Architects Experimenting on the Poor (Again)

from The Civitas Chronicles by Clem Labine, May 26th, 2010 

The New Carver Apartments in Los Angeles provide 97 small living units for homeless residents. Upon approaching this bleak, hard-edged structure, however, it’s hard not to feel that one is about to be locked up in some sort of detention facility. The building looks more like a jail than a residence. Photo: Abitare

In the mid-20th century, Modernist architects were notorious for trying out social engineering theories on projects for low-income people. Many of these experiments were ended by dynamite.

But it looks like design experiments on the powerless continue. In Los Angeles, architect Michael Maltzan has just completed the 97-unit New Carver Apartments next to the Santa Monica Freeway to provide housing for the homeless. The 57,000-sq.ft. project was built by the Skid Row Housing Trust, a nonprofit organization devoted to creating various types of low-income housing. All laudable goals; so far so good.

Besides providing affordable housing, however, apparently the Trust is also devoted to the Modernist ideal of creating “architectural icons.” Molly Rysman, the Trust’s director of special projects, summed it up best: “It’s not about blending in, but about having an impact.”

No one will accuse Michael Maltzan’s building of “blending in” – or looking anything like a traditional apartment building. But the structure certainly fits right into the pattern of stand-alone sculpture-buildings that architecture critics routinely label “iconic.” Because of its bizarre appearance, commentators love the New Carver Apartments, with the cheering being led by Nicolai Ouroussoff, architecture critic for the New York Times.

The critics love it, but what about the people who have to live in the structure? Architectural critics seem to make a point of never interviewing the people who actually use these “iconic” buildings. To this observer, the building looks like a prison – not a residence. Do men and women who are already powerless feel comfortable in a cold, machine-like, sharp-edged building? In my opinion, this building does not say “home” but rather gives residents the feeling of being in the grip of a powerful alien force.

The New Carver Apartments are a perfect example of the different world views of Modernists and Traditionalists. Modernists can’t help but project their own egos onto a project in a never-ending quest for novelty and “something entirely different.” That’s what they were taught to do. A Traditionalist architect handling this same project would have been more concerned with giving psychic comfort to the residents by furnishing them with forms and ornament that provide emotional connection to their homes of memory.

It’s a shame that well-intentioned designers serve the ultimate users of their buildings so poorly because they’ve been blinded by the ideology they’ve been dosed with since architecture school.

Tear Down the Corviale! 

New Urbanism Comes to Rome

from Planetizen

24 May 2010 

Author:

• Nikos Salingaros

Nikos Salingaros presents the case for demolishing a modernist eyesore in Rome and replacing it with a high-density, mixed-use New Urbanist neighborhood.

The Corviale building outside Rome is a social housing block that exemplifies the established Corbusian tradition of treating human beings as battery chickens. It was built during 1972-1982 as a single one-kilometer-long building. It is now estimated to house 6,000 people. Apologists who are nostalgic of Soviet-era social experiments continue to defend its paradigmatic modernist design on the grounds that every resident is EQUALLY oppressed in this inhuman environment, an ideal consistent with totalitarian notions of social equality.

Apartments in the Corviale Building. (Photo courtesy of Flickr user Matteo Dudek)

I am involved in an architectural revolution that is occurring today in Italy, and which may hopefully spread to the rest of Europe and the World. We are proposing tearing down the Corviale and replacing it with new urbanist fabric consisting of 3-5 storey buildings tightly knit together with pedestrian and vehicular connections, and supported by a network of urban spaces and green on the human scale. This comes as a shock to many Italian readers.

Immediately after the Italian elections of just a few weeks ago, incoming politician Teodoro Buontempo announced that he is going to tear down the Corviale. The Corviale monster (also called the "Giant Serpent") will be replaced by a high-density mixed-use city. At this moment, we have three very nice projects by three of my friends in Italy: Ettore Maria Mazzola, Gabriele Tagliaventi, and Cristiano Rosponi. These very different new urbanist designs offer three responses to the problem of building new urban fabric and replacing existing urban tissue that is gangrenous.

