Search results for "wHY"

Placeholder Alt Text

Cart Content

Cedric Price’s Fun Palace comes to life in a moveable exhibit at Prelude to The Shed
In the run-up to the opening of The Shed, Diller Scofidio + Renfro and the Rockwell Group’s new arts center in the Hudson Yards development, a 2-week program called A Prelude to The Shed, featuring free performances, talks and events, took place in a temporary structure designed by Kunlé Adeyemi of NLÉ Works. A Stroll Through the Fun Palace, British architect Cedric Price’s 1961 project, developed with theater director Joan Littlewood, was presented in dynamic form by architects wheeling models and items from the project archives at the Canadian Centre for Architecture on carts throughout the site, and interacting with curious visitors. A Stroll was originally presented at the 2014 Venice Architecture Biennale at the Swiss Pavilion, where it was curated by Hans Ulrich Obrist, who is also Senior Program Advisor at The Shed. On May 1, the evening panel discussion centered on Price’s Fun Palace and its impact on The Shed. Obrist and Prelude co-programmer Dorothea von Hantelmann set the stage by explaining why they included this work in the roster, and how its presentation explores the exhibition form itself. They correlated the Fun Palace’s interdisciplinary nature—opera, visual art, theater, dance—with Artistic Director Alex Poots’s background at the Manchester International Festival, the Park Avenue Armory and now The Shed. They were followed by Eleanor Bron, Cedric Price’s concubine (her preferred term for life partner), an actor best known for film roles in Help!, Alfie, Two for the Road, Bedazzled, and Women in Love, and Samantha Hardingham, interim director of the AA and author of Cedric Price Works, 19522003: A Forward-Minded RetrospectiveThey described the challenge for the self-described “anti-architect" to create a home for as many forms of fun in one spot as possible, and to open up science and culture to all. The Fun Palace, intended for the Olympics site in East London, was conceived as a permeable, moveable, gravity-defying open space without beginning or end, in contrast to the prevalent earthbound style of the times in Britain, Brutalism. It counted among is trustees Buckminster Fuller and violinist Yehudi Menuhin, and it nearly happened except for a drainage problem on the site. In another connection to The Shed, in 1999, Price submitted a proposal for Phyllis Lambert’s Hudson Yards competition, the current site of The Shed. Titled A Lung for Midtown Manhattan, Price was one of five finalists, who also included Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Morphosis, Reiser + Umemoto, and winner Peter Eisenman.  The jury consisted of Frank Gehry, Arata Isozaki, Philip Johnson, Rafael Moneo, Joseph Rose (City Planning Commissioner), and Elizabeth Diller. Notably, Diller voted for Price’s entry, which proposed leaving the space open with “wind-blinkers” to encourage breezes from the river to waft over Manhattan. Diller recounted the competition in the next panel, which also included David Rockwell and Kunlé Adeyemi. Diller and Rockwell discussed their approach to the design of The Shed:  to be forever contemporary, flexible but not generic, scalable, indoor and outdoor, unbranded and entrepreneurial. They said their key architecture reference was the Fun Palace, which was an architecture of infrastructure. They also questioned why we need one more cultural institution, since New York City already boasts 12,000. Referring to the moveable portion of The Shed, Rockwell pointed out that many theaters are meant to be flexible (think Zankel Hall at Carnegie Hall), which are rarely utilized because it’s too difficult or expensive. For him, another lesson was from his TED Theater in Vancouver, an annual pop-up meant to be “live.” Here, the architecture does not dictate what happens inside. The evening was rounded out with Keller Easterling, an architect and Yale professor, who spoke on notions of theater in architectural spaces (in addition to being an architect, she has a background as a performance artist) and Caroline A. Jones, a professor at MIT Architecture, who found parallels in electronic technological modes of production in the art world.  They commented that presenters on stage facing the audience was the antithesis of the future Shed.
Placeholder Alt Text

Publishers Pulpit

Storefront honoree makes the case for expanding the domain of architecture books in New York
The Storefront for Art and Architecture held its yearly spring benefit on May 7 in the beautiful 19th century Celeste Bartos Forum in the New York Public Library. The room, with its spectacular 30-foot-high elliptical dome of iron and glass, supported on four springing arches, is one of the city’s most dramatic rooms. The Storefront’s benefit always honors a member of the art or architecture community, and in the past, has honored Olafur Eliasson, Archigrammers Michael Webb and Dennis Crompton, Storefront's founder Kyong Park, Lebbeus Woods, Mary Miss, and Tom Mayne. This year it honored artist Mary Ellen Carroll and book publisher Lars Mueller. The publisher has a reputation for creating beautiful and important books on architecture, and in his acceptance speech, he made an impassioned plea for the “domain” of books. Mueller shared his speech with A/N and we publish it here:
Thank you for the honor. You are honoring a rare species, one which I represent here tonight: that of the independent publisher. Independent imprints used to be the backbone of publishing. Not anymore. In the field of architecture, you will hardly find a handful of them in the United States. I am proud to be recognized for what I do. To publish books with the best architecture schools of this country, with bright scholars, leading institutions like the Storefront for Art and Architecture or the Chicago Architecture Biennial, also with independent editors and authors, is a privilege and counts, even more, when we consider the location and the size of the publishing house. Why should relevant American content be detouring through tiny Switzerland? Ok, it is because of me—but also because of the lack of alternatives. Small presses have been forced out of business or have merged with bigger companies. Small-scale publishing, as part of the diverse book culture we have grown up with, is regarded anachronistic in the present time. This puts me in attack mode. If my business plan doesn't match the standards, it is not necessarily the business plan that is wrong. In my eyes, it would make a lot of sense, in this city and elsewhere, to preserve and strengthen existing structures in the book domain, and help to create new ones, knowing that the medium is far from dying out. This necessarily brings me to the precarious situation of bookstores in New York City. Why do we let them die? How can we give them up if we all confess that many of the most beloved and beautiful books in our bookshelves were unexpected encounters in bookstores? It is difficult enough to convince young professionals of the investment of both time and money in books—and more so if we inhibit the analog experience of sudden encounters. Therefore—if I had one wish—it would be for a landlady or a landlord who would take pleasure and pride in hosting the best-curated bookstore for art and architecture in this city. With her or him, I would gladly share the honor given to me tonight.
Placeholder Alt Text

