AAI Scribblings

We are a nation of writers, speakers, converstationlist, deep thinkers and poets – so why not explore that avenue to our advantage? I mean we have spent long enough being ‘beaten down’ by the whole world, and having to go and scrap for a living. Why not enjoy that ray of sunshine and fresh air for a change.

Noel Jonathan Brady’s Strategic cities essay, is a bit advanced, but for a senior in college or a young architect in practice, it does manage to cobble together alot of issues (sometimes presented in a bs fashion) into a quite comprehensible document. Noel is also a VERY accomplished public orator – deceptively good in fact, because they make it look so simple, you don’t notice it.

I remember one girl in particular in college in Bolton Street, who had simply the most beautiful female speaking vocal cords, i have ever heard. (I envied that alot, with my thick Limerick acent) You just wanted to believe what she came out with, but most of the time i must admit the intellectual content did not live up to the elecution. 🙂 Sadly.

Ross Cahill O’Brien, Sean O’Laoire, Shane O’Toole, and one guy from FLK are accomplished public speakers. Some Irish Architects are much, much, much better speakers, than actually having that much to say. I think the Irish profession has been blessed with some really top-notch public speaking talents, but the reality is, not everyone is as skilled as those in the ways of language. Its okay, to be a good B public speaker, besides those giants i think.

But it can be entertaining to watch people try from time to time too! 🙂

Brian O’ Hanlon.

james,james,james….what an ignorant attitude.
why dont we cut out all that rubish medical research?arent we fine as we are?

How do expect the practice of architecture to progress past ‘Corbu’ if we dont have discussions, proposals or glimpses of other designers ideas? as you know, because of the economic and time related restrictions attatched to our profession, architectural propositions cannot always be made in built forms. architectural writing is merely a vessel through which ideas can be proliferated and thoughts can be provoked. if you think it has no place in architecture then visit this link http://www.kellysearch.com/ie-company-800008712.html. but dont assume that everyone else is at the same level as you.
the producers and contributers to Building material should be commended for portraying the rich intellectual vein of irish architecture that the Irish architect magazine clearly fails to do, not be slagged off because they havnt dropped the level to the lowest common denomenator

what?

I think you have made a decent enough argument what. Well done. I have to admit personally hating certain Irish Calvin Klein wearing designer glasses pretending to be Rem Koolhaas from time to time. But i have to admit, the older i get, the more i find opportunities to do stuff in writing which i couldn’t explore in practice.

I printed out the AAI site visit review of Limerick County Council new offices design by Merrit Bucholtz and a little housing scheme by O’Donnell and Tuomey for my Dad to read, who is easily one of the foremost literary critics i have ever had to pleasure to know. Seriously. He has spent his whole 60+ years of his life, reading. His response to some of the BM writing was exactly like yours. So you are not far at all from the ballpark.

However, this lack of command of the english language doesn’t quite excuse the entire profession from exploiting the avenue of language and speech. As you have said, they just need to find clarity rather than complexity for the sake of it. This in time will come, as currently the young architects believe that their overly flowery texts are masterly written.

As to architecture being shelter, i think Nicholas Pevsner, has a good introduction in his book Outline of European Architecture, dealing with that very issue – if you are near any college libraries soon. I have been ploughing my way through Kevin Lynch for the last couple of years, and my lack of experience in planning matters really prevented me from understanding what Kevin was really on about.

I have sat in front of a computer monitor for the last 5 years, and have square eyes to show for it. Now i read more County Council Local Area Master Plans, and familiarise myself with more reality and environmental stuff, before tackling Kevin Lynch. That would be my biggest criticism of architects and writing. If you want to write about planning scales, and cities, and civilisation – then read the simple texts written on the subject by Dublin Corporation, get away from your reading chairs/computer monitors every once now and again, walk/cycle/bus/drive around the city – before reading Rem Koolhaas on about ‘La Peripherique’.

It seems so damn obvious, but very few of the people who write/read this stuff, do get out very often. In Bolton Street College this year, i was forced to walk around alot – I made me decide to start with my reading about planning/urbanism etc, from a reality first of all. I had to design a certain Cultural Centre in Bray last winter, and was advised to walk the entire town of Bray itself, to get to know the place itself. Do you think i did that? Well, yes, i did eventually take the Dart down there for a day in June, and walked it all.

I came from a rural upbringing, and was never greatly encouraged to develop my investigative, curious instincts growing up, about places i came from, different classes/types of people. Basically because mosts of my family work as civil servants, and sucessfully manage to ‘shut’ alot of that out. This is dreadfully bad as an architect, who needs to be open minded.

So through the discussions by Kevin Lynch, about his observations of the society world, he saw around him in America, i began to gain much greater confidence, and become more observant about what i see around me in Ireland. My folks, or my relations cannot comprehend this – they think Architecture is like a job with the Civil Service! Weird! Anyhow, i would buy a copy of Tracings 2, with is introduced by Sinead Bourke on BM no.10. And see if the writings are any good – i am going to. I know that the Herbert Park apartments architect quotes Jane Jacobs alot – a very common reference in the American Planning profession booklist in courses.

Basically we are a very middle class kind of profession, and unfortunately that runs contradictory, to our supposed concern for all people, and all situations. I know a middle aged lady here in Dublin, who spent her whole life as a single mother, in places like Crumlin, Clondakin, Walkinstown, Rathmines, Ballymun flats, Raheeny, Tallaght, Kimmage…. she is a gold mine of information for me. A veritable fountain of knowledge about peoples’ relationship with environment/design/architecture. It was reading Kevin Lynch really, who made that person an open book whom i could read and study from a design perspective.

Originally posted by James
Dunno that I agree about that ,the older I get the more time I seem to spend designing and the less on philosophizing. (not that anything I do is particularly brilliant), still although I was being somewhat facetious, I find the arcane language and poncey exclusionary tone of most of the writing referred to quite irritating. If for example writing about architecture is a developmental and experimental thing then surely the first rule should be Clarity, have a look at teh following drivel:

“Architecture is communication from the body of the architect directly to the body of the person who encounters the work.” So writes Juhani Pallasmaa in The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses

I agree with you James. I thought that the last issue in particular was completely unreadable. It was if you pardon the phrase typical architectuese, completely unpenetrable even to architects.

The previous issue was a little better with the earliest issues being the least “poncey”. As a journal, if I didn’t get it free as a member, I wouldn’t buy it.

I wonder if any of the BM writers would leave their material open for discussion here. I mean, so that people could exchange opinions of what has been written. I may not accomplish very much. But it may provide the writers of the BM journal with a live feedback. Rather like the Steven Spielbergs etc, use a live audience to repond to their films first cuts. It might make the writers of BM see their own ideas, way of expressing themselves from a different angle. A dedicated section of Archiseek message board to just talk about BM journal type of stuff perhaps.

I mean that is really the crux of the whole matter, since Architects NEVER do get much audience for their meanderings in the first place. Especially not in college/practice, where there are just too many deadlines to meet. I have been scolded so many times i can tell you, and with very good reason too.

I was personally very surprised about Frank McDonalds comment about Archiseek. For someone who has made a good living out of talking about the built environment, he criticises an independent establishment like Archiseek. Frank has had a totally captive audience, from a huge range of livestyles and professions/occupations for the last 20 odd years.

I don’t think he must yet understand what message boards are all about. It is mainly about learning the skills of debating/discussing and talking. Because those things are often completely shut out of our normal lives today. Everyone is so busy, texting etc, that very little real discussion has an opportunity to arise. Look at dinner tables around the country at the moment, a radio playing, a playstation, a television, a VCR, a computer with e-mails/web in the living room… noone wants to talk any more.

I view Archiseek as a positive development for the profession – it allows the members to develop their debating skills – very valuble. That is all the U2 thread was about, the subject of conversation, is very more ‘secondary’ to the actual practice of debating/talking/expressing.

I am just amazed that someone like Frank McDonald cannot deal with that. But i guess having been the sole mouthpiece for a nation of designers/urbanists/conservationists
/architects/planners/government officials and government environmental departments for the last 20 odd years, he treats Archiseek as a maissive oponent! Just like Architects often treat the arrival of IT, as taking the limelight from them.

Please at least try to work with it people, not against it. I mean, you are going to get strange opinions etc on a message board, that goes without saying really. But I think people are alot more intelligently than Frank suspects, than to react to just every old crap they see posted at a message board.

Perhaps if Frank really wanted to advertise the notion of marketing good design, and design awareness, then perhaps he should read my suggestions over here:

Over here Frank!

im sorry, but i must stand up for building material and its content again.

The argument that i dont understand/ cant appreciate this, therefore it is worthless is not good enough. many of the more rewarding things in life can only be achieved by following up an interest with some amount of effort. not everything is handed to you on a plate. anyone can look at a piece of art and say i like that or i dont like that, but to appreciate what the piece is really trying to communicate, you often must know about the issues the artist or his genre were dealing with, the artists personal life, social context etc. some things arent rollercoasters.

