Fear of a Black Pedestrian
Jesse Walker | March 5, 2007, 5:23pm
In
The New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff
points to a practice he calls "21st-century medievalism," in which "architects are being enlisted to create not only major civic landmarks but lines of civic defense, with aesthetically pleasing features like elegantly sculpted barriers around public plazas or decorative cladding for bulky protective concrete walls":
After 9/11, a craving for the solidity of walls reasserted itself. And the wars on terror, and fractious peaces, enforced it. The Green Zone in Baghdad, Jerusalem's separation barrier, the concrete bollards that line corporate headquarters on Park Avenue -- all are emblems of an unintended new mentality....That mentality has become acceptable in relatively stable cities as well, including London, where a debate has now arisen over what do to with the concrete barricades that
surround the United States Embassy in historic Grosvenor Square. Some suggest that they should be replaced by a permanent, more visually appealing barrier, as if better design could somehow negate the notion that we are surrendering to the inevitable. And in downtown Miami, federal marshals have suggested that the barricades originally included in the plans for a park designed by Maya Lin as part of a new courthouse complex might have to be reinforced, even as people begin to move into the building.
The most chilling example of the new medievalism is New York's Freedom Tower, which was once touted as a symbol of enlightenment. Designed by David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, it rests on a 20-story, windowless fortified concrete base decorated in prismatic glass panels in a grotesque attempt to disguise its underlying paranoia. And the brooding, obelisk-like form above is more of an expression of American hubris than of freedom.
Part of me wants to nod my head, and part of me wants to complain that "medievalism" really isn't the best term for the trend. Most of me, though, wants to turn the microphone over to
Lester Spence, who adds a little historical perspective:
While very specific design elements may have become more commonplace after 9/11, many of
them had been in place for the last thirty years or so. The first modern urban threat remember was not the Arab terrorist, but the black rioter. Buildings like Detroit's Renaissance Center were noted not only for their use of curves as opposed to angles, but also for [their] use of military style bunkers to keep urban (read: black) denizens out. The bunkers have since been removed, but the first thing that I thought of as a young kid looking at it was the Morlocks. The curves (the building is in effect a series of connected tubes) served to disorient people rather than welcome them -- which of course makes sense if the only population the designers want in the building in the first place are people who know where they are going. And the use of surveillance cameras were first popularized in the US in Baltimore, while dealing with a crime spree associated with young black male criminals.
If someone were to study the shifts in these design elements over time in response to what is in effect racialized fear, it'd be hot. And if they could combine a study of building design with car design they'd be really onto something.
rob | March 6, 2007, 9:04am | #
I also love how joe has nothing but disdain for a building project whose purpose was sepcifically designed to do to of the things he supports, namely to "quell the white flight which increased, following the social unrest from the 12th Street riot in 1967. The project was intended to revitalize the economy of Detroit."
In other words, it's an example of urban planning of the sort that joe would normally laud (anti-white flight, pro-urban revitalization).
Except that this particular project draws his ire because it was built by a guy and his corporation, rather than by tax money taken by the gov't.
That and the fact that because it was a private project, the gov't wasn't able to force the project down people's throats.
See, all right-thinking people understand that the everyone would be happier if they were told where and how to live by by "expert city planners" who earnestly believe they know how to create an urban paradise. All those planners need is sufficient gov't funding (everyone else's tax dollars) and the power to decide where - and more importantly HOW - everyone should live.
Props to Spence for the "Morlocks" reference.
I'd say the odds of an utter dystopia seem more likely to occur in gov't-controlled & planned urban environments, rather than in suburban and rural areas that are pretty much beyond the controlling reach of such "for your own good" meddling.
Maybe it's just an amazingly bad example to use, because one example of a private corporation engaging in this sort of "aesthetically offensive, defensive design" doesn't come anywhere near to matching the number of such designs created by gov't city planners.
rob | March 6, 2007, 10:48am | #
Some telling quotes about city planners from the Princeton Review's Career Profile:
"City planners help design cities and make such determinations as the height of buildings, the width of streets, the number of street signs, and the design and location of street 'furniture' (everything from bus stops and lampposts to newsstands and wastebaskets)."