Join the AEC Evolution

Take a sneak peek at this year’s TECH+ conference
This is a promotional post presented by TECH+. The landscape of the architecture, engineering, and construction industries is changing dramatically, and those at the forefront of the transformation know that technological innovation is among the driving forces behind it. That’s why for the second year, The Architect’s Newspaper presents TECH+, an annual trade conference and expo that explores innovative technologies used in design and construction, taking place May 22 on the heels of NYCxDESIGN. Located at Metropolitan West in Manhattan—the center of one of America’s fastest-growing tech markets—TECH+ will showcase the latest in smart building systems, advanced materials, and innovative products that are reshaping the built environment of today and tomorrow. From cutting-edge virtual reality–aided design tools to mobile apps, parametrics to rapid prototyping and fabrication, this inspiring and forward-thinking event will feature a lineup of visionary speakers, compelling panels, and live product demonstrations from industry-leading developers and start-ups alike. TECH+ will bring together architects, engineers, designers, builders, real estate professionals, investors, entrepreneurs, software developers, students, and makers to inspire new ideas, encourage cross-pollination, stimulate innovation, and establish vital connections. Far from a run-of-the-mill mega-conference, TECH+ consists of a highly curated group of architecture and technology leaders responsible for the strategic direction of their firms. “We are excited to bring back TECH+ to New York City for the second time,” said Diana Darling, publisher of The Architect’s Newspaper. “This year features two stages with industry leaders and innovative disrupters primed to change the way we do business.” This year’s keynote speaker is Dennis Shelden, director of Digital Building Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who led the development of architect Frank Gehry’s digital practice as director of R&D and director of computing prior to cofounding Gehry Technologies in 2002. Presented by Microsol Resources, the keynote will take place at the TechPerspectives main stage, from which four additional panels will explore topics including BIM, collaboration, sustainability, and visualization. Also, new to TECH+ is a series of Lightning Talks throughout the day from leading exhibitors and cutting-edge start-ups located on the expo floor stage. Panel discussions include Jonatan Schumacher, director of CORE studio at Thornton Tomasetti, and Jan Leenknegt, architect and BIM manager at BIG, who will examine how to connect design and data through the project life cycle; Paul Kassabian, associate principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, and Steve Jones, senior director at Dodge Data & Analytics, will address unifying project teams and technology; Ian Molloy, senior product manager at Autodesk, Alexandra Pollock, director of design technology at FXCollaborative, and Christopher Mackey, building scientist at Payette, will discuss designing for energy efficiency; and Iffat Mai, practice application development leader at Perkins+Will, Christopher Mayer, executive vice president and chief innovation officer at Suffolk Construction, and Christopher Connock, design computation director at KieranTimberlake, will explore enhanced realities and immersive experiences. “TECH+ is a new type of conference,” said Darling. “We’re focusing on completely new ideas and techniques, and gauging where the future of the AEC will be and how we get there.” Below are some of the exhibitors who will be at this year’s TECH+ conference: Founded in New York City in 1898 as National Blueprint Inc., BluEdge has evolved into an industry leader in print and technology services for the AEC industry and beyond. BluEdge is widely recognized for its unmatched customer service, and expertise in 3-D technologies, creative graphics, managed print services, and document management solutions. Today, its service footprint extends across the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Cove.tool is the first commercial software for optimizing cost and energy. The tool provides automated guidance to save up to 3 percent off the cost of construction while increasing performance of the building by up to 40 percent. The cloud-based tool helps architects, engineers, contractors, and building owners make better selections of building technologies by running thousands of parallel energy simulations. Developed by architects, building science experts, engineers, and sustainability consultants, the tool is integrated into the design process with plug-ins to Revit and Rhino for interoperability and parametric design. Adoption of cove.tool could dramatically reduce carbon emissions worldwide while helping owners reduce the cost of their buildings. FenestraPro Premium for Revit is an intuitive and easy-to-use add-in that enables architects to design energy-efficient building facades to comply with building regulations and required performance, without compromising the aesthetic of the facade. It integrates building design with performance, allows the architect to maintain control of the aesthetic of the building, and improves the design process by eliminating costly late-stage redesign fees. GRAPHISOFT® ignited the BIM revolution in 1984 with ARCHICAD®, the industry’s first BIM software for architects. GRAPHISOFT continues to lead the industry with innovative solutions such as its revolutionary BIMcloud®, the world’s first real-time BIM collaboration environment; EcoDesigner™, the world’s first fully BIM-integrated green design solution; and BIMx®, the world’s leading mobile app for BIM visualization. GRAPHISOFT is part of the Nemetschek Group. InsiteVR is a platform for AEC companies to create and manage virtual reality presentations across their offices. InsiteVR’s tools allow users to remotely control VR presentations, collect feedback from clients, and easily share to mobile headsets like the GearVR. IrisVR tackles the biggest problem in the architecture, construction, and engineering industries: What will a space actually look and feel like when it’s built? Iris created intuitive, user-friendly software that empowers virtual reality to experience depth and scale. JUJU IMSV employs the most advanced VR technology to create convincing, elegant, and easy-to-use marketing tools for off-plan sales across the globe. Our all-in-one marketing tools tell the story of the future property and not only help to efficiently raise money for the project, but also streamline the sales cycle. LERA IMMERSE is a virtual reality and augmented reality consulting service offering solutions to architects, owners, developers and construction managers. The custom-designed systems and tools enable users to navigate, interact with, and collaborate in the VR space, all while collecting valuable data that can be retrieved, analyzed, and fed back into the design process. Microsol Resources has been delivering integrated solutions to the architecture, engineering, and construction industries for over 30 years. The company is a recognized leader in BIM and CAD-based solutions, as well as an Autodesk Platinum Partner. Besides CAD & BIM software, Microsol also provides training, consulting, staffing, 3-D printing, and data management services to help customers gain a competitive advantage and improve their overall productivity. Morpholio makes apps that put designers first, fusing the fluidity and speed of hand drawing with the intelligence and precision of mobile and CAD technology. Its Trace app for architects is the unique software created to take design through every phase of the process, from concept to reality. PlanGrid is construction software made for the field that allows plans and markups to be instantaneously shared with everyone on a construction project—no matter where they are. It lets contractors, architects, and building owners collaborate from their desktop or mobile devices across all of their project plans, specs, photos, RFIs, and punch lists. Solibri is the leader in BIM quality assurance and quality control, providing out-of-the-box tools for BIM validation, compliance control, design process coordination, design review, analysis, and code checking. Solibri develops and markets quality assurance solutions that improve BIM-based design and make the entire design and construction process more productive and cost-effective.
Placeholder Alt Text