The Corviale site as it is currently planned.

It is worth discussing what these solutions represent within their broader political, historical, and social implications:

1. This is probably the first time that new urbanist projects are laid out in front of the Italian public accompanied by strong political support. Thus far, the press has conspired with the Universities to bury any traditional urban projects so as to be able to deny their very existence. That way, the architectural establishment could continue to live off the deception that buildings and cities "simply cannot be built that way anymore".
2. Mazzola's project is new (2010). Tagliaventi’s project (A Vision of Europe, 2008) was published in magazines and on the internet but was ignored by the mainstream media so that no one remembers it as having existed at all. Rosponi's project (Agenzia per la Città, 1997) was presented to the Italian government about 13 years ago, which then included Teodoro Buontempo in a less powerful position than he holds today, but the design was not implemented and was buried in the cupboard by the succeeding administrations.
3. Having three very different new urbanist projects on the table exposes the second great deception of modernist urbanists: the claim that traditional architects supposedly offer the same tired solution which copies old buildings. This self-serving statement is false. Having discovered the correct mathematical rules for human-scale architecture and urbanism, we can generate an infinite number of adaptive solutions, each one different from the other, yet all comparably human. It is the modernist image-based pseudo-solutions that turn out oppressively similar in their non-adaptivity to human needs.

The Gabriele Tagliaventi Plan

The Ettore Maria Mazzola Plan

The Cristiano Rosponi Plan

Since all three protagonists are my friends, and I could be involved with the detailed execution of one of the designs when it is chosen, I will not compare the relative merits of these three alternatives. They are distinct in approach and show many interesting differences in implementation. All three are viable alternatives and have valuable urban lessons to teach. Suffice it to say that we welcome having even more new urbanist suggestions on a new Corviale: even a fourth and fifth design of a living quarter on the human scale, just to show the Italian public the rich variety of adaptive design possibilities without the need for any duplication.

All three proposals plan to build one portion of new city, then move some of the residents and demolish the vacated space, repeating this process in stages until the entire Corviale has been replaced. Increasing the eventual total area of habitable space without spreading beyond the original grounds will enable the new urbanist projects to largely pay for themselves.

The Critics
We are facing competition, unfortunately supported by the Italian press as being of comparable value to our more radical proposals for rebuilding, coming from young architects who are still fixated upon formal geometries and propose some superficial changes such as paint, making the wall surfaces look "contemporary", and other palliatives. Those architects haven't learned that the human use of architecture depends upon its basic geometry, not upon surface appearances. It is the inhuman scale of the cement slabs and they way they are arranged that create the Corviale's deadly oppressive environment. The absolutist out-of-scale geometry was wrong to begin with, and that error has to be admitted before the built environment can be fixed. Friendly surfaces are certainly essential, but if placed upon the wrong forms they can never fix the basic problem.

Another argument that has blocked previous attempts to condemn the Corviale in the past as an architectural, social, and political failure is the following. Apologists keep mentioning the "incompleteness"of the project, supposedly needing more investment to realize its initial dream (of course); with just some more money everything will turn into a dreamland of joy and happiness. The planned shops on the fourth storey were never completed; the lovely play gardens were never built. But children are happy to play anywhere they feel psychologically comfortable, yet such spaces are sadly missing in the Corviale. Here, the most basic laws of urban structure were ignored, because urban complexity arises through people's movement, which can never occur on the fourth storey. Healthy commerce develops and thrives from network connectivity. What happened instead is that the optimistically labeled "commercial" spaces were occupied by squatters (and still are). Calls for evicting those illegal settlers ignore that they are merely obeying urban pressures to occupy vacant unconnected interior space. The squatters turn out to be better informed about urbanism than the original architects.

Commerce did in fact develop as appropriate to the Corviale's geometry of dreary and dark corridors. The Corviale is recognized as a thriving center for the narcotics trade, prostitution, and a variety of criminal activities. The business perfectly matches the architectural and urban form. If you want retail commerce and schools, then you simply need to change the geometry.