And before you jump down my neck, by saying this, i am not suggesting that the general public should read space form and order before they are allowed into their own houses. we are the people who have chosen to design the built environment for others and have a duty to understand the issues and deal with them to the best of our knowledge and ability. the vast majority of people who experiece great architecture havent a clue about what the concept for the building was, but they enjoy the building nevertheless. why? more than likely because the architect has intelligently identified relevant issues and dealt with them using skill and knowledge. this creates a series of spaces or places which subconciously affect the user. anyway im just trying to demonstrate a point that it takes education and most importantly understanding to bring architecture (and many other things ) past the level of primitive.

Of course architecture is about providing shelter, in the sameway as life is about scrambling enough food to feed yourself.

building material and the like may not be for everyone but stop perpetuating the typical irish attitude of knocking those who aspire to more.

we are the people who have chosen to design the built environment for others and have a duty to understand the issues and deal with them to the best of our knowledge and ability.

That is where you are wrong, we are a profession that has chosen to specialise on behalf of the client, to accept responsibility for the guarantee of timely and economical completion of a building works project. That is foremost. We haven’t chosen to DESIGN the built environment but we have chosen to HELP BUILD the built environment. The part about designing is really only something you wrote into the agreement yourself, and doesn’t carry that much weight generally speaking. Only that as a result of (A) Competitions and (B) Pretencious Architectural School College professors, believing themselves to be really important in the real world – you have this mis-conception that the Architect is doing anything else other than supervising/overseeing/coordinating a building fabrication proceedure/activity.

I mean, why does the Architect get paid at all. The only place where the Architect might get any brownie points at all for decent design, is where deeply insightful clients notice the work, of a certain Architect Master Builder. And like discovering a new up and coming painter or fashion designer, commission them to do works. The established Architect ‘Names’ don’t have to worry, and quite regularly lend ‘weight’ to very dodgy developer activities, by putting their professional name on the building sign. That doesn’t necessarily MEAN for a minute, they every ‘sweated’ it out with the eventual client/user.

Well at least follow that link i gave to Frank, and compare how Mies van der Rohe treated/related to his clients. To how Louis Kahn worked with them. Louis Kahn wouldn’t slash a budget/design down to fit into a budget. He made out that was the Architects duty – to hold off, in order to make sure that Architecture was introduced into peoples lives.

Mies built great buildings, but he didn’t care what the client/user thought of them. He did expect the client/user to come up to his level of classical excelence, in order to appreciate his designs. And they are wonderful, if you are into oriental Zen space etc. I think Steven Siegal who be in his element in the Farnsworth temple of meditation. But Louis Kahn designed little houses that were ‘home’ to people.

I guess Van Eyck, Hertzberger etc are like that today. I remember one story of Kahn designing a dorm for girls in a private school in the states. Kahn thought about this design problem and decided that girls on their own together was a bit unnatural. So to combat that sterile situation he put a fireplace at the corner of the main social rooms. Indicating that young women associated a fireplace, with their Dads at home. So you need to define very carefully, in precedent how different architects have tried/refuse to accept the eventual client/user.

But all the traditional building agreement between the client, architect and builder stipulates is that the Architect should be responsible for whatever is BUILT. While Architecture is very responsible to building/construction – its relationship to client/user has been upheld and sullied by equally talented design minds – van der Rohe or Kahn. I have tried to discuss that notion of UNBUILT projects as a way to alleviate the often severed ‘relationship’ between the Architect/client/user, in modern day practice.

Think about it.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Furthermore.

(Apologises What?)

We are a profession that has chosen to specialise on behalf of the client, to accept responsibility for the guarantee of timely and economical completion of a building works project. That is foremost. Architect specialises in one specific task – (s)he is not a generalist in this sense. The Architect as generalist is just some urban legend that professors in colleges invented for their own purposes. With little better to do than think up really interesting thoughts of how Architecture can be more than it is.

Think of a DELL computer, it is a mish-mash of many different products, brand names, devices, components – all gathered together under one warrantee or agreement/contract between buyer/DELL corp, instead of dozens, if you were to ‘make’ that system by yourself. A client/Architect agreement is something similar. The fact that some Architects managed to take the client/architect relationship to a new level, is simply beyond the whole point to begin with.

Louis Kahn I think was the original ‘bastard’ professor in Philadelphia Architectural School. He even had a ‘bash-up’ with Rudolph and pissed off to Yale instead. Apparently Rudolph without consulting Kahn, enacted a design brief in the Studio to design a ‘Roadside Frozen Custard Stand’. And Kahn later went crazy over this, preferring his students to do stuff like ‘Re-design Chandigarh’ better than how Le Corbusier would have done it.

Kahn was perhaps your normal everyday dangerous Architectural college professor. But Kahn’s legacy to the profession around the world, was to bring it out of a period of ‘Miesian Grids and Master Builders’, into an era that was at least somewhat sympathetic to clients/users needs and dignity as human beings. For that, I am prepared to ‘put up with’ an awful lot of waffling and material from professors in college, or Architects in the AAI, who are dealing with issues that are important.

Someone like Merrit Bucholtz today is a masterly builder of buildings. And I suppose to be fair, Mies van der Rohe did turn the Architectural professions attention back to its origins – to when Architects were out on the Parthenon supervising and cutting blocks of stone, or the great Gothic nameless Architects of Northern Europe in the Middle Ages. So I guess, you cannot really be too judgemental of either camp.

when i said “we are the people that have chosen to design the built environment ” i was speaking in an idealistic tone. but i fail to see the logic in arguing that we are merely subjects of the client and economics, and following with examples of how Mies ignored his clients and Kahn wouldnt build if the budget didnt suit him.

your synical view of the worth of an architects design skills in “the real world” also seems to be out of sync with the rose tinted proposals in your link, where client-led design will give everyone what they want.

it seems to me that this thread is becoming an argument over whether architects need education or not. james and mg seem to think that discussion and debate are worthy of ridicule and garethace says the client knows best. whats the point in having architects at all? lets skip all the wanky ponce talk and just give the money to the builders.

Good come back, and your points make alot of sense. I just want to emphasise a few of my very own.

In my time as a student, believe me i had to endure more than one or two poncey AAI types being very dogmatic about whether the Architect was (A) A builder (B) A client liason officer (C) A Koolhaas type environmental urbanist. The only problem with that, is student life didn’t have the opportunity to talk to clients, see planners or build buildings. Doing Competitions has a similar problem. And yeah, i did in fact read the FKL essay on doing Competitions, and did find some good points in that.

But you read, Sinead Bourke’s ‘Tracings 2’ intro article in BM no. 10. What do i see? A Koolhaas discussion about the Pheripherique etc, etc, etc. No to mention the fact, that no proper 5-year course exists in Ireland presently, to develop planners to equal sophistication with 5-year trained Architects – Are the Architects poncing around as fully qualified urbanists, and fully qualified Architects.

Or are all these AAI types just poncing around in general, with some bee in their bonnets about either (A) Master Building (B) Urban Planning or (C) Great Kahn types of relationships with their clients? Unfortunately, it is the same guys who write the BM magazine, who decide to go up and work in Bolton Street and manage to deliver a very destructive payload of thinking about what interests them personally, to another generation of young innocent student individuals. The worst i ever heard, was that the Government was responsible for screwing up LUAS. So now 21-year old Arch Students, having listened to the ramblings on BM and elsewhere, have become total anarchists, and revolutionaries, instead of just trying/hoping to be better Architects. I mean, this argument in relation to LUAS is very intriguing and one, i would enjoy following personally – but do you consider it very relevant material for student consumption?

P.S. A student friend of mine once said, “I can’t wait to get out there and talk complete and total b****!” I mean, is that what you want 21-year old Architecture students in Ireland to aspire to? Or as James argument, which holds alot of water, are we better off sticking to that which we know, which we can do, . . . not escaping the very valid/strong argument you have countered with in your original post. But I think too many AAI types who read a few books, and write a couple of articles etc, think they can just swan in Bolton Street or someplace and burden a brand new generation of young people with thoughts about all sorts. Is there a better way to teach? I used the examples of Mies and Kahn, since they both had strong influences upon teaching emphasis in schools.

I think you are wrong in accusing James of ridiculing the idea of BM writing. But what he did mention was that as an employer of young graduates from our schools in Ireland, he is concerned with the types of young architects, who have been way-lead too much by the ponces in the AAI. I supported and attended AAI btw, for years, and have nothing but the height of admiration for what they do. But you probably do know what i mean, when i speak of this (too) strong connection between what is going on in the AAI, and what goes on in Bolton Street. (Speaking from my own personal experience)

I remember for instance when Foreign Office Architects were due to speak in Dublin, having to suffer a staple diet of FOA for a whole entire year 1997-98. Next year, there is a new flavour,… and so forth, but mostly revolving around obsessions by young AAI members employed as tutors. I cannot be more honest than that. It is not a problem of what BM writers do, but that more often than not BM writers influence the younger generation coming up, either as tutors, or in work experience practice. It is about giving the next generation the best possible springboard, to make this profession what it really deserves to be. A bit more than a miserable bunch of waffling old women, obsessed with some Holy Spirit of Rem Koolhaas picture in some magazine.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Now that is deep! 🙂

the issue of architects as lecturers, being dogmatic in thier approach is indeed one for concern.
and it is by no means purely a Bolton St problem either. coming into an architecture course most students know very little and are more than willing to lap up any exciting knowledge that is layed before them.
perhaps the younger lecturers are guilty of being more influential to the students(possibly because they are more enthusiastic) but they are also there for the reson that they have been identified as skillful and respected designers/architects.

i would be of the opinion that no-one who qualifies for an architecture degree course could be considered a stupid person(academicaly anyway!).as i said in a previous post not all things are given to you on a plate, i think education is a two-way conversation and that a student(particularily in more senior years) has the responsibility to interpret the lecturers guidence and make a choice as to what he/she agrees with and will take on board. if the attitude is to sit there and swallow everything like a fish then the student is part creator of its own destiny and cannot complain.