A Grimes-y Proposition

Elon Musk wants to turn the Hyperloop’s “excavated muck” into housing materials
Hot off of a flamethrower fundraising sale for Elon Musk’s side project, the Hyperloop tunnel digging The Boring Company, Musk has announced that the muck, rock, and detritus produced by the company’s tunneling would be turned into usable bricks. The first announcement from Musk came on March 26, when he tweeted that the rock mined from the company’s California test tunnels would be turned into “Lifesize LEGO-like interlocking bricks made from tunneling rock that you can use to create sculptures & buildings.” The bricks would be sold as The Boring Company merchandise and are supposedly rated for California’s seismic loads. Responding to critics on Twitter who were wondering why the tech entrepreneur wasn’t using his vast wealth to address the nationwide housing crisis, Musk followed up on May 7, indicating that those same bricks would now be sold on the cheap for low-cost housing. A Boring Company representative confirmed the plans to Bloomberg, saying that the bricks used for housing would be made from the “excavated muck” of the company’s tunnels. These bricks would also go towards building any future Boring Company offices and could partially replace concrete in The Boring Company’s tunnels. Of course, as Bloomberg points out, Musk’s plan to lower the cost of housing assumes that material costs are driving the price of construction, and not land or labor. Brick is expensive to lay because of the associated time and expertise it takes, not the bricks themselves (and this is before factoring in any type of structural reinforcement). It remains to be seen if The Boring Company can produce enough blocks to actually build any homes, especially as many of the prospective Hyperloop tunnels would be churning out dirt contaminated from years of industrial runoff.
Placeholder Alt Text

Critically Retrograde

Does Christopher Hawthorne have what it takes to plan for L.A.’s future?
Does it make a sense to put an architecture critic in charge of urban design? The question came to mind this March when the Los Angeles Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne announced he was leaving his post to become the new chief design officer for the City of Los Angeles. The position, Hawthorne explained, would be geared toward elevating “the quality of public architecture and urban design across the city—and the level of civic conversation about those subjects” overall. Currently, the city has billions of dollars allocated for a wide range of transformative civic projects, including new and improved parks ($130 million), transit expansion ($120 billion), Vision Zero reforms ($90 million), and new supportive housing ($1.2 billion). This windfall comes as the restoration of the L.A. River takes shape, the city densifies, and officials update the city plan for the first time in decades in the face of raging housing affordability and homelessness crises. Hawthorne’s new role in the coming drama centers squarely on the question of what function design should play in these transformations and how a critic can contribute constructively toward making positive changes for the average resident. Will the design he oversees look past mere aesthetics and delve into the structural issues of synergistic function, equity, and longevity? Or will Hawthorne’s tenure serve to further institutionalize the exclusionary tastes of the city’s homeowners? At a time when Los Angeles is undergoing such massive change, there is no question whether elevating the public’s engagement with civic architecture is a worthwhile pursuit. And though it is not without precedent to elevate a critic to city hall, it does stand to question, however, why Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, having a world-class roster of designers to choose from in his own backyard, did not select an architect for the role. Would a designer be better equipped for the job? I think so. For one, though critics can distill insightful, opinionated commentary from today’s cultural moments, their skillset diverges—and actually falls short—of the specific, forward-thinking ethos that is necessary to envision successful public space at the scale of a city. A designer’s work, on the other hand, combines interdisciplinary education, rigorous professional experience, and a knowledge of process and necessary prerequisites like zoning and fire code to envision open-ended plans for inhabitation and use. That is, designers use their skills and understanding as tools to look toward a future that is possible but has not yet come to pass. The process can be scaled and when done adeptly, beauty is a natural byproduct of these efforts. Secondly, L.A. is living through a time that demands leaders who have a long-range and open-ended vision for the city. But there is reason to worry, because contemporary Los Angeles—and broader America, for that matter—is driven by cultural regression. Backward-facing NIMBYism, a refusal to value vulnerable lives, and an understandable reluctance on the part of marginalized communities to accept new investments for fear of displacement reign supreme. Reflecting this regression, a dangerous “both sides”-ism has been adopted by incumbents, as evidenced by Garcetti’s unwillingness to push for multifamily housing in single-family zones and by the nearly $8 billion in transit funding going toward highway-widening across the region. A designer would be well-equipped to deliver progress in the face of ignorant nostalgia. I would hope Hawthorne understands that designs suited for the retrograde tastes of today are incompatible with future L.A. needs. It stands to question whether Hawthorne’s boss—a second-term mayor with his eye on the presidency—is prepared to make the politically courageous and culturally iconoclastic reforms necessary to not only get the job done, but to get the job done well. Distressingly, in his final column and in interviews since, Hawthorne has already adopted some of the mayor’s conciliatory language toward these groups by cautioning against “banal and oversize new apartment blocks,” and proposing to fight for an “economy” first and foremost. Instead of coming out swinging, it appears the former critic has already acquiesced to the exclusionary mediocrity that already defines so much of the city’s built fabric. Does Hawthorne have what it takes to stand up to his politically timid boss?
Placeholder Alt Text