Another view of the Corviale Building. (Photo courtesy of Flickr user Matteo Dudek)

Tearing down the Corviale is a great opportunity for human-scale urbanism. But there also exist strong obstacles of a deep ideological nature. I urge readers around the world to watch this battle because the modernists and their political allies could choose to make a last stand. It is not simply an argument about a monstrous and ugly building, but about the monstrous and ugly ideology that permitted such a building (and many others like it) to be built in the first place. Losing Corviale to New Urbanism could well represent the beginning of the end of totalitarian rule in urban morphology, and so for the entrenched ideologues, it's worth fighting to preserve it.

The Corviale was sadly built just at the time when the US recognized that monstrous social housing blocks were an inhuman mistake, a failed experiment on a massive scale. Pruitt-Igoe in Saint Louis began to be dynamited by the Government in 1972, whereas Corviale was begun at exactly this time. It’s a pity that the Italian architecture community did not learn from American mistakes, as it would have saved them a lot of grief. Corviale was called "visionary", a term still used in Italian academia. Urban crimes against humanity are taught to architecture students as examples to follow, and their architects presented as heroes. Severe criticism of inhuman housing projects in Italy over several decades has not made the slightest difference.

If the reader does not mind me quoting from one of my papers, I wish to conclude on a note of warning about the seriousness of the underlying issues:

"Choosing to erect anonymous blocks without the slightest reference to the essential properties of a house, projects are then executed with pseudoscientific accuracy… they have been planned, exalted, advertised, and studied in all the universities. Those projects have been taught as positive examples to students, by architects who have transformed a vision they originally declared to be "ethical" into an "aesthetic" dimension, which ended up as a mix of mechanization and political ideology… Four examples of public housing built in Italy: Monte Amiata in Milan, Corviale in Rome, Scampia in Naples, and Zen in Palermo, were condemned by European urbanists in 1991 as being total and abysmal failures. Nevertheless, 15 years later, those very projects were spotlighted in an exhibition of innovative Italian architecture, which toured the major Italian universities. These examples, wherein similar cases gave rise to opposite lessons, underline that the discipline itself stubbornly sticks to a failed ideology."

-P. Pagliardini, S. Porta & N. A. Salingaros, "Geospatial analysis and living urban geometry", Chapter 17 of: Bin Jiang and Xiaobai Angela Yao, Editors, Geospatial Analysis and Modeling of Urban Structure and Dynamics, Springer, New York, 2010.


Dr. Nikos Salingaros is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and is also on the architecture faculties of the University of Rome III and the Delft University of Technology. He is consultant to the Schools of Architecture of the Catholic University of Portugal, Viseu, and the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Santiago de Querétaro, Mexico. Dr. Salingaros is Associate Editor of Katarxis III -- an online journal of New Architecture, New Science, and New Urbanism; the Nexus Network Journal; and the Online Planning Journal. He also ranked 11th in Planetizen's 2009 poll of Top Urban Thinkers.

Corviale is one of the housing projects built on the outskirts of Rome in the 1970's as part of the 1964 regional plan to alleviate crowding in the older central city. It is well-known as the longest single residential building in Europe: an 11-story high slab of apartments nearly 1 km in length. Conceived as an independent community for about 8000 people including other facilities such as schools, shopping, recreation facilities and even a church, the building was based on the idea of social housing to provide all needed infrastructures of a city within the complex itself, and to encourage social contacts between the occupants. For internal and political reasons many of these originally planned structures were never realized or are, almost 20 years after the first occupants moved in, still unfinished. The area suffers from the lack of an adequate metropolitan infrastructure and it remains isolated from the greater city of which it was intended to be a part.




Sunday, 6 February 2011 New Palladians
architect, Ettore Maria Mazzola, Roma

Why Hire an Architect?

Architects are more than building designers—they are men and women who create the spaces in which we live, work and play. Architects are creative problem solvers who translate the requirements of an owner into a three dimensional form by visualizing the design and communicating it, both verbally and in drawings, so that it can be built.

No matter what kind of project you have in mind, you should speak with an architect who is a member of  The American Institute of Architects (AIA) at the earliest stage of the design process.