Exactly what you have said there, i would certainly like to believe. And I think that the younger staff and practicioners in practice, have contributed a great deal to the debate about what architecture is. Otherwise, i probably would not be even having this conversation. And indeed perish the thought, of what would happen, had young lecturers NOT given me some stuff to think about, down through the ages.

I have enjoyed this chat alot, thanx.

I have just been thinking people, about a fair enough point raised in a thread by what? That not everything in life comes to you on a plate. It is funny I didn’t actually know what that poster meant by the statement. That is, until I was chatting to a very knowledgeable music type of individual. He asked me to explain Architecture to him, as best as I could. I proceeded into my normal long effort of what I think Architecture is/is not. But suddenly I drew back and said, lets wait a minute here – perhaps things don’t always come handed to you on a plate. So I suggested that I e-mail him a few hyperlinks, to some of my deeper discussions about the topic here at Archiseek.

I mean, isn’t there something in the effort of reading? Isn’t there some sense of achievement when you have finished that page, and worked yourself to understand something relevant or important? I mean, if I give it straight up on a plate in a pub, to some guy who thinks he knows everything (and possibly does too) about music, did that person have to work for that? No. Is information just tasty bite sized chunks now? A seudo, pre-processed version of the real thing, and are we all like puppies?

Mies felt the same way about drawings as i do about reading now, i suppose.

Mies on drawings

im glad you have found this discussion interesting and useful garthace, your last post made complete sense to me and i think sums up the original argument quite nicely. the fact that you may have to struggle to understand a piece of writing doesnt make it of less worth than a quick skip accross a page. the process of struggle shows effort, and in most cases some form of gain will be gotten from this.

building material may not be instantly understandable by everyone but it is there for those who are willing to make an attempt at understanding architecture at a level above the obvious.

i agree with what.i cant understand a lot of the stuff in building material either but the stuff i do persevere with i find very rewarding and helps to bring a new level of thinking into my architecture. if you dont like it dont read it but dont knock it.

When I was in school studying Poetry for my exams, I was terrible for finding these ‘companion publications’ that told the student how best to understand the poetry. So one fine day, my Dad who has been involved with literature, poetry and all kinds of writing for decades now questioned me on this: Saying that perhaps I might be losing out on some of the real experience of the work of Art, the original poem. And in truth, I had to admit, that I had got to a stage, where I wouldn’t read the poem at all – merely reading what the experts had to say about the poem and ‘parrot’ that off in answering an exam paper.

10 years later, I am in architecture and my Dad, who as I have mentioned enjoys reading and literature an awful lot… loves handing me a whole stack of newspaper clipping of Frank McDonald and all of these critics of Architecture and the built environment. So last Friday, we all went into town for the day – sort of a family day out. I noticed a new development on the Quays I hadn’t seen before and suggested we might spend 10 minutes just walking around it – to experience it. Since I was well aware, my Dad would hand me an article from the Irish Times environment section soon, and now I had the chance to see it for real – to observe his reaction, to see how a layman would respond to what he experienced for real. Instead of getting into a lot of idle rhetoric, courtesy of Frank McDonald (who is a very charismatic individual, and who stands head and shoulders above many as a speaker/writer about the environment).

Guess what? My Dad said to me, a no, we have to rush home. I have some paper work to do, and some reading etc. I want to enjoy my day off to you know. So it occurs to me now – the exact same criticism my father had of me and poetry years ago – is exactly the same criticism i would have of him and Architecture today!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S. I think some folks are perhaps naturally inquisitive about these things. While I have struggled hard to cultivate an awareness of what is around me – to take a casual hour here and there. Most people educated themselves through books, discovered the world around them through books,… and that is a big problem.

When I was in school studying Poetry for my exams, I was terrible for finding these ‘companion publications’ that told the student how best to understand the poetry. So one fine day, my Dad who has been involved with literature, poetry and all kinds of writing for decades now questioned me on this: Saying that perhaps I might be losing out on some of the real experience of the work of Art, the original poem. And in truth, I had to admit, that I had got to a stage, where I wouldn’t read the poem at all – merely reading what the experts had to say about the poem and ‘parrot’ that off in answering an exam paper.

10 years later, I am in architecture and my Dad, who as I have mentioned enjoys reading and literature an awful lot… loves handing me a whole stack of newspaper clipping of Frank McDonald and all of these critics of Architecture and the built environment. So last Friday, we all went into town for the day – sort of a family day out. I noticed a new development on the Quays I hadn’t seen before and suggested we might spend 10 minutes just walking around it – to experience it. Since I was well aware, my Dad would hand me an article from the Irish Times environment section soon, and now I had the chance to see it for real – to observe his reaction, to see how a layman would respond to what he experienced for real. Instead of getting into a lot of idle rhetoric, courtesy of Frank McDonald (who is a very charismatic individual, and who stands head and shoulders above many as a speaker/writer about the environment).

Guess what? My Dad said to me, a no, we have to rush home. I have some paper work to do, and some reading etc. I want to enjoy my day off to you know. So it occurs to me now – the exact same criticism my father had of me and poetry years ago – is exactly the same criticism i would have of him and Architecture today!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S. I think some folks are perhaps naturally inquisitive about these things. While I have struggled hard to cultivate an awareness of what is around me – to take a casual hour here and there. Most people educated themselves through books, discovered the world around them through books,… and that is a big problem.

My account of an experience of Grove Island in Limerick

Grove Island, is the first project I ever had experience of on paper, prior to actually walking around it in reality. I must say, the gap between designs on paper and the reality, is still very large for me – it looked nothing like what I had envisioned from the drawings! Furthermore, I haven’t seen the drawings for three years now, and only walked around the thing last Friday. I guess this is what James, SW101 and plenty of other genuine posters around here are trying to say. I have always treated my designs just as paper designs – figments of the imagination – manifestations of my own creativity. But seeing the couple of hundred people using the actual built reality last Friday, for a brief moment, expanded my horizons to some much higher purpose – that is the real purpose of an Architect.

Opinion of a US Tax payer on NASA Space program

Reply here by a very experienced IBM mainframe administrator on Governments and funding

My own slant

I think there is in fact, a glitch with the old vBulletin there Paul!

Looks like I was automatically logged in as Aoife – through some strange quirk in the message board!

You must have used the same machine as AoifeC? Are you posting from a machine that no-one else uses?

No I am not, but I mean, archiseek wasn’t even in the history of this computer! I can still post as Aoife c, even though I logged out of her account to make the previous post as garethace. You tell me Paul?

Edit: Okay that worked as garethace, but Aoife C was still up on the logged in user part.

This is a college machine yeah, so maybe she is here! But this is more of an IT establishment.

no james, of course i wouldnt be suggesting that…..
what i would suggest though is that you read (or remember) what was written in earlier parts of this discussion before you reply in such a typically immature manner, in a veign attempt to flesh out your foundless arguments.

we have already said that theory is merely an appendage to building and tangible design.

we have already said that because of the nature of our profession this is the only way some of our more youthful and intelligent minds on architecture can find an outlet for their ideas.

we have already said that building material and the like are not everyones cup of tea and if you dont find it worthwhile simply dont read it.

it is not publications like building material that are being exclusive it is people like you. people who try to discredit the name of a magazine siply because they dont understand it. do you see a big sign on the cover of building material saying dont read the daily sport (or whatever you read) because it is too low brow?

in reference to garethace and aoife c’s posts(very similar!) i would agree that there is a definite danger in experiencing solely through reading. but the point is again inclusivity. designing, with thinking, with reading, with theory, with building(when possible), with learning.

Well, the problem with me, was building a building, of any sort, not to mention working on a project the size of a Grove Island, seem the equivalent of going to Mars for me. I me, I was the resident ‘IT geek’ or CAD software trainer for some of that project. I was pretty much as disgusted as some of the people who work for NASA, with the general daily misuse of technology and so forth. But at the end of the day, when you land a man on the moon, or build a building, for a brief moment you are reminded of a higher purpose. Other than the daily struggle with IT, information, data coordination, personnel training and staffing etc, etc, etc. Which is 90% of what people in Architects offices do, most of the time.

James wants us all to remember than 10% of the Architects job, which is by far the best 10% of all – that of changing peoples’ lives, of realising things on the ground. And how a scheme that existed as a computer file on a hard drive somewhere for 10 years perhaps, finally becomes a reality. And futhermore, as SW101 has pointed out, a reality that will be around long after you and I have kicked the bucket. We are just on borrowed time.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

This kind of nice representation is all well and good and communicates to the client your intentions etc, etc, etc. But somehow, when you finally experience the real thing with lots of people living there. . . you feel less in the driving seat, less like God almighty and just a another part of the whole game that is life, Architecture, the environment, poetry or whatever.