Nothing wrong with that, right? Oh, but that sort of thing simply isn't grandiose enough:
"Deciding how a city is set up involves creativity, and a career in city planning demands the knowledge of basic engineering principles, the ability to compromise, political diplomacy, and financial acumen... [SNIP] This last consideration factor can be difficult— urban-planning projects nearly always run over budget and past deadline, and even the most frugal design can be expected to run into opposition from some quarter."
What a shock - city planning is often so disconnected from concerns about actual cost that even the career description refers to how financially inefficient the field is. Best to prepare the little darlings for the reality that their utopian designs will take longer to complete than they expect because they'll inevitably have to get taxpayers to cough up more money.
"Strong analytic skills and sheer force of will are required to be a successful urban planner."
Because a successful city planning project is truly "A Triumph Of The Will." It takes a lot of will power to be able to tell other people how and where to live.
"Every building or structure must be designed with an understanding of its relationship to other elements of the city, such as coordinating the construction of water and power facilities, while still allowing people access to light, heat, and fresh water, or designing housing complexes that will be close to public transportation. Aesthetic design, another feature that the planner must consider, can be the subject of hot debate."
See where accomodating human beings comes into that list, right? Dead last. And of course, public transportation is one of the cornerstones of the field. And of course, some small-minded group of non-experts - who obviously don't have city planning degrees! - are sure to disagree with the city planner's "brilliant aesthetic design."
"The urban planner has to design with an understanding of the policies of the city and create economically viable plans."
Or at least come to the understanding that they have an unlimited budget because the people the tax money is coming from can't tell them "no" or "that's too expensive," or even, "why do we need a monorail system?"
"The planner begins by surveying sites and performing demographic, economic, and environmental studies to assess the needs of the community and encourage public participation in the process. If the planner is redeveloping an area (as opposed to groundbreaking or landfilling it), he or she must evaluate existing buildings and neighborhoods before determining what can be done to change the standing structures."
As seen in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, starring Joe as Prosser:
"MR. L. PROSSER, an overweight, weary and red-faced man with graying black hair sighs deeply. He is leaning on the edge of the bulldozer and looking down at ARTHUR, who lies in the mud with his arms crossed.
NARRATOR: Mr. L. Prosser, as they say, is only human.
ARTHUR looks back up at PROSSER with an intense distaste and defiance.
NARRATOR: In other words, he was a carbon based, bipedal life form descended from an ape. To be precise, he was forty, worked for the local council, and was irritated that his bulldozer was being blocked, quite stubbornly, by Arthur Dent. Curiously enough, he was unknowingly a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, although intervening generations, racial mixing and whatnot had juggled his genes enough to erase any Mongolian characteristics. The only traces of Mr. Prosser’s ancestry remaining was a stoutness about the stomach and a predilection for little fur hats.
PROSSER tries to put on a steely-eyed look, but fails somewhat miserably...
PROSSER: You know, you were entitled to make suggestions or protests at the appropriate time.
ARTHUR looks furious.
ARTHUR: Appropriate time!? APPROPRIATE TIME!? The first time I heard of this was when a workman came by my house yesterday! I asked him if he’d come to clean the windows, but no, he said he’d come to knock the house down! And that was only after he’d wiped down a few windows and charged me a fiver.
PROSSER: But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
ARTHUR: Oh, yes, soon as I heard of this plan, I went straight around to see them yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call much attention to them, had you? Such as maybe telling someone about them?
PROSSER looks more uncomfortable.
PROSSER: Well, the plans were on display –
ARTHUR: On display? I had to go down to the cellar to find them!
PROSSER: That’s the display department.
ARTHUR: With a flashlight.
