References:
Books referenced in this article.


Throughout history architects such as Paul Rudolph, Ralph Twitchell and Frank Lloyd Wright have forewarned us of the perils of stylistic fancy, favoring a responsible architecture that is a derivative of Florida’s unique climate. Their premonitions have long been forgotten, and many of their ideologies have fallen victim to the exotic and invasive architectural style of the Mediterranean Revival. The focus of this historical critique is not to recount the tale of how Mediterranean architecture became the dominant style of Florida, but to reexamine the legacy of Addison Mizner, and to raise awareness in the architectural community of the dangers of favoring style over process.

The Legacy of Fantasy:

Addison Mizner is one of the most misunderstood architects of the modern era, dismissed by historians as just another revivalist; his works transcend style and are a product of a unique process that enables Mizner’s gifts as both entertainer and storyteller to animate his architecture in a way that would make Walt Disney envious.  Mizner’s works and similarly Mediterranean styled architecture are fallaciously classified as of a fictitious Addison Mizner Style, or Mizner Architecture. The emergence of this classification suggests that Mizner’s work diverges from traditional revivalists, and a definition of that variation has yet to be constituted. Mizner in his designs appears to dance effortlessly from style to style with little regard for a specific period in an attempt to create his own history. Many architects derogate Mizner’s stylistic eclecticism as a consequence of his lack of formal training as an architect.   An inquisition into Mizner’s creative process reveals that his aesthetic emerges from his process which focuses on fabricating a fanciful history for each design, condensing centuries of cultural evolution into just a few years. In order for a Mizner building to achieve the illusion of being from a faraway Mediterranean town it must manifest the spirit of the place it is mirroring.  Mizner is unique in that he understands this spirit to be the summation of moments and events that define a place and not style. Below Mizner attacks modern architects, many historians often interpret this statement as an attack on Modern architecture, but if one reads the statement carefully it is revealed that he is actually attacking his revivalist peers. Mizner uses the term modern in the traditional meaning of the word “as of or pertaining to the present and recent time”, which is confirmed by the fact that Modern architects do not style their structures in a certain period. Mizner is attacking his fellow revivalists whom choose to replicate a particular style, producing an architecture that maintains a characterless copybook effect:

“Most modern architects have spent their lives carrying out a period to the last letter and producing a characterless copybook effect. My ambition has been to take the reverse stand – to make a building look traditional as if it had fought its way from a small unimportant structure to a great rambling house that took centuries of different needs of ups and downs of wealth to accomplish. I sometimes start a house with a Romanesque corner, pretend that it has fallen into disrepair and been added to in the Gothic spirit, when suddenly the great wealth of the New World has poured in and the owner had added a very rich Renaissance addition.”

In the early 20^th century there was little constructed in Florida. Stepping into one of Mizner’s Mediterranean structures combined with the isolated landscape would have made a visitor believe they were on a secluded Mediterranean island. This notion of fabricating a historical context in reference to a foreign land is an early precedent for its present day incarnation at Epcot. At Boca Raton, Mizner was concerned with the reality of his Mediterranean fantasy, much in the same manner that Walt Disney was concerned with the authenticity of the representation of foreign lands in his concept for the International Street, a precursor to the World Showcase at Epcot. Many Floridians and architects attack Disney for being foreign to the native culture, but a reexamination of Mizner and his process reveals that the spirit of Walt Disney has been a part of Florida since its rebirth as a tourist destination in the early 20^th century.

The Legacy of Reality:

After reading several books on the life and works of Addison Mizner, a reoccurring theme emerged, each author maintained an unwavering loyalty to the architect and his designs as sustainable. Some writers made outlandish statements promoting Mizner’s architecture as intrinsic to Florida in what is a negligent disregard for history! In Boca Rococo, Caroline Seebohm suggests that “If he (Frank Lloyd Wright) had landed in Palm Beach in 1918, perhaps, absorbing the history of southern Florida, its flatness, the palm trees, the sunlight, and the humidity, he might have gone in the direction of his contemporary (Addison Mizner).”  One needs not speculate on whether Frank Lloyd Wright would have followed Mizner’s lead, because in 1941 Wright would begin designing a series of 18 buildings for Florida Southern College that serve as an exemplar to future generations of how to create buildings that harmoniously merge with the Florida landscape.

