowed to continue down the back of the structure down to the ground.

When inside the parking garage, visitors are tempted to explore the garage vertically; they are inveigled by the seductive qualities of the sculptural stair and the framed views of the city. The garage does very little to engage the public at the street level, one would expect that Herzog & de Meuron would have designed the base of the structure to provoke users to explore the parking garage in the same way that they are encouraged to explore the parking garage while in it, but this is not the case. The pedestrian entrance to the garage and the sculptural stair are recessed in the shadows of the building at the ground level, discouraging entry into the structure. The ground level does not possess the same quality of lightness and transparency as the parking garage that sits atop it. This connection between the base of the structure and the parking garage is the one flaw of 1111 Lincoln Road. If the storefront had been broken, and the muscles of the parking garage been allowed to flex into the plaza, the building, plaza, and overall experience would have been better for it, inching that much closer to completely realizing the designer’s concept.

The above article was featured as the cover story in Bauwelt no 21.10 and in the Summer issue of Florida/Caribbean Architect Magazine. I would like to thank Charles H Benson and Robert Wennett for taking the time out of their busy schedules to answer my questions about the project, and for providing their valuable insights into the process involved in producing 1111 Lincoln Road. I would also like to thank Bauwelt for taking a chance on an unknown blogger, and Florida/Caribbean Architect for publishing this article.

Related Photos

Daniel Libeskind created his design for the Ascent from a careful study of the waterfront area in Covington and the multiplicity of views in all directions. View: this was the genesis of the project, the possibility of giving every tenant a unique view of the Ohio River and downtown Cincinnati, of Covington and I-75 to the south, of developing neighbor Newport to the east, of Park Hills and Devou Park to the west. The architect thoroughly studied the entire panorama in order to maximize the visual experience of living in each of the units, from the smallest 900 square foot one-bedroom unit to the thrilling penthouse units at the top. No two views are alike, but all of them are stunning. Every tenant here gets a river view, an egalitarian touch uncommon to high rises. No one stares at a brick wall. The design is holistic; patterns and compositional attributes of the exterior are repeated on the interior, but cleverly and in ways that a lesser architect would quickly drop into boring repetition. The pearl white hue of the concrete panels is matched by the color of the walls in the lobby and by the lush carpet in the penthouse we visited. The modular tile patterns of the concrete and glass panels of the façade are repeated in the tile patterns in the lobby’s walls and floor. The curve of the building is repeated by the shape of the outdoor pool and in the design of the patio and fire pit area. The concrete canopy at the main entrance is cantilevered just as the balconies are. And looking up, one sees the sizes of the balconies are not uniform but changing in a pattern similar to that of the concrete panels on the façade.

Photo Gallery:

Form-wise, the curvilinear building takes its shape from the soaring cables on Roebling’s bridge and from site conditions (a compact square block) in order to create the angled views. A metal frame within supported by concrete columns is enclosed by a curtain wall system (the exterior enclosure wraps completely around the structure of the building, like a curtain), in this case a syncopated rhythm of precast concrete panels and blue glass panels. I have never seen concrete look lighter; the combination of its smooth surface and bright color paired with the glass imparts a feeling of lightness to the whole structure, as if it could take flight. The east and west faces come to a common edge that sweeps to the building’s high point at the top of the curve (over 30 degrees above horizontal), which looks like the prow of a great ship slicing through the air. Just beneath this great arc of concrete and glass lies the Pinnacle, a 7800-square foot, three-story penthouse, the domus maximus, available at $5.4 million. (I’m hoping to put in my bid as soon as I can find a $5 million buyer for my $500 car.)

Resident Steve Frank calls the Ascent “a social building” as tenants enjoy each other’s company for dinner, walks around the neighborhood or special events like the WEBN fireworks. He and his wife are representative of a number of empty-nester tenants who’ve fled the suburbs to live in the city, and to live in a signature building like this with its amenities and aesthetic status makes him “feel like I’m 19 again.” He feels a part of the community, which lesser high-rises can all but eliminate. He mentions the views, the sociability factor (“the unusual, gifted people who live here”) and the comfort factor in living in a modern building with warm, contemporary interiors, which the architect left neutral enough for tenants to customize in their own tastes. The east and west resident elevator banks (two on each side) separate the living units into smaller clusters and eliminate the need for long, institutional corridors. There are no more than three homes in any core lobby. This design move at once imparts a greater sense of privacy and enhances the sociability factor.

The ground floor double-height lobby is criss-crossed with steel strips in the tile floor, which are echoed on the ceiling by crossing strips of recessed lights. This is a signature move of Libeskind’s; force lines that repeat themselves throughout the building, serving in most cases to reinforce the geometric conditions, or forces, at work in the building’s design. At the top of the staircase in the lobby are the public spaces: meeting rooms, a dining room and catering kitchen, a billiard room, a theater/screening room, a children’s playroom, and guest suites. The amenities continue outdoors on the same level to a private patio/gathering area with a custom-designed fire pit and cooking grills. There is also around-the-clock concierge service and limousine service for tenants.

Libeskind sees the Ascent as more than just a modern apartment block; for him the goal was to create a “cultural edifice”, a living member of the river front area that will help define the city and its people. “It has to be symbolic in its own way, and it is. We judge cities not just by their civic buildings. We judge them by: How do people live in those cities? What is the quality of their urban fabric?”

To this point in time there have been precious few residential buildings designed by star architects, usually there is far more prestige and money involved in larger commercial projects. Libeskind’s awareness of the significance of the urban fabric of a city and the way its residents live is an encouraging sign that designers are increasingly aware of humanity as a whole, not just an opinionated few. What if America in the 21^st century can be more than freeways, blacktop, bland office buildings and strip malls? Buildings like the Ascent show that it’s possible. It incorporates the basic elements: it’s of the earth in its integral connection to its site, it reaches for the sky and reflects the sky in its glass envelope, it presides over the water of the Ohio River, and it captures the fire of sunset from the west. It’s a work of art that provides a home for its residents. How I wish I was one of them!

Geoff Simmons is an architect based in Cincinnati, Ohio and a writer for Eastsider Magazine

Related Photos

The campus of Florida Southern College is the closest thing to experiencing a world designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright does not attempt to design acres of Falling Water, there are many signature works that reside on the campus like the Annie Pfeiffer Chapel and the technical beauty of the Polk County Science Building, but there is also a strong supporting cast of background buildings that help Wright to build a campus of Wright without creating an architectural experience that becomes overwhelming. Wright builds tension on the campus between the vertical and the horizon, between the mundane and the divine. Suspense builds as you walk along the unique esplanades. He protects you from the hot Florida sunlight  and then upon entering a structure it appears that the master architect has transformed the light into a collage of colors, beams of light literally bursting at the seams of the building. Florida Southern College should be at the top of any architects list of historic sites to visit, and is just another reason to make an architectural pilgrimage to Florida.