Top Down, Bottom Up

Architecture’s crisis is deeper than #MeToo
Architecture has been grappling with its own #MeToo moment since the reports of sexual harassment allegations against Richard Meier broke. The responses have varied, ranging from statements condemning sexual harassment and promoting workplace reform to the creation of a “shitty architecture men” list. The conversation also underscores existing challenges within architecture: the field is almost completely white, overwhelmingly male, and shrinking. But so far, most responses have addressed symptoms rather than structural issues. We need to talk about how architecture’s crisis is deeply rooted in its culture. If architecture is to be saved—from the Richard Meiers to the unpaid internships—we must expand how architecture is evaluated and rethink how it is taught. Expand the Terms of Architectural Value Our definition of good architecture is woefully myopic and outdated, beginning with the cult of personality. A list of important architecture is analogous to a list of individuals or acronyms synonymous with individuals. The dominant narrative (think the Pritzker Prize) recognizes design excellence as an individual rather than office-wide achievement. And though important scholarship is deepening our understanding of the canon by recognizing the contribution of overlooked women like Anne Tyng or Charlotte Perriand, the office-wide effort, fundamental to architecture, remains unseen. The production of the design—from the labor practices to the contributions of team members—should be considered when evaluating architecture. We should be asking: How is the office structured? Is the office environment oppressive? Is there pay equity? These questions are as fundamental to architectural quality as a building’s relationship to its surroundings or the detailing of a corner. This will help to debunk the sole creator myth, recognize the profession’s collective nature, and establish the importance of the practice of architecture. In this light, Meier’s projects would be rightly seen as bad architecture. Well-rounded criticism will expand the realm of architectural value beyond its narrow-minded focus on the building to examine and celebrate architectural practice. As architects, our offices are the only environments we can completely design, implement, and control. So it is maddening that they are so often toxic and inhumane. In response to the allegations against Meier, the Pritzker Foundation reaffirmed his 1984 award, stating: “We do not comment on the personal lives of our laureates.” This is ridiculous. Meier did not harass in his personal life; he harassed in his professional life. It is scandalous to valorize architecture made in such an environment. Change Architectural Education to Change Practice Design studio, which is based on a master/apprentice relationship, is a unique and valuable form of pedagogy. But its unequal power dynamic is too often exacerbated by the harmful and inappropriate behavior of some studio instructors, an ill-defined student/teacher boundary, and an acceptance of hostile and aggressive crits. Studio sets expectations for the kinds of workplaces and mentor relationships that young architects will seek or accept. Painfully, against this backdrop, the allegations against Meier are not shocking. They are just over the line of what many students and young architects have learned to put up with. Studio also establishes overwork as a cornerstone of architectural excellence, reproducing the belief that good design is never done. Saying yes to another parti, model, or rendering forces us to say no to meals, sleep, and social life. We also learn that, trapped in a service industry, we should expect to be underpaid (or unpaid) and under-appreciated. School-taught expectations shape our decisions to work at offices despite the overwork, underpay, and toxic environments (not to mention our student debt!). Many offices rely on and enforce this culture of overwork to offset the cost of uncompensated competitions, low fees, accelerated schedules, or scope changes. Poorly compensated labor props up many firms, allowing them to win critical acclaim while operating sham businesses and undercutting the industry as a whole. Pedagogy should project the ideals of practice, not reflect its worst tendencies. Universities should temper the always-yes culture and advocate for boundaries. They should establish guidelines for studio organization, schedules, workloads, deliverables, and time-management in concert with students. They should also clarify the codes of the student/teacher relationship and teach students that their time is valuable and that architecture can be done without lopsided power dynamics and overwork. If we learned in such a setting, why would we go to offices that pay little, expect us to work nonstop, and serve abusive, ego-driven individuals? Firms built on unpaid or underpaid labor would be rightly seen as pariahs regardless of their designs’ originality, not celebrated as they are now. The professional practice track should also be strengthened. A sequence of courses in this vein could teach real-world responsibilities and reinvest in architecture as a circumscribed discipline, fostering scholarship around the history and theory of architectural practice. Leading professionals from various types of offices could speak about the nuts and bolts of running their practices. Students could learn to creatively and effectively run an office, as well as to design. Imagine if we learned the profession and studied the typologies and history of offices in order to think critically and innovatively about practice. Only then could we say that school truly advances the future of architecture. Rebuild Architecture’s Credibility On top of our internal structural issues, architects’ expertise and authority is eroding and our necessity is being questioned. In our desire to limit liability, we have ceded responsibility to other parties: architects of record, consultants, engineers, contractors, and owner's representatives—shrinking our professionalism. Yet we trumpet architecture’s ability to address social and global challenges: the future of work, housing, urbanization, climate change. To credibly take on these issues, we need to tend to our discipline from the bottom up, starting with expanding architectural value and repairing education. Our problems are not intractable and there are a few downsides. But without change, architecture is undergoing a brain drain. The #MeToo reckoning adds urgency to the profession’s troubling trajectory. With its abysmal diversity and the discipline's shameful state, it’s hard to see why anyone would want to be an architect. And yet we do. Those of us who love architecture—its history, worldview, and optimism—must refuse to say yes to its unhealthy and degrading demands. Architecture has never been more important to the world’s realities. But to meaningfully contribute and fully realize the #MeToo moment, we must rebuild architecture from the ground up.   Miles Fujiki is a young architect working in New York City.
Placeholder Alt Text

Pirelli Believe It

Breuer’s Pirelli Tire Building will be reborn as a hotel
One of Marcel Breuer's two New Haven, Connecticut buildings will be preserved and converted into a hotel. When it was finished in 1969, researchers and administrators at Armstrong Rubber worked out of the company's Pirelli Tire Building, a Brutalist structure whose office tower core is bisected by beguiling angled windows. The building—vacant since the 1990s—is now owned by IKEA and sits aside a store parking lot. IKEA is in talks with a developer to convert the I-95-adjacent concrete building into a hotel, the New Haven Independent reported. AN IKEA spokesperson told the paper that the company hasn't gone public with its plans for the structure yet. The conversion scheme were revealed at a meeting of the city's development commission. Breuer's work is enjoying a strong revival, thanks in part to renewed popular interest in Brutalism. In Atlanta, city officials are looking to revamp the Breuer-designed main library, while back in 2016, the Metropolitan Museum of Art restored the Whitney's former home and re-christened it the Met Breuer. (H/T NHVmod and Docomomo US)
Placeholder Alt Text