Although Mizner’s charming personality permitted him “to build the way he wanted to build”, he did so at the expense of the environment, and as technology and our understanding of the environment has evolved  so should Florida’s architecture. Ralph Twitchell warned Floridians of the dangers of the invasive Mediterranean Revival Style, and urged for architects to design buildings that are responsive to Florida’s unique climactic conditions and provide spaces that offer inhabitants a sympathetic interaction between the constructed environments they occupy and the natural environment. In an article written by Ralph Twitchel entitled “Where Goes Sarasota?” Mr. Twitchel outlines the major faults in transplanting the Mediterranean style to Florida.

“All of the work of the ‘boom’ period was Mediterranean in style with low-pitched tile roofs and stuccoed masonry walls. No one then gave thought to the outstanding characteristics of the Florida climate. The Mediterranean style was the product of semi-tropical, hilly and dry environment. Florida is neither hilly nor dry. Its warm sea breezes carry a high degree of moisture. Where the Mediterranean style answered the needs of its birthplace, its thick walls, small openings, enclosed courts and roofs with no overhang utterly failed to answer the needs of Florida.”

To be fair to Mizner, at the time his buildings were constructed, they were designed as tourist destinations, and would only be occupied during the dry winter season which more closely resembles   the Mediterranean climate. The buildings designed by Mizner were designed to only be lived in during the dry winter season, and neglect Florida’s true environment that the resident’s have to live in the rest of the year.

Paul Rudolph and Ralph Twitchell developed an architecture that was of the Florida vernacular, but failed to make it fashionable in the same way Addison Mizner propagandized Mediterranean architecture to the top of the architectural food chain, where it has reigned for over a century. The last 100 years of architecture in Florida was grounded in fantasy and neglected the environment. The legacy of Addison Mizner is one that has changed the Florida landscape forever, and his impact on our culture and environment must be understood before we can move forward. We need to promote a new Florida architecture that is sensitive to the reality of our current environmental conditions, grounded by the limits of our region, informed by process, not a replication of another civilization’s history, engrained in our culture, we need a new Addison Mizner.

Related Photos

References:
Books referenced in this book review.


What I Hate About This Book
One of the big misses in this book is the lack of quick reference tables and charts that would quickly enable students or architects to quickly make assumptions that will aide them in early conceptual design stages. For instance, a simple chart could illustrate the number of elevators per occupant load, or a diagram similar to the many in The Architect’s Studio Companion that illustrates the size of the core as compared to the overall footprint of the building. It is this extra level of information that prevents this book from becoming a staple to every architect’s library.

Another weakness of the book is that the structure of the content is not functional. Although the Introduction and Future sections nicely introduce the history of the skyscraper and speculate upon its future development, it is the middle of the book that falls flat. For instance the chapter on Structure is far to brief, and many of the major ideas blur together in organization and graphics. One of the best chapters is on Elevators, the information is thoroughly covered and clearly organized in a logical manner and leaves me wanting every chapter to be produced with the same clarity.

What I Love About This Book
This book is a perfect primer for any architectural design student looking to gain a greater understanding of the major issues associated with the design problem of the skyscraper. There are some beautiful illustrations within the book that simply describe the complex issues associated with skyscraper design, although some of these graphics are a little “cartoony”, all of the images can be clearly understood, and no other book that I have found describes the inner workings of a skyscraper so completely.

Another aspect of the book that I found fascinating are the random tidbits of information that Ascher sprinkles throughout the book. On page 126 a beautiful diagram of the broadcast towers that rest atop the Sears Tower illustrates the multiple functions of the iconic structure, or the diagram of the Taipei 101′s tuned mass damper and how this important structural device becomes a design feature found on page 60. Unfortunately these random stories are not integrated well and disrupt the organization of the book.

Who is this book for?
Ascher addresses a major issue that plagues many design studios across the United States that focus on the design of a specific building program or typology, and that is that many of these design studios lack a definitive resource that defines the extents of the design problem and associated best practices. University professors that teach skyscraper design studio will find this to be a required text for introducing the design problem of the skyscraper, and there is no doubt that this text will become an integral part to their syllabus.