This is the first of a series of articles that will focus on the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright in Florida. Be sure to check back soon as I am building an extensive photo gallery of images for another article that will delve into the details of one of America’s greatest college campuses.

History:

One could argue that the popularity of Frank Lloyd Wright is of course in part due to the fact that he is an exceptionally rare architectural talent. Yet despite his talent, Wright’s popularity in American culture is largely in part to his Hollywood styled biography and eccentric personalty. Unlike other architects, Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect, has no difficulty competing against Frank Lloyd Wright architecture for story time in the history books. The beauty of Wright’s architecture can only be outshone by Wright’s uniquely cinematic life. His career as an architect and his works are made more fascinating by his life history, and this history has him firmly rooted as America’s favorite architect in American popular culture. The history of Florida Southern College is nothing short of the kind of story that one has come to expect when talking about Frank Lloyd Wright.

Dr. Ludd Spivey was the college president of Florida Southern College and after being inspired by Wright’s autobiography he approached Wright with a dream of building a modern American campus. Wright was 67 years old when he first visited Lakeland, Florida, the future site of Florida Southern College. While walking the site, Wright envisioned the buildings:

“. . . rising out of the ground, and into the light, a child of the sun.”

If you had to distill the campus into a single sentence, you could not describe the spirit of the architecture at Florida Southern College in any other way. The buildings feel as if they have always been. The earthiness of the concrete, and the way that the buildings seem to perform some kind of architectural photosynthesis, turning light into emotion and energy, is nothing short of architectural magic.

Construction of the campus would begin in 1939 and Wright  expected the construction of the campus to take only three years, but the United States had just entered World War II limiting labor and raising construction costs. These two factors would cause the construction timeline to spiral out of control. In order to help combat the lack of labor and rising cost of materials, students were admitted into the college upon agreeing to work on the construction of the campus buildings. It would take nearly twenty years to construct the twelve Wright designed structures that reside on the campus today. The original master plan designed by Wright had proposed eighteen structures for the campus, Wright would only live to see twelve of these structures built, after his death, plans for the remaining six buildings were abandoned. Wright died on April 9th, 1959 shortly after the completion of the last building to be completed at Florida Southern College, the Polk County Science Building, which is one of the most unique structures ever designed by Wright.

Annie Pfeiffer Chapel (1941) – $100,000

The Annie Pfeiffer Chapel is without a doubt the architectural centerpiece of the Florida Southern College campus. The chapel is very similar in concept to Unity Temple, which was completed in 1908 and also has undertones of Falling Water which was completed in 1936. It is important to note these two structures to understand the relationship of the buildings at Florida Southern College to the other structures of Wright’s career and to study the evolution of his work. Although the building is the tallest structure on the campus it like the other buildings appears to emerge from the Florida landscape. Make sure you spend plenty of time exploring the interior of this building as it is one of the most beautiful interior spaces on the campus. I can only imagine what it must have been like to experience this building the day it opened.

Esplanades (1941-1958) - $86,000

What is an esplanade? Don’t be embarrassed I had to look it up too. Although I figured that it was obviously some sort of a covered walkway, I found the origin of the term and its meaning interesting. An esplanade is loosely defined in the dictionary as a long open level stretch of ground for walking along, usually next to a river or large body of water. The original meaning of the term referred to the long open level are outside of a fortress or the city walls, which leaves attackers unprotected from the defenses of the city. It is noted on Wikipedia that the terms esplanade and promenade are often incorrectly used interchangeably:

“Esplanade and promenade are sometimes used interchangeably, but that is a mistake. A promenade can be anywhere, and it is exclusively for walking, while an esplanade is for walking but also can include large boulevards or avenues with cars. A Promenade, often abbreviated to ‘(The) Prom’, was an area where people – couples and families especially – would go to walk for a while in order to ‘be seen’ and be considered part of ‘society’.”

Although the campus is near a large lake, the esplanades of Florida Southern College are far from lakeside, and is perhaps a better example of a promenade. The esplanades are yet another example of Wright and his ability to poetically represent a covered walkway as something more. I can just imagine Wright talking about the esplanades that will connect the campus, and describing their organic quality to the donors. Every person listening to Wright speak must have been hanging on his every word, fantasizing about the materiality of the organic esplanades. Even if the covered walkways function more as a promenade than an esplanade, I plan on dropping that five dollar term during my next design presentation to a Florida university.

The esplanades are the signature feature of the Florida Southern College. The columns which support the roof structure appear to grow out of the earth, and there are hundreds of these sculptural columns littered across the campus. At times the esplanade forms a portico, adhering to the facades of other structures as if a vine growing through the campus. At other times the esplanades join together creating intimate spaces that feel like a place rather than a path. Wright embraces the use of the esplanade as the signature element of the campus for many reasons. The esplanades are a poetic way of protecting students, faculty and visitors from the harsh Florida Summer sun. The esplanade also epitomize Wright’s concept of an organic architecture, and there is no finer realization of Wright’s concept of organic architecture anywhere in the world than at Florida Southern College. The shear scale of the site and the number of buildings forced Wright to think about his theory of organic architecture at level of sophistication that is nothing short of impressive. The esplanades stretch for 1.5 miles and connect nearly every structure designed by Wright on the campus. The patina finish of the copper trim of the esplanades reaffirms the connection of the horizontal to the landscape and the horizon.

Carter, Walbridge, & Hawkins Seminar Building (1941)- $80,000

The Carter, Walbridge, & Hawkins Seminar Buildings are Frank Lloyd Wright’s best attempt at creating a background building. The building seems so simple at first glance that you may dismiss it as not worthy of inspection, but upon closer investigation, the detailing of the custom concrete block and inlaid colored pieces of L-shaped glass is a truly remarkable feat of rare American craftsmanship. The offices glow in colored sunlight on the interior. There are times on the campus when the esplanade and the buildings on the campus appear to blend together in a way that reaffirms Wright’s concept of organic architecture. At the three seminar buildings the esplanade becomes the primary facade of the building, and the Wrightian columns create a perverted portico that pulls the landscape into the building while pulling your eyes out to the landscape when walking underneath the seductive esplanades. Take note of the normal sized man under the low roof eaves in the lower left corner of the above picture. Wright was always concerned with the landscape and creating buildings that respond to the horizon. In an attempt to express this relationship his ceilings often become dangerously low at times.

Thad Buckner Building (1945) - $120,000

Formerly the E.T. Roux Library, the structure was renamed the Thad Buckner Building in 1968. All of the structures on the campus have a unique character about them. The Annie Pfeiffer Chapel is the tallest and most extravagant structure, The Polk County Science Building is the mechanical beauty, and the Thad Buckner Building’s uniquely circular form causes it to stand out in contrast to the rectilinear forms of the other buildings on the campus. The circular form houses the reading room, which has since been converted into the Frank Lloyd Wright Visitor Center and Esplanade Gift Shop. The library stacks were housed in the rectangular form that is conjoined to the circular form. At times the structure appears as if it is two different buildings that have been combined into one. The building is closed on weekends, so be sure to visit the campus on a weekday so that you can get inside this building. Even though it appears that the structure is without windows and has a modest presence, interior photos depict the reading room as a large expansive space, full of light, and classic Frank Lloyd Wright forms.