Licensed by the state to practice architecture, the architect is the only professional specially trained to design the places in which people live and work and to manage all aspects of potentially complex projects from design through construction. Architects must balance multiple requirements in each design: functional, aesthetic, economic, environmental, life safety, and regulatory. Architects have the education, training, experience and vision to maximize your construction dollar and ease the entire design and construction process.

Architects are the single participant in the building industry most capable of guiding the overall design and construction process to a successful conclusion. They respect the industry’s traditions and train themselves to be masters of technology and change. An architect listens to you and serves as your advocate throughout the project.

Licensure as an architect is the result of a special educational process, rigorous training, and completion of a complex series of exams. An architect usually has a minimum of five years of professional schooling and three years experience in the workplace before becoming eligible to take the licensing examination. Only licensed architects may use the title “architect” and their project drawings should bear the architect’s seal before construction may begin. To check on the status of an architect’s license in Connecticut, contact the AIACT or by phone  203-865-2195.

Value of Working with an Architect 

Architects provide a broad range of services and can provide value at every stage of the design and construction process. By working directly with you and assessing your requirements in great depth, the architect tailors the design to suit your personality, needs, budget, and lifestyle. The architect’s extensive study of design alternatives allows you to choose the design most appropriate to your needs. An architect’s knowledge of site-planning and natural energy processes helps accommodate your project to the site characteristics and neighborhood context. By overseeing construction, your architect helps to make sure that your project is built according to design.

The architect also saves you money and time. By keeping abreast of the latest construction materials and technologies, architects can recommend materials and systems that fit your budget. Your architect provides documents for the contractor bidding process, which should result in a fair contractor price. Construction is expedited through an architect’s careful planning and complete drawings and specifications. The architect serves as your agent with the contractor, resolving disputes that may arise and analyzing additional costs the contractor proposes.

The design aesthetic of the project is perhaps the most obvious area in which an architect makes a unique and valuable contribution, creating a visually appealing place with pleasing character and style. Ultimately, your property’s value is increased through appropriate design, improved functionality, and high-quality detailing. 

Selecting an Architect
You will benefit by involving an architect in your project as early in the process as possible. The most popular, and usually the best, way to select an architect is by interviewing several candidates. You can also learn about reputation and ability of architects in your community by visiting completed projects, talking with clients and users, and checking design awards programs and professional design publications.

A brief call to an architect can help determine if his or her expertise is appropriate to your project. When you find a few with related experience, set up interviews with them to discuss your project and review photographs and other samples of their work. You will then be able to narrow the list and, after more meetings, it will become obvious to you which architect is best for you.

Check the architect’s education, training, experience, and references. Most importantly, however, is good “chemistry” between you and your architect — you will need to feel comfortable with each other and will get to know each other well. Your architect should be a good listener, responsive to your phone calls, clearly interested in your needs, and able to communicate without using jargon. Be patient: This process will take some time and it is one of the most important decisions you will make to shape the success of your project. 

20 Questions to Ask Your Architect

1. What does the architect see as important considerations in your project? What are the challenges of the project?
2. How will the architect gather information about your needs, goals, etc?
3. How will the architect establish priorities and make decisions?
4. Who from the architecture firm will you be dealing with directly? Is it the same person who will be designing the project? If not, who will be designing it?
5. How interested is the architect in this project?
6. How busy is the architect?
7. What sets this architect apart from the rest?
8. How does the architect establish fees? When will fee payments be expected?
9. How will you be able to relate fee payments to milestones in the architect’s scope of work?
10. What would the architect expect the fee to be for this project?
11. What are the steps in the design process?
12. How does the architect organize the process?
13. What does the architect expect you to provide?
14. Does the architect have a specific design style? Can he/she show examples of past design work?
15. What is the architect’s experience/track record with cost estimating?
16. What will the architect show you along the way to explain the project? Will you see models, drawings, or sketches?
17. If the scope of the project changes later in the project, will there be additional fees? How will these fees be justified?
18. What services does the architect provide during construction?
19. How disruptive will construction be? How long does the architect expect it to take to complete your project?
20. Can the architect provide a list of past clients with whom he or she has worked?