PROSSER: Well, the lights had probably gone.
ARTHUR: So had the stairs.
PROSSER: Er – well – you did find them, didn’t you?
ARTHUR: Oh, yes. Yes, I did. The plans were on display, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door reading “Beware of the Leopard.”
PROSSER seems stunned by this. He pauses to think for quite a long time. ARTHUR settles down a little bit.
PROSSER: (quietly) Well...it’s not like it’s a particularly nice house.
ARTHUR: I beg your pardon! It’s my house! Sorry, but I happen to like it!"
"Recent graduates should look to their state’s Department of Transportation or look into civil engineering courses sponsored by the United States Army Corps of Engineers..."
This bit would be more aptly titled "Your Exciting Career As A 'Bold Bureaucrat!'"
"Urban planners should have an undergraduate degree in an area such as civil engineering, architecture, or public administration."
(Caveat to aspiring city planners: The first two actually require intelligence and mental discipline, so stick to public administration.)
"Most schools do not offer undergraduate degrees in structural engineering, but many employers look favorably on candidates who have studied structural engineering at the master’s level."
Because actually understanding whether the structure will stand is of tertiary importance at best!
"A master’s degree in city or regional planning or structural engineering is the highest laurel and respected by all employers."
Except employers who know what city planners actually do.
"One 30-year structural engineer noticed that many recent graduates handle textbook problems wonderfully, but are less apt at identifying and coping with real-life problems."
Say it isn't so! A guy with 30 years of structural engineering experience has found most recent city planning grads have no idea what is actually useful in the real world? Well, he probably doesn't even have a degree in public administration, much less city planning! He's no expert!
"After four years of working full-time, urban planners are eligible to take a step-one licensing test. There are two of these tests (step one and step two); which one a planner takes depends on his or her interests and area of expertise. After getting this license and working for four additional years, serious candidates take another test to obtain the title of professional engineer. These certifications are not required, but they are respected within the profession. Generally, acquiring these licenses leads to a promotion and increases in salary."
Because to prove expertise in a field that doesn't require any actual expertise usually means a licensing process. Those who get this sort of license usually get a hefty pay raise and promotion, because gov't agencies like to have some sort of metric - any sort, really - to point to.
City planners - the guys they should have put on the Golgafrincham ships with the telephone sanitation engineers...
rob | March 6, 2007, 11:26am | #
"I must have missed the part where the conversation turned into a debate of the merits of urban planning/planners." - Number6
Really? Here I thought this thread was about urban design... Who is it that normally perpetrates "urban design?" Might it be "city planners?"
"Perhaps you meant that we should ignore Joe because he is an urban planner. I doubt that I need to name that particular fallacy for you." - Number6
No, but that's a good place to start. Another would be not to trust a city planner who is so uniformed about architectural design that he thinks "the name 'brutalism' comes from the effect of the architecture on the viewer's mind and soul."
And not, as has already been correctly pointed out: "The term Brutalist Architecture originates from the French béton brut, or 'raw concrete', a term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material. In 1954, the English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term, but it gained currency when the British architectural critic Reyner Banham used it in the title of his 1954 book, 'New Brutalism,' to identify the emerging style.[1]"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
In other words, Brutalism is exactly the sort of thing joe normally supports, but because of his "My Little Pony-ish" lack of understanding of both the architectural style and its historical use, he comes down against it. To be fair, he has also come out against Cabrini Greens, another city planning nightmare that had the best of intentions and similar reasoning, so at least he's consistently against city planning projects that turn into notoriously horrible slums.