Water Dome (1948) - $15,000

The Water Dome may seem like a silly concept, but visit Florida on a hot day in August and you might change your mind. The Water Dome is the center of the Frank Lloyd Wright designed campus, and is an urban event that is both fun and refreshing. The Water Dome operates at certain times of the day, and changes the social environment of the plaza when it is running. Everyone stops what they are doing to admire the dome of water.  I can imagine that in 1948 this would have been quite a spectacle on the campus. Wright’s Water Dome forms a perfect 160 foot circle, with water propelled 45 feet into the air creating a dome of water, when viewed at the right time of day at the right time of year a full rainbow can bee seen encapsulated by the Water Dome.

Emile E. Watson-Benjamin Fine Adminstration Buildings (1941) - $200,000

The Emile E. Watson-Benjamin Fine Administration Buildings are a cluster of small buildings that are grouped together by the esplanades. The intimate courtyards and spaces between the structures are similar in spirit to the small parks that you  might find hidden away in a quaint European city. Like all of the Frank Lloyd Wright structures on the campus, the administration buildings have their own unique character. They are both monumental and intimate all at the same time. The interiors of these buildings are in remarkable condition and remain relatively unmodified. I suggest taking the detailed campus tour just to gain access to this building. The construction of these buildings were personally supervised by Frank Lloyd Wright and this is evident in the resoluteness with which the complex forms and details are resolved.

Lucius Pond Ordway Building (1952) - $52,200

The Lucius Pond Ordway Building has undeniable similarities to Taliesen West and despite the structure’s simplicity is another excellent piece of architecture at Florida Southern College. The classrooms are tall and full of natural light. The height of the spaces helps to manage the Florida heat, and the diagonal rooftop structures that appears to be metal is actually a translucent material that is used to supply the classrooms with clerestory lighting. The structure has a central courtyard that the classrooms line, this allows every space to have access to sunlight.

William H. Danforth Chapel (1955) - $50,000

Unfortunately I was unable to view the interior of this chapel when visiting the campus, as the Danforth Chapel, like most of the structures was locked up on the weekends. The William H. Danforth Chapel is the only Wright design project at Florida Southern College that made use of leaded glass and Florida red cypress on the exterior. The Danforth Chapel still contains the original pews and cushions designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Although the Danforth still maintains the character of the campus it becomes obvious that Wright is attempting to evolve the language he has developed for the campus with the design of each new project, and like each building before this, the Danforth has its own set of unique characteristics that distinguishes it from the other buildings on the campus.

Polk County Science Building (1958) - $1,000,000

The Polk County Science Building is by far my favorite structure on the campus, because it is a rare example of Wright playing with the formal language that he had created for the Florida Southern College campus, and combining it with a new high-tech Frank Lloyd Wright that we have not yet seen before. This is clearly a transitional piece, and represents a series of first for Wright. It is both the first planetarium Wright designed and constructed, and it contains the first use of aluminum for aesthetic purposes by Wright. This is one of Wright’s last buildings to be designed and completed while alive. One has to wonder, if Wright were to continue developing this language, would have usurped Norman Foster and Richard Rogers discovery of a high-tech modern architecture. We can only wonder what Wright would have done next.

It should be noted that the tour guide on a recent visit noted that the mechanical systems that sit atop the Polk County Science Building were added after the building was completed, but I have yet to find any information on this since the buildings and site are not well documented.

Organic Architecture, a common misnomer:
Organic architecture is architecture that is curvy or an imitation of nature, wrong! This description may be appropriate when discussing architecture outside of the context of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, but one of the things that disgusts  me is when architects, especially architects from the era of Wright, talk of Wright’s work being organic as in the before mentioned way. Organic architecture is a process, it is a way of thinking, and it is something that is devoid of style. Although there are certain reoccurring principles that occur in Wright’s work, he never allowed style to interfere with his philosophy of organic architecture. For Wright organic architecture is drawn from nature in the sense that everything in nature is in harmony form and function are combined to create a natural ornament. In architecture, Wright did not believe that form follows function, but that form and function are one. This combination of form and function and the philosophy of organic architecture is what makes Wright’s work so unique. He is able to combine form and function into a system of architectural ornamentation that is consistent at every scale. If you are interested in learning more about Wright’s philosophy of organic architecture then I suggest that you read A Testament / Frank Lloyd Wright. A Testament is written by Frank Lloyd Wright and outlines his philosophy on architecture explicitly in this text, which was written by him and published two years before his death.

“This type of architecture can’t mean much to you until you have had a good look at yourself. This architecture represents the laws of harmony and rhythm. It’s organic architecture and we have seen little of it so far. It’s like a little green shoot growing in a concrete pavement.” – Frank Lloyd Wright

Visiting Florida Southern College:

Florida Southern College is in Lakeland, Florida, approximately 40 minutes southwest of Orlando, Florida. I suggest spending a full day on the campus if you really want to soak in the details of each and every building. The campus is very walkable, and there is a Robert A.M. Stern building that was nearing completion upon writing this article. Although the structure falls short in comparison to the buildings designed by Wright, since it is on the campus, you might as well visit it. The town, students and faculty are very proud of the fact that their campus was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, and are accustomed to architects snooping around their campus, if you are in Florida, then you must visit this site. There are tours available during the week that will allow you into some of the areas that I was unable to gain access to during my weekend visit. Tours are limited and available on certain days only, so be sure to check the website below. I strongly recommend visiting the campus during the week, rather than the weekend like I did. Before you visit the campus, be sure to visit their website “Child of the Sun” Visitor Center. The site and this article will serve as a good primer before your visit. The campus can be overwhelming and you may miss something if not properly briefed, so be sure to stop at the “Child of the Sun” Visitor Center before getting lost in the largest collection of buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Related Photos

Today, architects are trading in their architectural styles for an architecture of fashion, one which parallels the seasonal trends and fads of the fashion industry itself. The change from an architecture of style to one of fashion could be a result of the fact that information is exchanged at a rapid pace due to the worldwide acceptance of the internet. This new form of rapid communication and publication has created a situation that renders a design obsolete to the current discourse by the time a building is completely constructed, because the renderings were published ten years earlier on a blog somewhere on the web. What if historians and critics are examining these architectural styles incorrectly? The truth may be that perhaps historians have attempted to identify these movements prior to allowing the context of history to fully unfold, and lack the hindsight required to reflect upon the recent past with an understanding of these movements in relation to larger social and cultural events. To clearly state, sometimes effects in history are critiqued without fully understanding their cause. Architectural critics and historians have struggled to make sense of the apparent infinite styles and movements within contemporary architecture. Until recently it has been difficult to find a common thread linking the aesthetic differences between the many movements of the late 20th century and early 21st. Although the aesthetics of the numerous architectural styles that have emerged since the dot-com boom vary, the one consistent trait that all of these structures share is a recklessness for the apparent limits of architecture, and an increasing emphasis on imageability and form. Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne,  Asymptote and European power firms like UN Studio have benefited from an unprecedented growth of wealth at the scale of the entire world. The same technology that spurred this growth in wealth has also given these and other architects the tools necessary to design and build nearly anything imaginable. Although this condition in recent history is unprecedented in scale, it is not without precedent. These architects are master of ya-ya, and the ya-ya movement is coming to a close, but what will come after this movement, is already here.

