'To be remembered' is not typical criteria for constructing a building. Some buildings however -- whether for reasons of spectacle, ego or bragging rights -- are built to be seen and admired but does this undermine the essential purpose of architecture?
Think of some well-known structures around the world: the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids at Giza, the Guggenheim in Manhattan (don't get me started about Gehry's monstrosity in Spain), the Empire State Building, the Sydney Opera House. I'd bet that most people can picture the majority of these buildings even if they've never seen them with their own eyes. I'll also bet that the picture that comes to mind is the same postcard image most other people recognize.
Such 'memorable' buildings are glorified and elevated to the status of monuments. Inevitably there is a plaque somewhere directing the spectators as to where they should plant their feet and observe the glorious object. How often do we see the interiors of these buildings and really, isn't that what we experience at a more human-scale anyways?
When I think of the many abandoned buildings I've visited I rarely recall their exteriors. Frequently I'll leave only to remember that I forgot to photograph the exteriors. Everyday buildings don't attempt to be a 'sculpture in a landscape' -- they weren't built to be admired as free-form objects able to ignore their urban context. Most photos of abandoned buildings that I see typically depict the interiors -- the details, the artifacts left behind, the way light infiltrates a space. Maybe we don't accept that non-monumental buildings are worth regarding because we haven't been told that they can be monuments.
Kodak Offices, Toronto, Canada
The unassuming facade above is a former office building of Kodak Canada. The designer's hand did not attempt to leave a fingerprint and this is the exact opposite intention of monumental structures. For that reason the building might as well be holding a giant sign that reads 'ignore me.' However, we have far more daily experiences with this type of building than with the Eiffel Tower type.
Worker's Change Rooms, Bethlehem Steel, Buffalo, New York
The depth of experiences I have with everyday mundane buildings far exceeds the memories of visiting any number of 'famous places.' In part this may be due to the way organized tourism compares to exploring a place on your own terms. To create a meaningful connection to a place requires multiple paths for interpretation and experience but most 'look-at-me' buildings tend to simplify things until they become a literal one-liner.
Having lived in Rome for a number of months, I might be expected to have a closer relationship with the architecture. It's not the buildings themselves (as objects) that I remember -- it's the events they facilitated. I remember drinking wine on the steps of the Pantheon. I remember the chaotic paths between our studio and Piazza Navona. Architecture in that city allowed many unscripted events.
To be fair, some examples I listed at the beginning of this entry did consider the overall urban fabric in their design and implementation and were truly more than just monuments for the sake of monument. The danger is that when we consider how the experience of these places is packaged we only see the superficial end-result -- a statue to observe at a distance.
To my mind, good architecture allows things to happen in and around it but doesn't require you to take notice of the cause and it certainly doesn't require a 'Kodak Moment' plaque. Such a sign would be far more effective at getting me to leave an area than any 'No Trespassing' sign ever would.
Lately I have been thinking
Lately I have been thinking about something along these same lines. Some buildings (which I remember) and which stay with me have always been 'places of work' as opposed to 'places of worship'. I've always admired that fine point where an architect has merried practical with beautiful. I always loved the Tip Top Tower as a child because of the detail work which the building had. Also nothing really looks like it in the area, so it stands out more then say-- the Molson's plant (eww!). Unfortuntely the building now just looks offensive with the extra 6 stories it has jutting out the top in pure brutalist form, irrespective of the buildings previous design. I visited the Kodak plant recently and I really liked the design of that building you have posted. hopefully it won't be torn down for a Wal-Mart, or something.
I think thata building should have both form and function, and strides should be taken to avoid bletant rip-offs such as the Chysler building condos at Bayview & Sheppard and the gaudy addition of the Tip Top building. That said, I believe very few things meet these standards which is why you have sprawling subdivisions where you have to drive for 10 minutes to leave, and how many mega-malls you have where you have drive from massive cube store to store. I believe we have gone from having architecture and urban planning that facilitates use and interaction with a space to merely just moving people around for the sake of shopping--working--going home.
No wonder we have new phenomenons of road-rage.That's probabily not what you were asking for tho! :)
I have a hard time taking a
I have a hard time taking a position on the relevance of ornament in architecture. On the one hand I enjoy the brick detailing, the column capitals and general sculptured appearance to the facades of urban buildings from the early 1900's but on the other I have to remember that those decorations were simply that -- decoration. And not only that, they are forms that are imitations of imitations of imitations (going back to Romanesque, Renaissance, Roman and Greek styles).
