Back from the dead… or something like that

I’ve been way for some time, but of course, you might have noticed. Life’s been pretty eventful, so I hope to sum everything up in one entry, so that we can finally get past that and get to some real blogging during the summer.

Now then, In the past few weeks, I visited Berlin with my family, discovered several youtube phenomena (hotforwords, Charlie the Unicorn for example – they of course existed and were popular long before I came across them, but I have since become a great fan). I also wrapped up the BSc4 project, which I managed to pass quite well. To be honest, I’ve bought about 150 Euros of extra architectural books (that means three books). After I passed, I blew another 110 Euro buying lavish gifts for myself (again, 2 architectural books and a film, also about architecture).  I’m not bragging about my snob choice of books, I am merely pointing out the obscene amounts of money I’m spending on frivolous items. But hey, I might as well start a little library.

Money was not an issue, since I earn quite nicely at B_Nieuws. Since I’ve finished the project, I’ve been so burnt out that one of my architecture book gifts to self (Natural History Herzog & de Meuron) is left yet largely unread (save a couple of pages). What I’ve been (re)reading is actually Harry Potter, but that does not stop me from making plans. Before the end of the summer, I hope to buy “Alison and Peter Smithson: From House of the Future to the House of Today” and of course The Legendary “Toward an Architecture” by Le Corbusier.

Of course, I will finish Natural History in due time, as soon as my head stops aching at the word “architecture”. What also happened is that Michael Jackson died. I’ve never been the biggest fan of the King of Pop (I have the hots for the Queen), but I must say, I found it very hard to believe that he’s gone, now that he’s finally (almost) got his act together. I actually heard it on BBC first, and ever since that flying-penguin incident, I trust them less blindly. I wont tell jokes about child molestation or about how great he was, because I should not be the one to judge. But he did give us more than a few unforgettable tunes (I can vividly remember Liza singing “Peter, my favourite tequila eater” to the tune of “Beat it” couple of years back ).

I also went protestin’ in Delft to show solidarity with the Iranian people. To be honest, if Ania didn’t invite me to go, I wouldn’t have gone, but I also owe my freedom to others, so I guess I should start repaying the debt at some point). In the next few weeks, I should hope to publish my thoughts on all of the above. But for now, I just really need to rest.

Peter S

NS or How to run Trains on Earth Day

I’m not the complain about NS (the Dutch railway carrier) or write about Earth day or both at the same time.

But as it often happens, one thing leads to another and today, the train that I take to Delft was late again. It’s the Intercity train that leaves Den Haag Centraal at X:51 and goes to Venlo (a place famous for Wilders).

Anyway, it’s quite busy, morning rush hour and the train is 5 minutes late. For me, this makes little difference, but there are people who have a choice and choose to take the train. Therefore, NOT running trains on time is not the right gesture towards these men and women. During the last academic year, I could count the number of times that the Intercity to Venlo was late on my hand. The approximate number of times it has happened in a past few weeks.

This is not the right message, either the train runs on time, or the schedule needs to be changed, so that the schedule is not too ambitious and things are on time (albeit later, but still ON TIME).

And of all things, the damn train is late on Earth Day, when we all should think of the environment. But how can we contribute if we do not have the tools ready. And don’t you dare suggest biking to Delft. That would kill me, and a cremation would probably release a lot of CO2.

Peter

Incredible Stupidity in the Head 3: What about Dick?

Yay! My first trilogy is nearing completion. I really wanted to finish the OMG, They stole my iPod… trilogy, but it relies too much on chance, whereas this is… well, stupidity is usually constant.

In Stupidity I we covered the neonazis.

In Stupidity II we covered the Venezuela-Iran love affair.

In stupidity III, we’ll discuss DICK Cheney.

While I won’t defend or malign Obama for publishing the CIA torture files (I wonder if they also contained the sinful playlists), I will state that Cheney’s reaction implies Incredible Stupidity in the Head. Cheney thinks that the dubious methods by CIA were effective in TWAT (The War Against Terrorism). I can imagine Cheney renting an auditorium in some prestigious hotel (Watergate?), where he explains to the liberal media (who are not all that happy, because they were hoping NOT to listen to Dick anymore) all about the effectiveness and efficiency of the interrogation methods. I imagine his speech something like this:

Dick : “Dear liberal media. Our *communist* cough* president Barack HUSSEIN Obama has released the content of CIA files that describe various tried and tested interrogation methods that helped to keep enemies of (God bless) America at bay and which were essential in fighting TWAT. You have all read these papers, so I won’t repeat their contents and I will not deny my connection to them.”