Information from AIA New Hamphire website

Winsted selectmen vote 'no' on land trust's preservation plan

Published: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 The Register Citizen

By RICKY CAMPBELL

WINSTED, CT — Townspeople and taxpayers won’t be voting on the Winchester Land Trust Proposal and the $450,000 grant that comes with it, the Board of Selectmen decided Monday night.

 photo by John Nordell on Flicker.com

Coming down to a 4-3 vote, the board decided not to take the next step in the bureaucratic process. Instead, the majority voted to deny the proposal, which would have allowed the trust to protect 360 acres abutting Crystal Lake and the Algonquin State Forest, as well as small parcels along Highland Lake altogether.

“They stopped it in its tracks,” said land trust president Shelly Harms. “I’m disappointed the voters didn’t get the chance to decide.”

“We thought it was a win-win for everyone,” she added.

During its discusssion, members raised a few issues with the proposal which would have cost the town $50,000 over the span of eight years, including a $10,000 fee up front. The remaining cost for the easement would break down to $5,000 for every year following. 

One of the issues the board had with the proposal was terrorism.  

The land trust’s proposal would have allowed for one guided tour a year for outsiders visiting the area — and some board members were worried about allowing people near the area’s source of drinking water.

“I don’t care,” said Selectman Karen Beadle, defending her opinion that water at the lake could be affected somehow. “That’s one day too many.”

“That money — it’s a big number,” Selectman Glenn Albanesius said. “It’s seductive. You’re making a decision for future boards.”

Even if selectmen in future years won’t have to worry about the cost, some of those in charge today said they felt like a golden opportunity was botched.

“This grant isn’t going to come again,” said Mayor Candy Perez, who agreed the proposal may not be perfect, but it was better than nothing. “If we don’t do this...we won’t increase fund balance.”

“This was denied to the taxpayers,” said land trust member Susan Closson. “That was an opportunity as a once in a lifetime.”

Harms said the trust, made up of volunteers, is not quite sure what its next step is or if it will have the opportunity to apply for other grants soon. She also believed the board made a mistake in dealing with its future federal funding.

“I wonder if anyone is going to want to deal with the town of Winchester now,” she said.

Ricky Campbell can be reached by e-mail at rcampbell@registercitizen.com and followed on Twitter at Twitter.com/rickycampbellRC. Follow us on Twitter at Twitter.com/registercitizen.

The Sustainable Urbanism Summit - CNU New England

The New England Chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism is proud to be hosting the Sustainable Urbanism Summit on March 17 & 18 in New Haven, Connecticut.

Throughout the chapter's history we have focused on improving the built and natural environment throughout New England. After many years of advocacy and design guidance, we recognize that NOW is a critical time for our region to work together to address our environmental and urban crisis. The Sustainable Urbanism Summit is an opportunity to inspire and connect a group of professionals, public servants, academics and citizens, who together can seed a larger campaign. Innovative thinking about our built and natural environment is needed. If we are to adapt to these uncertain times we must come together swiftly and advance the best ideas for combating our climate crisis and plan for a better, more resilient way of life in New England.

The Summit will address our current environmental, social, and economic issues as they apply to New England. As a group, we will seek to develop new strategies for responsible development in our region. The Summit will provide a platform for speakers and attendees to collaborate on a pragmatic plan to move New England into a new era of progress. Critical discussion topics include the implementation of low-impact infill development and the preservation of natural open space, the reclamation of streets as social spaces, improved mobility and the promotion of healthier lifestyles. Working sessions will explore approaches for providing access to alternative modes of transportation, augmenting local agriculture, creating lifelong communities, and reforming policy related to land use.

 

Registration for the Sustainable Urbanism Summit, on March 17 - 18 in New Haven, Connecticut, is now open. The Summit will bring together leaders from across New England who are involved in shaping our built and natural environment.  The program of the Summit will provide an opportunity for people to share innovative ideas and seed a larger campaign for moving forward a sustainable land use agenda.  As our economy resets, now is a critical time to lay the groundwork for creating the types of places in which we all want to live and work. 