Anyone who has read joe's posts on the wonders of modern urban planning will recognize echoes of plenty of his urban planning statements in this:
"Brutalism as an architectural style also was associated with a social utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
Unsurprisingly, these city planning debacles failed to become utopias:
"The failure of positive communities to form early on in some Brutalist structures, possibly due to the larger processes of urban decay that set in after World War II (especially in the United Kingdom), led to the combined unpopularity of both the ideology and the architectural style... Combined with the socially progressive intentions behind Brutalist 'streets in the sky' housings such as Corbusier's Unité, Brutalism was promoted as a positive option for forward-moving, modern urban housing."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
rob | March 6, 2007, 12:44pm | #
"Rob- You appear to be right about the origins of the term brutalism, although Joe's interpretation makes a sort of intuitive sense, given how fugly the buildings are." - Number6
Only if you are completely unaware of the two styles until this thread began. (Actually, that sort of ignorance would normally make me wonder if the writer had actually worked in the field they claim expertise in, but ignorance is not really a barrier to working as a city planner, in my experience).
Actually, Speer's buildings were very "classical" and Brutalism very "modern." (Speer's buildings wouldn't look too out of place in Washington, D.C., really.) The fact that they were both spawned by misguided at best (psychotic and harmful at worst) utopian fantasies - much like the overwhelming majority of city planning - is a superficial link. But stylistically they are totally dissimilar and the utopian motivations they were based upon were actually so completely different as to be incompatible (even if socialist is part of "National Socialist").
"So why couch that point in insults and invective?" - Number6
When my insults slip into homophobic rage at people who disagree with me, like joe's post at 11:23, I'll take the lecture you're trying to hand me.
"Why slip into Coulterspeak? ... most of us come here to get away from that kind of thing." - Number6
The fact that I find most city planners in general, and joe's approach in particular, to be despicable and based on thoroughly discredited authoritiarian and socialist premises, is hardly "Coulter-speak." I haven't used a single profanity, nor have I insulted anyone's sexuality in terms that are also derogatory towards homosexuals. So how, exactly, have I said anything "Coulter-esque"?
In fact, which statement of mine has got you so upset? I re-read my posts and I just don't see it...
rob | March 6, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Wrong again, joe. Speer's work was simply not the sort of thing Brutalists would draw upon. It's like claiming that socialists would draw upon free market ideals, or that dictators would encourage personal liberty. Nice reach, but that just doesn't fly.
And if I'm the sort of guy who is only trying to bait people - because I'm what lots of peopole call you, a troll - what does that make you, with your derogatory comments about homosexuals and your claims that anyone who doesn't care for you or your approach to the universe is is "lame and hysterical?"
"the same brain problem that leads him to look at brutalist architecture and completely miss the Speer-ish will to dominate the individual and glorify the builders."
AND
"First of all, those happy little pods, according Le Corbusier and other socialist architects, were to be found in gigantic buildings, which were designed to disguise the presence of differentiated individual homes and present a uniform, gigantic face to the public."
You honestly can't see that these two tings are diametrically opposed, but equally bad things, can you? I guess the blinders you wear aren't limited to partisan issues, after all.
And joe, it's bad form to call someone else a thug when you just finished calling him names by using an insult that is derogatory towards homosexuals. (Though he deserved a retaliatory insult because of how far he took his insult.) For a guy who claims to be progressive, you sure spend a lot of time talking tough and calling other people things that seem to show you equate accusations of being a homosexuals as witty insults. They're not witty insults, they're just crass and reveal the person using them to be morally reprehensible.
rob | March 7, 2007, 9:25am | #
"My theory: he went back to Wikipedia to look up more information he thought he could use aginst me, learned I was right, and won't be commenting any more on the subject." - joe
Actually, I went to a meeting and then I went home. Contrary to what you might think, I actually have a life and a job.
"No, I don't see why 'the Speer-ish will to dominate the individual and glorify the builders' is different from 'designed to disguise the presence of differentiated individual homes and present a uniform, gigantic face to the public.' They look very much like the same thing to me - the use of mass and scope to make the individual feel small and vulnerable, except as part of an undifferentiated mass. I can't believe I'm saying this but, please, expand on that idea. I've granted the 'classical decoration' bit, but I don't see what you're on about here." - joe
You can make the same claim you're making about nearly ALL architecture styles - it doesn't change the fact that nothing was similar between Speers & Brutalism (style, building materials, motivation, etc.). What you're doing now is basically saying "apples and oranges are the same fruit." Of course they are, just like Speers and Brutalism are both styles of architecture and both have aspects of monumentalism in them. It doesn't change the fact that they have very little in common - which is why the apples & oranges example is used to point out that something is essentially non-comparable.