“We believe that the act of making these documents public will make the enemies of our great country more better prepared and more determined because they want to avoid these practices. So instead of publishing their plots in the newspapers, they will try to work in utmost secrecy because they will not want to be interrogated”

A few journalist exchange startled looks, obviously not getting the logic of this argument. Dick continues.

“They will also want to get even with us, which is why these papers should not have been published in the fist place. But this is not why I called you here, media. I want to share some statistics with you.”

“Did you know that our interrogation methods confirm that nearly all the suspects were terrorist. Nearly all of the interrogated persons confirmed they were related to Osama bin Laden. They also all attended Al-Quaeida training camps in the mountains of (fill-in-something)-stan. Surprisingly, many confessed they were planning to blow up various business institutions, skyscrapers and government buildings. They also confirmed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, but these were stolen by Iran when our troops were not looking”

“Yes, 99% of our suspects turned out to be real terrorists. The 1% is currently burning in hell”

Journalists look at each other in disbelief and one of them raises a hand and asks: “Mr Cheney, do you believe that these answers, especially concerning the interrogation methods, were reliable ?”

“Yes, in fact, the suspects gave us names of various other persons, who, when brought to questioning under the same conditions, confirmed everything. If this is not proof, that you really can’t trust anyone”

“But Mr Cheney, how can you assure Americans that they were not just saying it because that’s what the interrogators wanted to hear?”

“Nonsense. We know of a historical precedent where another nation was rid of great evil and a real threat, using these methods, which were approved by the highest state authorities as well as the highest authority ever at the time”

The last journalist raises a hand and ask in a rather disturbed, shaky voice: “Are you referring to the Spanish Inquisition?”

“Yes, of course. And even now, more than  200 years afterwards there are no witches in Spain. They did an excellent job. I know you might think that we’ve done the wrong thing, but history will judge us, like it did the Spanish Inquisition. A great success”

That is what Dick might think and I think it’s incredibly stupid.

Peter S.

Mullerpier

I was essentially appalled at the way that the Mullerpier in Rotterdam was designed, urbanistically and architecturally. To give you an idea: the urbanist wanted to express the original harbour function of the pier, so he got a couple of architects into a workshop and told them to design boxy building of that type, with that many dwellings, etc… The boxy form was to create an industrial port atmosphere. Then, when the architects were done, he distributed the buildings onto the land. Then, some adjustments were made to the design.

This whimsical, almost tabula rasa approach really bugged me. I had to see it to believe it. But you know what, it wasn’t that bad at all. the spaces are not bad, and the buildings themselves seem like they could house several different functions over the course of the years. That means that they’re not your archetypical houses with sloping roofs and stuff. I could definitely see potential there. I think that the Mullerpier could be a prototype of new city-building. Imagine a superblock with traffic all around, and high-rise on the edges, mixed with low rise inside the block, the spaces building slightly angled to charge an otherwise bland space. With underground parking, mixing of functions and multiplication of these superblocks, a city with wide avenues and cosmopolitan appeal could develop, yet remain safely walkable and playable inside. Cool, right?

So although the process was wrong, the result isn’t, which goes to show that not all thought experiments and mental exercises are applicable in real life.

Peter S

Notes on Design, Week 10

Here are my notes on the design. I know sketches would be better, but I’m far too lazy to scan them and all that crap. They are all in chronological order.

” Kaan’s notion of using a park as the center of Naaldwijk is an intriguing one. Not only is Naaldwijk fragmented by “restruimte”, it would fall apart like Micheal Jackson’s face. The B&W have decided to go for an urban-esque approach, all their efforts would be undermined if an architect continued along Kaan’s efforts. Any park-city would be a half-baked effort, leading to nothing coherent. You wouldn’t get the best of both worlds.