Although Ascher extensively outlines the design problem of the skyscraper, The Heights lacks the depth required to become an essential reference (as noted above) for the seasoned skyscraper designer. This book is for young architects or anyone interested in discovering more about what makes a skyscraper work.

Hopefully, The Heights is the first of a series of books that fills an obvious void in the literature needed by academia, and Ascher continues her series with titles such as The Stadium, The Hospital, and The Airport.

Related Photos

No related photos.

References:
Books referenced for this publication that document the Serious Architecture of Walt Disney.

The posthumously completed Bay Lake Tower is a major addition to the existing Contemporary Resort, a complex of several buildings that includes a postmodern convention center designed by GSAA and the Contemporary Tower. The resort is within walking distance to Magic Kingdom theme park and its impact on the reality of the fantasy that is Disney World places extreme importance on future development. The existing Contemporary Tower was completed in 1971 and designed by forgotten modern master Welton Becket. The tower’s signature A-frame profile has been an icon to the eclectic Walt Disney World skyline since its completion.[2] The experience of zooming through the boundless atrium while aboard the futuristic monorail is instilled with the spirit of Walt Disney himself and for that reason it is loved by all guests.

Instead of competing with this experience, Mr. Gwathmey wisely chooses to politely defer to the existing tower and its unique experience. Deference, as a design tactic, transcends mere recognition of the need for visual relief, or the difference between background and foreground. It is an egoless discipline of designing a building or series of buildings in a way that defers to a focus, and imparts to the inherited structure a stronger expression. Could you imagine if Cinderella’s Castle were surrounded by structures from the other Disney animated epics, and lacked the formal clarity that it currently has? It would be visually chaotic. For each signature structure added the others are made less impactful. The baroque boulevard of Main Street U.S.A. with its mélange of design periods (19^th century Americana meets medieval castle), and surrounding landscape are all elements that act deferentially to Cinderella’s Castle and thereby enhance the overall experience.

Deference as an architectural tactic is also the prevalent theme in Mr. Gwathmey’s design for the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum addition, completed in 1992. The orthogonal forms and patterns of Mr. Gwathmey’s addition defer to Wright’s curvilinear design. The juxtaposition of the treatment between the two structures clearly distinguishes the difference between Gwathmey and Wright, and Wright’s design is comparatively enhanced by the subdued addition.

Mr. Gwathmey’s mastery of deference as a compositional device is most evident at Bay Lake Tower. Unlike his design for the Guggenheim addition, at Bay Lake Tower he defers to the existing structure by engaging Becket in a sophisticated architectural dialogue, using the formal language established by Becket for the Contemporary Tower. Similarities in aesthetic design exist between the two towers, but Mr. Gwathmey avoids vapid stylizing by understanding the causal orders that shape each design element, and then positioning them in a manner consistent with each element’s function and purpose.

Photo Gallery:

The Dialogue

While most buildings are characterized as having a front and rear elevation, the two towers of the Contemporary Resort dispenses with this norm with their visual interplay of exterior and interior façades. The Contemporary Tower’s A-frame structure encloses an expansive fifteen-story atrium in which the eastern and western walls of the atrium appear as if they are elevations belonging to separate yet identical structures. Similarly, the horseshoe configuration of Bay Lake Tower creates the appearance of an exterior and ‘interior’ façade. The exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower faces outward towards Magic Kingdom and the Contemporary Resort, while the inward facing façade frames a contemporary version of a classical courtyard that rivals the scale of the Contemporary’s atrium.

The incorporation of exterior and interior façades in the design of Bay Lake Tower is the catalyst to a more complex visual dialogue between the two designs. A critical reading of the towers’ elevations reveals that the architectural language is developed in response to the following orders: views of Magic Kingdom and Bay Lake, structural forces, and the horizontal movement of the monorail. The exterior façade of the Contemporary Tower expresses the building’s repetitive steel A-frame structure, while the interior façades feature streamlined horizontals that exaggerate and embellish the speed of the monorail as it enters and exits the vast atrium.