I tend to criticise Architectural technicians a lot, since they generally hate Architects, especially young Architects. Architectural technicians can be very dominant over young Architects too, in practice, causing a lot of internal HR problems. But I mean, Architectural Technicians do usually consider the idea that what they might draw, will actually be built. That is a crucial idea, that Mies van der Rohe tried to instill in his students. Mies was an Uber-Technician himself – a brick layer by craft, and his buildings displayed craft aswell. Even his imatators in Baggot Street here in Dublin. But perhaps, Architects tend to forget that what they imagine, is going to be built. Perhaps that is what James wants to point out.

Then you have the whole thing with Property Economists and Architects. . . Discussed here where Architects love building stuff, but refuse to do preliminary investigation into the value ROI aspects of a proposed idea that a client may have to extend their premises or house or whatever[/url]

I mean, when put to it, would you tell a client to feck off, and stop bothering me with silly ways to spend all of your millions? (Celtic Tiger, Bertie Bowls, Large government jobs… Luas?)

Brian O’ Hanlon.

perhaps that was what james was trying to say, perhaps not.
but the point he did make in order to start this thread was basically that building material is rubish because he cannot understand it.

the point i am trying to make is that intellectual discussion in architecture is of great importance. if built works were the only reference for study by architecture students the world would be a very different (and less developed) place.

of course architecture is primarily about a real physicality, but the quality of that physicality is also of importance. architecture of quality can only come from understanding and a body of knowlege about our trade/art (however you look at it). if the architecture students of dublin were to only refer to the buildings of this city in thier quest to understand the built environment we would all be in a sorry state.

journals and books allow students and those trying to learn to expand their horizons past what is arround them. the fact that all books arent “architecture for dummies” is not a negative thing.

Doesn’t that speak a lot though, for the cultivation of investigative curiosity? Of expanding of awareness of other cultures, cuisine, art…? Of planning your holidays around perhaps a day or two spent walking the streets of a foreign city, or building? I have spoken to many people from China, America and other larger countries than Ireland. They are used to thinking in terms of 2 hour plane flights, and so forth. Of greater distances. Here we are on this little Island of ours and imagine ourselves, a small population of 5 million, which is only a spike on a graph in an American/Chinesse political survey pole – to be oh! so important. I mean, you can see how many chat shows, radio shows etc, and newspapers on Sunday morning devote so much attention to exploring this bs called ‘Irish-ness’, or identity or lack of it.

How much of our own creative energy is expended upon serving this constant hunger, for another book or newspaper article about Ireland, Irish-ness or Dublin-ness? Keeping this thing alive, is quite a growth industry these days. Our image of ourselves is based largely around TV chat shows etc, etc. I mean, the recent competition from TV3, did expose a lot of the one-side-ed-ness of Irish media. That book called ‘Fatherland’ was written by a man working in the BBC, imagining what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. How many BBC people would put on the NAZI stuff, and become good little NAZIs? Are we just good little ‘Irish-ness’, a la RTE?

End of rant.

Have you seen this thread? Scroll right down to the end, where someone is talking about Shane O’ Toole’s article for the English times. I think it deals with a similar issue to what we are talking about.

Shane’s article.

Paul Clerkin’s thread here

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Once more, I cannot find much fault with what James has said – except that I would reinforce my theory that BM writing is trying to force Architecture into a region beyond that of merely building buildings, into a zone that is covered well by many different experts on planning, urban design and geography. As useful and interesting those areas are to the Architect, I hark back once more to the humble Architectural technician, who seems very strongly tied to the notion, that what (s)he draws is to be built.

I compare the early experiences of young Architects with grandiose visionary 5th year thesis projects in college etc, to the maiden voyages of those great nineteenth century ocean liners, crossing the Atlantic ocean. The captain of that ship, has to know all sorts of skills, everything from how the liner’s engines work, to how the seas currents, winds and temperatures behave. Yet, the captains sometimes decide to ‘turn the engines on full blast’ on the maiden voyage, as oposed to gradually wearing them in. They may choose to ignore warnings of ice bergs, in order to cross the Atlantic in record time, and make headlines in the NYTs.

They may have forsaken a lot of the normal safety nets, in the conviction that their vessel is clearly an engineering wonder, and un-sinkable. But sometimes, these majestic pieces of ocean going machinery do end up in bits, as a result of the captain’s arrogance and over-confidence on that maiden voyage. That is my biggest problem with the BM writers, as a lot of them do manage to preach that stuff to young students in our Architectural schools. In an effort to prove themselves as skillful captains of sophisticated mental machinery, tearing across the Atlantic ocean of Architectural understanding on the vessel’s maiden voyage. A lot of those same captains have gone down with their vessels.

Gurgle. . . deep murky cold depth of the big seas. . .

Brian O’ Hanlon.

good day what? what?

that the writing referred to made obscure and complicated something which could have been made shorter, easier to undertand and generally more comprehensible.

you cannot use crayolas to draw on pinhead.
somethings cannot be explained with everday speech this is why we have language in the first place, because humans felt the need to comunicate in a more complex and exact manner than grunting at each other. some ideas take complex language and long explanations to make themseles clear (as paradoxical as that may sound).to generalise is to lose clarity , despite what you may think this is true.

no one ever said that BR and the like were easy to understand. this is because they are dealing with comlex issues at the periphery of architectural discourse. YES THE PERIPHERY, not the mainstream shock horror.

once again i re-iterate my my opinion that theory is of great importance to architecture. possibly not to every single architect directly, but like it or not even the most self proclaimed run of the mill architect would not design the way he does if it had not been for the theorists and discussions that had gone before him.

james you may be of the opinion that writing is of little or no importance to architects, i would strongly disagree. you may call me a poncey “pseudo-architect” i may be of the opinion that you are a philistine. i cannot see either of us budging from these stances and we must agree to disagree. but i will continue to stand up for architectural theory and thought when it is being bashed. simply for the reason that if anybody influenceable should be reading this thread they might be steered down the path of mediocrity and apathy. knowledge is power and ignorance is dangerous.

i would rather this country produce more O’Donnell Tuomeys than Anthony Reddys.

A lot of the AAI and BM stuff is just badly written. There is no excuse or getting around that fact. But Architects haven’t got the time to compose really beautifully crafted sentences with equal clarity and weigh. They haven’t time to carefully balance points raised in various paragraphs. Like Mies looking at a drawing for hours, to realise the clearest expression of what he wanted to build. A good writer will agonsise and work hard for years to finally wrench out of his/her very being what they wish to say. It is not very easy, and Ireland happens to be one of the few places in this country where writers and artists are actually tolerated. Ireland isn’t a bad country for these people.

But to be true to that, one has to become a writer and accept that in ten years time, you will not have built everything you would have liked to. You will have instead, created a useful body of thoughts in the form of ones writing. That is a serious decision, which some young Architects should make perhaps. Instead of trying to pretend to be writers and Architects in equal measure.

That is why the BM writers should aspire to a high quality of writing. Then it is up to us, as the readers to try to interpret what has been written. I think that a lot of the BM writing is written by people who imagine writing is easy – and doesn’t demand much time or effort. Similar to the way some people imagine that designing a piece of Architecture is easy – you just lash something out on your sheet of paper, and hey Presto! I believe James has tried to emphasise that as Architects our primary purpose is to perfect the craft of drawings and visualising – not that of writing. Unfortunately, you do see Architects trying in vain to master so many different arts – it is crazy!

I know a lot of web designers who are architects, a lot of photographers and artists who are architects. So I guess, one should expect to find a lot of writers who are architects too! Be very careful about this what? You are in danger of becoming like a crazy person, who encourages young Architects to be as good at the craft of writing as they are at the craft of building. So in ten or twenty years time, young Architects simply look back upon all the excellent essays they wrote, as oposed to all the really good Architecture they built, or nearly built.

It is lovely to talk about Architecture, because you never have to actually build anything to confirm your theories – they are end-products in themselves. And does to a large degree act as an immoveable obstacle, to actually achieveing one’s primary goal – that of building good Architecture. I also believe that some branches of the profession of Architecture – the opposite end of the spectrum to the BM writers – are over zealous in their attempts to build bad or even indifferent Architecture. And perhaps that is because, the BM writer types are too busy reading/writing and not helping as much to go and design/build.

There is a similar debate going on in Ireland at the moment, about the amount of talent now ending up in professions like journalism and TV/Radio, instead of going into Politics. Listening to the interview of Dunphy and the Irish Times editor (gave up politics) last Friday evening. Architecture needs the talent, there obviously is, out there in the world of Building Material, to actually design and build.

i would rather this country produce more O’Donnell Tuomeys than Anthony Reddys.