Rejecting ‘Kas’

KAS aka GREENhouse is the principal characteristic of Westland and the most important contributor to its economy.It brought Westland world-wide (or at least Holland-wide) fame, yet it is also its undoing, for several reasons. First ecological, second hydro-managerial, third – cliche.

KAS has become not a characteristic, but a cliche of Westland. Surely the inhabitants must be sick of people thinking that “kassen” are the only thing worth seeing in Westland. Therefore any literal use of the kas language… should be out of bounds.

The Landscape of Westland is flat, unimposing, unheroic, unmonumental. Yet it is this free form-follows-function approach that made Westland as it is, and it is this unpretentious stance that should be characteristic of the new town hall.

Unmonumentalness and flatness should be the chief characteristic of this democratic institution. So that no-one is more equal. This also corresponds to the form-typology of the kas.

Another desirable characteristic of the kas is it dismantleability. As well as serving as a reminder for fragility of democracy. The assemblage from standard parts reminds one of the Eames House. The Mondriaan-esque composition on the facade of the Eames House seems strangely appropriate.

Having established the open and democratic character of the town hall, we should enable the public to see as much and walk through as much of the building as possible. The ground floor should contain all the publicly accessible functions, with all of the floors above being visible to the citizen, who monitors the spending of his tax-money. (The building would use an internal street of the Passage type).

This not only leads to the desired effect of “transparency”, but also provides sunlight in an otherwise unimaginative hallway environment.”

That’s all folks

Peter S

Eames

I got interested in the Eames couple when I read about them in one of the many things written by the Smithsons. The Smithsons considered the Modern movement to be a movement of generations. Mies and Le Corbusier were the first, Eames the second and Smithsons the third generation. They argued that although they did not share stylistic resemblance, there was a shared morality and vision in all of their work. I suppose this has to do with improving the condition of man.

Although Charles and Ray Eames are more well known for their furniture rather than architecture (with the obvious exception of their own house), they too tried to bring good and affordable design to the masses with their various endeavors. We’ll begin with their house. It was built as a part of the Case study house exhibition in and around Los Angeles. I won’t get into the history, that can be googled, but there are more important characteristics of this house. Unlike the other modern house-icons (imagine Villa Savoye or the Farnsworth house),  the Eames house is very human in its design. It does not require minimalist furniture, bare walls and no carpets to be what it is intended to be. The house supports the active lifestyle of the designer couple by being a place where the daily life can unfold, the attitude is a relaxed one, opposed to a strict minimal one.

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricoslounge/32764430/, by ercwttmn. Click here for interior shots (also on flickr).

So, this was the Eames house. The designer couple did build a few other houses, they also did exhibitions and films, but they are best remembered for furniture. They worked with all sorts of materials, from plywood to steel and all sorts of plastic. See their products here. I love the Eames aesthetic, it’s endless, invites combination of different colour, shapes and is very sensual to the eye end sometimes to the touch. Back in the days, the Eames couple vowed to bring good design to everyman’s home. It is sad to say that they failed. Their furniture, while loved by creative artists and the upper middle classes, has become far too expensive to become common. In any way, these products have become iconic examples of 20th century industrial design. Next time, I’ll dis(cuss) traditionalists, Krier, Terry and Greenberg.

Peter S.

If you want to find out more about the Eames’ designs and films, there is an incredibly handy book by Gloria Koenig called “Eames”, it costs almost nothing (about 8 Euros) compared to other architecture/design books, and is a nice introduction into the wonderful world of.

Suburbia Briefly Examined

God created the countryside, Man created the cities and the Devil created the suburbs.

I heard this at NAi, I don’t remember who actually originally said it, but it is a notion that is being supported by many architects and urban planners. Sure, whenever you see a Hollywood movie, the Suburbans are usually compose of more or less homogeneous middle class white nuclear families, with a dog, two cars and two mortgages.

But is this really true. Perhaps some places are like that, perhaps in America, but where I live, a sort of Dutch suburb, might be a place of architectural homogeneity, but in fact, we’re as cosmopolitan as ever. You shake your head in disbelief. I have to supply you with facts.