AN Exclusive

Landmarks chair shares exclusive details on her resignation
After less than four years, Meenakshi Srinivasan announced yesterday that she is leaving her post as chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), the city agency that stewards New York City’s historic built environment. During her time at the agency, the LPC designated 3,800 buildings, a total that includes 67 individual landmarks, nine historic districts, and three interior landmarks. On June 1, Srinivasan is trading government work for a job in the private sector after an almost three decade career in public service. Before she joined the LPC in 2014, Srinivasan chaired the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) for ten years, and prior to that, she worked in the Department of City Planning (DCP). The Architect’s Newspaper (AN) sat down with the outgoing chair to talk about her tenure, her next steps, and the (sometimes controversial) decisions she presided over. AN: Why are you leaving the LPC? Meenakshi Srinivasan: I’ve been very fortunate to have been at three land use agencies and also very fortunate to have chaired two commissions, the Board of Standards and Appeals as well as Landmarks. It’s been incredible, but it’s been 28 years. It really seems like the right time to move to the private sector and use my skills elsewhere. I feel emotional about the fact that I’m leaving government, but I think we’ve achieved a lot in the last four years. What have you accomplished as Chair? There are three areas I’m very proud of. I’m very, very proud of our designation agenda. I’m proud of our transparency initiatives, and I’m proud of our ability to reorganize the agency to be much more efficient and [move] the agency forward through the lens of equity and diversity, transparency and efficiency. Within that agenda, our strategic plan has been faithful. It has been to be more efficient within the designation process, [particularly with regards] to the backlog.* The second thing is just for me as a planner, personally, is to really allow preservation to be a critical part of the planning process. And the third is, we want to continue to look at areas that are not represented by designations, but there are stories to tell that really speak to histories of all New Yorkers. The agency has this wealth of knowledge and scholarship that people should have access to, and we have all this information about our regulatory process and that should be transparent and accessible, too. The first thing we did is we put all the information that comes before the commission on our website. In the last four years, we have put all our designation reports on our website so people can access them. We’ve created this interactive map, which includes all our designations and has the ability to connect and links to designation reports. Most recently, we’ve created a very, very robust database which provides data on each individual building that has been designated. We created a database that allows people to access information on staff level approvals as well, so you can find out the status of your project. This kind of information is very important to community groups who want to know what’s happening, what these buildings are about, but also to homeowners and property owners, so they can understand the basis for designations. Where are you landing next? I’m doing some work with New York Law School in their Center for New York City Law and working with the dean and founder of the center to develop curricula, and I’ll continue from there. Do you know who’s going to replace you at Landmarks? The vice chair position is vacant. I don’t, but I’ve been working with this administration and internally on the transition. I’m here for another five weeks. How would you assess the state of historic preservation in the city right now versus four years ago when you became Chair? You know, historic preservation is very critical for New York. I think it’s what makes the city diverse, dynamic, so I think that will continue. I think there’s always an issue of balance. The city should grow as well and we continue to survey areas that should be designated and should be protected. I think the other thing is that when we think about landmarking, it doesn’t really mean that nothing can change. I think the Commission, historically, has allowed for change within historic districts, and our role is really to ensure that those changes are consistent and compatible with the prevailing historic character. I think that will continue. One of your initiatives you alluded to earlier was a push for historic districts outside of Manhattan. How is that going? How will that initiative be continued under the next Chair? We have done some pretty significant historic districts outside of Manhattan, but I just would say that it’s not only outside Manhattan, it’s also areas that may not be as well-represented in Manhattan. We did a really interesting one in Ridgewood, Queens and a portion of Brooklyn, which is really a working class neighborhood that actually has a very strong architectural character to it and very uniform. We did Crown Heights North, I think it’s the third extension as well as the Bedford Historic District, which [overlaps with] one of the largest African American community in the nation. More recently, we did Mount Morris Park Historic District [Extension] in Harlem, and currently we are looking at Central Harlem Historic District, which is between 130th and 132nd Street—a microcosm of the Harlem Renaissance in the early part of the 20th century, that also includes the civil rights activities there. Even without me, I think we’ve got various things in the works that will be continued. The Commission often hears from passionate stakeholders on all sides. In March, Human-scale NYC, a coalition of preservation and neighborhood groups, wrote a letter that called for your replacement and claimed that you “serve the interests of big real estate.” How would you respond to those who believe the LPC placed real estate interests ahead of historic preservation during your tenure as Chair? I think there’s no truth in it at all. People have opinions—they may not like everything that I do, but I stand by all the decisions we’ve made. I think my agency has been very thorough and so has the Commission; I don’t see any radical shifts in the way we have regulated our historic districts. The Commission has always been open to modern buildings and contemporary buildings in historic districts. That hasn’t changed. If you actually go back and look at the projects that we’ve done, you’ll see that the scale of these buildings are very much consistent with the surrounding context and there’s a lot of rigor in how we evaluate these decisions. I would say that a group may come up and identify a whole series of reasons why I’m unpopular, but I think if you go beyond that and see for yourself, there’s nothing really there. Many people were upset, for example, at the way the changes to the Sasaki plaza at Citicorp were regulated, and about the approval of the demolition permits for the AT&T Building lobby, and the designation of the Ambassador Grill and Lounge that excluded a sunken lounge and connecting hallway. I know preservationists have made their concerns about these and other issues known to the LPC loud and clear. How would you respond to those who say there needs to be more transparency around changes to major buildings? Right, well I think that it’s interesting. There is transparency. The reality is that we do receive requests to designate buildings. Our research team evaluates them. We then bring them to the Commission. The basis of why we think they should be designated or what areas we’re considering is explained. We have standards and we want to apply them consistently. In the end, the reality is we did do Ambassador Grill. For AT&T, we calendared the building, so the issue over there was really about the lobby. That was discussed and there were reasons why the lobby was not considered meritorious. I just want to go back to one thing because you raised this issue about this letter. People can try and dovetail these things together, but I’ll just be very upfront with you. I’ve been thinking about [leaving] for some time, probably the end of December, early January. As a public figure, people will say things and [they] may disagree with you. I’ve been a public figure for 14 years. I don’t know if those things necessarily would make me back down, just in case you’re thinking that there could be something like that, but I’ve been doing this for 28 years and I think we’ve done great things here, but there are other things to do. In a different letter, leading preservation groups that the LPC consulted with on its proposed rules changes recently wrote a letter to you asking for those changes to be withdrawn. How will preservationists’ concerns be addressed as discussion around the proposed changes continues? We allowed the comment period to go on until May 8, but the outreach process that we’ve done many times before involves us summarizing these comments and bringing [them] before the Commission. The staff does that. Since the [March] hearing, we’ve continued to do outreach and explain to people why we believe the rules are beneficial and why they’re beneficial for preservation. What are you most proud of in your work here? One of the things that I’m very proud of is that we’ve put more emphasis on cultural landmarks. That’s been very important to me, because it has given us the ability to talk about more abstract things that are not necessarily related just to buildings, but are really important to the history of New York. The Stonewall Inn, for example, is a very modest building, but it propelled the LGBT movement. The Stonewall Inn is indicative of New York’s progressive values of tolerance and inclusivity. That means a lot to me. When we think about cultural history, we did two buildings on Broadway which are cast iron buildings. You see these in Noho and you see them in Soho, but what made them unique is that it had this amazing [tie to] the abstract expressionist Willem de Kooning. And more recently, the historic district that we’re bringing forward in May in Central Harlem speaks to the Harlem Renaissance, but also about civil rights and social justice. And finally, Coney Island, which has changed over time, but it [remains] one of the most recognizable places in New York. I mean, everybody goes there. Cultural landmarks have always been a complicated issue, but I think we’ve been very—I wouldn’t say aggressive, but—I think we really wanted to advance that as a part of how we think about preservation in New York. Do you plan to stay involved in preservation in any way? My thoughts are really to go back to planning and zoning. That’s what my background is, but when you think about cities in general, preservation is just part of it. I think I’ve just been lucky to have this preservation experience as well, because I think it rounds off something for me. At City Planning and at the BSA, we were dealing with preservation issues all the time. It’s just part and parcel of New York. Any advice you’d give to the next Chair? It’s a great place to be. Enjoy the experience. We have an incredible staff that you can rely on. Just be prepared because it’s definitely a field which, as you’ve pointed out, stakeholders are very passionate about. So, have your eyes and ears open to listen to all that, as well. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. *The LPC prioritized 26 properties out of 95 for designation that had languished on a list of potential landmarks for years, sometimes decades. This was completed over an 18-month period between 2015 and 2016.
Placeholder Alt Text

