Historical Precedent: Regrettably Overlooked

Architectural thought has continuously evolved alongside human evolution. The passing of time has proven that architecture reacts innately with contemporary social issues as well. Technological advancements, population expansion, and the need for sustainable living have all proven to be direct components of architectural design. Accordingly, with so much debate being centered around the need for environmental awareness, our generation is beginning to be incessantly focused on possibilities for the future. With theoretical design projects preparing for our future’s eco-meltdowns, and award winning websites predicting population impact in twenty years’ time, upcoming events are contacting our lives before they necessarily have to. I am not an opponent of preparatory action and forward thinking global attentiveness. I recognize and applaud the overwhelming growth in popularity of the “global accountability” movement. However, I feel as though the most crucial tool in predicting fated circumstances is lacking in today’s train of thought; historical precedent. With that being said, I decided to scour the blogosphere this week for posts that offer a glimpse to past urban/architectural trends and their possible relevance to society’s future qualms. I analyzed a post on Brand Avenue entitled Edifice Complex which discusses the Sears Tower as an example of the problems associated with labeling a piece of architecture an icon. I also investigated a post on BLDGBLOG entitled The Lost Airfields of Greater Los Angeles which mentions multiple private airstrips that existed within Los Angeles and their possible foreshadowing of the city’s current transportation burdens. My reflections and additions can be found at their respective websites as well as below.

“Edifice Complex”
Comment

What is most intriguing about your post is the notion that Chicago natives are concerned by the possibility of their most significant cultural icon losing its symbolism. It would be interesting to do a polling of Chicago citizens to determine whether they feel the name change (Sears Tower to Willis Tower) or the updated paint job is the driving factor of concern. It is fascinating to consider how large of an emotional impact the changing of a few letters or a different hue of paint could have on an entire culture’s perception of a building. Is it really the paint or name change that is causing the stir? Could it just be an excuse for public outcry that Chicago’s once monumental structure simply isn’t special anymore? After all, the Sears Tower has somehow managed to transform itself from the tallest building in the world to the now minor blip on skyscraper radar. This idea brings forth another interesting debate that would begin to question the evolving nature and symbolism of buildings post completion. How can a building like the Sears Tower keep its iconic labeling while the very reason that it is in fact iconic is being dismissed by much taller skyscrapers like the Nakheel Tower or the Burj Dubai? Maybe what this discussion is really challenging are the qualifications for classification as architecturally iconic. I believe it is impossible to be labeled an icon when your only unique condition is something as vulnerable as height. Categorizing a building like the Sears Tower (or any skyscraper) as an icon is putting unfair pressure on a building to perform beyond reasonable expectations. Chicago natives aren’t disgruntled about the name change or the paint job that their building is going to receive. They are upset at the realization that their icon never was an icon and therefore can be renamed and painted. You don’t see the Acropolis being outfitted with light reflecting paint or the Taj Mahal being renamed the Taj KingFisher. Likewise, the Greeks and Indians don’t fear losing their architectural icons while the Chicagoans do.

“The Lost Airfields of Greater Los Angeles”
Comment

While reading your post, the thought that was constantly fluttering through my mind was how the major developers of Los Angeles were not able to pick up on the fact that even in the 1920’s, people were challenging the spatial dimensions of L.A.’s sprawling landscape. Even with minimal technology and ultimately no urban achievement, the fact that a relevant form of transportation was aviation is astounding. Granted, Los Angeles in the 1920’s mostly consisted of farming land and had very few major roads. However, the fact that airstrips were owned by private individuals and were commonly used in areas where shopping malls now reside speaks wonders for where we went wrong. What possessed us to expand so foolishly? And possibly even more importantly, how was it achievable for there for to be a plethora of airstrips in activity at one given moment in Los Angeles in the 1920’s? I doubt there were air traffic controllers regulating Howard Hughes’ hourly take offs and arrivals making sure he never collided with Charlie Chaplin. The existence and achievements of the airstrips brings light to a time in Los Angeles’ history when anything was possible, when the sky was in fact not the limit, and when daily life was not limited by urban planners’ inefficiencies but rather dictated by practicality. But when practical means of transportation revolve around getting airborne to travel ten to fifteen miles, the urban fabric of a city must begin to be questioned in order to preserve the ingenuity and very uniqueness of the city itself. What William Mulholland was able to imagine and implement for the city of L.A. is comparable to what needed to be done with the other facets of the city. His roads were able to deliver water from hundreds of miles away to all of corners of L.A., why couldn’t anyone else manage to figure out how to get people from Downtown to Santa Monica in under an hour?

