This is part of an on-going series of periodic posts written as short discussions between an architect and his intern dating back to the October 1, 2017 post and beyond.
I. I was
thinking about that anchor point you sometimes talk about and wondering… the way so many architects, and
others, seem to think alike, do they have simpatico
anchor points?
A. Perhaps, but
just as plausible is that their thinking is influenced by people around them as well as by the rigors of life and the
daily grind.
I. In our
studio it seems that much of the rigor is working to get through and around all the various agencies we have to deal with. Why aren’t we working in the same direction? Why aren’t we all part
of the same team and working towards
the same goals...
A. That would be
ideal, but too often we don’t receive much empathy from the powers that be. In these times when we are being inundated
with countless new rules and
regulations helping to maintain order as our population runs rampant it is important to me to preserve as many
individual freedoms as possible. My inherent DNA leans towards
individualism and away from the many forms of governing
directives and group thinking. Somewhere between these two poles, the individual and the public at large, lies the
scrimmage line where constant give and take
struggle to find an acceptable balance.
I. It sounds
like you are talking “fair and balanced” (tongue in cheek).
A. The scrimmage
line for us is obtaining permits via the governing agencies – building departments, planning departments, design
committees – administering generalized
design oversight which is often not particularly in the best interest of our specific project, and in my view, not
even in the best interest of the overall community
– unless you think the Guggenheim diminishes the border along Central Park or the Disney Concert Hall is an affront to the Los Angeles
city fabric.
I. I know governing
agencies are generally not held in high esteem and disregard of codes and regulations is commonplace, but what a
shame – to have rules and then maneuver around or ignore them. Are the rules inadequately drafted to begin with? What gives?
A. It reminds
you a bit of the country at large, doesn’t it?
I think the underlying problem
is that generalized regulations inevitably intrude on and limit individual circumstances. Envision a group of our contemporaries sitting
around a
table discussing ways to makes the general public safer, or perhaps more aesthetically coherent assuming things should
be less diverse or more diverse. Consider
a simplistic example like flow restrictions on plumbing fixtures – they regulate how much water you can use to take a shower or
flush a toilet. I see this as an individual need or preference, not some universal constant. And in a lot
cases the fixture just gets changed out in spite of the requirement. The whole mindset
is wrong. Perhaps many such requirements should be “suggestions” only. Or
maybe water should be controlled by raising the usage cost…
I. I know you’re big on water rights, but...
A. Perhaps I
should have used a different example.
How about lights, guardrails, door
swings, grading, solar orientation, fireplaces...
I. So what
about diversity? That’s a popular buzz
word these days.
A. Diversity and
uniformity are areas near the ends of the same composition scale.
Depending on the circumstance sometimes you want more of one than the other.
Our perspective, however, is flexible and changing. It depends a lot on point of view, which reminds me of that
anchor point. Where is it? We may want diversity, just not too much in our community. And perhaps rightly so. Most of us
want a stable base of operation from which to run our daily lives. When you come
home after a day’s work you want to find your dog in the yard and your ice cream in the freezer. After that you may be ready for some variety:
perhaps a bar mitzvah, a piñata
party, or a Chinese dinner.
I. How about
going to see a musical?
A. We all have
our limits. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere. Just kidding, I actually took my wife to see Hair
48 years ago and Hamilton this year.
I. That’s
quite impressive, Boss.
A. Anyway,
individual accomplishments are largely the result of driving forces within each person and can be very deep
and complex. It’s difficult to find a group, committee, or agency with this kind of motivation. That’s why everything generally narrows down to an individual: principal architect, president, coach, general, etcetera. In architecture
there are design teams, even great ones, but so far no match for
Michelangelo, Wright, Gehry…It does seem, however, that as our culture becomes less personal and
more mass and technically oriented there has
been a shift away from individuality and the heartfelt. Of necessity there is greater emphasis on solving problems beyond the realm of any
one individual. It’s the difference between Wright designing Fallingwater and Bohlin
Cywinski Jackson designing an
Apple Store or between them and NASA designing our space program.
There’s not a lot of history and cultural nuance in the space program, but it works great for
survival in a hostile environment.
I. So do you
see the growing reach of government control as endangerment to individual
rights and freedoms?
A. Absolutely,
and as I often say the quality of life is being eroded as well.
I. Well, not many people can expect to
have the kind of existence you’ve made for yourself
out here in the woods.
A. It’s sometimes
difficult, but I started out with practically nothing; it’s a matter of getting your priorities straight and
tenaciously pursuing them.
I. And now
group thinking is out there rattling their sabers at our gates.
A. The groupies
do not see the shortsightedness of their ways.
They even think they are the glue that holds everything
together. They will serve us a little justice
and a daily bucket of warm water for
bathing. Voila! The spirit of the individual will always resist, but individual thinking needs to be more forcefully reflected
in new rules, laws, and regulations,
which should be
carefully crafted to preserve the maximum amount of individual flexibility. This was the way President Kennedy dealt with
the Soviet Union during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, giving them as much flexibility as possible, but this is seldom the way our building, planning, and design review regulations are structured
today.
I. Go get’em, boss.
A. I wish I could.
No comments:
Post a Comment