The Notion of Progress: Too Often Unquestioned as a Default

Up until this point, my posts have enthusiastically speculated the futures for architecture and technology. However, I am very aware that not all people share this enthusiasm with me, and moreover, that many believe that we should not always aim to progress and change. While some designers, architects, and engineers dedicate themselves to creativity and constantly project alternate futures onto modern societies, others look to recycle and regurgitate proven concepts and typologies. This dichotomy between striving for innovation and reusing what already exists reflects the contrasting dissatisfaction and contentment with current practices that stirs within modern cultures. This week, I searched the blogosphere for professionals residing on each end of this spectrum, and found two recent posts that present particularly strong cases for each side. In "The (Faux) Old Ball Game," from Design Observer, Michael Bierut, one of the blog's primary editors and partner at the multidisciplinary design firm Pentagram, responds to the nostalgic designs for the New York Yankees' New Yankee Stadium and the New York Mets' Citi Field (pictured above). Both ballparks were designed by HOK Sport and are currently under construction, with the expectation that they will be completed by the beginning of the 2009-2010 Major League Baseball Season. Bierut questions the reluctance of both designs to challenge the typical old-fashioned ballpark aura, and risk public acceptance to create a new ballpark experience. Writing from a nearly opposite perspective on his personal blog, Lebbeus Woods, a celebrated independent architect and current Professor of Architecture at The Cooper Union in New York City, argues that there is always a need for repetitive regularity in his post "Dumb Boxes." Woods explains that without "buildings that are often little more than rectilinear solids," or what he refers to as ordinary dumb boxes (pictured below), nothing would be extraordinary, because there would be no frame of reference to transcend. I have directly responded to each of these posts on their respective blogs, but my comments are listed below as well.

In response to "The (Faux) Old Ball Game."
Comment:
Your post raises some significant concerns about our design culture's tendencies to hide in comfort zones, yet can you identify any foreseeable solution to this problem? We live in a society where economic profit, rather than design originality, seems to be the utmost priority. I too see the designs for the New Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are repetitive and conventional, but the dilemma is that their predictability appears to be what corporate clients want in their investments. Because these organizations are spending so much money on the design and construction of these projects, they want to be sure that their endowments will yield a consistent long-term profit. While the stadiums designed for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, popularly known as the Bird's Nest by Herzog and De Meuron and The Watercube by PTW Architects, are much more compelling and are almost certain to be highly popular venues this summer, it is not clear how much attention nor how much profit these two works will generate in the future. In addition, these two buildings carry a national and political importance along with their architectural significance. This upcoming Olympics is an opportunity for China to present itself to the world as a prosperous and thriving nation, and high quality design and construction will most likely show well for the country. However, the same cannot be said for Major League Baseball organizations, which generally benefit if they have winning teams with popular players, rather than dynamic stadiums designed by fashionable architects. You question why stadiums, unlike office buildings, libraries, museums, and houses, "have to arrive in old fashioned wrappings," and state that "sooner or later, someone has to take a risk on something new." While I would personally love to see more architects and clients take chances and agree on more creative designs, I do not see much reason for them to do so. Can you propose why "someone has to take a risk on something new," or suggest any projects in the United States where progressive, modern design has proved beneficial for architects and clients alike that is not an office building, library, museum, or house?

In response to "Dumb Boxes."
Comment:
You offer a very interesting perspective by explaining that in order to transform the way we inhabit, use, and conceive of architecture, we must at first experience restriction and be surrounded by the tiresome uniformity of typical, dumb boxes. I completely agree that without knowing what is ordinary, there would be no such thing as the extraordinary; the latter is fundamentally a derivative of the former. But while I concur with your opinions, I also have many questions about how what you present can be carried out in our contemporary society. You go on to advise that we should "make the extraordinary only when extraordinary conditions demand it. Radical social and political changes. Recovery from war and natural disasters. The reformation of slums," and that in the meantime we should sustain "as high a standard of the ordinary as we can." My question to you is: How do you see this to be possible? How can you expect architects and designers to "create the extraordinary" only on the cue of such situations, as if that process is a practice and ability that can be turned on and off? Even if there are a select few with the potential to produce exceptional designs only when it is necessary, why would you anticipate that those capable would resist using their capacities at all times? If one is talented, I do not see it reasonable to hope for them to apply their skills sparingly, nor do I see it beneficial to "the improvement of the human condition" as you mention. Perhaps then, do you mean that we should be more aware that we depend on what is considered the familiar, and that we should learn to tolerate those who do design dumb boxes?