Our Future: Up In Flames

With the world economy at the beginning of a seemingly disastrous recession, many global industries are experiencing the toughest times in decades. The field of architecture is no exception. The Architectural Billing Index (ABI) is a fairly new but highly recognized tool that is known as the profession’s best economic indicator. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) administers a business survey to the largest commercial architects in the United States. The responses to the survey reflect a precise correlation between architectural billings and construction spending records. A total score of 50 or above indicates a rise in billings, a score below 50 indicates a decrease. With the score reaching its lowest total in the ABI’s thirteen year history (34.7 for the month of November 2008) and having consistently scored below 50 for the past eleven months, it is no secret that the industry is going through a major slump. With projects ranging from billion-dollar high-rises to 300k home renovations stalling or closing, the industry’s shortcoming are evident at all levels.

Dubai, which just months ago was considered the forefront for architectural and real estate prowess, is now suffering from some of the hardest design and development setbacks the U.A.E. has ever seen. Just days ago, Nakheel PJSC, the developer that is financing the construction of the latest “tallest building in the world” was forced to merge some of the available units. This move takes a crucial toll on the original design of the building as well as the building’s overall intentions and purpose. The decision to make this move is more startling to architects than it is developers, considering it is the architect’s design that is being compromised in order to preserve the overall project. This announcement follows last months traumatizing decree that construction on the building itself will be delayed. The two main culprits of this stop in architectural progress are the global financial market’s current limitations in lending as well as Dubai’s 25% drop in property prices from their peak in September. Seen more as an inspirational blow to architects than anything else, the come down of Dubai’s architectural aptitude is a depressing sign of the field’s current status. It was only months ago that “starchitects” such as Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, and Herzog & de Meuron were unveiling projects that were incomparable to anything else in the world. Projects that were viewed as inspirational masterpieces to the whole architectural community are now being subject to doubt. For architects, this event is comparable to a small child watching as Disneyland is forced to close its doors or if a musician heard the news that Coachella was being cancelled. Is it possible that that which Dubai represents architecturally will survive the financial climate? Hopefully. But how much of an impact will this have on architects, developers that finance projects, and our creative ideas themselves?

Another incident that is being seen as a bizarre but catastrophic morale bruiser is the recent torching of the TVCC building in Beijing, China. The giant CCTV complex buildings consist of the China Central Television Station tower, and a separate but adjacent Television Cultural Center tower which was meant to contain a luxury hotel, cultural center, and retail establishments. Both buildings are questionably Rem Koolhaas’ and Ole Scheeren’s greatest design achievements yet. While the CCTV building opened in December of 2008, the TVCC was due to open in May 2009. In the peculiar incident, a Lantern Festival fireworks accident was the cause of the ignition of the building. A tradition in Chinese culture, the Lantern Festival commemorates the conclusion of the Chinese New Year and involves children going out at night to play under the light of fireworks. Ironically, a CCTV employee ignited the firework that lit the neighboring building aflame. The firework hit the ground floor of the TVCC building, and then grew to consume the building. Koolhaas and Scheeren were originally criticized for their participation in the construction of an $800 million building housing an organization (CCTV) who’s goal is wide spread censorship and questionable human rights activities. However, Koolhaas later expressed his intentions for design contributing to political evolution when he said, “with an effort to support within [China's] current situation the forces that we think are progressive and well-intentioned… We’ve given them a building that will allow them to mutate.” While the intentions of the building might have been in question, there is no denying the architectural masterpiece that the CCTV campus is. Clad in a beautiful zinc titanium alloy and shaped as a distorted boot, the TVCC building was intended to be the “little brother” to the giant CCTV building. Nicknamed the “fun place” by architects that designed the two towers, TVCC was supposed to be the more lighthearted piece of the monolithic CCTV structure. While the children of Beijing might have been treated with the greatest fire display in recent Lantern Festival history, the architectural community is shocked at the destruction of an icon that didn’t get to be. While it is uncertain what the plans are for restoring the burnt tower, the emotional impact of watching the masterpiece erupt in flames is devastating. But almost more shocking than the fire itself, the cause of hundreds of millions of dollars in damage was a $5 bottle rocket. The ability of a colossal structure like the TVCC building to be so easily destroyed must shock the core of an architect’s thought process.