Historical Precedence:

The fascination with all things cool by architects of the era of ya-ya is similar to a movement that occurred in architecture prior to another American financial disaster, the Great Depression. Prior to the Great Depression the architectural profession was fragmented in terms of style, it seemed that there was no singular movement in architecture. The aesthetic styles of architecture in the 19th century and early 20th century ranged from Greek Revival to Baroque Revival, to Egyptian Revival, to just about any other historical style you can imagine, however the spirit of the period could be traced back to a singular driving force. The impetus behind the revival of the many styles from the past was the desire of Americans to display their excessive amounts of wealth in reference to the styles associated with the wealthy nations of history. Similar to our recent past, the Great Depression was preempted by the ‘Roaring Twenties.’ The great amounts of wealth generated during the 1920′s was the result of Main Street having easy access to Wall Street (specifically the ability to buy stocks with credit), in conjunction with the fact that America was benefiting from the growth caused by the industrial revolution that takes place when a youthful capitalistic country begins its rise, similar to the growth that we are seeing today in modern China. The overriding theme of the period prior to the Great Depression was not one of ‘style’ but a period of Revivalism in which architects and Americans used historical precedents as a means of displaying their wealth. It was not an aesthetic movement, but a spirit of the times. The chief difference between Revivalism and ya-ya is the availability of technology. This availability of technology has shifted the importance society places on architecture and its design. During the period of Revivalism, people were concerned with extravagance in decoration, and today ya-ya is concerned with extravagance in form and image.

It is important to note that transitions in history are generally long and drawn out. History is rarely clear and succinct like the game changing plays in a football game, and like a football game it is difficult to discern the full ramifications of any one event until the game is over. The observations in this article are nothing more than conjectures based on my observations of the current state of architecture compared to past trends in history. Enough time has passed since the Great Depression to fully understand the cultural and social context of the architectural movements that occurred at that point in time in history, and we can finally discuss this condition with some degree of resoluteness. While researching for this article and examining the beginnings of the International Style (a term coined by Alfred Barr, which I prefer over Modern Architecture) it becomes evident that there is a significant overlap between the peak of Revivalism in America and the beginning of the International Style. In fact, many of the modern masterpieces, which are revered by many architects today, were completed prior to the Great Depression. The full embrace of the International Style by the mainstream architectural profession did not occur until the Great Depression came to a close.

In terms of architectural styles it seems that the intellectual leaders of the architectural professions are constantly rivaling the styles of the past, or the master architects that came before them. Modernism discounted Revivalism, Post-Modernism was the antithesis to Modernism, yet while there are movements against movements within the profession of architecture, there are larger socio-economic movements taking place at a much larger scale. The experiment of capitalism in America has been in progress for over two-hundred years and it seems that the cyclical nature of the markets translates into larger cycles in time, socially. There are movements within American culture that place an emphasis on wealth, status, and fame when times are good and the markets are growing. It also appears that after an economic disaster, society rejects the previous social arrogance to display ones wealth and the focus again shifts back to one of value and function. As resources become scarce and as the world becomes ever smaller due to an increase in technology and the global population, people will demand an architecture of Great Value.

The Great Depression marks a point in time in the history of American culture where wealth and style were overcome by function and value. In terms of architecture it marked a transition in which American Revivalism gave way to the International Style. Today we can infer that a similar change is taking place in American culture and in architecture. Again the display of wealth is giving way to function, and in terms of architecture, the period of ya-ya must succeed to an architecture of Great Value. Unlike before this transition is taking place at a rapid rate, and on a global scale.

a period of Ya-Ya:

The period of ya-ya is highlighted with the acceptance of the internet and the birth of the first global economy. The wealth generated by the dot-com boom and computer revolution fueled fifteen years of architectural extravagance, experimentation, and the destruction of limits that many thought could never be broken, see Burj Khalifa in Dubai. A side note for those of you that would like to know what the name given to the tallest building in the world stand for, burj means “tower”, and Khalifa Bin Zayed is the name of the UAE President, but forget the burj for now. The city of Dubai is just one of many examples of such unprecedented limits being broken. Culture and the values of society changed during this period of growth, and displaying one’s wealth became acceptable again, and thus the architecture of the pre-Great Recession responded appropriately. Architecture was cool for the sake of being cool.  Architects everywhere were attempting to build the tallest and coolest buildings in the world. Don’t believe me? Try and find a design posted on DeZeen that focuses on developing a rigorous formal language like Louis I. Kahn, Richard Meier or Michael Graves. Being cool was so important during the era of ya-ya that you could find a career in a new profession focused on cool hunting.

The primary design driver that has made the period of ya-ya so damaging to the profession of architecture is that the architectural one-liner was back and in a big way. This is damaging, because young students studying architecture in universities focus on developing clever solutions to architectural problems rather than learning a critical design process that they can use and develop as they grow as an architect. It seems like every week the blogs are flooded with dozens of cool and clever buildings that feature a new architectural one-liner that has not been built before, or even worse, one that has. The one-liner serves a purpose and throughout time there have been many one-liner works of architecture that played an important role in bringing architecture to the mainstream, for instance a series of BEST Products stores were completed by a young firm called SITE (see figure 1.1) in the early 70′s that changed the way many consumers thought about the role of architecture in strip mall design, and the effects of their work can be seen in Las Vegas and even today in Chicago. Although many critics and architects have grouped their works under the title of Post Modernism, I believe that this is an incorrect description of their work. Their work could be seen as the earliest movers in the spirit of ya-ya. Ya-ya is not all about one-liners, although the one-liner is the preferred design tool of the ya-ya designer. I will elaborate after the below photos more upon the ya-ya movement.

Figure 1.1: The Indeterminate Facade Building in Houston Texas is one of a series of  nine  stores designed by SITE for the now deceased BEST stores. It is one of the earliest examples of the architectural one-liner, it brought architecture to the mainstream. The ‘big box’ would never be the same as SITE continued to craft clever one-liners that questioned the new typology for nearly a decade. These BEST products stores by SITE and other architects are the earliest examples of ya-ya. In the future I will examine the BEST product stores and their importance not just those designed by SITE, but proposals from a series of significant architects in the 1970′s and 1980′s.

Figure 1.2: Aqua Tower designed by Studio Gang Architects is a newly constructed one-liner and a may serve as a symbol to the end of the one-liner, but only the passage of time will allow us to make such an inference. Although nearly forty years separates the structures designed by SITE and the recently completed Aqua Tower, one cannot help but to sense a commonality it their spirit, the one-liner. These clever solutions are capable of creating unique and memorable architecture, but they lack the rigor in form and function that modern architects obsessed over.