The design of the exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower posed the greatest challenge because it had to respond to both the horizontality of the monorail and the verticality imposed by the structural system, which is dominant in the Contemporary Tower’s exterior façade. Mr. Gwathmey resolves all of these issues by designing a façade that changes in appearance according to the viewer’s proximity to the building. Up close the cream colored horizontal lines establish the composition, while the sweeping curve of the building’s plan creates a distorted perspective that exaggerates riders’ sense of speed on the moving monorail. From afar the horizontal curves defer to the staccato rhythm of verticals created by the alternating placement of glazed surface and recessed balconies. Although the exterior façade of Bay Lake Tower is subordinate to the Contemporary Tower, its interior façade is a dynamic composition of vertical forms that cast dramatic shadows and maintain a stately presence on Bay Lake. Mr. Gwathmey hints to the verticality that remains hidden on the interior façade with the two strategically placed vertical spires on the exterior façade, which frame views of the Contemporary Tower to the East and Magic Kingdom to the West. These two spires are the only moments of relief on the exterior façade from the zooming horizontal lines.

The solid vertical masses that comprise the interior façade serve as an expression of the building’s mechanical systems and service areas, while large vertical reveals are glazed, permitting views out toward the lake from the corridors. One of the most exciting moments in the entire design is the transition from interior to exterior façade which is ornamented with two   ‘crystalline blades’ that function as the egress stair towers,.  Without the spires the transition between exterior and interior façade would be anticlimactic.

The play of horizontals and verticals at Bay Lake Tower is executed with such rigor and originality that Mr. Gwathmey creates a structure that is technically superior in its execution to the original Contemporary Tower with the exception of the structure’s apex, the Top of the World Lounge. This is the only moment that the design appears to replicate the original without deference to the elements’ origin of being. Despite the similarities between the apexes of the Contemporary and Bay Lake Towers, the top of Bay Lake Tower feels foreign and obtrusive. It neither denies nor accepts the vertical or horizontal, and this indifference is its weakness.

While the apex of Bay Lake Tower is the weakest moment in the design, the pedestrian bridge that connects the existing tower to Bay Lake Tower evinces his mastery of dealing with difficult relationships to existing structures. The bridge acts as an independent element and helps to distinguish the two towers as separate and distinct, and is a departure from their established aesthetics. The lack of resolution in connection between the two towers is intentional, implying that the bridge is its own structure, belonging neither to the Contemporary or Bay Lake Tower. The bridge is a referential departure from the architectural language of the Contemporary Tower and is instead a playful interpretation of the monorail and its concrete structural system. This correlation in formal language between the monorail and the bridge is validated by their shared function: both structures move people. The pedestrian bridge serves as another instance of Mr. Gwathmey’s ability to understand the source of a language and reinterpret it in a manner that is appropriate yet consistent with its origin.

The Serious Architecture of Walt Disney World

Architects in professional and academic circles often lack a critical appreciation for the great architectural experiment that is Walt Disney World. The buildings and environments constructed in the Reedy Creek Improvement District are often dismissed by professors as not “serious architecture”, or are slandered by architects and critics as “theming”. The truth is that the architecture of Walt Disney is serious and precise, and the environments found there are executed at such a high level of sophistication that the scale and spirit of this place can never be recreated. Mr. Gwathmey respects this, and it is evident in his design of Bay Lake Tower.

It is unfortunate that the addition to the Art & Architecture Building at New Haven will leave its mark in history as Mr. Gwathmey’s final work, because Mr. Gwathmey was an architect capable of producing memorable works of architecture that hold their own against some of the best buildings ever constructed. Bay Lake Tower will never be loved in the same way that visitors love the Contemporary Tower, but because of his deference he makes one of Disney’s oldest icons (and the unforgettable experience of riding on the monorail as it speeds through the atrium towards the Magic Kingdom) that much better. The forgotten Bay Lake Tower is classic Gwathmey, and stands as a deserving grand finale for an architect who never backed down from a challenge and always understood that sometimes it is better to defer than to receive.

The above article was featured in the Winter 2010 issue of Florida/Caribbean Architect Magazine.