On Thursday, March 17, Robert Orr will lead the group on a tour of New Haven, a city rich in history and diversity. That evening, Doug Farr and Dhiru Dhadani ( 2011 Seaside Prize Winner) will present a keynote address followed by the Urbanism Awards during a cocktail hour at BAR.  Friday will feature a talented and engaging line-up of speakers who will also take part in the interactive group discussions on Friday afternoon. Multiple technology platforms will be used as a way to capture ideas, maintain connections, and help move forward initiatives identified by speakers and participants.

 

Please take a look at the Summit website, and pass on this information to other talented people who you think should be a part of this timely dialogue.

Wednesday Book Review / Promotion

Lost Secrets of Beaux-Arts Design

The Study of Architecture
by John F. Harbeson 

with new introduction by John Blatteau and Sandra L. Tatman
W.W. Norton & Co., New York, N.Y., in association with the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America; 2008; originally published 1926
310 pp; softcover; 404 illustrations; $45 Amazon: $28.66

Reviewed by Clem Labine 

When you say, "Beaux-Arts style," everyone instantly thinks of the handsome, classically influenced buildings that were the centerpiece of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, and those buildings that were continually added to America's urban landscape through the 1920s as part of the American Renaissance and the City Beautiful movement. However, if you say "Beaux-Arts teaching method," chances are you'll get a blank stare. That's because virtually nothing is known today about the rigorous architectural design process that was taught at L'Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris and which was imported into the U.S. in the late 19th century. A modified version of the Beaux-Arts teaching method dominated architectural education in the U.S. until World War II. When Modernist theory swept into the architectural academies after WW II, Beaux-Arts methods were tossed into the trash can along with countless thousands of pre-war architectural books.

The lack of understanding about Beaux-Arts teaching methods is a result of Beaux-Arts training being largely a skill that was passed from generation to generation via oral tradition and individual mentoring. The only American textbook on the Beaux-Arts method did not appear until 1926. The book was an expansion of articles that the author, John F. Harbeson, had written for Pencil Points magazine – and has been out of print for many decades. Now, thanks to W.W. Norton and the publishing program of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America, Harbeson's lost masterwork is back in print – and provides an invaluable insight into architectural training methods from an age that produced giants.

Although the term "Beaux-Arts" is inextricably linked in most people's minds to the ornamented classical style of the late 19th century, there was nothing inherent in the teaching method that required a classical outcome. Rather, the Beaux-Arts philosophy was based on the belief that architectural design should be anchored in a systematic method that can be taught. This idea that architectural design is a rational process that can be developed through rigorous discipline is at complete variance with the Modernist dogma that dominates most architecture schools today.

Compared with today's architectural education, the Beaux-Arts method relied less on bursts of individual inspiration and more on detailed analysis and application of basic principles. By contrast, contemporary attitudes toward teaching architectural design has best been summarized by Notre Dame's C. W. Westfall: "The most prestigious programs . . . follow the one rule of the Abbey of Theleme, 'Do what thou wilt,' which reduces the design instructor to an enabler of the fantasies of eighteen-year-olds or cocky graduate students."
There were five basic elements of the Beaux-Arts method as practiced at L'Ecole:

1. The division of students into ateliers run by practicing architects;
2. The tradition of older students helping the younger;
3. The teaching of design by practicing architects;
4. Starting design work as soon as the student enters the atelier;
5. The system of the esquisse, or preliminary design sketch, as the core of the design process.

Of all the features of the Beaux-Arts method, probably the most unusual to us today is central importance of the esquisse. This was a preliminary sketch showing the student's main ideas for solving a design problem. The esquisse was done in a short time period (usually under 10 hours) and done without the aid of books or advice. The ultimate finished version of the student's design project needed to contain the main features shown in the esquisse – or else the competition jury would disqualify the project. The purpose of the esquisse was to teach mental discipline and avoidance of fuzzy thinking at the project's inception.