Of course you can make that claim because very few architectural styles are designed to make people feel large and powerful next to a big building.
The statement that it is "the use of mass and scope to make the individual feel small and vulnerable, except as part of an undifferentiated mass" is as easily applied to most architecture throughout history as it is to Speers and Brutalism.
You can make exactly the same claim for Ancient Egyptian pyramid-building architecture. (Frankly, I think it's very odd that in this ONE thread you are eager to link Nazis and socialists, even though most of what you advocate for on these threads is authoritarian neo-socialist in approach.)
All of the following architectural styles qualify as creating the feelings you discuss: Neothlithic (Stonehenge, etc) Ancient Egyptian (Pyramids), Gothic (cathedrals), Greek & Roman, Baroque (more cathedrals), Tudor, Elizabethan, etc. etc. etc.
Pretty much all the way up into the early 19th century, when architecture started getting weirder and weirder and people started trying to create the anti-thesis of overwhelmingly large, monumental style buildings.
"So please, stick to the relevant, substantive topic: what is it about the two statements you quoted that you consider inconsistent?" - joe
The motivation for the two styles of architecture are diametrically opposed, and anyone who claims that Brutalism and Speers Nazi designs come from the same political motivation is either ignorant, confused, or deliberately being obtuse.
Speers work comes from the fascist top-down "obey or the gov't will destroy you because the gov't and glorifying the gov't is far more important than any individual entity" approach, the other is from the bottom-up "all people must be made equal (and equally miserable!), so the gov't must tell you how to live because it knows what's best for you (it's for the WORKER/CHILDREN/PEOPLE)" socialist approach.
Totally different motivations, though they have equally unpleasant authoritarian outcomes, and result in a totally different aesthetic.
"Also, fyi, I really don't give a darn what you think about me and beliefs. You never manage to describe them accurately enough for your comments to even serve as an interesting bit of criticism." - joe
Yeah, I know how much you hate it when people have your number. When they point out your rhetorical dirty tricks, your blatant partisanship to the detriment of rational discourse, your infatuation with gov't power, the stereotypical name-calling that reveals more about you than you intend it to... Actually, I'd say that I've been around you on these boards long enough to describe your antics pretty well.
joe | March 7, 2007, 9:54am | #
"You can make the same claim you're making about nearly ALL architecture styles"
That's not true. New Urbanism and just about every vernacular house style - colonial, craftsman, Victorian, ranch/southwestern - work for exactly the opposite effect, a humante, intimate coziness. Even other public styles which do strive for monumentality - Federalist, Gothic - work to address the individual in a much different manner. They don't break down; they build up.
Your architectural theory, like your commenting voice, seems to conflate impressiveness with abuse. You might want to work on that.
"You can make exactly the same claim for Ancient Egyptian pyramid-building architecture." Maybe, if we limit ourselves to the pyramids themselves. If we take temples and palaces into account, not so much - they worked to interact with the viewer on much more individual level, like a church.
"Frankly, I think it's very odd that in this ONE thread you are eager to link Nazis and socialists..." I've never questioned that the two effected similar totalitarianism, just the philosophical roots of that totalitarianism. Which is just identical to my point about these two schools of architecture - they eached produced an alienating, intimidating, individual-effacing effect, but arrived there from very different places.