References:

[1] New York Times critic Nicolai Ouroussoff’s description of the GSAA designed addition to the Art & Architecture building at Yale, as published in Yale Revelation: Renewal for a Building and Its Original Designer.
[2] Wikipedia

Related Photos

Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style: A Life in Architecture is not a monograph containing photos of Kahn’s masterpieces. Although it is technically a biography, Carter Wiseman offers readers something more. Wiseman manages to bring Kahn to life through his words.  It is a book that is about more than architecture, it’s about the life of Kahn, his pain, anguish and tortured relationship with architecture. For any student or architect that has fallen in love with Kahn’s work, and his religion of architecture, then this book is a must read. For anyone that is a skeptic or hater, this book gives an invaluable insight into the spirit of Louis Kahn. Wiseman uniquely organizes the book not around the projects that Kahn completed in his illustrious career, but around Kahn’s relationship with his clients. Each masterpiece designed and built by Kahn is as much a result of Kahn’s talents and perseverance, as its clients whom are Kahn’s greatest disciples. Many books about Kahn focus on Kahn and his work, but Wiseman tells the story of an architect, who had the fortune of having a succession of clients that made his career possible, and how the masterpieces that are loved by all would not have been built if not for the blind loyalty of Kahn’s patrons . I used to think an architect was only as good as his library of books, but in Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style: A Life in Architecture we learn that an architect is only as good as his clients. An important lesson for any young aspiring architect.

Book Statistics:

Author: Carter Wiseman
Price: $22.00-$40.00
Publication Date: March 2007
Format: Hardcover
Length: 288 pages
Publisher: Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc.
ISBN: 0393731650
ISBN-13: 9780393731651

Quotes from the Critics:

“It is not merely a collection of Kahn’s architectural works….it gives…a richness and layering not usually associated with architecture books.” (Urban Land, Howard Kozloff)

“Louis I. Kahn is lavishly illustrated…and contributes the most comprehensive analysis of the architect’s life and works to date.” (DocoMomo, Olivia Klose)

Publisher Synopsis:
The first in-depth biographical study of the brilliant but elusive architect who fundamentally redefined twentieth-century architecture. Now ranked with Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe, Louis I. Kahn brought a reverence for history back into modern architecture while translating it into a uniquely contemporary idiom.

Drawing on more than one hundred interviews with colleagues, coworkers, clients, and family members and illustrated with many previously unpublished photographs this book documents the uniquely American rise of a poor immigrant to the pinnacle of the international architectural world.

It illuminates the richly diverse personal relationships Kahn had with such clients as Jonas Salk and Paul Mellon, and the romantic entanglements that mystified even those closest to him. While celebrating the genius of Kahn’s art, the book provides an invaluable portrait of the man who created it.

Related Photos

At the school’s open house I was able to tour the facility (the way I prefer to: darting around by myself and taking notes) and it was easy to see what people are excited about: a top arts school for the 21^st century with features and amenities we could only dream about back in my student days at the old school, the five-story brick-and-stone colossus on Sycamore Street in the same downtown neighborhood.

Photo Gallery:

The architects of this project, design architect Curt Moody of Moody-Nolan in Columbus, Ohio and project architect Cole and Russell of Cincinnati, seem to have addressed the complex program requirements well. Where the old SCPA made do with two theatres this facility boasts three. The Corbett Theatre seats 750 in a European-style multi-tiered house. The stage and proscenium are immense and impressive, and the fly gallery (where scenery is “flown” up and away during scene changes) rivals that of grand Music Hall just up the street. The stage manager’s callboard, like everything else in this new theatre, is state of the art. The orchestra pit at the front of the stage is raised and lowered hydraulically. (The old main theatre at S.C.P.A. had no orchestra pit). The theatre has been soundproofed, as well. Theatre acoustics have always been a nightmare for directors and stage designers; space, people and furnishings tend to swallow voices from the stage, especially spoken words. Performers and stage technicians in this new space will be hoping that technology and engineering have eliminated some of the headache.

The more intimate Mayerson Theatre is suitable for recitals or other small music or dance performances. Wood-veneered movable panels will be used for voids and reveals since there are no wings. As with the Corbett Theatre, lighting and sound equipment are the finest available. Acoustics, as before, are top of the line. On the lower level is the Blackbox theatre, customizable to seat 100 to 150 audience members.

The dance studios are of a quality that Juilliard would envy: beautiful sprung wood flooring, sunlight pouring in through the windows, flat screen TVs, sound systems that would make an audiophile weep. Art majors will facilitate their development with fine basswood desks and custom-made easels. Focused track lighting shines down on each art desk, which is adjustable and equipped with brush and pencil holders. The showpiece art studio is on the northeast corner with views of Race Street to the east and Washington Park to the north. At 1000 square feet it is ideal for work on larger paintings. In the next room is the sculpture studio. Recalling the modest classroom facilities for visual art in the old school, this is a new day for art majors at S.C.P.A.