Another element of the Beaux-Arts method was an emphasis on carefully delineating shadowed areas in the final rendering of a design. The idea was to demonstrate the critical importance of light and shadow in articulating an architectural surface. Harbeson's book was originally intended as a textbook for both architectural students and teachers. He provides practical step-by-step guidance for developing designs for everything from basic elements like doors and windows to plans for grand civic complexes. Along the way, he also gives avuncular advice to students about working hard and avoiding bad habits.

Of particular value to this reprinted edition is the new introduction by John Blatteau, AIA, noted classical architect and founder of John Blatteau Associates, and Sandra L. Tatman, executive director of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia. Blatteau and Tatman lucidly outline the impact that L'Ecole des Beaux-Arts had on architectural education in America from the 1880s through 1940, and paint a vivid picture of the ideas that animated the architectural community in this period. Harbeson lived to a remarkable 98 years of age, and the introduction is enriched by details that Tatman elicited during an oral history she did with Harbeson.

 
John Frederick Harbeson (1888-1986) attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied in the Department of Architecture under Paul-Philippe Cret. Cret, a Frenchman, had been educated at L'Ecole des Beaux-Arts, and had been brought to the University of Pennsylvania to introduce Beaux-Arts principles into its curriculum. Harbeson progressed from being Cret's gifted pupil to become a senior designer and partner in the Cret firm. As professor of design and eventually chairman of the Dept. of Architecture at University of Pennsylvania, Harbeson taught the Beaux-Arts method and, with the publication of The Study of Architectural Design, became its principal American chronicler.

The reprint of Harbeson's textbook is a great addition to the architectural literature. It will be valuable to architectural historians, architects and interior designers – and especially to anyone teaching architectural design courses today. Though critics of the Beaux-Arts method assert that it stifled "creativity," most will concede that it produced virtually no bad buildings; some might be mediocre, but few were aesthetic failures. The same cannot be said for the fruits of Modernist training. TB

---

Clem Labine is the founder of Old-House Journal, Traditional Building and Period Homes magazines. He has received numerous awards, including awards from The Preservation League of New York State, the Arthur Ross Award from Classical America and The Harley J. McKee Award from the Association for Preservation Technology (APT). Labine was a founding Board Member of the Institute of Classical Architecture (ICA), and served in an active capacity on the board until 2005, when he moved to Board Emeritus status. He is also a regular blogger on the Traditional Building and Period Homes websites.

The Perpetual Modernity of Palladio

from New Palladians
Sunday, 2 January 2011

CALL for PAPERS

  From Vernacular to Classical:

The Perpetual Modernity of Palladio

Conference: June 10-12, 2011

University of Notre Dame

South Bend, Indiana

“As architects we recognize a colleague, a guild master who, in spite of more than four hundred and fifty years’ distance, we yearn to see as one of us.”

Palladio’s Children: Essays on Everyday Environments

N.J. Habraken and Jonathan Teicher

Framing the venue of two important exhibitions (the Royal Institute of British Architects’ traveling exhibit “Palladio and his Legacy: A Transatlantic Journey” and “New Palladians: Modernity and Sustainability in 21^st Century Architecture”), the University of Notre Dame will host a conference addressing synergies and dialectics across vernacular and classical architecture, discussing the possibilities of a broader Palladian tradition in the 21^st century. It will bring together scholars, practitioners, educators and students from a variety of disciplines related to the built environment to explore and discuss Palladio as an inspiring master whose works forms a vital foundation – and a revitalizing platform – from which an evolutionary process of Tradition and Classicism that intelligently integrates the vernacular and classical is made possible.

 

The conference will address a complex range of ideas, work and proposals that encompass, consolidate and emulate the Palladian paradigm and/or explore sustainable architectural and urban design endeavors of the 21^st century articulated by various threads in New Classicism, New Urbanism and recent “New Palladian” arguments and designs.

Palladio is often mentioned restrictively for a few of his exquisite villas, and caricatured for adding temple-fronts on his villas in the Veneto on the presumption that he was giving undue monumentality and sacred status to the private country residences of local landed aristocracy. The legacy of the built and un-built work of Palladio, however, merits a more sophisticated analysis and a more comprehensive contemporary assessment.