Perhaps the period of ya-ya was a response to the intellectual rigor that became the driving forces behind movements such as the International Style and Post-Modernism. Although the extravagant structures built during the period of ya-ya may have been constructed due to unprecedented global wealth, ya-ya also exemplifies another trend within our new global society. The internet is partly responsible for the changes we are seeing in society, but the information revolution is the key driving force behind the ya-ya movement. The information age has also birthed a new generation of architects, designers, and consumers: Generation Y. This new generation must be constantly stimulated with information. They don’t have time to listen to a whole album, watch an entire movie, or experience architecture. They listen to singles, watch movie trailers and do not want to bother with architecture unless it can be spoon fed to them in the form of an architectural one-liner. Architecture like information, music, fashion and viral videos, must constantly be changing, new, inventive, but most importantly stimulate the brain and body rapidly. Generation Y wants information and they want it fast, they want instant gratification. The image and icons of architecture are evolving at a pace which is faster than architecture can sustain. Even fast-tracked design/build projects are giving way to a new hyper design/build process in which construction begins concurrent with the design process. The distillation of the architectural construction and design process is in fact the major cause of the rapid growth in architectural one-liners. The architectural one-liners are also the result of Generation Y designers whom are not capable of developing architectural concepts in the same meaningful way that Louis Kahn was able to elaborate upon a simple concept like ‘bringing the book from darkness to light’ in his design for Exeter Library, which is unquestionable a masterwork of architecture. They are concerned with image, because that is what they know. Once the image is created they cannot be bothered with developing it, and move on to the next image in the same ADD manner that they consume information on the internet.

This period of ya-ya in architectural history will be remembered not just for its cool architecture, but also as a period in which architects became star-chitects, as critics of the profession attempt to thrust these architectural stars into the forefront, in hopes that they gain the same celebrity status as their Hollywood counterparts. But why identify this period in time as the period of ya-ya? The term yaya according to the French is an expression of arrogance, which best describes the cool buildings and one-liners of this period. The English dictionary defines yah, a homophone  of ya, as ‘used to express derision, defiance, or disgust.’ In the context of this article, the period of ya-ya is an architectural movement which acts to defy the rigor of the modern and post modern movements in architecture. To claim that the period of ya-ya in architecture lacks rigor completely, would be a naive and gross misunderstatement. The rigor of the ya-ya s is one of the one-liner, whimsy, image, and figure, not function and rational. Ya-ya architecture is arrogant and bold. If the one-liner is the chief tool of a ya-ya designer, a great ya-ya designer is a starchitect, and their celebrity leader is Frank Gehry. Gehry’s architecture is more than a one-liner or a simple figure as in the work of SITE and the figure of the Aqua Tower (see figure 1.2 & 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Experience Music Project in Seattle Washington is a ya-ya masterpiece designed by celebrity starchitect Frank Gehry. The forms sculpted by Frank Gehry lack function, their purpose is to create a distinct image, a memorable figure. It is an example of a ya-ya masterpiece and is arrogant in spirit.

The period of ya-ya in architecture can be classified as the period of time between the dot-com boom and the Great Recession. If we begin to classify architecture during the period specified above as a response to the economic conditions of our time, rather than specific stylistic trends, then we have to ask ourselves one more question, what next?

an architecture of Great Value:

History has shown that there are certain trends and cycles that occur in economics, society, and even in architecture. There are precedents for our current economic condition, but those precedents lack the scale of a global economic collapse. The historic event that most closely resembles that of the Great Recession is its predecessor the Great Depression, which consumed the 1930s. As stated earlier, the world changed during the Great Depression. Revivalism and its concern for decoration and wealth was abandoned in favor of an International Style that focused on function and its expression. I believe that a similar trend will emerge after the Great Recession. Decoration will be forgotten and function will again rule, but this time architecture must respond in a way that it has not had to in the past. The next movement in architecture must be not be only concerned with function alone, architects will be pushed to provide an architecture of Great Value.

The next significant style to emerge after the Great Recession will be that will deliver Great Value.

First, what is Great Value? Great Value is the response to social and environmental demands of today’s consumers. The “green” movement is one force that has architects examining value. The 21st century more so than any other century is concerned with creating an architecture that is sensitive to the fact that the resources on the Earth are limited, and that we should maximize their use in a manor that yields the greatest value. Another movement that is fueling the need for an architecture of Great Value is the demand from consumers on manufacturers to produce goods that are not only inexpensive but offer value. Greatest value means that architects have to begin to understand their architectural tactics in terms of highest and best use, and not just in terms of dollars. This means that function, sustainability, and social factors must be weighed against monetary considerations.

The first field that began to understand that American culture was shifting from a ya-ya centered society, to one that was focused on Great Value was graphic design, specifically for product packaging. Manufacturers have slowly realized that cheap is actually a good thing, and that their products should look generic. Regardless of what you think about Walmart the company is run be a group of geniuses that understand how to respond to changes in culture and society better than just about anybody else. For years Walmart’s Great Value brand attempted to mimic the style, design and color of name brand products in an attempt to suggest to buyers that their product is just as good as the name brands, but cheaper. Early this year,Walmart completely revamped their Great Value brand, and the only way to describe it is generic, but clever.

Walmart realized that people were concerned with one thing and one thing only after spending nearly two years in the Great Recession, and that is value (see figure 2.1). The design of the Great Value brand is simple and beautiful. The name of the brand Great Value is placed on the packaging in a way that creates an interesting visual play of words, the word ‘great’ is larger than the word ‘value’, but the fact that the product is great, is not nearly as important as the product’s value. The word ‘value’ is bold and blue and is the first thing that you notice walking down the aisles of Walmart, regardless of the product. Checkout Walmart’s website to see what I mean, the page is loaded with value. The background of every product’s package is white, which stands out compared to other products. The white background serves at making the product appear even more generic. White also reflects more light and makes products appear brighter, thus drawing the consumer’s attention compared to other products. The only additional information on the package is the name of the product, a picture of the product, and nutritional facts, but all of these items are composed in a way that does not even come close to competing with the product’s ‘value’.

Figure 2.1: Great Value product branding by Walmart is an example of how society is moving from one that is based on brands, image, and unique identities to one that is concerned with value. The aisles of Walmart now conjure up images of the experiments drawn up by Superstudio proposing a generic order of gridded whiteness that would take over the world.

What does Great Value mean for architecture? Like I said earlier, architecture is slower to respond to changes in culture than other fields, but right now architecture is experiencing a transitional period in which ya-ya is fading and Great Value Architecture is emerging, and may last much longer in time than the period of ya-ya. In fact the Great Value Architecture movement may last for a very long time.