Well this sounds interesting, because what you are actually dealing with here, is not theoretical or conceptual ways of forming an Architectural practice. But as much at looking at different viable economical role models for making a practice work. That could be quite an intriguing debate. Since it appears that both can work, both can actually build a lot of stuff, it is a question of which one should be allowed to work, and therefore to build with greatest frequency.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

i would fully agree that our role is primarily visual and not literary. i think that my stance is being misunderstood as one that venerates so called “paper architects” over those who build fine architecture. but some of the architects who worked primarily in theory, writing and unbuilt designs are now at the forefront of contemporary architecture. taste aside, people like zaha hadid, stephen holl, daniel libeskind or un studio are the Mies’ and Corbs of our time. these architects had the courage and belief in their ideas not to dilute them just so they could be built quickly. now they are recognised as valid and insightful architects and people are banging down their doors.
again this not a discussion on whether libeskind is a good architect or not.

now im not suggesting that we should all hold back from building just because no client will build exactly as we think is right. i am just arguing that theory and new ideas (not just in built form) are the cornerstone (yes i see the irony) of development in any field. to be dismissive of new and possibly complex thoughts completely in favour of pure pragmatism is extremely short-sighted.

whether the architect is a particularily good writer or not is of secondary importance. what is primary is the dissemination of new ideas in order for our profession to develop and grow.

in reference to the o’donnell tuomey/anthony reddy comment, what i meant was i would rather see practices becoming interested in theoretical (which are often pragmatic) concerns than churning out mindlessly bland profitable buildings. to say this is not a theoretical way to look at an office is very wrong, and i firmly believe that these two offices differ because one is interested in more than obvious pedestrian aspects of architecture, and the other is not.(take a guess which is which)

i implore people (who feel that way inclined) to embrace theory and the hidden richness of our profession. it is rewarding and worthwhile both to architects and most importantly those who will experience the results.

but some of the architects who worked primarily in theory, writing and unbuilt designs are now at the forefront of contemporary architecture.

Quite the case I agree with you on that.

people like zaha hadid, stephen holl, daniel libeskind or un studio are the Mies’ and Corbs of our time.

But who is the Louis Kahn or James Stirling of today? Where have all the cowboys gone?

again this not a discussion on whether libeskind is a good architect or not.

I am starting to warm a bit more now to his Ground Zero entry, although I haven’t seen any other entries, and the graphics I have on his entry are quiet sketchy at best. But I think I have some idea what he is doing – the bit I do like is the circular pathways linking the scheme to the rest of the city blocks, over a busy motorway etc, etc. I would love to see that one built. But again, how long does in take, in timescale terms to realize a Daniel Libeskind project? I mean, isn’t Architecture one of the few cases where guys can go on improving well past their thirties and forties?

I mean, on James point there about producing lots and lots of unbuilt designs – I am reminded about Frank Llyod Wright designing thousands of ‘children of the imagination’ as he called them. While only struggling with fights with many of his clients, the Morris’s I think, and a fellow called Jonson, to actually build the 120 or so masterly houses he did build, right up until he was 91 years of age in the 1950s! I mean, it is very interesting to notice how he started building in the 1890s for a totally different world and client, than he built for in the 1920s in LA, or later on for Usonia in the 1940s and so forth.

There was someone who was impossible to work with, because his own son and RM Schindler got next to no thanks. He was a brilliant draughtsman and interested in the actual building technology for his houses. One of his favourite materials ended up being concrete, or ‘the gutter rat’, ‘an architectural outcast’ as he called it! Yet despite having great talent working for him, and having all the goods necessary to be a good Architect himself – he still had to work exceptionally hard to leave us with that great repetitoire of buildings which find their way into hundreds of coffee table books even today.

But when I read this:

now im not suggesting that we should all hold back from building just because no client will build exactly as we think is right. i am just arguing that theory and new ideas (not just in built form) are the cornerstone (yes i see the irony) of development in any field. to be dismissive of new and possibly complex thoughts completely in favour of pure pragmatism is extremely short-sighted.

I am also reminded of Frank Llyod Wright and all of his essays about the elimination of walls, of the roof becoming a canopy, of space flowing, or wall being flexible, the beauty of the horizontal and space as an object. I mean Frank Llyod Wright did a most awful amount of bullshitting too, in his time, and struggled to come out of very lean periods, where jobs where hard to find. Yet he managed to come out now and again and build really revolutionary pieces of Architecture, which could be seen indeed, as physical manisfestations of his own theories, R&D or whatever you wish to call it. He was into climatic Architecture and ecological design before the terms were ever even invented.

So I suppose in those terms, one can look back over the decades of Architectural design and realised works by O’Donnell and Tuomey, Bolles Wilson, or any other well known significant Architects, and in contrast to Anthony Reidy perhaps – there is that extra strand of thought about Architecture, continuing on through their repetitoire. That is to say, Anthony Reidy 1970, isn’t hugely dissimilar to Anthony Reidy 2003! 🙂 Poor ould Tony is taking quite a bashing here!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

ill take it from your words that you largely agree with my last post at least,garethace (am i right?).

but i must contest what i understand as a reference to

the elimination of walls, of the roof becoming a canopy, of space flowing, or wall being flexible, the beauty of the horizontal and space as an object

as being “bullshit”. if you have read any of these essays and can understand them in their time and context then you will realise they were as revolutionary as any BM article or deconstructivism or phenomenology concept today. in these essays he tried to explain, to those who were interested, the very essence of his vision. these were his commandments on which he based his many fine buildings.

if it was not your intention to call these ideas bullshit then i apologise and think we are in agreement on the fundamentals of this argument.

if it was not your intention to call these ideas bullshit then i apologise and think we are in agreement on the fundamentals of this argument.

I was actually aware of the ambiguity of my meaning in using the term bullshit. By bs, I actually mean, writing, complex involved writing, that needs to be read in context of his efforts to free space in his Architecture. It wasn’t bullshit at all to him, or to many others that read and were influenced by him and his buildings. I have never gotten my hands on a copy of that famous essay, but I have read several extracts in Helmer Stenros’s book Time, Motion and Architecture.

I have traced these concepts all the ways from my earliest reading of Francis D.K. Ching’s book, and the verbal interviews/lectures given by Steven Holl and Bernard Tschumi, back to the documentaries and books about Mies van der Rohe, or opinions about the Schroder house, and have only recently discovered through a couple of different useful sourses about Frank Llyod Wright, how he was indeed one of the very pioneers of this spatial perception.

Indeed Le Corbusier, spoke about finding the paintings in Cubism, 4-dimensional and redefining how we see space as an object. How Le Corbusier said himself, that he observed four dimensional phenomena in all three arts he expressed himself in – painting, sculpture and architecture.

This principal reason for my interest in his writing however, is because this definition of space as an object, as oposed to contained in a box, with holes punched in it – is crucial to my development of the use of computer 3D modelling as a tool to design architecture. I had to re-define my concept of actual space in reality, in order to use an artificial computer program to help me deal with space inside and space outside.

Of course my perception of space, was very weak, and it has been a difficult struggle to expand my awareness. I have used literature and real experiences of buildings by O’Donnell and Tuomey and others, to help expand my natural awareness.

My theories were just fine, on paper, until I attempted to use them in reality. I found that another important consideration in Architecture is that of the movement of the participant. That is the very last chapter in Ching’s book, and I found it the hardest of all to grasp, as you need to get off your bum (moreso than the others) to explore that chapter properly. I felt Wright talks about this too, in how the houses were flexible. I.e. When kids moved out etc. Like one family was still discovering new spaces in the house for years afterwards. Having changed the house many times, and putting their deck chairs at different places on the terraces etc, etc.

Building opportunites for young people. By Shane O’ Toole.

I had nearly forgotten about this one, but it is quite pertinent to this discussion, since Bucholtz is such a great builder of buildings, and we can all go and visit/enjoy his work here in Ireland. Also soon to be completed Kildare CoCo.

In the United States many younger qualified Architects are turning to things like Computer Visualisation to earn more money, since the hope of building that much for oneself is quite rare indeed. Doing CG Visualisation apparently brings the young Architects in the US, closer to clients, developers and ‘other guys in the trade’. I think the discussion is similar to what we are talking about here, except in Ireland we jumped towards words to VIZ-ualise stuff. While in the USA, they turned towards technology.

Personally, I would aspire to a combination of words and Technology – tempered with a mild blend of competition-doing, as James has rightly suggested. 🙂

Brian O’ Hanlon.

i think that this article displays the rift i would see between those architects who really care about their designs and those who are content to just build whatever the client wants.
and there is nothing wrong with either the world needs both types.

call it idealists versus pragmatists.

i would applaud bulchoz mcevoy and heneghan peng for their dedication to their profession and their designs. they primarily worked on competitions rather than chasing clients. far from wanting to live in a “safe” world of paper architecture as soon as they got the chance to build some of their designs they showed dedicateion in uprooting themselves and following the oportunities at any cost. now, i wouldnt say im alone in considering heneghan peng as the most promising exponents of architecture in this country for some years.

both of these examples of good irish offices along with O’Donnel Tuomey,Grafton Architects, Mc Coulough Mulvin, De Blacam Meagher etc etc. are all contributers to building material and by that very fact, display their interest in theory.

i would also like to say that i completely agree with the issue of competitions as being vital to an architects development. they are the only way in which the vast majority of us can do the kind of work we did in college(and keep ourselves sharp). i think they also display an undeniable interest in architecture as theory aswell as pure construction

Still think you are showing a little bit too much disregard for meaningful inputs of clients in the design process. I mean, a lot of good architects, took it on board themselves to develop a really good productive relationship with clients. Competitions exclude you from all of that. I know that competitions are good for young Architects, trying to build something. But having won a decent competition, would it not be nice to do a job, where you got to know the client a bit better? I mean, a really good client? Suppose for instance Paul Clerkin, had loads of money made from designing web sites in a couple of years time, and wanted to build a nice new office/practice for himself? What kind of architects generally snap up clients like that? Is it the McCullough Mulvins, or the O’Donnell and Tuomeys – or is it the Anthony Reidys. Do good clients find themselves working with unsuitable – business-oriented Architects, and make the mistake of not employing the services of O’Donnell and Tuomey sometimes? I suspect the answer is yes – you cannot get O’Donnell and Tuomey treatment from certain types of practices out there.