Neither Snow nor Rain nor Heat

How can architects design facades for the age of climate change?
Taking environmental stresses into account when designing a building is typical, but rising tides, heat waves, extreme winds and other climate change-driven conditions present new challenges to building envelopes. Ahead of the upcoming Facades+ conference in New York City on April 19 and 20, AN sat down with Yan Chu of Adamson Associates Architects to discuss what can be done differently. Chu will be presenting as part of a 2:30 PM symposium panel on April 19 titled “Re-evaluating Metrics: Thermal Performance of Building Enclosures and Future Climate Change.” Chu will be joined by Nico Kienzl of Atelier Ten, Ken Kunkel of NC STATE, and Elizabeth Tomlinson of TKDA. Architect’s Newspaper: As climate change becomes more of a factor, how does facade performance need to change? Yan Chu: We design our facades and mechanical systems based on certain climatic data for that region. For New York City, it’s 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 17-mile-per-hour [winds], this is data all of us use every day and know by heart. These numbers have changed very slightly over time. I wonder if there’s a more fundamental rethinking of these basic design functions that we need to make to attack climate change from multiple fronts, beyond just increasing insulation value and decreasing air leakage rate. The data is all based on historical weather data. Every fourth-year cycle when this weather design data comes out, it’s based on the last 20 years, and that’s how [The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers] ASHRAE derives their design position that you and I and all of the engineers use. If we know that climate change is going to take us to a whole new level of weather conditions, why aren’t we using projected data? What are we actually using as our design basis? There is a whole sector of the design community trying to address resiliency and survivability. We need to find a way to fold that into the design process, and something we need to consider to holistically address climate change in terms of the building envelope. The idea of this panel is to talk about those issues. AN: Are there any big picture things that architects, engineers and designers can do? Chu: The passive house strategy is brilliant because it addresses the performance of the building together with the occupant’s comfort holistically. It really is a holistic way of thinking of design, and moving forward, it’s the kind of mentality we need to adopt. Whether we’re talking about glazed façades or more opaque facade elements, I think the challenge is to get owner incentives to adopt some of these holistic strategies into a larger scale. If we design a building today with the 2014 or 2016 energy code, I know for a fact it’s already not sufficient for when the next code comes. So I think the biggest challenge for us is, how do we incentivize buildings owners, occupants, and designers to address climate change without depending on the building code telling them to do so? The nice thing is that in Europe, the passive house movement is really being brought by the private sector. How can we bring that mentality to the U.S.? Especially for very large projects? AN: What will the impact of climate change be on envelopes? Chu: It depends on the climate and depends on what extreme events we’re being challenged with. On one hand, we have to re-evaluate the average condition; in some parts of the world, the temperature will increase, but in some locations, temperatures will actually decrease. The interesting thing is that certain wall systems have certain advantages in one climate region over another. That idea is limited because design is about flexibility, and you don’t want to prescribe a system that an architect has to design to. The idea of designing to what is the ‘norm’, and what extreme events are, that’s a huge question. Citing one example, flood resistance at storefronts at the ground level. That’s something new that all the architects in New York City are working on, not only specifying how this system works and what test criteria it conforms to, but also, how does it function in a normal day? We’re way in the beginning stage of understanding what that even is. It’s such a new thing that we know we’ll have to go on to full-on testing for this wall system to know what it can accommodate. Whether or not we end up with a standard IGU or something thicker is still something we’re working through. And how does that affect the interior conditions? It’s a big question mark, and it’s only one thing that we’re dealing with. Are we designing for a 50-year building, a 100-year building? The idea of durability has to come into play. That determines what extreme events we’re designing for, and results in a vastly different building. Facades+ in New York City will run from April 19 until April 20, 2018. Registration is still open and available at this link.
Placeholder Alt Text

