Questioning the Origin of Form

Originality and arguments supporting or contesting if it actually exists have been around for ages. I am absolutely not interested in examining this argument today[or ever] but I am curious about the idea of originality in the architectural sense. The process in which any creative type gets inspiration is questionable for me. Is it simply a development, a further iteration of ideas and work done previously by the artist, an expression of something the artist has experienced; OR is it totally original and fresh and not based in anything seen or done previously? And further from this argument - the artifact that is left behind, the sculpture, why does it take the form that it does? How is it presented, is it in a gallery? If so why? Could it look like something else or does it absolutely have to look the way it does? Why the material choices?

Well you get the point.

I am currently going through a major theoretical crisis about the origin of form in architecture. With all the technological possibilities, new materials, etc, why are we designing and building things the way we are? Why does it look like that when we can build this? Why do I have 12 different models on my desk of the same project? Why are they all different when I'm approaching them from the same angle?

When we design here [as it is in other schools] the approach is as follows:
A program is given for a particular location. Now this involves what the site will be. Is it a courthouse or an athletic center, a movie theatre, a shopping mall, whatever.
Sketch models are produced. Usually quick 5 minute experiments following a theme of some kind. Something the individual wants to 'explore'.
The program is integrated into the sketch models through more refined models and more accurate drawings of possible relationships. Usually rulers start to get used somewhere in this period.
Initial concept designs are the result so far and they are refined usually through the act of creating multiples to flush out the initial ideas, then...
A final design is reached.

Is the approach currently being taught the trend? In the Renaissance it was simply a matter of copying what had happened before and using an architectural language developed by the Greeks and the Romans; columns, symmetry, grand entrances, etc. When I look back on architecture of the Renaissance [or just about anything pre-1880] we have come a long way in developing fresh ideas and new approaches. But this is where I am having trouble.
Are we really doing anything different? And more importantly am I? Words are thrown around a lot in the beginning of the design process. A lot of verbs seem to be lobed back and forth amongst he desks. One student in the previous athletic center design project was interested in looking at muscles and how they act. Athletics - Muscles - seems like a logical way to start, and he wanted to explore the compression and stretching that occurs when a muscle is being used. This was applied architecturally through a series of 'moments' where areas of the building were subtly compressed or stretched in a similar way to a muscle. A neat idea....but why? The reasons for the 'why?' seem far to superficial to me. "It's a sports complex so muscles seem like a natural place to start off." I'm just not buying it. My response is "So what?" Everyone in the studio is trying to show something or explore something but I'm just not getting it. Everyone is trying to do something new, but the approaches are still the same. The design methodology is still the same from project to project.
Now some architects have broken new ground exploring ideas in the last hundread years, but a lot of stuff is - I don't know. Uninspiring? The same old stuff repackaged?
Obviously even I don't know. I'm still not sure exactly where my conflicts lay. But this whole 'why does it look the way it does?' argument I have just won't die.

Elsewhere

There's something about a city other than the one you live in. For some reason I analyze them on a rigorous list of requirements chosen by me, and I judge them on their pros and cons. Los Angeles is very far from Toronto. Maybe not that far in the world, but five hours by plane is far enough. But what I mean by far is in a different sense. There's this substantial cultural shift from this city to that one. But what is it? What made the city so different in so many ways? The Gold Rush? The Film Industry? The Weather? The Surfers? In a city so far from what I've become used to around here, Los Angeles looks like some sort of frat house drunk utopian wonderland. Downtown looks more like a fortress than a vibrant city center. Public transportation is laughable in comparison, and the extent to which a car is necessary to get around is blatantly obvious after just a day or two.
L.A. did surprise me though. It was much cleaner, and was overgrown with vegetation and plants and landscaping to complement some very expensive properties. And even between the highways and on the lower class streets there were palm trees and flowers and such growing in appreciation of the perpetually good climate. People were friendly and laid back, and it was generally very beautiful.
What is fascinating however is what is in L.A. for a person like me.
"You're going on an architecture tour of L.A.? What's down there?"
Well, a lot of good architecture for one thing:
Arguably the most influential and most important house built in the last 30 years is Gehry's personal residence in Santa Monica.[1978]

The Cathedral of our Lady by Rafael Moneo.[2002]

The Schindler House [1922]

Charles and Ray Eames' Home.[1945]

Also there was:
SciArc
The Disney Concert Hall.
The LA River.
The office of Morphosis Architects.
The Office of Gehry Partners.
Ray Kappe's personal residence with a tour by Kappe himself.
And the sprawling $1B Getty Center

To name just a few of the things I crammed into four days.....[not to mention the site for my next project.]

