Eero Saarinen's Bell Labs, Now Devoid of Life
metropolismag.com
metropolismag.com
Bell Labs is not just another glass box in the burbs because Saarinan was not just another bullshitting architect.
When I looked at these picture, I made most of the same observations that you made, but I think I made them subconsciously without "appreciating" them to their fullest extent.
I went back and looked at the pictures again after reading your comment, and some subtle details in the pictures were much more apparent and pleasing to me.
Thanks for helping me realize my daily lesson (i.e., notice and appreciate the small things more often)!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Cente...
http://docomomo-nytri.org/event/30/
Chris Alexander is the feel good source for software design patterns and architectural design. But in the end there's something to be said for functional design in programming and in architecture.[1]
If people sit in their office, they don't talk. Putting common spaces along the glass curtain wall also democratizes access to light.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, the first thing people who spent all day in front of a CRT tended to do in a daylit office was draw the blinds and turn down the lights to reduce glare.
[1] What makes Alexander useful in architecture is that a great deal of architectural function is related to habitation and architectural patterns double back on themselves in terms of users whereas software design patterns tend to be focused on the programmer's pleasures.
My personal opinion is that it better corresponds to current software architectural practice because whereas A Pattern Language is entirely focused on habitability for end users, both current software architectural practice and Notes on the Synthesis of Form emphasize habitability for the architect/programmer - e.g. three tiered systems make the job of the programmer easier, they don't necessarily improve user experience, but light on two sides does.
"You know, I would love for some people who say “bullshitting architects” to design a building. It’s hard to do. Super hard. You need to think about lighting, space, circulation, code, envelope, foundation, zoning, materials and material restrictions, HVAC and electrical, construction timelines, COST, fire exits, structure just to make ANY building. And you have to think of it all at once. And each of those things has many many possible choices available and every choice you make affects every other choice. And all of those choices contribute to the “design.”
Now imagine that you are just a normal human being going to work and you’ve got some shit at home, or you are kind of tired or sick, and then make all the best architectural choices for all of those things. And do it on a timeline and sell it to a client who, more often than not, is just the person who is going to rent out the building, so the entire purpose of the structure is to make money for a client who is therefore, not going to be super into spending a lot of extra $ on design time to make it streamlined, beautiful and functional. I would say 90% of the time it’s not the bullshit that makes a bad building, it’s circumstance that makes your design goals bullshit. But you can’t say that, because it’s your job to deal with all that crap. Which is super hard to do."
I told her I loved her comment and was going to post it, and then she sent an additional message (after she had become a bit less annoyed):
"I do, to some extent understand the criticism… or at least, I have some personal criticism. Because the thing with architecture is that it is, to some extent, all within the public realm. Everyone HAS to look at it. Most people have to occupy it. The decisions that architects and clients make dictate what takes up space in your world – visual space at the very least, and in some cases those decisions will actually force you to alter your behavior every single day. So I get it, but instead of calling out “design” as the issue, take steps to alter your world in a way that is meaningful.
Attend public forums on zoning meetings, learn how to do graffiti and make ugly walls beautiful, buy your own buildings and participate in the design process, plant more flowers, sponsor public art, etc. etc. Some architecture firms have open-forum presentations on their upcoming projects where the public is welcome and criticism and ideas are discussed, but the only people I have ever seen in attendance are other architects (and students) and while they all want our cities to be more functional and visually pleasing they probably have a different perspective than some people (which naturally comes from being in on all of those zoning and permit discussions, and having your livelihood depend on the oft-volatile construction industry.)
In conclusion, cool it, dudes. And “be the change..” or something like that."
I thought it was fascinating to read what could have basically been a developer complaining about the rigors of developing software for clients or bad managers, but instead it was an someone talking about what goes into building a structure. And it was refreshing to get a bit of outside perspective and break some of that "programmer's myopia" I find myself succumbing to from time to time.
We don't like to think about systems, we like to think about what jerks other people are.
A set of architectural plans for a project that won't be built has no value. A set of architectural plans for a building that will be built has exactly the value of the fee for their preparation. There's little opportunity for reuse, and what reuse occurs tends not to add value for the client.
To compare it to software, imagine if the first code sent to the compiler was what was shipped as final product. Construction is unit and integration and usability test.
Thus the architect has three tools for selling their services: legal requirements, expertise, and bullshitting. The legal requirements create a level playing field and most architects have adequate expertise for most projects. That leaves bullshitting as an important differentiator - even more so for those willing to treat the regulatory playing field less seriously - and the seriousness of the regulatory playing field is why architects are licensed in the US.
Erio Saraann wasn't a "bullshitting architect" because he at least as good as he presented himself (same for Rudolph).
I don't think there are many (if any) fields that affect people more thoroughly on a daily basis. Of course there's pressure to do take the path of least resistance. You know that going into the field. The responsibility, though, is to overcome it whenever possible.