Fig. 1 Our street

OK, so along our rather short piece of street (about six or seven houses), there’s us (foreigners from CS), a new Israeli family just moved in, we had a Frenchwoman and her Dutch husband move out, in their place a Frenchwoman and her Dutch girlfriend (or wife?) moved in. Our neighbor is half Turkish. And just around the street corner, a Dutchman lives happily with his African wife and kids (I have a suspicion that this particular guy is a National Geographic photographer, I have no evidence whatsoever, but he certainly looks the part).

Perhaps we are not a typical suburban street, but I can’t see why we wouldn’t be. Perhaps the Devil did create the suburbs, but who cares? I certainly don’t complain as long as I get fed,

Peter S.

Classify Me 2/4/2009

My new project: classify myself. Not that I don’t know what species I am, I want to be more classy, I mean, I will be twenty in two and something weeks. So last week on Friday, I have gotten a new mobile, which isn’t too show-offy, but is still quite nice (I managed to kill my old phone ans had to use a spare one). Now I need a few more things. One is a wallet. My old wallet is made from some sort of green textile, which is torn at several places.  Moreover, it has huge letters BH on it, which, considering the Dutch meaning of the word bh (=bra) is probably not the best thing to have on your wallet. So I’ll have to go out and buy a new one, especially since the green one is about six or seven years old.

The next thing is: sunglasses. I have a bit of a shades thing. I would actually prefer to wear glasses, but there is no reason to, as my eyes are perfectly all right and even I’m not THAT pretentious. So I’ll have to stick with sunglasses. I lost my last pair in Dubrovnik last year, I don’t even know how. But now that I actually earn money, I have decided that the best thing would be to buy Ray-Bans or something like that. Wallet and a pair of sunglasses are basically on my shopping list for this weekend.

Peace out y’all.

Peter S.

PS: The bathroom is nearing completion now. We’re still missing a few minor details, but I’m looking forward to finally using it. Yay!

Longer Lost Friend

I have been meaning to write this for some time, but I’ve never been able to find a good time and mood to actually get to it. As some of you might know, my once time good friend moved to Canada before I moved to Holland. This did bring us geographically closer (about 1200 kilometers), but the fact remains that I haven’t seen him for over five years. I know, from his parents and his two younger brothers, who came over during the holiday last year that he’s doing pretty welll at uni and has moved out, etc… But is this true.

One of my colleagues said recently: “If you’re not on facebook, you don’t exist”. Following this logic, my good friend is dead. He is not on facebook, or myspace or any other thingy. Which is surprising considering he’s studying something to do with computers (don’t ask because I really have no idea), he’s only one year older than me, so the whole “oh it’s a generation thing” does not apply. Also, his brother and his father have a feacebook page and therefore, they EXIST. No seriously, you can’t even google him and get anything fresher than 2006.

It simply must be so! Only people with real friends have no use for facebook, and we know that those people (ie real friends and people with real friends) don’t exist. Why wouldn’t a young person, who will leave uni in a year or two (yeah, he’s like really smart, y’know) would not network. I mean, underneathy it all, we’re all on the net because we hope that the people we keep in touch with can later be useful. So, I better start thinking of an obituary…

OK, it’s obviosly April Fool’s and I don’t think he’s dead, but it does make me think… Weird.

Peter S

PS: I’ve seen this book in the faculty bookshop, the 1001 most beautiful places in the world (places as in: historical/cultural sites). For Slovakia, there was only one place, the infamous Cachtice castle ruins, the castle that belonged too and was used by the charming Blood Countess. For more info  about this charming personality click here. But seriously, there are nicer spots in the country than a gloomy, crubling old ruin. It kinda pissed me off.

Meet… the Smithsons

So, I though, and finally came around, to starting a little series on my favourite architects, my heroes, so to speak. This is the very first piece, and there will be many more to come.

The Smithsons are probably my first architectural love-affair. In the first year of uni, I briefly had a thing with Mies, but that went away rather quickly, because Mies is bit of a craftsman-builder. I mean, he built, and all of it great, but apart from that…

I don’t know how I came across the Smithsons, it must have been reading, though when I contemplate it, their secondary school is something that I remember seeing a picture of when I was still in high school.