I worked for a very business-like firm, where a lot of young 40 something Architects in their prime, felt their skills were being wasted. However commitments to family, mortage etc, meant they were stuck where they were. Now and again, a good client would pass through with a nice job/design problem. Or we might even do a competition – WOW! But ultimately, the process felt very fractured – you never felt you got into the groove of thinking laterally enough, before it was back to the old same-o business-like work again.

Sad.

I think individual young Architects like Bucholtz McEvoy are a bit like this account of warfare: Vietnam War, Guerrilla tactics: use your weaknesses against the enemy. The enemy is larger but also slower. You are small but more mobile. You rob, steal and capture what you can, so the enemy provides you with equipment. The Americans finished up supplying the enemy with tools to destroy them. You are growing stronger as the Americans grew weaker.

(Enemy of the State starring Gene Hackman and Will Smith)

Brian O’ Hanlon.

good point on interaction with clients, but i would still say competitions are the way to go, they are often run by clients who are more open and interested in design rather than bang for their buck.
this http://www.ribajournal.com/story.asp?storyType=7&sectioncode=3&storyCode=1021062 might be an interesting link for you garethace

The part about Governments as the largest procurers of built projects in Great Britian was the part I zoned in on, as much as doing nice jobs for nice clients.

This Smart Growth debate here is probably important too, since it is very difficult for an Architect to define what is a client, at a Master Planning scale. Plus the fact, that those projects drag on for generations, not like the normal neat, Architect/Client relationship often assumed for small houses, or buildings. In fact, some of the dismal master planning around our cities may be a direct result of Architect’s inability to define problems this large, or to comprehend ‘the client’ on this large stage, which plays on for generations.

More People, Less Land Spark New Planning Direction

Building for Our Commonwealth (Editorial)

Committed Foundations: Smart Growth’s Ace in the Hole

A lot of the recent U2 competition controversy, I think distracted people from the timescale in which the whole DDDA thing happened in. I have a very plush document, done by McInery Construction and Murray O’Laoire, which dates back to the eighties or nineties! To look at that brochure, you would think it was practically ready for building in the early 1990s. I was in the DDDA building one day, back in 1997, and was chatting to a security person there, who produced the document. He said, I found this lying around, it is the last one for sure!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S. I worked on a Belfast Master Plan with MOLA in 1999, and the due limited edition glossy publication was made. But like most of the DDDA stuff is to be found at http://www.stw.ie/ nowadays, I think that Belfast scheme might be the same. So you can see how the Architect, isn’t always remaining at the end of larger, ambitious schemes even. The client, contractor, developer, Architect, consultants can all ‘just come and go’.

I am particularly interested in how Information Technology can deal with this issue.

You mention competitions – say take the Bibliotheque de Paris won by the unknown Perrault fellow. I have seen schemes by Richard Meier, Bernard Tschumi, Mario Botta, James Stirling… a lot of bit names. And all of those Architects do talk about their entries for those competitions with enormous affection. As if those projects, were important for them as Architects. I know that Meier was annoyed at being eliminated from the last 3 I think, in the Paris Bibliotheque competition, and perhaps with some reason too.

Want to scare your client? Some very modern interpretations of competitions here What?

Swanky Computer generated stuff

I remember I got the kansai competitions and yokohama competitions as study sheets in Bolton Street! I imagine this guy does realise alot more though.

Andre Duany

Never heard of him in Bolton Street though. Just not cool enough? 🙂 But I suspect, a lot of recent BM Materials is attempting to deal with problems defined at this ‘u-mungous’ scale. Ballymun is interesting, maybe. Docklands yeah, a bit.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

i have to admit to having quite the fetish for hyper-complex graphics such as reiser + umemoto and foreign office (http://www.f-o-a.net) stuff. but not to taint my argument, this is purely a visual preference.
some of the writings on these firms are amongst the most confusing and complex (wanky?) in architecture today. it does take lots of re-reading to understand properly but i personally feel that spending this time is worthwhile to understand the ideas involved. not to try and recreate them in anyway, but just to be aware of these strands emerging in architecture and to keep your mind at a level where it might be able to innovate rather than simply produce.

it keeps you on your toes!

The whole Archinect thing though, was a nice idea for exchange of ideas – but seems to have developed into a Sci-Arc versus Columbia turf war these days. Oh well!

GL Form and all of that, I would rather learn about Architecture at ground level

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S. I am still turning over this statement in my head, and am just wondering if the people representing the use of computeristation and Architecture are really putting forward as bad an image as this one very intelligent poster at Archiseek seems to have gotten stuck with:

In one of your earlier posts you mentioned possiblity of thinking computers but perhaps we should be reminded that this is not the case yet- computers and they’re programs are created by us, written and informed by humanity. Every project developed in this way is coloured by someone elses preconceived notions. So my objection to complete computer design is that intrinsicaly it must breed homogeneity.

I mean, cast your mind back to Post Modernism, and all the other -isms in Architecture. And how the parrots of these ‘-isms’ always managed to spoil the original good the movement or thinking had to offer. You have made an intelligent point several times, about not swallowing things whole, about following up on strands happening around you, but not imitating them. Isn’t it really the slavish imitators who have arisen as ‘spokes-people’ for computers in Architecture. Isn’t it this people who have spoilt it as a movement for all of us?

I am very much reminded of a student in Bolton Street who decided to do his research topic about ‘writing algorithms to design architecture’. I mean that is the kind of opportunities that more conservative tutors standing upon some high moral ground love, to prove how useless computerisation actually is to the profession. Based purely on a very amateur and limited discussion of computers and architecture.

Your opinions on this would be valued.

im not sure i would be completely confident making a comment on the exerpt above since i dont know what context it was written in. however, my instinct would be to agree with it as a wide sweeping comment. computers should never (and i dont think ever will) be, expected to wholly take on any task of design or intelligent creation.

as far as i understand it, this so-called intelligent technology which is being developed is only “intelligent” in the sense that it can learn to do things it is taught. you can only teach someone something in the real sense of the word if the desired result is pre-defined. architecture,art etc do not have pre-defined goals (otherwise whats the point in having architects or artists). the design process is a fabulously complex and subtle process, which is trully out of the scope of any artificial intelligence.

there seems to be two types of architects who rely heavily on computers to realise their work: on the one hand you have firms such as FOA and Reiser+Umemoto who use the computer as a tool to bring their complex ideas past the stage of the conceptual into a more tangible, buildable reality. on the other you have the greg lynns and to a lesser extent asyptotes of theis world who are chasing the computer down a rabbit hole. (however we may see some useful benefits from this research in the future so i wont be dismissive of it)

i see nothing wrong with using computers as a tool, to whatever extent, to realise architecture. however a problem arises when someone suggests that a computer could take the driving seat in the creation of a work of architecture. as your exerpt suggests in its extreme case this would lead to (some sort) of homogenaity (although not complete as the combinations of permatations which could decide the finished product are infinite).

sorry, this is getting a bit drawn out.
im all for computers being used as a realisation tool once the architect remains aware and intelligent enough to be clear in his goals and not “loose the plot” so to speak

Interesting reply, but I would like to refer to Tom Mayne’s lecture here in Dublin back in 1995, when he complained about having been ‘bunched in with the Coop Himmelblau’s’ by the same guys who write the glossy, expensive Dummies guides to De-Constructivism. The same ones that became so dog-earred, torn and grotty looking in many a college library around this globe. He also complained about he offering to give journalists/writers a guided tour of the Crawford house, they would all refuse point blank and just thank him for the permission to write about his architecture. As he said, ‘I have no idea what they are writing about’.

I have always been interested in models, be it cardboard, wood, CG whatever. And find it difficult now, being ‘lumped in’ with so many other (possibly very talented) GL Form Architects. Even though, GL Form, is far from the way that I personally discovered the computer.

Whenever I indicate I am interested in computers and Architecture, everyone automatically assumes they can confront me directly on the same theoretical ground as people like Greg Lynn. Peoples’ knee gerk reaction is simply to pigeon hole me into the same place as Asymitote. When I say I like Frank Gehry, they jump to the conclusion – curvy, computer generated form. I discovered Gehry after a long period of looking at Kahn, and noticed that Gehry isn’t afraid to be ambitious with openings to natural light – same as Kahn. Nothing to do with Gehry and computerisation.