As I explored I realized there are no double-loaded corridors in the new school, which cuts down on noise in the hallways during and between classes. It also creates a more intimate feel among students moving between classes and using their lockers, which are larger than older models. A significant design choice was to separate the arts education classrooms and studios from the academic classrooms and labs. The eastern wing and corridors house the academic classrooms while the arts education rooms and studios are all on the west side of the school and fed by the north-south running corridor. Other than the eyesore of exposed steel beams on the classroom ceilings covered in cheap, spray-on fireproofing, the classroom model is a good one; a spacious, sun-filled learning room with video screens, grease marker boards and new desks and chairs. (Separate desks and chairs, not the terrible one-piece desk/chair modules we hated so much in high school.)

The two-story entry lobby, the views of the city, the modern media center/library, the wonderful cafeteria space with colored glazing and flooring and mosaic art works, the modern theatres, the breathtaking dance and art studios are the stars of the school’s vibrant interior. The building’s exterior, however, is another matter. It is overwrought, stylistically kneecapped and entirely charmless. Undoubtedly there was more budget for the interior than the exterior but that is no excuse. The jarring combination of metal panels on the south elevation (the storefront public entrance side) is bad enough, but then to pair them with cheap Jumbo brick is inexcusable in a high-profile building like this one. (Jumbo brick is a larger, cheaper brick unit usually seen in grocery store or other low-budget retail construction.) One metal panel type is of the dull, battleship gray variety and the shinier, patterned panel is inelegantly wrapped around the auditorium of the Corbett Theatre like a tacky ball gown. Rather than announcing a new arts school theatre, it more suggests a striptease academy.

On the north elevation, the cheap brick is a little less offensive without its metallic clubfoot, yet the fenestration chosen here is another disappointment: a generic, straight-from-the-catalog, narrow window for the pedestrian Jumbo brick skin. While the glass wall on the south elevation is welcome and opportunistic of the views of downtown, the use of these cheap and featureless windows as individual pieces elsewhere on the building smacks of lazy design. Come on, find a better-looking window and work out a deal with the distributor and put one of their ads in the school performance programs. Don’t just pull out your dog-eared Sweets catalog and pick the first window you see.

To be sure, there is a lot to admire and enjoy about the new S.C.P.A. The three theatres, the first-class art and dance studios, the museum-style lobby, the eight soundproof practice rooms, the music rooms for each style of music taught and played. And the mod cons: a water fountain in every classroom, air conditioning, a color-graphic scheme to reemphasize program areas, bright student gathering areas. But when the design of the building’s enclosure is as ham-fisted as this one is, the result is that it usually looks dated the minute its finished, and this one does. One has to ask whether the choice of Moody and his group was a good one, and whether the aesthetic collapse continued under the supervision of Cole and Russell, who aren’t known for strong design projects.

The students will determine the efficacy and potential of this new building, which required numerous fund raising campaigns and private donations to bring to reality. The hope for the neighborhood is that the school can improve it through the energy and urban connection it will bring; help clean up derelict Washington Park and its surrounding blocks. The bunker mentality that sometimes set in at the old school in its rough neighborhood was disappointing, so here’s hoping the new S.C.P.A. will lift its community to its level of exploration, learning and love. The school’s motto is written “Esse Quam Videri” in the old building, and its Latin means “to be, rather than to seem.”

To exist as a finished work of art, or a finished building, or a student who loves to learn and work hard, is the thing.

Geoff Simmons is an architectural critic based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Related Photos

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.

Exhibit #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 who 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.” Based on personal experience and speculation, I can tell you that this predetermined amount of money for improvements is not normally sufficient to hire a firm like Gensler as a design architect, nor to fund the construction of a LEED Silver Certified Office Space in the center of Washington, D.C.

Recent posts on Archinect have revealed that NCARB’s new LEED Certified office space resides at the luxurious 1801 K Street address.

Exhibit #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.

Exhibit #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

***Temporarily removed the logos per request of USGBC, they will be back shortly, be patient.

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 Secret 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

References:
Books referenced for this publication that document the architecture of Herzog & de Meuron.

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