L.A. was weird and wonderful. A voyeuristic dream of blondes and beaches. But absolutely not for me. I guess it was like Kitsilano with several billion dollars added to the mix. For a city seeming to be obsessed with the 'show' and having a pseudo-voyeuristic slant; after just a few short days I feel like I have seen all that L.A. has to offer, which is a lot by the way, but I'm not that interested. There is just no mystery left.

2.5 Twist Reverse Pike Somersault

NOTE THIS IS BEING POSTED ON THE 28TH BUT WAS WRITTEN ON THE 24TH. I'M NOT ONE FOR BACKDATING BLOGS BUT ATTEMPTS TO PASS THIS INFORMATION ON TO THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE WHEN I WAS IN THE MOOD TO DO IT HAVE FAILED AND NOW I'M GOING OUT OF TOWN. SO....


There's nothing more dramatic then passing out in the studio. Unless, of course, one does it after cutting the tip of one's thumb off and doing a pseudo-conscious backflip over the back of one's chair while tying to sit down after feeling somewhat lightheaded during an attempted personal gauze application.
Now I'm not one to worry my mother, I think I've put her through more than enough in the past, but I should say that the above described individual was me AND I AM FINE. EXCELLENT. STUPENDOUS I do have a large lump on the back of my head from where I hit the radiator on the way down [Did I forget to mention that?], which has resulted in a staggeringly large headache. My good friend Lisa who just happened to have walked up to my desk asked me what was up after seeing gauze on my desk. She arrived in just enough time for me to say "I cut my thumb." *CUE BLACKOUT* She asked why I was so yellow about a half second before I did a not so graceful dive over the back of my chair. Jon, who sits next to me, had called an ambulance before I regained total consciousness, and I spent a minute on the floor of the studio trying to figure out exactly just what had happened until paramedics showed up.
Now the piece of my thumb that was taken off seemed small enough to not warrant any of this type of drama [not even to the fingernail - a tiny little shaving really]. It came off in an amazingly clean fashion and I was quite calm and reserved while I walked over to the first-aid kit near the sink. I gave it a quick rinse, patted it dry, and grabbed some gauze and tape to wrap it up; all with the idea that this was so small I needn't worry anyone about such a little thing and I could simply just get back to work.
So the Aquatic Center model I was working on is now on hold and I have a meeting with my supervisor later today to discuss the deadline I have on Monday.
Now all of this happened last night and I was in absolutely no mood to discuss it last night,[You know who you are],I just wanted to put my massive headache to bed. And now I simply want to return to normal and get back to work. It was such a small little cut, simply exploded into a big scene by a low blood-sugar [4.1] and a rather unexpected queasiness.
I guess now there's just a little less of me to spread around.
Once Again, Feel Great - Excellent - Marvelous!

It's the 19th??

I have a major presentation, a monster paper, and prep for a trip out of the country - all happening within 3 days of each other next week. And I still have no idea what I'm doing for the summer. I'm going to have to put on some serious charm and make a few phone calls and see if can get a job in a firm in town. I'll do anything, pour coffee, whatever.
How am I this far behind? At least everyone else is just as wired as I am.