Modern architecture attempted to avoid ornament and concentrate on pure function. Those frilly lacy bits had no place in architecture and while it led to some very interesting projects, it also led to popular acceptance of generic faceless boxes. Glass office towers or stucco shopping boxes, somehow we've gotten used to them. I'd love to see what Mies van der Rohe would have done with a Home Depot.
Just happy to see you've not
Just happy to see you've not gone... nor forgotten - looking forward to this new project.
I think you bring up an
I think you bring up an interesting point here, particularly with the Kodak offices. Unlike many modern cubicle farms, this building looks to be a wall of windows, which undoubtedly made the experiences of those working there more pleasant overall. Of course, for a photography company, you'd hope they'd understand the importance of light, but this isn't always the case, as with many design company offices I've seen.
I think a good example of the mix between monument and useful architecture would be Toronto's city hall, as long as you include Nathan Phillips Square in the mix. It really is one of the best places to people watch in the city, with people crossing the sqaure at every angle. Inside is great as well, at least the council chambers - the circular format allows people to see and hear everything from every angle, and again, natural light helps alleviate the sometimes mind-numbing boredom induced by some aspects of council meetings.
On the other end, there's the CN Tower and Skydome (and I make no apologies to Ted Rogers for continuing to call it that). Distinctive buildings, yes, (although no longer totally visible from the island, the traditional 'Toronto skyline' viewpoint) but the layout of both, combined with location, discourages people from being there, unless they're either tourists or have tickets to an event.
In any event, good architecture encourages people to use it, whether for its intended purpose or otherwise. As an example, take a look at the Sunday afternoon ballet of skateboarders and security guards at the TD tower and Commerce Court (of which I was once a part). No, the buildings weren't designed as skateparks, but they make excellent skateparks, and it's nice to see people using them outside of m-f 9-5. Same goes for Nathan Phillips Square, which is usually fairly well populated, no matter what time of day or year.
Sorry to get off on a ramble here, back to Kendall's regularly scheduled programming...
Kendall -- I must say the
Kendall -- I must say the detailing which is on newer buildings rubs me the wrong way, perhaps it has something to with how its fabricated. When I walk through Forest Hill I see beautiful stone houses being torn down and rebuilt with sheetrock and suspended molding to create older looking new homes. Its terrible. I've tried thinking about why I feel this way and I think it has something to do with the apperciation I have for labour and craftsmenship. These mold details now are probabily poured and pressed and god knows what--and before someone has had to spent a fair amount of time to carve something out of stone.
All that aside I have to agree with Jon that a space needs to encourage use. As cool as the Skydome does look (take that Ted Rogers) if you happened to be down there before or after a game it's a total nightmare. I think that is less of an issue of the buildings design itself, rather then as issue of poor development and urban planning. And you can't go in there and look around in the same way you can walk around Nathan Phillips Square and city hall. Nathan Phillips seems like one of the few places in the city where you can sit. This might change when council has a meeting and decides that benches don't serve any good and they will be removed to prevent people from 'loitering'.
Metro Hall is prime example of the 'keep people moving' philosophy. You can't 'hang-out' in there in the same sense you can in park or a square. Dundas Square is perfect attestiment to this, it serves no 'public use'. Its filled with little bric-bac shops. All can do when you walk is look at them, and when you turn around your nailed with 8 story high ads of L'oreal hair products.
This I believe, is both a creation by architects and urban planners, and also a reflection of the values we now have. People only move around to consume, and not bothered by it anymore. Trying to get around by walking and riding my bike (and very rarily driving) its just evident. We don't even faciltate non-car methods of commuting. Hardly any connecting bike paths, sidewalks are sometimes non-existent in certain parts of the city and transit, well just sucks.
Now I'm really off-topic!
I think we as a society
I think we as a society *are* creating a generation of forgotten buildings, so to speak. (if this is the thesis of the book previously mentioned, please forgive, I have not read it). Where I live in California, an elementary school is no longer needed because lack of young children, and the building might sit vacant for years (I know of one that did, for almost 10 years)just because the darn thing is so use-specific: all flat roofs, low ceilings, dormer-windows, long wings of rooms jutting from a central administrative hallway like a spider pinned to a card. One cannot re-use it except as a school!
The "bigger is better" mentality: BIG school buildings with BIG student population, then BIG problem when the students move on and are not replaced.
Here in California, one of our atrocities is the "ranch-style" view. Now, for a home I like that, I am nearing 50, so tend to think of things like easy access, no stairs to climb as I age, but so much ground space is wasted with these boxes.