It requires a revised appreciation of how the combined art and intelligence of vernacular craftsmanship, local building traditions and precedents, as well as the “ archaeological” study of Roman Antiquity, sensitization to Classical principles and expertise in humanist theories, among others, have achieved a generous, unique and original collection of masterworks that continue to resonate, inspire and fascinate the architectural world.

Traditional cultures typically evolve a rich memory of types and models, developing elaborate expressions of art and knowledge on the one hand, and sophisticated expression of crafts and know-how on the other.

Classical and vernacular cultures interact and emulate one another in complex and subtle dialogues, inspiring, borrowing and learning from each other. Since their common origin in the “mythical hut,” the temple, the house and the palace have evolved into a rich genealogy of refined types that continue to foster inventive dialectics and synergies. Neither the Classical nor the Vernacular should be considered mere stylistic categories, as they function as proposals of the most appropriate, beautiful, safe, and comfortable dwellings and public spaces. Though style emerges as an expression of particular cultures, Classicism itself is not a style, nor is the Vernacular; both foster refined foundations of stylistic appropriateness, excellence, integrity, sound and sustainable construction, elegant tectonics and composition, durability, comfort and enlightenment. As such, numerous possible connections for innovative contemporary practice and education exist.

The conference, then, seeks papers that examine relationships across Palladio’s legacy of Classical and Vernacular architecture that may include any of the following: 1) History and theory; 2) Contemporary practice; 3) Academic education, research and scholarship. More specifically, papers may radiate around these themes:

· The Classical and Vernacular in Palladio’s work

· Palladio in America: The Rustic, the Vernacular, the Classical

· The Classical and Vernacular in Contemporary Practice and the Academy

· Teaching Palladio in the 21^st Century

· Classical or Vernacular: Palladian, Neo-Palladian and New Palladianism

· Palladio’s Legacy and the Urban Realm

· The Vernacular and the Classical in New Urbanism

· What does it mean to posit a Classical Modernity?

· Reconsiderations of Res Publica – new dynamics for civic, sacred, public and monumental space in contemporary building

· Reconsiderations of Res Economica – new dynamics for residential, commercial, technical and industrial infrastructures

· Craftsmanship in historical and contemporary contexts

· The Future of Palladian Ideals

Deadlines and Submission Instructions

Abstracts submission deadline: February 10, 2011

Abstracts of no more than 300 words should be submitted on CD in a (MSWord) .doc or .pdf file. Please also include examples of illustration intended to accompany your paper and a current CV. Please also send these materials digitally to Karen Voss at kvoss@nd.edu. CDs should be postmarked by February 10 and mailed to the following address: Palladio Conference at Notre Dame, Attention: Karen Voss, School of Architecture, University of Notre Dame, 110 Bond Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556

A confirmation of receipt of submissions will be sent by February 20, 2011. If you have any questions, contact Karen Voss by email (kvoss@nd.edu) or phone (574.631.2872). 

Notification of Accepted Abstracts: March 5, 2011

Abstracts will be reviewed and selected by a committee of expert practitioners, scholars and academics. Selection criteria will include the papers’ relevance to the Conference, scholarly merit, and interest with regard to the event’s intended thematic range and emphasis on the dialectics and synergies of the Vernacular and the Classical within the wider Palladian tradition.

Papers due: April 10, 2011

Final papers should be no longer than 1500-2000 words (maximum) and should fit into a 20- minute presentation, including illustrations. Applicants are asked to respect the 20-minute time frame to ensure all are heard fully and accommodate discussion periods. To this end, applicants might be invited to revise or adjust the length of their final papers after final submission.

Conference: June 10 - June 12, 2011

The Conference will be organized around plenary sessions and concurrent sessions addressing parallel conference topics. The Steering committee will schedule papers accordingly into relevant panels. 

University of Notre Dame

School of Architecture

110, Bond Hall

Notre Dame, 46556-5652

Tel (574) 631-6137 fax (574) 631-8486