The Conversation

There's lots of buildings out there, lots of construction, but as I have felt for a long time, and recently highlighted by a rather vocal visit of Toronto-raised starchitect Frank Gehry, there is very little architecture. But what is this architecture? When I look at the city I left behind for this one - the similarities are interesting and possibly unfortunate. Vancouver didn't have the shear amount of property to expand onto when it started to grow. For Toronto it was simply a case of living a little further away and commuting just a little farther. Vancouver developed extensively in recent years, [post expo'88] and developing out was only sustainable for so long. Vancouver suffers [?] from a geographical constriction by being located next to the ocean on one side, the mountains on another, and major rivers through the middle. Commuting is not really feasible when there are only so many bridges, in fact it is actually quite difficult to go very far without having to cross a major bridge at all. Commuting in Vancouver is made up of a series of bottle-necks with some land between them. Living close to work was needed for the populations sanity. When expo was gone from the banks of False Creek, the residential condos started to go up. And boy did they go up.
Now Vancouver has created something quite interesting and not seen in many cities around the world - a densely populated urban fabric in the heart of the city. Towers are spaced beautifully, and their modern lines and glass are something unique to the developing skyline of Vancouver. The City of Glass has developed without even really knowing what it was doing. If you've ever walked through this fledgling area of Vancouver the towers are beautifully fresh and their proximity to services, work, and open spaces is impressive. Landmarks, however are few and far between. All of these towers look the same. Every single one. None of them are trying something new, proposing a different way of building, or living, or occupying the space in which we live. Now can Concord Pacific, one of the major developers of this area and one of the major players here in Toronto's latest development, be held accountable? Well, to expect a business working in a field as competitive as construction to take a risk and try something new is not going to happen. They are in the business of minimizing their risk. Investing millions of dollars in something untested with unknown results is just not done very often. So the result is twins, triplets, quadruplets, of repetitive building designs. "Ohh we'll change the floor heights, this one will be just a bit shorter, that'll create some visual interest!" Are we buying this crap? Apparently we are. And in Toronto, there seems to be a new crane along the southern edge of the city almost weekly.
Accidents in architectural design are unfortunate and do happen. However, tower after tower of boring, ugly, and deplorable shitiness, is starting to result in something new. More of an interest in design. A good thing no? Home renovation shows are booming on television aren't they?
But I'm beyond paint colors and the type of shiny chrome faucets in the bathroom, what are we living in? Architecture and it's resultant projects is a contribution to a conversation about the possibilities and goals of the population. When was the last time someone was rewarded for playing it safe at anything?
So as we build up, and explore the high rise world of living, are we really improving our way of life? Are developers actually developing anything at all or just recycling a formula which seems to work?

ps. Image is Steven Holl's "Simmons's Hall" a student residence at MIT, completed in 2002. Go and check him out. You can get in with the tiny 'entry' text in the top left.

Technology

Architecture used to be based in the world of T-squares, Triangles, Pencils and Paper. Until recently this has been they way of the architect for as long as architects have been around.
Today architecture is caught up in the technology boom, and many firms around the world don't use paper at all in the office. Technology is here to stay, and it's possibilities are amazing. However, it seems like we are just playing around looking for something visually cool and not really considering the ramifications of what we are doing. Exactly what is the point of doing something like what these programs are capable of? I feel like all we are doing is exploring the possibilities and not actually creating something good.
In a positive sense architecture has broken away from it's Cartesian roots and is free to explore the actual intents of the designers. We as architects are no longer limited to something like complex geometry and engineering issues. Did you know Jorn Utzon, the designer of the famed Sydney Opera House is rumored to have had to radically alter his original design [towards the conservative] because the original shape was too complex. However it is generally the most daring building projects which change the way we look at architecture, and change architecture itself. In time maybe even this will be a masterpiece...
OCAD

Aftermath

The bulk of the month's attention in the building has been towards the Thesis Presentations/Critiques/Defenses. On the 14th and 15th the Thesis students were scattered all over the building presenting their work to faculty, students, and visiting critics. Exactly what thesis 'is' still seems a bit of a mystery to me and others in my class. It seems more of an open book to explore the seemingly infinite possibilities of architecture; whether it be practical, theoretical, conceptual or total fantasy. There are the occasional hints that we should be thinking about our thesis already, reading books, looking at plans, researching; but I just don't know what I feel like just yet. I'm still getting my feet wet so to speak.
There are a few themes though which seem to come around again and again. Lebbeus Woods seems to be a perpetually recurring individual and his work is both visually and theoretically impressive. I know I'm interested in urban centers and things like population expansion, human density, and reintroducing structures left abandoned in the city grid.

Regardless, thesis is now done and the building seems quieter and a little empty from all the activity. I encourage all of you who read this who are in the area to come over, take me out for lunch, and look at some really fascinating projects. Some practical, some inventive, some offensive, and others which defy a description. They should be on display until the end of February.