The work of Alison and Peter Smithson (that’s right, they were married) will, to someone with little architectural background, seem ugly, disturbing, grim, flawed and some might even say brutal. That last one would actually be correct, the Smithsons helped launch a movement called “the New Brutalism”, which they described as ‘having nothing to do with craft, but with peasant dwelling forms’ and ‘architecture is the direct result of a way of life’. Those of you who wonder what this would look like need think of exposure of elements, material, structure, etc. This, however would be missing the point. The brutalist tried to capture the “-ness” of life, times, environment and, yes, the materials.

But the Smithsons’ buildings cannot be understood without reading. The Smithsons have produced more writing than building, and rather than writing about how to make good (-looking) buildings, they wrote of how the society evolves, becomes more mobile, how the city needs to adapt, how humans need new structures in their lives as the existing ones cannot fulfill their function properly anymore. About how the welfare state frees and ultimately enslaves the individual, about how cities grow and how they always respect the site where their designs stand (opposing the notion of tabula rasa).

Here, I will show pictures of four of their projects. The first one, the Modern Secondary School in Hunstanton (1949-1954). All the materials and fittings were exposed. The water tanks, usually hidden, were emphasized by making a water tower. A brutalist way of doing Mies… BTW; it’s listed.

Photo by Xavier de Jauréguiberry, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/25831000@N08/3007464931/in/photostream/

After their initial success, they became involved in CIAM (International Congress of Modern Architecture), which they helped to disband, and with some new friends (whom they met at CIAM meetings), they formed an informal group called Team 10. Team 10 discussed the problems and soluyions for contemporary architecture. Team 10 formed in 1955 and effectively ceased after 1981.

In 1960, they received another major commission, this time for he Economist building in London. They did a fine job, and it turned out to be one of the few buildings that people other than  architects actually liked. You can do the research on the internet yourself.

Another building, which is  not as famous, but which should be mentioned is the Garden Pavilion in Oxford (1967). Even though it’s brutalist, it looks great with all the greenery around it. Just as the moderns have always intended. Someone once commented that it looks OK now that there’s a big tree in the way, but beware! The tree was always there, even before the garden pavilion was built. This shows the respect that the architects gave the site, and is one of the basic principles of brutalism, using “found objects”.

Another building, this time unloved, is the Robin Hood Gardens (1972) complex. The intention was to create a quiet, stress-free zone where the inhabitants would meet and relax and where children could play. The flats were reached by wide access galleries, aka “streets-in-the-sky/air”. This was meant to provide a new space for encounters and encourage neighborly behavior. Due to poor construction, choice of materials and choice of tenants, the utopia of tomorrow became the dystopia of today. Look at it and you’ll know why.

Photo by joseph beuys hat, http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph_beuys_hat/108684621/in/set-72057594076169228/

In the 1980s, the Smithsons expanded their writing and teaching activities. They developed their ideas and received some commissions by the Bath university. Their last realized project was re-building of a house for a rich German client (1986-2001). This house, known as Hexenhaus, is their most soft and humane, but nonetheless radical and modern work. It contemplates man’s (and his cat’s) place in the nature, and the notion of openness and protection.

The Smithsons can be despised for just one thing: ugly buildings. This is a subjective comment, but what no-one can deny is the firmness of their conviction, their intellectual avant-gardist position, their consistence and their dedication to the Modern Movement. These were e architects who launched Britain, for better of for worse, fully into the modern era. Their ideas, opinions and projects are still relevant, even if we sometimes use them as ‘this-is-how-things-should-not-be-done’ example. Their little things are the big things.

So, if you are interested, intrigued or disgusted, but you still want to know more (like I did), just google these projects:

The Coventry Cathedral Competition (1951)

The House of the Future (1956)

The Sugden House (1956)

The Upper Lawn Pavilion at Fonthill (own holiday retreat)

For those with really strong stomachs Look up the Berlin Haupstadt competition entry (1958) and the Kuwait Mat Building Proposal (1968-72).

If you get a chance, go to your local library and see whether they have the book “Peter Smithson: Conversations with Students” . There is a lovely project in there called the Put-Away Villa.

If you find the English brutalists as grim and sombre as their ‘monstrous carbuncles’, join me next time, I’ll do a smaller piece on the Charles and Ray Eames who worked in sunny California.

Peace out!

Peter