White Glove Sale

Rafael de Cárdenas curates a decorative arts installation for Christie’s
Rafael de Cárdenas of Architecture at Large ventured into his first curatorial endeavor with Christie’s for a special installation that premieres the sale of The Collector: English & European Furniture, Fine Art, Ceramics & Silver. From a gilt centaur with an amethyst base to a cameo acid-etched vase to a Louis XVI mahogany desk, de Cárdenas studied individual works in the upcoming sale to design a display of highlights from the auction. Showcased atop bronze-hued plinths, de Cárdenas’ favorite lots are interspersed in a landscape of flowers and palm leaves delicately arranged by Meta Flora. With over 300 lots, the auction encompasses 17th to 19th-century European furniture, sculpture, works of art, silver, ceramics, carpets and more, with starting prices ranging from the thousands to the hundred thousands. AN asked Rafael de Cárdenas about his installation design, his personal knowledge of decorative arts, and what he found fascinating about the sale. The Architect’s Newspaper: How long have you been collecting decorative arts and why did you start? Rafael de Cárdenas: Barring a few purchases at antique shops in France, I wouldn’t say I’m a collector of decorative arts. I collect quite a bit of design pieces but mostly 20th century. Working with Christie’s on this exciting collaboration may change that however. I will be bidding on pieces in the auction! Can you tell us about the installation and what your inspiration was? I don’t think these items need a lot of razzle dazzle; they are quite dazzling on their own. We are simply curating a particularly mannerist selection together on semi-rounded tiered plinths. The plinths isolate each piece, giving them more attention than they might normally have in a traditional living environment. We are working with Meta Flora to weave a monochromatic but lush landscape as an element interacting with the pieces. In your studies of the lots, what did you find most intriguing or surprising? Lot 237, a George Woodall for Thomas Webb glass cameo work, is particularly compelling in its general moodiness. I’ve been drawn to the glass works most, I’d say. Lot 271, a Louis Solon for Mintons glass vessel, is another favorite. Many of the smaller fragile works are so atmospheric almost to the point of no other function. What are your favorite works/artists from the 17th to the 19th century? I would have been unable to answer that a few months ago, but I particularly like the pieces by George Woodall for Thomas Webb Glass in the auction.   The installation is on view in Rockefeller Plaza at Christie’s from April 6-9. Afterward, the auction will follow on the day after, on April 10.  
Placeholder Alt Text

Sugary Sweet

Check out in-progress photos and new renderings of the Domino Sugar Factory
Ahead of its June 2018 opening date, Domino Sugar Factory developer Two Trees Management has released new renderings of the project’s forthcoming park, as well as opened the site up for a tour. AN had a chance to check out the James Corner Field Operations-designed Domino Park, as well as the completed 325 Kent Avenue and the ongoing interior demolition at the Domino Sugar Refinery. The SHoP Architects-designed 325 Kent, a doughnut-shaped rental building set back from the Williamsburg waterfront, was the first building to reach completion at the SHoP-master planned site. The 16-story, 500-unit rental building (105 of them affordable) began welcoming residents back in September of 2017. As the weather warms up, residents will get to make use of the rooftop amenities on display, such as curved concrete furniture, lounge chairs, and the central strip of courtyard that runs between the building’s central arch. Domino Park is taking shape at the foot of 325 Kent and is on track to open in only 8 weeks. The quarter-mile-long park breaks its programming into “active” and “passive” activity spaces, with the more active areas located closer to the thrum of the Williamsburg Bridge. The second Domino Sugar Factory tower, the mixed-use, COOKFOX-designed 260 Kent, is on track to open in 2019. A dog run, two bocce ball courts, a 6,300-square-foot “flexible playing field” and a volleyball court make up the more energetic half. At the other end, a Japanese Pine garden, 80-to-100 person picnic area, and the Danny Meyer-run taqueria, Tacocina, will sit at the quieter half of the park. A technicolored children’s play space designed by artist Mark Reigelman, with industrial pieces inspired by the sugar refining process, can be found at the passive end of the park, as can 585-linear-feet of elevated walkway. The walkway sits directly on top of Tacocina, and incorporates 21 steel columns from the former Raw Sugar Warehouse into its superstructure; the sight will be a familiar one to visitors familiar with Kara Walker’s The Sugar Sphinx. Linking each area along the waterfront will be the Artifact Walk, a five-block-long stretch that proudly displays historical refining artifacts salvaged from the site. Four 36-foot tall cylindrical syrup tanks embedded in the Syrup Tank Garden, mooring bollards, signage, and corkscrews have been installed across an elevated platform on the water’s edge. Damaged during Hurricane Sandy, the existing platform was raised to a uniform height above the river, and the new piles have been encased in concrete. To build a historical link to the pre-existing structure, a hole has been cut in the platform and visitors can view the existing wood posts and river below. Work on gutting the Domino Sugar Refinery is still ongoing, in anticipation of the PAU-designed glassy office space that will soon sit within. While the exterior of the factory has been landmarked, preserving the interiors would have been impossible due to the interconnected nature of the refining machinery. Even though the factory shut down in 2004, the thick smell of molasses is still hanging around the building at the time of writing. As for the park, although it’s technically private, Two Trees has opened the expanse to the public and is working closely with the New York City Parks Department. A representative from the development company has stated that James Corner Field had their designs reviewed and approved by Parks, that the stretch will operate on normal NYC park hours (dawn to dusk), and that they’ve given the city permission to claim the park if maintenance falls behind. AN will provide a final look at the finished Domino Sugar Park once the project is completed this summer. COOKFOX's 260 Kent will be featured in detail at the upcoming Facades+ workshop "K. Domino Site A: Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM) & When and Why to Use It" on April 20.
Placeholder Alt Text