A Search for Ideas: Inspirations at the Source

As this blog is a medium for venting and analyzing current phenomena in hopes of spawning new ideas, this week I have again searched the Web for resources and would like to share what I find most inspiring. But rather than providing items that each draw from a range of sources as I did previously, I am instead aiming to share original, more specific nodes for ideas; each item I found highlights its author's unique philosophies. Referencing the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria for evaluating websites and blogs, I have added the ten items I found to my sidebar linkroll. As someone forming my own ideology, I find the personal accounts of currently developing theses to be particularly exciting. Xárene Eskandar's Tentative Architecture, a UCLA Master of Fine Arts thesis project, which I mentioned in my last post, contains extremely insightful proposals about immaterial architecture. The site is animated and ordered, yet it does not make use of the web's potential for interactivity. The two other theses are both blogs. Mantone's blog is undermined by instances of casual language and an absence of credible background information, but the insights pertaining to architecture and communication are exceptionally profound. It is also interesting to trace the evolution of Mantone's thesis statement. The other blog is by Raphael Zollinger, a grad student at NYU who provides frequent reports of detailed progress on his thesis for interactive computing for design. However, the blog would be even more interesting if there was dialogue being generated.

The majority of my findings are websites of professionals. Design websites are of Troika Design Studio and Hoberman Associates. The Troika Design Studio's website is clearly and attractively structured and contains in-depth images, videos, and text describing the studio's ingenious projects. The Hoberman Associates site is also visually appealing and well organized, however the projects, which focus on transformable design, have very brief descriptions. Both of these sites could be further improved by adding interactive elements. Information analysis websites are of the University of Columbia's Spatial Information Design Lab and professor emeritus Edward Tufte. The Spatial Information Design Lab's site is graphically striking and composed for simplicity, yet it does not invite users to participate. On the other hand, while Tufte's website is a bit boring aesthetically, it is currently active with discussion not only between site visitors, but with Tufte himself. Of the professional websites, I find the architecture firms' most inspiring; each fuses architecture, design, data, and technology uniquely. Asymptote Architecture searches for a common ground between architecture and technology. Their website interactively allows users to redraw elements; however the site's advanced use of technology can become tiring because it lengthens in-site navigation time. Activity on LOT-EK's website is also slowed because of animations, but the projects involving mobile architecture are exciting and novel. Finally, while the dECOi Atelier website is graphically disappointing, as it houses a constant ad in the browser, and it lacks thorough information, the content that is listed is about algorithmically generated architecture (pictured above) and is perhaps the most impressive and innovative of all items.

Relevant Topics: Architecture, Information Technology, and Everything In Between

Because my research is in a generally unexplored and undefined area shared by architecture and information technology, subject matter is difficult to find on a consistent basis. That is why this week I searched the Web, and its many interconnections, for sites containing content consistently relevant to the topics investigated in this blog. During my search, I referenced the Webby Awards and IMSA, which provide comprehensive criteria for evaluating websites and blogs respectively. To explore what information age architecture truly is, I compiled a list of 10 sites, that collectively cover topics that arise from my discussion: information technology, society, media, architecture, and everything in between. Three sites I found focus on information technology and data visualization, yet each site has its own unique perspective. Information Aesthetics is particularly original, concentrating on the manifestation of data into formal existences, claiming that "form follows data." However, the site is slightly cluttered at the top and its actual posts are not particularly in depth nor critical. Flowing Data investigates statistics from a social viewpoint, searching for applications of data visualization in society. The site is organized in a manner that allows users to search content and see posts, images, comments, and links in equal proportions all on one page, making the site easy to read, use, and navigate. The site's only shortcoming is that its language and content are at times unsophisticated and informal. With authoritative and analytical posts, Junk Charts holds a strong, yet candid, opinion that information representation can influence society. It stressing the importance of proper graphic composition of information. Junk Charts is a highly informative and inspiring blog, and it generates significant discussion; I only wish that its posts were even more frequent. While each of these blogs serves as a solid resource for information technology and data visualization, they do not begin to discuss the manifestation of information in architectural terms; however I did find complementary resources that discuss architecture. Where takes a unique perspective by extensively questioning our understanding of place; however its posts generate minimal feedback, which slightly undermines the site's influence. BLDGBLOG also provides exceptional and relevant content, speculating outside of the mainstream. Additionally, it provides an extremely comprehensive and organized list of sites referencing topics such as architecture, urbanism, design, science, technology, and much more. However, while BLDGBLOG is analytical only sometimes, many of its posts are leisurely, casual, and objective. City of Sound uniquely encompasses, but does not always fuse, technology and media in conjunction with architecture in its posts. It is established in a network of other sites and blogs and its posts are interesting, thorough, and generate feedback; the only flaw is that a couple of its posts comment on content that is not immediately current. In addition to these sites that focus primarily on architecture or information technology, I found four sites that exist in a middle ground. Future Perfect offers an original perspective, discussing the future of technology and society from a product design standpoint; however its entries are thin and tend to generate little dialogue. While Digital Urban also finds a common ground, existing as a repository for content concerning the visualization of the physical world through digital media, the site is heavy on technical aspects and tutorials. The ARCH takes a different route, serving as a frequently updated source for virtual architecture, however user activity and in-depth analysis are lacking on the site. Lastly, Wireless Urbanism is a blog accompanying a student's personal thesis project. Although it is inconsistent in posting developed entries, not an integral part of a community, and not written by a recognized "expert," Wireless Urbanism takes on an original identity as an intensely developing manifesto concerning wireless technology and public space. Each of these resources can be found in my linkroll on the right side of the page.