"The motivation for the two styles of architecture are diametrically opposed, and anyone who claims that Brutalism and Speers Nazi designs come from the same political motivation is either ignorant, confused, or deliberately being obtuse." Yes, I think that about people who argue that leftist totalitarianism and rightist totalitarianism come from the same place, simply because they arrive at the same place. Unfortunately for you, I'm arguing exactly the opposite position than you ascribe to me. Maybe you should make more of an effort to read what I actually write, rather than assigning me the positions you'd prefer to argue against. Again.
P.S. You should really choose a less unfortunate phrase than "have your number" there, robby-boy. Numbers really aren't your thing.
How's that definition of the word "majority" coming? And how about those subtraction lessons?
Tee hee.
rob | March 7, 2007, 10:16am | #
"New Urbanism and just about every vernacular house style - colonial, craftsman, Victorian, ranch/southwestern - work for exactly the opposite effect, a humante, intimate coziness. " - joe
Learn to read what I wrote: "Pretty much all the way up into the early 19th century, when architecture started getting weirder and weirder and people started trying to create the anti-thesis of overwhelmingly large, monumental style buildings."
Doesn't change that nothing about the two styles is similar: style, materials, approach, inspiration - none of it.
"Even other public styles which do strive for monumentality - Federalist, Gothic - work to address the individual in a much different manner. They don't break down; they build up." - joe
Federalist builds up? It's not intended to emphasize the importance of the state? It's not descended from Georgian architecture, so named because of King George?
Gothic? It's not intended to emphasize that failure to submit to the Church results in being cast into Hell?
Even your examples are weak...
"Your architectural theory, like your commenting voice, seems to conflate impressiveness with abuse. You might want to work on that."
Oh, the pot speaks to the kettle! Here's something for you to work on: facts are facts. Before you start getting everything about something wrong, maybe you should do some research.
"Maybe, if we limit ourselves to the pyramids themselves. If we take temples and palaces into account, not so much - they worked to interact with the viewer on much more individual level, like a church." - joe
And you think that churches aren't intended to display the glory and power of God, an even more powerful entity than gov't? What universe do you live in? Obviously one in which inanimate objects like BUILDINGS are capable of oppressing PEOPLE, and in which any architectural nod to DEFENSIVE features is mistaken for being OFFENSIVE to the human soul.
"I've never questioned that the two effected similar totalitarianism, just the philosophical roots of that totalitarianism." -joe
Interesting that you can see that the two are both bad, and that they stem from different roots, but you can't see that what you often argue for is authoritarian in nature.
"Which is just identical to my point about these two schools of architecture - they eached produced an alienating, intimidating, individual-effacing effect, but arrived there from very different places." - joe
No argument about what they've produced, but I think it's clear that connections between the two - or the idea that one influenced the other - are specious. That they both sucked is obvious, that they both came from bad ideology is obvious. But that doesn't mean A influenced or lead to B. In the case of these two styles, they have some disturbing things in common, but the very core of their inspirations are polar opposites.
"Yes, I think that about people who argue that leftist totalitarianism and rightist totalitarianism come from the same place, simply because they arrive at the same place." - joe
When the result is the same, does it really matter where they came from?
"Unfortunately for you, I'm arguing exactly the opposite position than you ascribe to me. Maybe you should make more of an effort to read what I actually write, rather than assigning me the positions you'd prefer to argue against." - joe
In other words, you agree with me. Nice!
joe | March 7, 2007, 10:52am | #
The colonial style dates back to the 17th century. Is this a math thing again?
"Doesn't change that nothing about the two styles is similar: style, materials, approach, inspiration - none of it." No, the approach and inspiration are quite similar, as I've chronicled at some length by now, so I won't repeat myself just to refute your naked assertion.
"Federalist builds up?" Yes. Ever been to the Lincoln of Jefferson Memorials? Humane, welcoming...just the opposite of Brutalist and Nazi architecture. I"t's not intended to emphasize the importance of the state?"k Sure it is, just not through tearing down the dignity of the individual.