Kendall mentioned Miles van Rohe (sp) and Home Depot...so I googled van Rohe. I love the Farnsworth House, it is beautiful, and suits the setting.
Here in the US, we are so full of ourselves and our right to govern the earth, that we tend to force settings to fit our buildings. 'Let's get rid of all those big ugly trees, and put up some bright frillly stuff...oops, now we have a flood problem! what's wrong with Mother Nature?'
This may be a dangerous site, Kendall...posts get very long. Will try to do better next time! Thanks for coming back online.
In some cities, 'buildings'
In some cities, 'buildings' are the things that line the roads. In others, buildings are things that tell you where the public squares end. At the risk of turning this into an 'us' versus 'them' comparison, this is my reading of many North American cities vs European cities (Rome, Barcelona, Glasgow). Is there a greater drive to create monuments in North America than elsewhere? My gut feeling says yes and although that's good enough for Stephen Colbert I'm not sure whether the facts bear that out.
I guess the point is that monuments do work when they serve other purposes than simply being seen. I think the examples mentioned (Toronto-centric but good examples nonetheless) are quite telling. A study of Nathan Phillips Square vs Dundas Square could be interesting once you get past the baseline reading of commerce and consumerism. The SkyDome was intended as a monumental achievement in engineering yet it remains an orphaned white elephant without solid connection to the city proper. Most monumental projects (at least those conceived in such a manner) do attempt to integrate their urban context though many times in an only half-hearted manner.
The important counterpoint however is that monuments are the exceptions to the rule and they attract a disproportionate amount of resources involved in developing a city. Maybe we're left with all these other faceless structures because the owners can barely afford rent in the shadow of goliaths like the SkyDome.
I suspect that cities need
I suspect that cities need monuments as well as 'everyday' or 'functional' buildings.
'Modern' city planning produced some banal forgettable places. (Think of Frankfurt, Germany or the Bronx or Queens. Not to suggest that those cities don't have their moments, but on a whole, they are passed by or through on the way to somewhere else without leaving much of an impression.)
Interesting cities have 'events' in the fabric on a variety of scales. They make a unique impression when you approach on a ship or plane and they also have memorable events you are walking from A to B in a typical day. Often those moments or impressions are created by monumental structures or outdoor spaces. A region that only works on one level is in trouble. The CN Tower and the SkyDome and the Air Canada Center work on a macro scale to create identity for Toronto but there is very little micro scale. Walking from downtown to the water front is like walking through no man's land. Fortunately, there are a few things being built or renovated in this area to bridge the chasm.
I think the same thing applies to individual buildings. Successful monumental buildings are more than a billboard. And successful 'ordinary' buildings have a public face as well as meeting the functional requirements. Your photograph of the Kodak building shows it's most monumental aspect; the symmetry and careful proportions are practically those of a Doric temple without the pediment. Most typical homes have a 'front' door and a 'back' door which is less formal. I think the most self effacing structure is probably an individual venacular dwelling using locally available materials. But those units become monumental when they are grouped together like Cliff House at Mesa Verdi.
Then there are the 'private' or, perhaps better stated, 'privately percieved' moments in monumental buildings which elevate it from just a monument to a wealthy patron or cause to a public event. The sunlight playing off the handrail looking down the open spiral staircase in Gaudi's Sagrada de la Familia. It has been at least 15 years since I've been there, but the image still persists.
A unique place in unique light at a unique time in my life.
Perhaps, those are critical ingredients for a Kodak Moment.
I found Kersten's comment
I found Kersten's comment intereting about Queens and Frankfurt as I have been to both cities. Frankfurt is very modern and not very unique (in any sense) so I gues sit fails to stand out more then say Mississauga. I have also been to queens which I 'm looking forward to visit again along with the bronx because of the amount of graffiti art there is in the city. It is one of the most concentrated in the world and it attracts great artists from every corner of the globe to paint in the 'mecca'. I would love to spend a week here photgraphing everything and meeting with artists.
Now how many people would do the same? Not very many -- but enough to sustain this culture. I guess it basically comes down to context(s) (which is connected to Kendall's orginal post about the photomat) and numbers. A building might be considered brillant by a few people, but if it isen't by the masses it will probabily be torn down and replaced with something like a condo. Which is probabily the same reason we have so many nameless/faceless buildings in this city in teh first place. We seem to be moving from form to strictly function and we haven't even gotten that right.