Great Value Architecture has already emerged as a legitimate style and will continue to emerge in stature and popularity as did the International Style. There are two projects that come to mind when thinking about architecture of the Great Value movement. The New Contemporary Museum of Art in New York City by SANAA, and the Wyly Theatre in Dallas Texas by REX. The New Contemporary Museum of Art (see figure 2.2) is graphic in the same sense as the Great Value packaging for the 250 count toothpicks above. The museum features clean lines, simple orthogonal shapes, and functional surfaces. The building’s ornament is a resultant of its function: allowing diffused light into the gallery so that the works of art are not damaged. The building like the Great Value packaging does not compete with the product or the artwork, it functions for it. The building features the artwork of Swiss artist Ugo Rondinone who’s work proclaims “Hell, Yes!”. It is clear that the artwork is the feature here, and the buildings function must not subside to its form or figure. The lobby is identified by planes of glass that identifies the entry and change of function at the ground floor. The building offers value in that every piece, every gesture serves a function.

The Wyly Theatre is similar in aesthetics to the New Contemporary Museum of Art. The key difference in the design of the structures is that the Wyly Theatre offers its users more value than the SANAA designed museum. The Wyly Theatre is a:

575-seat “multi-form” theater with the ability to transform between proscenium, thrust, arena, traverse, studio, and flat floor configurations with only a small crew in a few hours; and to open the performance space to its urban surroundings.

Like many of the structures completed by REX, the Wyly Theatre solves the problem of the theater typology with a solution that offers the greatest value! (see figure 2.3) Rather than designing multiple theaters, one for each type of performance, the architecture is capable of changing functions and responding to the needs of the individual performances. The design is orthogonal and is composed of clean lines like the New Contemporary Museum of Art. The design also makes use of innovative curtain wall technologies that responds to the functional needs of the space that it encloses, but the key difference is the embedded value that the architects have added to the design. The Wyly Theatre is a masterpiece that is instilled with the very spirit of the Great Value movement.

Figure 2.2: New Contemporary Museum of Art in New York City designed by SANAA. The form and use of materials offers the client and city an architecture of Great Value, the artwork is featured on the exterior serving as a signifier to the building’s function.

Figure 2.3: Wyly Theatre in Dallas Texas designed by REX. The diagram overlayed on the above photo explains that to offer the greatest value, the structure is capable of meeting the needs of four different theaters through the careful design of a singular theater. The Wyly Theatre offers the city the greatest value.

A Current State of Transition:

Architecture tends to respond to conditions slightly slower than other creative fields such as art, fashion design, graphic design, and industrial design due to the nature of the architecture. It simply takes time to produce architecture. At a time when many people are struggling just to put food on the table, the construction of buildings in the style of ya-ya is of very poor taste and is culturally unacceptable during this period of change. Whenever a change in style occurs there is state of transition and overlap. The transition from an architecture of ya-ya to one that offers architecture at a Great Value is the now. It is difficult fully understand this state of transition and it is even more difficult to project the future of the profession, but one thing is clear, people will continue to want architecture at a Great Value.

Related Photos

10 Ideas for Rethinking Your Desktop:

The image displayed as your desktop’s background could be used for informational purposes, but let’s not stop there, let’s think about recreating the desktop for architects completely.  Can you imagine the possibilities yet?

What if the image displayed on your computer’s desktop could act like a digital Swiss Army knife? What functions would you want it to serve? Below is a list of ten ways that I believe that the background of your computer’s desktop can be used to enhance your productivity, decrease stress, inspire creativity and communicate valuable information to your employees, every day.

10. Office Directory:

When trying to explain to my wife why this was a great idea, she kept saying, why would you do that when all you have to do is check Outlook? Well, this is faster! Keep your co-workers names and their extensions on your desktop and you’ll never have to fumble through Outlook for their numbers again.

9. Software Shortcuts:

Whether you are learning a new software or trying to expand your knowledge base of shortcuts for software that you are already familiar with, update your background to display the shortcut commands that you are trying to learn. Change it weekly and eventually there will not be a key stroke that you do not know for your favorite software.

8. Project Team Information:

Why stop at your office directory? Working with a lot of consultants? Constantly find yourself fumbling through your Rolodex for the same phone numbers, search no more. Update your desktop to display information related to the project that you are working on.

7. Color:

Color is not just for clowns and clients, use color and tone to divide your desktop visually so that you can keep files organized. Architects should get in the habit of filing documents to their permanent location, but sometimes time does not permit such practices. When you are under the gun, and a deadline is fast approaching, it seems that documents always end up cluttering your digital desktop. Use color to divide your desktop into regions or zones so that you can organize files and shortcuts visually on your desktop, this eliminates visual confusion and prevents files from getting lost. Remember that white pixels require more energy than black pixels, so choose your desktop colors wisely.

6. Change It Every Month:

Combine many of the suggestions in this post into a template background and save it to the network. Have all of the computers in your office mapped to the image. Now you can update the background of all of the office computers monthly, weekly, or daily to communicate important information to your employees. Many large companies have intranets or scripts that display pop-up windows when loading software. This kills computer performance, and annoys me, usually I never read these notices because they clutter my screen, so I close them immediately before reading. Your computer has to load a background image, so why not make it load something functional. Plus this is a cheap efficient way for small offices to communicate information such as detail standards, ADA and building code issues without having an office meeting.

5. ARE Flash Cards:

Studying for the ARE? Scan in some flash cards and turn them into an image that you can display as your desktop’s background. Change it daily and you will be surprised how much information you will absorb during a workday.

4. Display Your Company Logo:

When you bring clients through the office, why not let them know where they are. Branding is something that architects preach about to clients, but rarely practice in their own offices.

3. Design Inspiration:

If you are updating your desktop background image on a frequent basis, as described in idea 6, another idea would be to change the background image to display a current piece of architecture, art or inspirational image which will spur design discussion and help to strengthen the design knowledge and culture in your office.

2. ADA & Building Code Standards:

One of the most difficult things in any small or large office is to communicate to employees the many important ADA and building code standards. Instead of always displaying inspirational images, maybe some days you throw in a diagram of a handicap accessible bathroom stall, and other days you feature a diagram of the open area requirements for building facades. Information displayed on a computer desktop will constantly remind employees that codes and legislation for buildings must be satisfied ,and hopefully they will learn these requirements, thus eliminating change orders and expensive alterations during the construction phase of the project.

1. Improve Professional Culture:

By using the desktop background to do one or all of the above, the professional culture of your office will undoubtedly improve. Don’t stop at these ten ideas, I am sure that there are hundreds of ways to rethink the function of your computer’s desktop background. If you have any ideas or examples of how you or your company have improved the function of the desktop background, please share below. If I think of more ideas, I will add them to this site and the template provided above.

Windows Tip:

If you are using dual monitors and would like to stretch the background image across both monitors, under the position dropdown, select Tile. Otherwise the background will not be stretched across the screen.

