Committee on Design

 View Only

  • 1.  Record Houses 2011

    Posted 04-28-2011 03:17 PM
    I have been reading the postings about the Architectural Record's 2011 Record Houses with increasing dismay. I don't like getting drawn into these debates but I feel compelled to speak up. To me if just one of the projects featured in the issue is a joy and an inspiration then the whole issue is worth it, regardless of what I think of the others. 

    In my opinion Kengo Kumura's addition to the John Black Lee Glass/Wood House is an absolutely brilliant piece of architecture and to hear other architects, ostensibly interested in design, dismiss it as pornography or throw an issue of Record in the trash because it has published the project strains credulity.

    Do I design this way? I don't have the client, the budget or, let's face it, the talent. But the thoughtfulness that this addition displays, its sensitivity to the existing house (a kind of vernacular in miniature), its engagement with the site, its simple functionality and its sheer poetry are elements each one of us can - and should - bring to all of our projects. It doesn't matter who our clients are, how big the budgets are or where our projects are located. It doesn't matter how committed we are to sensible, sustainable, energy efficient buildings. When architects cease to delight architecture is finished.

    -------------------------------------------
    Susan Haviland AIA
    Haviland Studio
    Palo Alto CA
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Record Houses 2011

    Posted 04-29-2011 02:01 PM

    One good apple doesn't save the bushel.

    For me, it isn't only this one issue. AR has acquired a past of featuring irresponsible and careless design, all in the name of cuteness. Further, there seems to be an unhealthy obsession with foreign designers. To make matters worse, I have received 4 issues since my subscription expired.
    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Record Houses 2011

    Posted 05-02-2011 08:44 AM
    I appreciate the many points of view expressed in this discussion thread.  On the one hand, I think it is bracing to be confronted with bold experiments in the design of houses.  I don't always "like" what I see, but I am always stimulated to examine and question both the stated goals and the design response.  The accompanying text almost always provides sufficient background to evaluate the ideas embodied in the houses.  Is there a modernist bias?  Of course!  Thirty years ago there was a post-modernist bias, and twenty years ago a deconstructivist bias. This is only natural, as the issue clearly states its intention to examine current conditions, however narrow and trendy the editor's perceptions of those conditions may be. 

    On the other hand, the text is often far too fawning, far too indulgent, with far too little serious critical analysis - the "People Magazine" of architectural journalism. The articles frequently seem to come straight from the marketing department of the subject firm. (This is, in fact, a problem with every issue of the magazine as a whole). I tend to favor European journals like Domus and Architectural Review.  While they too have their faults, I can usually count on both praise and reproach within the same article, which bespeaks real respect for both architect and reader.  If AR wants to truly serve the profession by stimulating critical inquiry, it would do well to follow their example and apply more rigorous analytical standards to their editorial content.    
    -------------------------------------------
    James VanderMolen AIA
    President
    Elevate Studio
    Grand Rapids MI
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message