Can one appreciate an architect who works with computers, just for the Architecture and leave the process out of it? No, not in this instance. Computerisation is just like an order Architectural Critics intellectual construct – like Decon, Po-Mo, Ec-Co . . . sounds like rolly toys doesn’t it? Architectural critics love creating glossy concepts, for the decade and then dragging all that through the muck. Tutors in colleges behave very similarly, since they spend so much time reading AR. Here is my best recollection of getting into computers,

In summer 1998, I told my auntie, I said Auntie, I cannot use a computer. She said, Brian, that’s silly, can’t you even use Windows? To which I replied, (aged 23) ‘What’s Windows?’ Having already done 6 six years of third level, by then.

Anyhow, I am more interested in the Architecture of Frank Gehry from a perceptual point of view, even though, I know loads about CATIA and his process etc. I have made some observations of an early Holl building, which explains my respect for Architectural perception. Have you seen the updated Steven Holl web site btw, check it out if not. You will not be disappointed by the new content, but the great watercolours seem to be gone now.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

CAD perspectives (I feel) do a bad selling job – often they’re so ‘realistic’ in the virtual sense, that their impact and cleverness falls flat and can even seem facile to the lay person.

I definetly do not intend making bad perspectives, if I know I can use a tool which cuts through the donkey work faster and better than anything I can do. I also believe that using computers to visualise Architecture has helped me to see the world around me, more clearly, to see Architecture, and therefore to improve my ability to draw it freehand if I wish. As with any good draughts person, it is more important what you do not draw, the parts of the paper you leave blank, as the lines you do make. Seeing Architecture through computer visualisation, has helped me to develop economy in my sketching, and be happy with a sketch sooner, rather than working it for hours, in a vain effort to make it deeply personal and deeply artistic in its own right. As someone who comes from an Artistic sketching background myself, a sketch is always a creation of love and care, like a poem, it becomes an end in itself. That is why I chose to stop sketching Architecture, and turn to something as artificial as a computer instead.

I envy those people doing architecture today, who never developed an emotional bond with the act of drawing – because it allows them to use sketching to design, rather than to express emotions through the strength of a line, the quiver of a wrist movement or the whites of the page, you did not touch. I tend to enjoy making very ‘expressionistic, emotional, El Greco’ types of representations of Architecture, which isn’t about dealing with clients, but about producing Art. I hate it when people reject, my sketches of Architecture, because to me, personally it feels like they have no respect for my Art!

Neil Downes once told a story about the famous Neo-Impressionist Painter Cezanne, reputed by many art critics to be the ‘father of Cubism’. How Cezanne was so sensitive about what he painted. If someone said it wasn’t good he would get mad, and want to know why. If someone, said it was a good painter he would say, “So you didn’t think I could paint like that eh!” 🙂

I love computers, because at least someone else wrote the computer software that produced the image, therefore I am not attached emotionally to it. Therefore I can adjust the design, recover from bad criticism of an image or visual, and in the end, produce a better design for my client, and for myself as an Architect. I was sketching like an adult when I was barely a teenager – I grew up with that ability, like other teenagers grow up with U2 or Nirvana. When I hear this:

In one of your earlier posts you mentioned possiblity of thinking computers but perhaps we should be reminded that this is not the case yet- computers and they’re programs are created by us, written and informed by humanity. Every project developed in this way is coloured by someone elses preconceived notions. So my objection to complete computer design is that intrinsicaly it must breed homogeneity.

I know that person was like most of the young people I did Architecture with in Bolton Street. Who never actually handled a pencil, or discovered the power of it, until they were in first year of an Architectural degree course! When ever I draw to this day, I become nervous, and my palms become wet – everything I am goes into the expression of the drawing, and hours fade away like they were seconds. So clearly sketching is not an option for me designing Architecture – to remain objective. That is why I hate Bolton Street’s insistence that I need to sketch rather than using a computer to design.

Because for me, sketching is like plugging directly into a high voltage power line, when all I require is a few amps out of a socket in the wall! Electric guitar filling a stadium with mega-watts of sound, as oposed to an acoustic guitar filling a room full of melody. Why do people assume a pencil, is always like the acoustic guitar? For me it is the electric guitar, and the computer is more like an acoustic guitar!

This Article of mine, attempts to show what computers could offer the profession. But taking a tool like a computer and sitting in front of it constantly is no help. Architect’s such as Tschumi, Holl, Mayne have brought it forward somewhat I believe. Since their theoretical foundations are based on how we see/experience the world around us, using such an artificial means to design it, isn’t such a big draw back. However, digging deep into the phenomenonological way of designing architecture, is theoretical and harder work than most people are prepared to do, in order ‘to design’.

I have spent a long, long time dealing with Architecture from the phenomenonological perspective, and I find the approach taken by Francis D.K. Ching, is far deeper and more complex, than his hand drawn sketching style would first tend to suggest. In fact, Francis D.K. Ching is often the ‘Basic Architectural design guide’ using by 17-year-old students years ago like myself. But the theoretical bedrock of Ching’s approach is to be found deep within the phenomenonological theory of design. Ching just added some pictures and made something very complex ‘appear simple’. Which is not in fact the case here.

All were more or less identical in terms of critical elements, broad appearance and layout yet the end result from these predetermined forms were quite different from one another.

Be very careful here, as I discussed in this thread people related to the world around them very differently in the old days. It was pedestrian transport generally, or horses which could navigate the narrow medieval ramps and streets. Look at some of the knight’s templar complex’s, which are wonderful piece of architecture to experience, but were the equivalent of a US airbase, and munitions store for a Desert Storm today.

Nowadays, peoples’ only relationship with space is either by (1)Cars or (2)Movies or (3)Internet. It is nice to think of the Washington monument ‘out there’ or Mogadisu (Black Hawk Down) ‘out there’ as places were great movie battles happen. Or the fantasy world’s created by Steven Spielberg in the movie AI. But as Tschumi rightly pointed out, Cinema did have a huge impact upon our perception of space and time. Le Corbusier, introduced things equivalent to medieval narrow ramped streets into his slab buildings. So does Meier and Holl nowadays. Louis Kahn worked hard to introduce back elements of the Knight’s templar kind of ancient Architecture back into modernism. Materials like stone, natural daylighting, a feeling of history and time.

In many ways predetermination is a virtue.I t takes the hard and sometimes pointless (re-inventing the wheel) work out of conceptualisation and focusses effort upon the real business of detailing, spatial juxtaposition and the always ephemeral ‘quality’ .

For example – I’m convinced it would be possible and perhaps interesting to make great architecture out of such a predetermined form as the semi detached, tile pitched house – of course it would take an enormous amount of effort – that was really the great strength of Grainne Hassetts Coill Dubh Credit Union – taking teh 70’s bungalow, turning it on its head and making it into a recognisably desirable architectural model.

Now you are really sucking diesel James. But you see Ching’s own approach was to look at simple spaces, simple architecture and analyse the conditions that made it exceptional. Natural Light, colour, texture, shadows, proportions, openings, views, circulation… most young architects are not encouraged to define themselve adequately in relationship to all of that. Because it is exceptionally hard work. What are the qualities that might turn simple boxes, or even bungalows into really nice Architectural experiences. One has to know the rules very well first, in order to break them. A lot of Kahn’s houses can be described very simply from a formal point of view. But he managed to get so much return from light, views and openings, that the Architecture rises above itself completely. Not many Architects I know can just pull that off as convincingly.

This Article of mine, attempts to encourage myself and other Architects to study these ingredients better.

I would be a big critic of Tom Power but that has been one of his strengths – looking for the magical in the ordinary.

And Tom would say himself, he does know when the Architecture is baked, which would suggest he spent a large portion of his time, learning to use the correct ingredients. Arnie Williams is a guy who writes for Cadence magazine, and has some interesting things to say.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Thought you guys may enjoy this article:

Tom Mayne, Prince of Progressive Architecture

The Prince of paper architecture says:

The power of the school is that it exists and interacts every day with students and teachers, and an entire educational system. “Architecture can’t just be on paper,” Mayne says. “You have to build. That’s what makes us architects.”

But his old buddies in UCLA don’t like him ‘turning like this’.

“Spoken like a true betrayer of his kind,” replies Sylvia Lavin, chair of architecture at UCLA. “That just makes me want to kill Thom. You can print that–and I am a huge supporter of Thom and always have been.” She says that Mayne spent most of his career in a more academic context. “For him to then turn and call the group of which he was a member five minutes ago irrelevant because they haven’t attained his level of success is offensive,” she says. “What is it that is so alluring about the world of businessmen and money and international fame that requires somebody like Thom to abandon the roots and the structure–the academy and its conversations–that made it possible for him to do what he’s doing? Is architecture only determined by how many square feet the project is or by how big the budget is?”

But it looks as if the 58-year old Mayne, is now beginning to enjoy the relationship with his clients a lot more too:

Mayne’s biggest fan among his clients is, surprisingly, U.S. district judge Michael Hogan, the point man on the design for a federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, which will be finished in 2005. Hogan says he’s never met anyone like Mayne in his life. “I was not pleased about Thom’s selection,” he admits. “Any federal judge, their idea of a courthouse is the Supreme Court. I read descriptions of Thom like ‘the bad boy of L.A. architecture.'” Hogan, an evangelical Christian, says one of his first meetings with Mayne did not go well. “He said he was a loyal proponent of the extreme opposition to everything I believe in,” he says, adding that Mayne told him anyone with faith “is not sane. He did it with such enthusiasm and relish; he was needling and provoking.”

