I like this picture specifically because it is void of human presence. It forces your mind to grab the clues which suggest human existence and create the scenes you'd like to see here. Can’t you see the people sunbathing... hanging out their laundry... conversing with eachother across their rooftops? Hopefully they’re not absent because this is an unsuccessful community… maybe they’re just inside having tea and crumpets.

1.3.9.

*

Architecture should evoke community.

***

The built environment should encourage social interaction. Architecture should compel people to serve common needs. Built form should connect to its context in a way which either induces or suggests activities of a society.

*********

The built environment should not only gather members of a social network, but entice them to perform either individual or shared activities. Architecture shouldn’t force social situations but should make us aware of one another’s presence. It should entice use and should read as so even in human absence. Architecture should always render spaces which are not owned but are shared. It should generate sensitivity toward an individuals affect on (and existence within) a social framework. Architecture should create feelings of commonalities and combined efforts which drive the “social machine.” It should allow individuals to feel that they always have a role in this machine (even if it alters) – the shopkeeper, the customer, the nosey neighbor, the teacher, the student, the delinquent, the child, and the parent. This environment should allow for both a crossing and a connection of social networks which we may adhere and revisit for support when our role in society seems trivial in contrast. Community can identify us while architecture can embody it.

Modernism & Design Tools: A Personal Manifesto.

Let’s redefine Modernism!

Like most things, Modernism has evolved and continues to do so. I believe that what is considered to be Modern architecture correlates with the time period at hand. I like to think of the Modern Architecture of the early 1900’s: when cities were sprouting up all over the U.S., rooted with buildings erected from sleek steel and glass. These buildings were the product of the latest innovative machinery and of mass production. These buildings harbored offices and workshops which harvested the very kind of new thinking that helped to construct it. Building projects gave jobs to those struggling during the Depression and offered new opportunities, hope, and inspiration to city dwellers. This was a time when Modernism meant new materials, new ideas, new ways of thinking, new opportunities, and SOLUTIONS to the problems at hand!

Now… it seems that Modern Architecture has continued on this path of “out of the box” thinking… but with a more disfigured motive. It seems that it has become a rat race to see who can conceive the largest, loudest, most expensive, and (dare I say) outlandish creations. Don’t get me wrong here - I do appreciate the movement, the style, the new thinking and all its potential – but within reason, you see. It just seems that we should be more concerned in the meaning of this architectural style which we deem as “Modern”, what we do with it, and the problems it may solve.

Let’s rethink this stereotype that Modernism has been branded with. Let us remove the criticisms that have been thrown at Modernism like childish taunts: meaningless, offensive, un-contextual. Let’s design on a new path which solves problems concerning space, environment, housing, community, etcetera without trying to be iconic.

Form vs. Function

A concept we remember from the birth of our architecture careers. Does one drive the other? This lies in the hands of the designer. Architecture = Art + Function. A balance of these two tools is essential in producing a successful structure. We must adhere to our primal instincts as both human and architect to shelter our bodies, store our belongings, LIVE, WORK, EAT, SLEEP and BREATHE. It seems that modern architecture does not always care about these instincts. It is like a caged beast, - placid and beautified when sedated with reason but ugly and dangerous when free, devouring function without remorse. We must strive for a BALANCE of both! Form and structure can be beautiful – even in simplicity. So many of us, myself included, have become captivated by the sexiness of curved surfaces, the sleekness of steel cladding, and the translucency of glass curtain walls that we have come to define as Modern Architecture. But if it is a home with inoperable windows, an office with minimal daylight, or a museum where we can’t hang a painting on its crooked walls –we have contradicted ourselves. With a balance of both these concepts – we may keep the modern style which we have become entranced by!

Rhyme or Reason

We all remember our early days in studio critiques where we were faced with what I like to call “reasoning with architecture.”… “Why did you draw this?”... “Where did this curve come from?” We quickly learned NEVER to respond with “because I like it.” It seems that things, including architecture, that have clear reasoning harvest clear understanding. So how do we explain these hollow cantilevers, abstract voids, hallways to nowhere, and random walls that modern architecture has adopted? Even if the reason is... to NOT have reason... at least it has substance.

It seems that Modernism has become an art form where far more is left for interpretation than is created. There is no shame in the pure appreciation of creation: a sculpture for its fluid form, a painting for its intricate brush strokes, or even a blade of grass for its cellular composition. We should not feel guilty or uneducated to be disappointed by empty galleries, silent symphonies, and blank canvases.

The reasons behind design are endless and boundary less as long as the intent is clear.

Icon or Eye Sore?

Here, we must separate the interpretations of Architecture as an icon. Yes, it can be iconic – but in what way? Obviously, in the case of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao, this is iconic in its representation of location. Our minds have been branded with this image in its connection to Bilbao. I think we can all agree that it is also iconic in its appearance. Its sleek clad skin, sensual curves, and gargantuan form are a beacon which beckons you to come and discover what lies within. But creating an architectural icon does not mean that we must sacrifice these other design tools in order to force a strong opinion to be formed. These structures can be representational of a movement, a style, a structural system, a material… anything, really!

To create the iconic is not to create the famous. It is to create the representational.

You CAN teach an old dog new tricks…

The most interesting and respected modern architectural approaches have come about by considering context. This can be site or structure. The works which are polite to its surroundings are thorough, detailed, clear, and thus – polite to its inhabitants. Modern approaches do not necessarily need to be new in its entirety. Links to history and that which is already established help us to form better opinions and ideas on the “Modern.”

What better way to participate in the modern thinking of reuse and revitalization than to use a historic structure as a host for Modern design?!

The analysis and criticism of Modernism can help us to identify the role and importance of design tools. We must go forth and use them wisely.