The world economy’s impact on the architecture community is also being seen closer to home. Plans for Downtown Los Angeles’ revitalization are being grounded as funds for projects are dwindling. Four separate plans for $1 billion plus projects have been frozen in past weeks. Related Cos.’ $3 billion development was just put on hold, Moinian Group’s $1 billion project has been halted, Houk Development Company’s $1.3 billion skyscraper has been arrested, and IDS Real Estate Group’s $1 billion residential tower has also been stopped. Oskar Brecher, director of development for the New York-based Moinian Group said, “The credit markets are all seized up, especially for a project of this size. The ability of banks to finance large projects... is just nonexistent.” Developers of downtown Los Angeles which have had such ambitious plans for revitalization are being forced to sit back and wait while the larger powers that be are trying to deal with the economic situation. As a resident of downtown Los Angeles I too am being forced to sit back and watch idly as my neighborhood sits at a middle-ground between successful urban metropolis and desolate cityscape. I can only hope that developers, residents, and those thinking of future plans for downtown stick the course and understand that times will eventually change. It is important for people to consider the success of L.A. Live when considering whether or not to follow through with plans for other billion dollar projects downtown. While I understand that my professional expertise probably isn’t as relevant in solving this problem as a developer’s, it is important to acknowledge the architect’s role in the equation at hand. A designer’s fundamental upbringing could play an integral part in the diagnosis and prevention of future meltdowns.

Understanding that architecture and construction comprise a large portion of the nation's economic status, Congress recently passed President Obama’s $838 billion economic stimulus package that incorporates many architecturally related proposals. The package primarily focuses on the demand for energy-efficient buildings and the proposal for federal facilities. The details of the plan consist of $7.7 billion for the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) $6 billion being allocated specifically towards energy-efficient upgrades, $1 billion for border station construction projects/upgrades, and $10 billion for U.S. defense projects. While this proposal offers a great deal of encouragement to the architectural community, many are already doubting whether this is enough of a spark to affect the architectural community itself. One crucial issue is that the government is saying that there are approximately $10 billion in projects that are “ready-to-go”, meaning that groundwork could begin as soon as needed. If this were the case, the role of the architect is being skipped. The priorities of the GSA have a lot to do with who gets to benefit from the stimulus package. Kevin Kampschroer, director of the GSA’s Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings said, “If we have a design that was done five years ago, before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed, there would be work needed to bring it up to today’s expectations.” This is promising, but the beginnings of a neglecting undertone already seem to be forming in the statement. Another issue at stake is what role the small architecture firms might play in the package. In order to nurture long term economic success, the stimulus package needs to include smaller firms in some way. It is unclear at this point how it will plan to do so.

While the economy has caused a lot of decline in design community, there are still dynamic projects that have remained afloat. For instance, the $198 million Spaceport America Project is still underway in the desert of Upham, New Mexico. Architect Norman Foster designed the project which is intended to accommodate up to five spacecraft. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced that the state just signed a 20 year lease with Virgin Galactic to solidify the project. Another intriguing art project that has taken form due to the economy is a collection of photographs taken by Japanese artist Todd Hido. The exhibit documents the interior of foreclosed homes. Now we can sleep peacefully at night knowing that while artists wallets might be hurting during the economic crunch, at least their creative spirit hasn’t been harmed.