With flashbacks to the Glenn Murcutt lecture in Bolton Street DIT last year, I read this very informative account of an evening lecture at Columbia University! 🙂

Taking pity, it would grant three wishes, one for each: a limitless supply of disposable logic for the idle generation of form (Lynn), a probe to uncloak the mysteries of taste (Zaha), and a path through geometry to the unspeakable name of God (Libeskind).

Come and sample the atmosphere, of the changing of the guard at Columbia University. Like some platonic shifting of subterranean earth masses, the tremors will be felt in Ireland I am sure.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Thanks for the article links garethace, interesting stuff,
i’d just like to clarify myself in relation to replys (mostly james’s) to my last post. when i said that architecture never has a pre-determined answer i didnt mean always in the grander scale of things. i am not some naieve little deconstructivist junkie who thinks the only good things are the radically new and explorative. as james rightly pointed out, subtleties and sophistication in design can be just as powerful and more moving than in-your-face formal gymnastics. however, the strength that these small changes can bring just show to what level architecture is truly undetermined. what i was referring to is a mechanical (or digital) level of pre-determinance that would be enacted by computers should we give the designing power to them. vive la difference, to whatever extent. we dont always have to re-invent the wheel often it is not necessary, or desirable. but Paladio, Bruneleschi etc were innovators not immitators. i firmly believe our skill as architects lies in our intelligence, built on a balance of knowledge,experience, questioning and confidence.

on the issue of computers being nothing more than a drafting/weak presentation tool, i would have to disagree with this one. (possibly depending on the formal complexity of the work) 3d modelling capabilities are invaluable during early design stages. spatialities, sequences, lighting, etc can be tested with quite a high level of accuracy which previously would only have been possible by building a costly large scale physical model. aswell as this, computer programmes are capable of instatly showing large structural/ economic/ energy use implications of design changes. there are a multitude of other uses for the computer in the early design process which we wont get into here.

as a presentation tool i would agree that many CG images are flat and unimaganitive looking. but i feel this is the fault of the creators of these images rather than the method used. i will assume however that your mind’s image of a CG presentation and mine are quite different, james. The difference in the level of sophistication in corporate, estate agent renders and some of the more thoughtful presentation methods using computers is vast. Garethace speaks of the weight of a line and quiver of a wrist, i would be so bold as to say that there are just as many (yet different) subtleties possible in a computer visualisation as in a hand drawing (im really going to get it for that one!)

anyway have to go now

The singer/musician Paul Brady said in a documentary last night on RTE what?, that people like a song, particularly when they sense you have taken a risk to do it. The audience can likewise sense when you have decided not to take that risk, and it is obvious in the resception from the audience. So I guess Architecture has its audience too, everyday, and people sense when the composer has played things safe.

as a presentation tool i would agree that many CG images are flat and unimaganitive looking. but i feel this is the fault of the creators of these images rather than the method used.

Zaha Hadid and Tom Mayne, have chosen to use computers as a tool yes. But you will notice, their computers images aren’t really 100% finished, commercially saleable images. To waste ones time producing good images is a waste of time. I don’t actually agree with showing Computer generated high quality stuff to clients. Even though I theoretised on this a lot. I would much prefer to see Architects using bland, flat looking computer models to investigate the geometry, construction and detailing of buildings amongst other architects, technicians and structural engineers.

There is a good article here, on how watercolours are still used in preference over computers, to visualise things like glass skyscrapers in the States, where the light and atmoshphere is constantly changing. Meaning that a freeze-frame computer generated still, will always fail. Hertzog and De Meuron always use a certain photographer, who digitally alters his images, to capture a little bit of that changing quality of their building’s skins at night, rainy weather etc.

Steven Holls web site, has quite a few computer generated images, which aren’t inch-perfect, but say something about the Architecture. Likewise the OMAs etc, are working in digital, and hand-drawn/digital hybrids. There are some nice hybrids here too, using sketch up software.

Often the computer model is cheaper, and quicker as you have said. But also, having made a really nice physical model of a building you cannot just rip it up again, without going to a serious amount of trouble, expense and time, which you simply don’t have. With computers, it is sometimes just possible to produce things, by the shere fact alone, it is so easy to edit a wall or opening or position of a door or column. We as a profession are still thinking in terms of physical cardboard models, and haven’t gotten used to the flexibility of digital modelling as yet.

Eamon O’ Doherty used always say in Bolton Street, use butter paper, it costs you nothing. If it isn’t right, crumple it up and throw it in the bin. That is the kind of attitude that needs to be cultivated with computer models – not the current ‘precious’ attitude that has filtered down from commercial visualisation, who regularly charge thousand per one good A3 image. Sure the Architects images might not be presentation material, but the would be cheap, easy and edit-able, or rubbish-able. Allowing the Architect to probe, and solve problems, not to set them in stone.

I don’t like that attitude, that everytime I sit down in front of a highend desktop system, with a sophisticated solid modeller like Z or VIZ, that my sole object is to produce a saleable ‘WOW’ image. Unfortunately that is how computer modelling is used now, and it is very similar to the old Butter Paper/Tracing Paper and Ink argument.

Most older architects, who aren’t familiar with computerisation do not understand that computer models are easy to change. And therefore are extremely reluctant to use computer modeling as a tool to generate, edit and change models on the fly. They think it would be just far too time and technically demanding for the limited word processing skills of their CAD using Architects. Another thing is having the raw computing power on your desk, and a stable system/software too. My learning to see essay does outline some of the demands placed upon an Architect using a computer to design today. Just like supercomputers are used to crack the great mathematical problems today, require a good formula to be written in the form of a program. The solving of Architectural problems via a computer requires the Architect to input information, based upon real world phenomena. While the computer is a way to visualize the world more realistically, it also requires us to observe the world more clearly too.

Architects who aren’t qualified enough with computers to pass any judgements, or suggest their proper usage, include most Architects from the age of 30 upwards, and all the ones who read Foreign Office Arch websites and Greg Lynn. There is nothing worse than good architects who can design brilliantly, and feel that gives them the right to talk as if they knew something about computers – leave computers to computer geeks like me, and the younger generations growing up. Watching 40 something well-educated, open minded, skilled Architects trying to sound computer-savy, is like seeing your Dad turn up to the rave party. And perhaps, if I ever learn enough about design, I can share with you all, how Architects could use computers. You need to spend a long time, not doing Architecture at all, and just doing computer modelling, to properly learn what a computer is and does. But Architects don’t have that opportunity – they need to look back in 10 years time on what they built/designed.

By far the most computer-advanced architectural practice in the world, Frank Gehry makes thousands of little study physical models on every project. And just photographs them every day, so that if the design team loses their way, they just track back through the archives of model photography, to find where they lost the design a bit. With computer models, dating and archiving of models should be done too. With Architectural technicians doing most of the computer modelling in practice nowadays, the architectural technicians don’t even hold onto a week old version of a digital model – they constantly edit and change the same model – and end up with ‘one file’.

The discussion here is all around these topics. I find it telling that in the 1960s, an engineer at Intel predicted something called Moore’s Law: That transistor counts and therefore computing muscle also would double every one and a half years. While this law has held true ever since the 1960s, Architectural projects move at a far slower pace altogether.

Personally I found it much easier to remain objective about design problems by using a computer. Because I understood computer models to be designed to be edited and changed. And therefore not really precious and ‘once-off’ like a physical model can be. It is hardly the fault of computer Architectural design advocates like myself, that computers are used precisely for the kind of highly-ray-traced images we are seeing now. I can take my computer model and delete half of it, like editing a word document, or cut it in half in seconds. Surely that must count for something?

I can also save several different versions of a design in computer model format, which would be difficult to do using physical models in most architectural practices in Ireland. But definetly, the disadvantage of the computer model, in giving you the ability to see the reality of a building, is having to observe reality more closely as a result. Learning to see.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Low profile buildings are something I always found hard to tackle, but using computers this particular French Architect, brought his original very naive and paper architecture looking sketches up to something more buildable. I mean, that Travelling Scholarship to design an Olympic Swimming Pool down in the Docklands a few years ago, for instance was a nightmare to conceptualise using physical models and drawings alone. And the design problem, represents a really useful way to make use of a computer, in my very humble opinion. Most younger firms and individuals would be totally excluded from competitions, based on the costs of doing good physical models of things like this. The Calatravas and Pianos with their expert workshop model builders would command a huge advantage. At least the computer allows smaller guys a chance in large competitions like this. I mean, you can always do a couple of digital models first, and then commission a final physical model at the end, if you are confident that your design has reached that stage. Calatrava of course, can afford to commission a fabulous physical model and then start to redesign the whole scheme again! 🙂

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Here is that French Architects visualisation in computers.

sketch 1 2 3

Elevation 1 2 3

Plan 1

External perspective 1 2 3

Structure 2

sectional model 1