Exemplar:

Talk is cheap, so let’s look at an example that I am currently using on my desktop. I admit that the desktop background that I designed does need some work, and as I revise it, I will update the files on this site, but it makes use of many of the above concepts that I have spoken about. The backgrounds pictured below are divided into two workspaces. The left zone is used to create graphic zones for organizing files, so that I know where certain files are on my desktop. The left side of the image also contains a small area for adding various building code information, so that I can slowly learn different code requirements. The right side contains two directories, one for the projects that I am working on, and one for my office. The directory is complemented by images of whatever project has my fancy for the week. I came up with an all black version and a black and white version pictured below (click on the links to view at half-size):

Desktop 1:
The thinking behind the white and black design is that one monitor is subdued and the other is the working monitor, allowing architects to focus on the primary screen.

Desktop 2:
The bright white background of Desktop 1, seemed a bit too bright for my use, so I attempted to tone the brightness down with a black background this time around. After completing this option, I reverted back to the white, and decided that more tweaks should be made to the design.

Related Photos

History: Do, or Do Not

The original de Young Museum opened in 1895 as a result of the construction that took place in preparation for the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894, now called Golden Gate Park (see photo gallery below for photo of the original de Young Museum). The original de Young Museum aged poorly and over the years the structure slowly fell apart. Finally in 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake severely damaged the building, and plans were made to construct a replacement structure. In 1999 a competition was held for the design of the replacement museum, among the finalist teams were architects Tadao Ando, Cesar Pelli, Antoine Predock, Rafael Viñoly, and Herzog & de Meuron whom were selected as the winners of the competition. From the very beginning the design for the new museum was the subject of controversy and criticism. Its appearance was accused by its critics as being a “huge shed,” an “Internet start-up company,” an “aircraft carrier,” a “Howard Johnson’s of the future,” “atrocious” and “ugly,” but it would not be until construction for the Herzog & de Meuron designed de Young Museum was completed on October 15th 2005 that its critics would be silenced.

The de Young Museum and Golden Gate Park have a unique history, but unlike Renzo Piano’s design for the California Academy of Sciences building, which is sited across from the de Young Museum on the other side of the park, the Swiss architects decided to take a fresh new approach and relieved their selves of such historic constraints. The only similarities between the previous museum and the new one is that they share the same site. It is important to note this, because by ignoring the past and starting fresh, the new design for the de Young Museum becomes timeless. Timeless in that its presence suggest that it has always been and will always be. Entablatures, colonnades and pitched roofs have been omitted, suggesting that the structure is without influence from history and may in fact be a relic from prehistory. Herzog & de Meuron chose to ignore the history of the site in search of something greater, and they found it.

The de Young Museum is not as polished as a Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry design, it is also not as flamboyant. The museum is a ruin by design, and is intentionally clumsy and graceful at the same time. The de Young Museum is a deceptively complex building. Deceptive, because at first glance the structure appears as a simple monolithic form. Like the stepped pyramids of Central America and the pagan temples of antiquity the de Young Museum consists of variable readings: From afar the form is simple, monumental and timeless, but as one approaches the structure the building’s ornamentation begins to reveal itself as the delicate details become apparent only when close to the structure. The structure is beautifully detailed and few exterior conditions are left unresolved. The de Young Museum is devoid of any kind of historic or contemporary style, and until one enters the interiors, it seems that Herzog & de Meuron have come very close to creating a building with the same kind of timelessness as a Louis I. Kahn building or a rare modern masterpiece.

Image 1: The simple forms rest upon the ground as if an extension of the landscape, suggesting that the de Young Museum has always been.

Photo Tour: Take a tour of the de Young Museum by viewing the photo gallery below:

Materiality, Texture and Pattern:

The copper rainscreen that sheaths the building is the result of an experimentation in using the technology of our time, to create an effect that is reminiscent of the craftsmanship and sensitivity to detail from the past. The mantra of Herzog & de Meuron is to focus on using common materials in an uncommon way. There is no finer example of this than the de Young Museum. Regardless of whether you ‘like’ the design or not, there are few structures in the world that come close to such an orchestration of a singular material in the design of a building’s skin. The skin of the building is impressive because of the technique used by Herzog & de Meuron and their ability to come up with a unique language for a singular material, which is not only beautiful, but resolves nearly all of the museum’s needs.

It is impossible to discuss the texture of the facades of the de Young Museum without talking about pattern, the two are beautifully merged together creating a surface that appears to be disintegrating right before our very eyes. Although the structure appears to be disintegrating, the concept behind the design of the exterior was to create a skin with many layers that would manipulate light similar to natural occurrences in nature. The idea for the texture and patterning of the copper skin came from Jacques Herzog on a site visit he took pictures in Golden Gate Park of the effect of sunlight filtering through the leafy trees of the park. This effect is successfully realized in the built structure, and is evident when viewing the building from virtually any vantage point.

The construction of the building is nothing short of a construction marvel. A computerized engineering system enabled the 7,602 panels that make up the skin to be individually cut, punched and embossed. A total of 950,000 pounds of copper was used, making it the largest copper-clad building in the world, which presents many environmental problems left unaddressed by the designers, which is discussed below. Another problem with the design of the copper structure is that the canopy that was meant to cover the outdoor cafe, leaks copper dust and tainted copper runoff onto patron’s food and cafe furniture. A permanent temporary structure has been placed under the canopy, and serves as a blemish on the structure’s exterior, see photo gallery.

Diagramming de Young:

Although the structure appears simplistic, one begins to understand that the simple moves that are executed in the design are embedded with information that may not be apparent at first glance. The structure can be reduced to two primary elements, vertical and horizontal. The horizontal responds to the order of the park and the gridded system that remains dominant from 1894, which is represented in Diagram 1 by cooler colors. The vertical rises out of the order of the past, but responds to the larger order of the city grid, represented by warmer colors, because the 144 ft tower connects the museum to the larger context of the city. The simple architectural tactic of twisting the tower to align the two orders is an example of the amount of skill used by Herzog & de Meuron in the building’s finite ornamentation. The twist aligns the tower’s upper floors with the San Francisco street grid, visually locking the design into the distant skyline. The courtyards serve both to bring the park into the museum and to assist with wayfinding.

Diagram 1: The order of the plan for the California Midwinter International Exposition of 1894 and the order of the city are resolved by the simple twisting of the tower, which ornaments this connection. There is something poetic about the major move of the structure connecting the park to the city. The red lines correspond to the overall city grid of San Francisco, and the blue lines respond to the regulating lines of the park. From afar the tower appears to be conforming to the city, and when viewing  the museum  up close it appears to conform to the park, yet when park patrons look at the tower the influence of the city is present whether they know it or not.

Diagram 2: There are three primary circulation routes that connect one side of the park to the other. All of these paths terminate into the de Young Museum, but what is interesting is that the de Young Museum aligns with the outer edge of the eastern axis, while the terminating paths appear at first glance to be random. The positioning of the museum becomes clearer in Diagram 4.