It's not like software is any different. There's tons of pressure to just get by. It's our responsibility as developers to go beyond that whenever possible.
In 1989 it was the age of LISP machines and I went to Vocational School to study architectural drafting in order to get my hands on AutoCad in order to get my hands on AutoLISP. Whereas a couple of years earlier a certificate could land a person a job doing CAD making about as much as a typical March or Barch graduate earns today [without adjusting for inflation], I had the distinct good fortune to complete my certificate in 1991 when construction was on the downswing cycle due to the changes to passive loss taxation and the S&L crisis. Sure real estate was changing hands - from bankrupt thrifts to the Resolution Land Trust.
I pounded the pavement daily. I walked into VOA with my resume and the receptionist fetched the manager and the manager simply told me they had let eleven people go the previous week. No pretending, he handed my resume back to me without reading it, never mind a "I'll keep it on file." That was pretty typical.
One afternoon though, I walked into a small office with my roll of drawings. The architect came out of the back with a big grin and said, "We need the work." That was pretty much the low point.
Eventually, through the grapevine I landed a job in the engineering department of a precast plant. My first task was drawing up manufacturing drawings for double tees. The project was a new prison - this was the start of that boom. $7.35 and hour and unpaid overtime. During the time I was there, construction cratered, I moved to payroll as the pipeline dried up, happy to have a job. I got to handle the layoffs in the summer of 1992 when the last big project came out of the pipeline and the plant went from 112 employees to 19 in about three weeks. One day the brother of one the laid off workers came in to pickup COBRA paperwork. There'd been a heart-attack. He hadn't had the money to extend his company provided benefit.
The job market got better and I moved on, and in 1996 I negotiated a deal to purchase equity in a new firm started by two former coworkers [both licensed architects]. As that evolved, by the late 90's I was back in school pursuing an MArch and ultimately licensure. With impeccable timing, I graduated into the construction slump job market following 9/11 - wife, child and mortgage already in place.
Let your sister know that I've been in this business for more than 20 years. I designed buildings and owned a piece of an architecture firm before I experienced the architecture school experience, but I've done that too. I've been through IDP and taken the ARE and shuffled paper for an NCARB certificate and completed CEU's and written contracts. All things she can look forward to in a few years if she has the bottle.
Along the way, I've worked for directly as an employee for a developer. I've worked for a Fortune 100 homebuilder. I've worked in large offices. And small offices. And for myself. I've chased projects against firms who have already won them, been lied to by clients, disagreed with the decisions of building and zoning and planning officials - however since I've also worked as a municipal planner and a building plans examiner, I am more sympathetic to their plight than is typical in the privileged profession.
I have been involved in the design of more than a few buildings. I've put my seal on the plans for some of them, and consequently my ass on the line.
So when I say "bullshitting architects" I have particular insight into the phrase because I have worked for and with and as one of them for nearly a quarter century.
Fun fact: The architect who designed this building also designed the Gateway Arch in St Louis and the iconic Tulip Chair.
These buildings are vast. Every $1 per square foot of renovation is a lot of money. It is further complicated because the historic features tend to include long since discontinued manufactured items. Often these components were custom designed because the products were cutting edge, needed in large quantities, and the client's were such as to see the benefit and to afford them [e.g. Pyrex tubes at Wright's Johnson Building and the ceiling tiles in Bunshaft's Cigna Hedquarters].
Finally preservation is tough because these buildings were designed at a time when energy was cheap. Van der Rohe' Segram Building ran all the lights all night for architectural effect. All that glass which allows daylight in also creates a greenhouse. Technology can mitigate some of the effect but until we get a thermostat on the sun, the physics will remain the same.
Developers come in all stripes. Any neighborhood or district you love and enjoy was built by one [or more]. Sure, they might be lying scumbags and just paying lip service as a precursor to a Power Center in a sea of asphalt. But probably not.
That this developer is trying to preserve the building means that they are valuing history and aesthetics over the bottom line. They may not be successful. They may walk away. But to me, it sounds like they are instead dreaming unreasonable dreams, and that's the fabric of amazing places.
http://newprovidencedailyphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/8...
http://paulrudolph.blogspot.com/2013/03/burroughs-wellcome-u...
It hit me when I visited the Massachusetts State Building in Boston - his corduroy concrete's ribs are sized to the human grasp and hit us in our subconscious in a way that makes the scale at which we experience the building change.
Often times, the exits for forlorn property make a bunch of money for the people speculating on them as well.
Stuff like abandoned urban residential property that destroys neighborhoods, empty office towers in midsize cities, etc.
Look at it this way, suppose they decided to lease the space to another tenant - say for 5 years. Market forces could change a year after the lease is signed and they'd suddenly need the building again. But now they don't have the space anymore and need to get yet another building.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex#Post_...
(Isn't it a shame Larkin is no more?)