Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

11/27/2013

ARCH 100 Reading Activity 3

Banham claims that Left to their own devices, Americans do not monumentalize or make architecture. Why not? What does he consider Americas monumental space, and do you agree? "There was nowhere to go but everywhere, so just keep on rolling under the stars." These are the famous words written by travel writer Jack Kerouac who ventured across the United States with barely anything more than the clothes on his back, one long scroll, and a pen. His writings are often hailed as the most influential and defining works of the post-war "beat" generation. Kerouac supported the notion that what all American men and women truly want can be found within nature. Subsequently, mobility is key. Bruce Chatwin, another travel writer whose work would surface roughly 30 years after Kerouac, once described this instinctual urge to traverse the landscape as follows: "All the Great Teachers have preached that Man, originally, was a 'wanderer in the scorching and barren wilderness of the world' - the words are those of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor - and that to rediscover his humanity, he must slough off attachments and take to the road." Certainly, Reyner Banham, an architectural critic of the same approximate time period, would agree with both of these men. He even makes reference to Kerouac's "infinite road" in his own writings. With the onset of the mechanical age, Banham argues that there is a justifiable fear arising in the hearts of architects in the United States. This new age seems to be removing any desire for monumentality within architecture in the minds of American people. Instead, they seek closer connection to the great outdoors. Americans would rather construct a simple hollow shell than an elaborate Renaissance aristocratic palazzo. They choose not to make "architecture" in the traditional sense because they prefer the beauty found in the mostly untouched landscape of their relatively young country. This is "America's monumental space": nature. Given that we do not have much in terms of ancient manmade monuments in this country due to the very fact that the native people of this land were nomadic and revered nature above all else, I would certainly agree with this sentiment. Why does Banham believe the traditional suburban house is not what Americans really want? What parts of his argument do you find more and less convincing? According to Banham, what Americans truly want is not the traditional suburban house; nor do they want buildings at all. Instead, what they want is Nature (in proper dosages and with the right amount of governance). The part of his argument that I find the most convincing points out the lack of concern of the typical American with regards to energy consumption. Many Americans build spaces that are not energy efficient. They require constant heat and air conditioning provided by active mechanical systems. The advantage to building homes this way is that they can control nature. Banham argues that people started with two methods of regulating their habitat: first, by avoiding the issue entirely and creating fanciful architecture; second, by interfering directly with meteorology via machines. Clearly, Americans have chosen the latter scenario. What we want is not the traditional suburban house that seals us away from the elements but a comfortable, predictable meeting ground with the great outdoors. The part of his argument I find least convincing arrives when he begins to discuss privacy. "As we said above," Banham states, "this argument implies suburbia which, for better or worse, is where America wants to live. It has nothing to say about the city, which, like architecture, is an insecure foreign growth on the continent." I do not agree that all Americans want to live in the suburbs; nor do I consent to the notion that the city bears no significance to American culture. Many people, myself included, would willingly sacrifice a more natural setting for the grandeur and excitement of city life. From Fathys perspective, what is wrong with modern architectures approach to science and technology? What approach does he suggest, and you agree?

Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

11/27/2013

From Fathy's perspective, modern architecture has put too much emphasis on new technologies. The desire to look modern and implement these new mechanical systems has overtaken sensible traditional building methods. The problem with this is that it causes the architect to completely miss the primary goal of architecture: "to be functional." With new inventions like air-conditioning, an architect can alter the microclimate of his building drastically and create any space he wants. He no longer has to consider the environment into which his building will be placed. This greatly concerns Fathy who states in his essay that an architect "has responsibilities to what surrounds the site" and furthermore, if he diminishes this duty "he is committing a crime against architecture and civilization." Instead of this, Fathy suggests an approach that considers the many elements surrounding a building (environmental factors, wind patterns, solar patterns, etc.) and evaluates the success of a building based on its energy consumption. He suggests that we reconsider traditional methods, many of which came about through "scientifically valid concepts", and only substitute for more modern materials when it can be proven that they are more efficient. I personally agree with this approach. Too many buildings use an absurd amount of energy to compensate for wildly inappropriate designs. Architects today are lazy. They no longer bother to research the climate of their site; instead, they use mechanical systems without considering the environmental impact to make these systems run. I like Fathy's approach because it brings architecture back to its roots as both an artistic and a scientific endeavor. Fathy offers several examples that illustrate how climate affects architectural design. What problems can arise from ignoring this relationship? What does this suggest about the use of uniform building types in varied locations? In the portion of his essay titled "Effect of Climate on Architectural Form", Fathy states that climate not only can and does but also should influence architecture. With several examples - window sizes in warm areas, roof pitches in wet regions, etc. - he offers a clear illustration of this relationship. To emphasize the importance of maintaining this link between architecture and climate, he turns the reader's attention to buildings in the north which have subverted their traditional patterns for a more exotic appeal. These structures borrowed the flat roofs and permanent shading methods called brisesoleil of tropical buildings. This gave the buildings a different aesthetic feel, which made their neighbors look out-of-date. In the end, this example points out the real danger of ignoring the relationship between climate and architecture: it generates an environment in which wildly inappropriate buildings can thrive and undermine any connection to the space itself. These flatroofed, well-shaded buildings had no reason to be in a cold, northern region. They shared no bond with their environment, and yet they became popular due to mere novelty. Fathy says of the modern architect: "He fails to realize that form has meaning only in the context of its environment." From this, one can gather that he is not in favor of using a uniform building type in varied locations. This simply would not align with his idea of forming a close intimate relationship between the building and the site. Describe the summary of architectures developments over the centuries in Laugiers introduction. How does this compare to Vasaris return to glory model from the Renaissan ce? In his introduction, Laugier gives a general overview of the history of architecture. He begins with the time and place where architecture, in his opinion, reached its absolute peak: ancient Greece. "Architecture owes all that is perfect to the Greeks," he states bluntly. Following the Greeks, there came the Romans, a people who recognized the greatness of their predecessors and began by mimicking them. Later, they would attempt to improve this style with ideas of their own. In doing so, however, Laugier explains that they only taught the world this valuable lesson: there is no use in attempting anything new because perfection has already been achieved. Therefore, there are now only two directions in which to take architecture: imitate the Greeks or create something inferior.

Christopher Barlow

ARCH 100

11/27/2013

Of the later centuries of European architecture which chose not to follow the ideals of Classicism (e.g. the Gothic), Laugier has this to say: "The barbarism of succeeding centuries, having buried the fine arts under the ruins of the only empire that had preserved taste and principles, called forth a new system of architecture in which neglected proportion and ornament childishly crowded produced nothing but stones in fretwork...." Though he admits there is something admirable about the boldness of this particular style, he asserts that it simply cannot compare to the flawlessness of ancient Greece. Progressing into the most recent era in art history during his time, he points to men like Michelangelo and Bramante as beacons of hope. These men brought the world of art and architecture as close to perfection as possible since the time of the Greeks. This is very similar to Vasari's "return to glory" model from the Renaissance. Vasari too believed that each century following the fall of the ancient Greeks was a climb back toward the top. Whereas Laugier believed that Michelangelo only brushed with the level of the Greeks, however, Vasari proclaimed him as truly divine and greater than any artist who had ever lived. Using either the web or one of the reference texts in the library, find a picture of the East Wing of the Louvre in Paris (by Claude Perrault and others). What would Laugier consider wrong about this design? What would he like, and why?

When viewing the East Wing of the Louvre in Paris through the perspective of Laugier, the first element that jumps out is the set of pilasters on the second level of the outermost portions of the facade. These particular Classical ornaments, which serve no structural purpose, Laugier hated. He claimed that they were "decoration pretending to be architecture". In his essay "General Principles of Architecture" he asserted that all pilasters and engaged columns are a "fault". Another design element that Laugier would consider wrong include the arches above the entryway and a number of large windows. "Arches are entirely useless," Laugier says in his writings. An entablature must always be used to span between columns. The entablature must be a straight, rigid, unbroken piece that stretches horizontally. Here, at least, there would be some agreement between Laugier and the architects of the East Wing of the Louvre. The entablature above the columns running along the second level of the building is straight, without projections or recesses. Lastly, the double columns that span the length of the East Wing facade, Laugier would likely appreciate because of their solidity, closing up what would otherwise be a space so wide that "the sight would be frightening". Laugier had a definite distaste for buildings that chose to spread their supports apart.