It's easy to overlook an abandoned shack when you're driving down a familiar road but as I make the trek back and forth to the cottage each year I notice small changes in the landscape: one building is now empty and for sale, another has been renovated and countless others still remain dormant and ignored as they have for years.
One particular building only seen in my peripheral vision at 100km/h was what appeared to be an old FotoMat booth. During a recent return trip from the cottage I managed to spot it and pull over for a closer look (without causing an accident in the process).
No, it wasn't a FotoMat booth. Rather, it was an old hamburger stand masquerading as one. Or perhaps it used to be one. It's not a particularly interesting structure and I'd be hesitant in referring to it as 'architecture' -- it barely qualifies as a building. At the same time I wonder how this tiny speck managed to avoid the wrecking ball for so long when it's such an easy target requiring relatively little effort. And for that matter, why was I so interested in this thing?
Along this particular stretch of highway exist various pockets of commercial activity. Over time, some areas fare better than others and eventually the least profitable businesses go, well, out of business. The three or four other buildings near this one were in a similar state of activity -- meaning, none. There is very little local business to be seen -- these buildings support the seasonal flow of traffic to and from cottage country and without that business they do not survive.
So this small shack and the buildings surrounding it were most likely profitable until someone opened a better/bigger/nicer/cheaper hamburger shack in a more popular stretch of the road. Then, this place went out of business. At least that's my guess.
For me though, it wasn't a hamburger shack until I managed to pull over and intentionally look at the building. To me it was always the FotoMat booth because that was the shape I saw and the connection I made. And surely it has no more relevance than simply that -- a remembered shape -- and devoting this much space to the idea of the building already lends it more weight than it deserves.
The building itself isn't the object of attention here. It's the thought that the banal form of the FotoMat booth has cemented itself as an iconic structure in the field of architecture. And how odd is that?
I think your new pursuit is
I think your new pursuit is a worthy one. I still remember a question on a first year anthropology exam which asked to "name the person who's signature is on the license inside of elevators in Ontario, and what position does that person hold?" That was 1973. It is the only thing I remember about that otherwise forgettable class, although the reason it was on the exam (as the prof later told me) was to underline that recognizing the ephemeral is crucial in understanding the world at any given moment in time. It has resonated to this day, and is something I am attempting to reflect in my own photographs; the minutae of the "here and now" of everyday life is all around us. It is so temporary, yet it defines the time we live in.
Think of the term "fotomat". For a decade or so they were ubiquitous in most neighbourhoods. They sprang up because someone thought of the idea of co-opting the drive-in concept to having films developed. Then they disappeared as quickly as they arrived, falling victim to supermarket one hour developing. So "Fotomat" is a term that will have relevance only within the decade or so of human history that it existed, and then it will be lost in the mists of time.
So, yes, your new pursuit is a worthy one...even if the booth in question sold burgers and fries.
I look forward to seeing more stuff.
Steve Colwill
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for the feedback Steve! I'd heard of the 'elevator license' story before, but hadn't recognized the intent of the exercise. You're quite right in that the entire FotoMat memory is constrained to a subset of people who experienced it within that specific period of time and part of what this leads to for me (and what you were also referring to) is the more general idea about 'connections.'
I'll save the explanation for a later post but the general idea is that architecture is irrelevant without inhabitation. Connections to a place (or image) are derived through experiences and without those any building (no matter how well designed) is meaningless. Of course, architects don't like to hear that unless they understand that they are creating something more than a monument. Interesting memories most frequently accompany mundane places...
Kendall this is a great new
Kendall this is a great new idea you have here. Reminds me of another site where you can engaged in a thoughtful discourse about the history, and temporal nature of buildings. This is so rare on the net, so I must say I love your idea. I never used Fotomat, but I know what it is. I've probabily seen one or two, but having heard people discuss them all the time when I was child, it stayed with me. It truly is iconic, even if it is, just a small ugly little shack.
About a decade ago I remember when I used to go to the states and I was amazed at the sheer size of rectangular buildings. Wal-Marts, Costco's, Walgreen's, etc..... They stood out like a sore thumb. Now they are everywhere. I'm never sure if I'm in Idaho, Kansas or St.Catherine's anymore because everything looks the same, and it's really unsettling. I know these hidious cubes will be what people remember from our time which seems to be a pecular period in history. We abandon & destroy our late, historical buildings which were developed with an asthetic in mind, and we pulled up homogonized cubes all around us instead which focus only a very specialized interest -- consumption. At first glance that seems almost trival, people have always consumed and redveloped things around them for their own uses -- but now it seems that's ALL we have.
Great discussion. Brings to
Great discussion. Brings to mind Stewart Brand's wonderful book, 'How Buildings Learn - What Happens After They're Built.'
The big box stores mentioned above won't have the rich lives of some buildings who can morph from school to store to cafe to home ... all the while learning to adapt to their new role. Canada is on the forefront in research (if not execution) of architecture that is built with future change/adaptation in mind from the start.
I can't believe that I'd
I can't believe that I'd never heard of that book before and given that I was trained as an architect, I'm extra annoyed.
I've skimmed through a little bit of it now (and fully intend to read it soon), but one quote I found myself in agreement with was this from (of all people) Brian Eno:
"Some work invites you into itself by not offering a finished glossy, one-reading-only surface. This is what makes old buildings interesting to me. I think that humans have a taste for things that not only show that they have been through a process of evolution, but which also show they are still a part of one."
Old buildings -- whether they are monuments or factories -- have an extra layer of depth. Texture, dirt, grime, history. That's what makes them interesting and it's also why newer, cleaner buildings are not approachable. I'm sure that's true of any time. A modernist glass box given 100 years of history will also attain a different sort of meaning within its context but the Eno quote made me remember it. My architecture thesis work dealt with this issue quite specifically in the context of defining the role of architecture in 'virtual' space.
Anyways, thanks for the book reference. From what I can see it's quite applicable to all of this.
Kendall, that's sooo cool.
Kendall, that's sooo cool. :-))) Why, I think this book simply "oozes" you!! (Though I only *know* you through this site.) I have no architecture background ... but I'm an avid armchair urban/design/creativity fan - Brand is one of my idols. I've been long amazed by the breadth and depth of his unique collectives like The Well, The Long Now, Whole Earth Catalog, and GBN. His work and the wide-ranging design/architecture lectures I attended in the late 80's & early 90's while living in Montreal (anyone remember the great Alcan Series??) really formed many of my perspectives on urban scapes and the collective good.
One of Brand's co-horts, Peter Schwartz, wrote another of my favourite books, "The Art of the Long View -- Planning for the future in an uncertain world" http://www.gbn.com/BookClubSelectionDisplayServlet.srv?si=16 The book has nothing to do with architecture per se, but if you like "...Buildings Learn..." this may be a good read to browse some day.
OK, so I assume you've read Christopher Alexander's duo - the "Timeless Way of Building" and "A Pattern Language"??? What are your faves for non-architects?
When I see what I've written in my note above, I have to laugh/wonder how I (fairly recently) ended up in shiny-new-urban-sprawl-Calgary (at least I live in a 50's neighbourhood and can bike/walk to work)... and that after a few dreadful years in Houston!? AArgh.
Kendall, keep in touch and let me know how/if I could ever contribute to your project down the road. I'm a tech marketer, writer and college instructor. Bought a Rebel Xi last week ... you're inspiring me to get out a use it!!
Best regards, Shazz
check this out: Lens:
check this out:
Lens: Adaptation by Mohin
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/09/12/nyregion/LENS_MOHIN_SLIDESHOW_1.html