Smash the Patriarchy

How the “Shitty Architecture Men” list can address abuse in architecture
How "The List" works  Thanks to the #MeToo movement and the Shitty Architecture Men list, many survivors of harassment and assault in the architecture industry will, for the first time, experience the sense that they are believed and validated. They can recognize that the abuse of power follows recognizable patterns, and is neither unique nor deserved. While discrete "whisper networks" in the field have long helped people avoid or confront misconduct, now people can find each other and realize they are not alone. For many on the receiving end of intimidation, bias, assault, and harassment in architecture, the scope of what has been revealed is old news. But some people have told me that it has already deepened their understanding of the systematic nature and urgency of the problem. As a compendium of case studies identifying specific behaviors as misconduct, the list rejects the normalization of bullying, coercion, and abuse of power as standard architecture culture. By describing a wide range of behavior beyond clear-cut instances of sexual harassment and assault alone, the list also signals how institutions and workplaces can respond to the full spectrum of issues. For example, a university administration’s acceptance of one professor’s casual bullying and racism might predict a tendency to dismiss complaints about sexual harassment and assault. The experiences shared on the list also reveal how some benefit from the current culture, while others are constantly doing the work of avoiding, processing, recovering from, or confronting misconduct. These dynamics play out unequally along gender, race, class, and disability lines, all of which constitute a profound burden on those who bear the brunt of impact. That labor is layered on top of all of the other work that comprises being an architect. The list’s impact is immeasurable; it might alter where someone decides to study (and invest their money) or work (whom they allow to benefit from their labor). Ideally, harassment and abuse will diminish, and it will become typical to practice active consent and foster environments of mutual respect so we can all equally focus on design.   So you are on the list...  For those who find themselves named on the list, or who are not named but recognize therein behaviors they have enacted or defended, there are many resources to support one’s accountability and transformation. Cooper's 6 Levels identifies a spectrum of harassing behavior. The Predator Within shares the account of someone who reins in predatory tendencies by intentionally declining positions of authority over his target population. So You've Sexually Harassed or Abused Someone: What Now? provides a step-by-step accountability plan that applies to many situations not only sexual harassment and abuse, but other types of harm. Before taking any action, activating your PR defense, or beseeching the moderators to remove your name, take the time to steep yourself in the fact that you are on the list. You are on it because you have harmed someone so deeply that they are compelled to warn others about you. Your inclusion means that someone doesn't trust you enough to confront you directly. Acknowledge all of the feelings that arisefear, guilt, indignation, griefbefore you do anything else.   Some of you must admit that you are unfit to hold power over the populations you target for harassment and abuse. This includes those who have not harassed or abused anyone outright, but who protected or minimized such behavior. Some of you must resign from your positions, and transfer authority and decision-making powers to others. Return your awards and honors. Decline your funding so others can benefit from it. Move out of the way. You must pay your debts. Apology is not enough. Ijeoma Oluo’s So You've Sexually Harassed or Abused Someone: What Now? discusses the toll of misconduct in terms of lost resources. Multiple contributions to the list describe faculty and administrators who undermined their students’ education through sexist and racist harassment, bullying, intimidation, and assaultor who allowed perpetrators to continue unimpeded. This is, in effect, a theft of their tuition. The list also describes many types of workplace harassment. If your colleague takes a sick day to seek medical attention after you assault her, then you've stolen hours from her employer and you’ve stolen her pay while making her appear less dedicated to the work compared to you. If he avoids spaces where you might be present after you bully or harass him, you are depriving him of vital networks. In the long run, you have activated trauma, leading to depression and anxiety, which can lower capacity and cause many other distressing effects. All of this can accrue into a lifetime of suppressed wages and promotion denials, in addition to medical and therapy bills, on top of the immeasurable impact of the psychological and physical harm. This is how to calculate the cost of your misconduct. The personal, professional, and financial burden of recovering from harassment and assault typically falls upon survivors. To reverse this pattern, actual cash reparations from aggressors, institutions or workplaces will materially restore some of what was nonconsensually taken. Make student loan payments for the student you assaulted or bullied, commensurate with the tuition for the class or degree in which your misconduct foreclosed their opportunities. Pay the medical and therapy bills of the colleague you harassed. Do this without expecting forgiveness, or forcing any interaction beyond the barest logistical minimum. Money cannot undo trauma, but it can eliminate some stressors that compound it. What everyone (especially bosses, clients, and institutions) can do:  Many have been saying, “The culture must change,” but what does that actually mean? It means that the institutional conditions that encourage aggressors to flourish need to be eliminated. It means that we must all share the work of confronting harassment and assault, whether on the spot or over the long term. It means we cannot address sexual harassment and gender disparity as if they exist in a vacuum — we must simultaneously confront racism, classism, and other forms of systemic oppression that make architecture a source of displacement and exclusion. Changing the culture means fostering an environment where openness and support are normalized. Supervisors and administrators should open dialogue with people who seem to be struggling, rather than penalizing them. Offer to revisit workloads and move deadlines so impacted people don’t have to ask. State upfront that if someone must leave due to personal circumstances, they can still reach out for introductions and references. Offer to serve as a reference for a colleague who was unfairly fired, or a student who drops a class due to harassment or similar misconduct. Allocate funds for survivors who drop classes or take time off work due to violence and assault. Model asking for support, to normalize such behavior. All of us (especially those who are disadvantaged in a power dynamic) should be able to approach a colleague or supervisor with a problem, and trust it will be taken seriously and addressed promptly without risking one’s livelihood. Changing the culture means devoting time and resources to designing actionable processes. People who have been impacted by bullying, harassment and assault should know what steps they can take and what resources are available to have the time to recover individually. And cultural recovery requires that those who perpetrated sexual misconduct or other kinds of violence must also have restorative processes available to them. Accountability processes cannot continue a carceral culture of “throwing transgressors away.” Instead, they must focus on fostering transformation. Otherwise we risk simply moving the problem to another school or workplace. These are just some suggestions and ideas. Much more can be done, and architects, who address complex issues in their work, are more than capable of orienting themselves to the task of cutting out their own “shitty” behavior. You teach in the world’s most elite institutions. You figured out how to construct unprecedented skyscrapers. You master-planned entire swaths of major cities. You can figure this out. S. Surface is a Seattle-based curator of art, architecture and design. ​