Nice dodge with pretending that all monumentalism is the same. Drawing attention to power and glory can be done in a lot of ways, not all of which efface the human being or strive to produce alienation. Once again, the human factor just doesn't penetrate your skull, while I put it at the center of my observations. I'd have to say that my approach here would seem to be superior, since the effect of the architecture and place-making on the humans who work there was central to the thinking of Nazi and Brutalist architects.
"Gothic? It's not intended to emphasize that failure to submit to the Church results in being cast into Hell?" No, not usually. It's more about transcendant glory. That's why it's designed to draw the eye up, towards heaven. Very tellling mistake, rob. Religious issues much?
Nice dodge with pretending that all monumentalism is the same. Drawing attention to power and glory can be done in a lot of ways, not all of which efface the human being or strive to produce alienation. Once again, the human factor just doesn't penetrate your skull, while I put it at the center of my observations. I'd have to say that my approach here would seem to be superior, since the effect of the architecture and place-making on the humans who work there was central to the thinking of Nazi and Brutalist architects.
rob | March 7, 2007, 11:15am | #
"No, the approach and inspiration are quite similar, as I've chronicled at some length by now, so I won't repeat myself just to refute your naked assertion." - joe
Look at a Speers building. Look at a Brutalism building. Nothing alike, even superficially. The reality is that you're completely incapable of admitting that you're wrong, even when it has been shown repeatedly that you are wrong from everything about how Brutalism got its name to whether it derives from Nazi architecture.
Here's your homework assignment: Compare and contrast Speer's Nazi architecture with that of Brutalism. What, if any, design elements do they have in common? What, if any, building materials or construction techniques do they have in common?
"It's more about transcendant glory. That's why it's designed to draw the eye up, towards heaven. Very tellling mistake, rob. Religious issues much?" - joe
Uh, not really: "The Gothic cathedral was supposed to be a microcosm representing the world, and each architectural concept, mainly the loftiness and huge dimensions of the structure, were intended to pass a theological message: the great glory of God versus the smallness and insignificance of the mortal being."
You should know more about this subject, as a city planner. Or at least as a guy who claims to be an expert on architecture.
The Lincoln & Jefferson Memorials aren't even Federalist--style architecture, they're neo-Classical. Sheesh. How can you actually not know any of this?
rob | March 7, 2007, 11:24am | #
"I don't care about what you hope for. I don't care about your feelings. The only time you are remotely interesting is when you actually stick your neck out far enough to discuss facts." - joe
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
"You're focused on monumentality and the glorification of the state as the defining characteristics of the two styles, but that's a mistake." - joe
In your expert opinion as a guy who doesn't know the difference between neo-Classical and Federalist architecture, was wrong about where Brutalism's name is derived, or from the guy who thinks Gothic architecture is NOT about "efforts to alienate and break down the viewer, to make him part of a crowd"? Please, just stop embarassing yourself.
"What binds Brutalist and Nazi architecture most distinctly is their efforts to alienate and break down the viewer, to make him part of a crowd." - joe
Similar to most monumental-style architecture.
"You can find elements of this urge in other places, but almost always combined with humanizing elements that relate to the individual on a humane, individual scale." - joe
Not so much, as seen by my previous posts, making the individual seem small is often the effect - if not the intent - of grat big buildings.
"These softening elements are notably absent in both Nazi and Brutalist architecture - their elimination, and the dominance of the alienating/collectivizing themes, are what sets Brutalist and Nazi architecture apart from other forms." - joe
As opposed to the list I've already given you above? You really are willing to go the extra mile to try and rationalize your position. Shifting around doesn't change the fact that you have been shown to be repeatedly, demonstrably wrong on basic architectural facts.