Diagram 3: The fissures that are highlighted in red, are used to denote entry points into the museum. The fissures breakup the southwestern and northeastern facades into a tripartite arrangement, and where the masses are separated nature is allowed to flow into the building, and at other times create large than life terrarreums. The museum reads as if a solid mass that is being eroded away, and at others it reads as if three solid masses that flow in and out of eachother. Regardless of the reading, the ordering lines that shape the mass do not flow into the site, and in plan the structure appears rigid and confined. If the building were allowed to flow into the site, the same way nature is permitted to flow into the structure, the building would appear more harmonious with the site.

Diagram 4: The ordering system that controls the location of the building is highly sophisticated. The order of the city at the macro level is the key controlling factor in the twisted position of the observation tower, as depicted in Diagram 1. The tower itself is controlled by multiple complex relationships on the site, which are not apparent at first glance, see Diagram 2. Rather than forcing the building to accept the order of the existing plaza, Herzog & de Meuron manipulate the the existing order with a very creative solution. The three primary routes of circulation that connect one side of the park to the other, are denied, the designer of the park places an emphasis on the perpendicular axis with the placement of three circular courts. Herzog & de Meuron use the circular courts as points of reference. The centroid of the tower is triangulated by transposing a line parallel to the city grid and one parallel to the park grid on the two subordinate circular courts. The intersection of these two transposed lines is the centroid of the tower, again the tower connects the city to the park. The regulating line parallel to the city grid, becomes the main axis of the museum. The procession along this axis takes a visitor into the interior yet exterior entry court, then through the main entry doors, where patrons are greated by the ticketing counter, and are then given the option to buy a ticket and view the musuem or bipass the ticketing counter and head directly to the heart of the tower.

There is yet another regulating line that controls the placement of the structure, and that is the transposed line that is projected outward from the central circular court. When traveling along this route toward the de Young Museum there is a point at which the regulating lines intersect, which happens to be where the entry pad is located and along the sidewalk that flanks the street.

Diagram 5: The copper roof is highly visible from the de Young Museum’s observation tower. Herzog & de Meuron wisely chose to design the roof in a way that is consistant with the rest of the museum. The seams of the copper roof create an interesting pattern, which evokes images of a terrain or a topographic survey,the lines suggest that the building emerged from the site. Unfortunately these roof contours do not engage the site, and end at the limits of the building. A series of horizontal lines continue in the front yard of the museum, but these lines do not engage the structure and are not as active as the lines that pattern the roof.

Diagram 6:The fissures that divide up the mass create courtyards, over-sized terrariums and also mark the entry points into the structure, but where these fissures end and the masses rejoin, Herzog & de Meuron have chosen to detail the same condition differently in each case.

This clever manipulation of reference points and regulating lines continues throughout the structure, and if permitted more time I would love to analyze the structure further producing even more diagrams, but I am afraid I that must come at a later date or I’ll never finish this article. Although the design is beautiful, that is only the first part of the article. The rest of the article deals with the sustainable issues associated with using copper in architectural design, specifically at the de Young Museum, where the quantity of copper used is unprecedented.

The Copper Killer:

If Renzo Piano’s Academy of Sciences building is one of the most sustainable structures in San Francisco, then the de Young Museum by Herzog & de Meuron is one of the most anti-sustainable buildings in San Francisco. Ironically the two structures sit directly across from each other. What makes a building anti-sustainable? Anti-sustainable buildings are structures which are poisoning the environment, not in the same way that many treehuggers argue that all modern buildings do, but anti-sustainable structures are super polluters that are far more dangerous than their sustainable counterparts are good.

The most beautiful feature of the de Young Museum is its copper skin, is also its most deadly. Copper runoff is a significant problem in cities like Palo Alto and San Francisco. Palo Alto has completed a significant amount of research on the topic of copper runoff, and this research will be used as a basis for determining the amount of copper runoff created by the de Young Museum. Since Palo Alto is only 30 miles away from San Francisco, it should be sufficient in illustrating the magnitude of the problem caused by Herzog & de Meuron’s design for the de Young Museum.

Copper runoff is such a severe problem in Palo Alto that an in January of 2003, Palo Alto issued an Ordinance that Prohibits Copper Roofing Materials. Below are two of the most interesting facts found in the document:

The amount of copper released per year from copper roofs in the RWQCP (Regional Water Quality Control Plant) service area is estimated to be greater than the annual industrial copper discharges to the RWQCP.

An incremental increase of 1000 square feet of copper roofing can lead to, by itself, a copper concentration in a creek during an average rainfall that equals the chronic toxicity criteria established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The above ordinance references a document entitled Architectural Uses of Copper: An Evaluation of Storm Water Pollution Loads and BMPs. This document discusses the results of a study that examines the impact of copper on stormwater pollution. The study was completed by the City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. In this study it is found that approximately .1 grams of copper is released per year, per square foot of copper roofing in the Palo Alto area, which I reverse engineered from the examples in Exhibit 13 of the Architectural Uses of Copper document. Exhibit 14 of the Architectural Uses of Copper document also estimates that approximately 298 lbs of copper are released from roofs, gutters, and downspouts in the Palo Alto RWQCP service area each year.

.1 grams of copper runoff per year, per square foot of copper does not sound like a large amount of copper, but wait until you see how much copper Herzog & de Meuron actually used. Copper is used everywhere by Herzog & de Meuron, covering a roof area of around 139,930 sf, this number is significantly less than the façade which is composed of approximately 193,750 sf of copper. That is a total of 333,680 sf of copper! Why is this number so important? Copper runoff is a function of rainfall and surface area of copper. Using the data from Exhibit 13 this equates to 33, 368 grams of copper runoff per year or 73.5 lbs of copper runoff per year! The de Young Museum accounts for 25% of the copper pollution of all of Palo Alto, which is a truly frightening statistic. The above numbers for roof and façade copper coverage were taken from the de Young Museum project profile on the TECU website. Currently there is no system in place to remove copper from the runoff before it is discharged into the environment.

Copper and the Environment:

Water runoff from copper surfaces should not be a deterrent from using copper in your designs, and there are a number of strategies outlined in the document entitled Architectural Uses of Copper, but what remains unknown is the ability of vegetation to permanently capture copper from runoff over time. It is well documented that other harmful metals like lead remain in the soils that absorbs its runoff for many years. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) warns that structures with exterior surfaces that were sealed with lead paint have contaminated the adjacent soils and that the only way to correct the problem is through remediation. The same is also true of soils that contain high concentrations of copper. Ingesting large quantities of copper can have serious health problems. One of the best websites that I have found on the internet that outlines the effects and issues associated with copper toxicity in drinking water is found in an outline for a course at Guilford College. Another valuable document distributed by the EPA is the Lead and Copper Rule: A Quick Reference Guide, which outlines health complications caused by copper exposure and serves as a quick reference for exposure levels that can be harmful.

Location & Contact Information:

If you ever find yourself in the San Francisco area, this is a must see structure. Don’t forget to check the website for Free Museum Days.

Golden Gate Park
50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive
San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: (415) 750-3600

Related Photos