I salute your pereserverance in the face of reality, joe, and hence I honorarily award you the "Order of King Canute, For Failure To Push Back The Tide."
joe | March 7, 2007, 11:35am | #
"Nothing alike, even superficially." I disagree. They both use massing, space, and blank walls in similar manners, to produce the same effect on the pedestrian. In an elevation view, where the entirely of the building is visible and in scale in a manner that no person would ever experience the finished building, sure, your eye will be drawn to the greater detailing on the Speer building, but the designers of each had much more important goals than how the buildings would look in elevatin view. The central, defining characteristic of both sets is the impression they were intended to create on the person walking up to, or into, or by the buildings. On this level, that of the role the buildings play in the minds of the public, the intent was quite similar, the effect was quite similar, and the design theory was quite similar. Given that both schools were primarily concerned with the political/social significance of their buildings, it seems reasonable to put these considerations up front in any analysis.
"What, if any, design elements do they have in common?" I don't feel like repeating myself again.
"What, if any, building materials or construction techniques do they have in common?" Few; this is not where their similarities lie.
"The Gothic cathedral was supposed to be a microcosm representing the world, and each architectural concept, mainly the loftiness and huge dimensions of the structure, were intended to pass a theological message: the great glory of God versus the smallness and insignificance of the mortal being."
You're still missing the point, if you think this refutes what I've been saying; it's the alienation effect that defines Nazi and Brutalist architecture. The human being, in Christian thought and architecture, was smaller and less than God, but still made in the image of God, and therefore important in his own right. This is why Gothic churches contain elements of gigantism and humane touches, while the latter are utterly missing from Nazi and Brutalist architecture - not just missing, deliberately effaced, as a central theme in the design scheme.
Also, Federalism is usually considered a variety of or relative of neo-classical when discussing architecture. If you care to be pedantic, you can harp on the distinctions, and I expect you will, but don't expect a dialogue. Your tangents are already far enough off point as it is.
rob | March 7, 2007, 1:22pm | #
"OK, rob, I accept your surrender." - joe
You are truly a piece of work, joe. You can be proven demonstrably wrong at every turn and then claim "victory."
"Not everyone can discuss the philosophy behind architecture, or its effect. Some people are more comfortable with other aspects, like history and materials. No shame in that." - joe
I try not to hang my arguments on personal authority, joe, you should give it a shot some time. (BTW, no one will trust your "expertise" if you can't even get the basics right - it destroys any credibilty you might have been able to lay claim to.)
Frankly, I think you've clearly - and quite publicly - shown that your ignorance on the subject is overwhelming, and that your inability to make an argument beyond the murky realm of your feelings has done at least as much damage to your lame architectural political claims than anything I could have written.
Calling your over-reaching political conclusions "architectural philosophy" demeans both words, "architectural" and "philosophy."
You can snobbish, effete noises that the problem is really that you're just better suited to philosophical discussions of architecture, but when you're wrong about basic facts you can't seriously expect anyone to believe you.
Once again, you've been your own worst enemy.
rob | March 7, 2007, 1:52pm | #
"Except for the point I was making, that you noticeably whiffed on, and tried to avoid by sniping about trivia." - joe
Yeah, anytime you're caught flat-footed and obviously wrong, it's trivia. Sure, ok...
"Since I've done no such thing, and you can't point to a single sentence in which I did," - joe
What exactly is an appeal to authority, joe? Would you agree that it sounds something like "I'm a city planner, so I know" or would it sound something like "Not everyone can discuss the philosophy behind architecture, or its effect. Some people are more comfortable with other aspects, like history and materials." Because that's surely a claim to greater authority along the lines of "I know you're not ABLE to, only experts like me - who can't get their basic facts right - are able to."
As for not countering your political claims about Brutalism, maybe you could refresh everyone here on what they were, exactly, because it seems to have shifted a few times during this thread. You can claim that I haven't hammered you (ONCE AGAIN) on this thread, but anyone who reads the thread can tell that you're so worried about "winning" that you'll resort to anything - even proclaiming "victory" when you've obviously had your head handed to you (rhetorically and figuratively speaking).
"I'm filing this alongside your other efforts to impugn my morals instead of discussing the issue." - joe
I don't need to impugn your morals, your recent and past comments speak loudly enough on that subject.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
