Capitolizing (sic) on Good Architecture

Wisconsin is in the news a lot this week because of a battle between unionized state workers and anti-union, budget-cutting Governor Scott Walker. That is not what this blog entry is about.  It is about the backdrop for union demonstrations: the Wisconsin state capitol building. It has been highly visible in TV and print news.

Approach to the Wisconsin state capitol.

I have long thought that Wisconsin's capitol is architecturally one of the best. It's classical motif is not unusual or particularly remarkable. However, its proportions and interior spaces are exceptional.

On the outside the Wisconsin state capitol has gravitas: a grounded heft to the proportions that make you take it seriously. The interiors have a three-dimensional spatial excitement, with pedestrian bridges spanning the galleries and numerous skylights to draw the eye upward. The building materials are lush (43 varieties of stone) and beautifully executed (hand-crafted glass mosaics and furniture). Other state capitols (not all, but many) are unfortunate victims of having been built too early in a state's history and do not have the grandeur of a powerful political center. Construction on Wisconsin's capitol began in 1906 and was completed in 1917. Wisconsin was, perhaps, at the height of its economic power and able to execute an exceptionally fine building. It was designed by George Brown Post (1837-1913), an accomplished classicist. He contributed to the famous Columbian Exhibition in Chicago in 1893, a classical extravaganza.

Numerous bridges span interior galleries.

The central dome.

In most ways the Wisconsin capitol surpasses the national Capitol with architectural panache. People are horrified at criticism of our national icon, but that is really what it is: an icon, not an architectural masterpiece. As a symbol of our nation it is just fine. As architecture it has been modified over the years into a clumsy mass of ill-proportioned lumps. At close view the dome all but disappears into its bloated base. The interior spaces are drab and uninspired. The house and senate chambers are gloomy. Not so with the Wisconsin masterpiece.

Every detail is exquisitely executed.

The Wisconsin state capitol building currently glistens with $145 million worth of renovations completed in 2001. This National Historic Landmark is worth a visit if you are anywhere near Madison, Wisconsin.

Numerous skylights add natural light.

All photos by MJK.

Architectural Model of Monticello

Paper model of Thomas Jefferson"s Monticello.

I got a nice email from Robert Anderson in Los Angeles. He noticed my list of "top ten works of architecture" which includes Thomas Jefferson's Monticello:

I came across your top ten list of buildings and saw that we share a high regard for Monticello. I have designed an inexpensive, museum-quality paper model of Monticello based on the HABS drawings and I am trying to get out the word to Jefferson aficionados. I would greatly appreciate it if you would check out my website and consider adding the link on your top ten page. I designed the model over many months when my daughter was sick to take my mind off of things. I think the end result does justice to Jefferson's architectural genius. I hope you will agree. 

http://www.monticellomodel.com

By the way, your designs are impressive too!

Best regards,

Robert Anderson

Los Angeles 

I have also added Mr. Anderson's link to the sidebar.

If any reader orders and assembles this paper model, let me know how it turns out. Pictures would be great too.

Street Architecture

The Spire condominiums on 14th.

Light rail crossing 14th Street.

Several weeks ago I wrote about Denver's 14th Street: a "New Edge for the City." This was about the new developments adjacent to Denver's theater district and convention center. New condos, hotels, restaurants. Now the city is investing millions of dollars in street improvements with pedestrian resting spots, trees, and Times Square-type signage.  This three-minute animation produced by Parsons Brinkerhoff Project Visualization Group shows what the street will look like by the end of 2011.

Credits:

Photos, M. Knorr.

Video, Parson Brinkerhoff.

Architectural Battleground

The Denver Post recently reported the story of a home built in 1958 that the owner intends to demolish for his new "dream home."  ("Street Fight" by Jeremy P. Meyer, The Denver Post, December 25, 2010.) The home is located in Belcaro, a desirable residential neighborhood.  The owner, Gary Yourtz, was temporarly stalled in his plans by a city ordinance that allows anybody to challenge proposed demolition by filing a landmark designation application.  Mr. Yourtz spent $18,000 in legal fees to make this legal obstruction go away.

The Denver Post published a letter I wrote on the subject:

To the Editor:

The article about Gary Yourtz’s efforts to protect his property from the clutches of historic preservationists is disturbing. As an architect I am familiar with his home. It is, as the preservationists aver, a wonderful example of modern design. However, what dreamworld are people living in when they think that admiring another’s property gives them the right to control its fate? 

I don’t know what the replacement home will look like. Maybe it will be better than the existing structure; maybe worse. That judgement in the eye of the beholder is not the point. The right of Mr. Yourtz to improve his surroundings by his own criteria within the bounds of codes and zoning is the only pertinent issue. I don’t understand the desire to hijack property without assent from or compensation to the owner. There are other methods available to preservationists. They might buy it themselves or raise funds to preserve it through a trust.

We live in a vibrant metropolis where change and growth is part of the deal. Those who seek more predictable environments should visit Williamsburg or Disneyland. 

Sincerely,

Michael Knorr

Yourtz residence designed by Tician Papachristou
and Daniel Havekost in 1958.

There have been a flurry of letters (pro and con) since this situation was reported. The Denver Post editorial board came down on the side of sanity, registering dismay. 


To be clear: the existing house really is a good work of architecture. Clean lines; good proportions, sophisticated detailing. I've admired it ever since I moved to Denver. It's the kind of place that House Beautiful and Sunset magazines championed in the 1950s and 60s. Homes like this inspired my early dreams of becoming an architect. Years after "discovering" this house I had the opportunity to study it on a regular basis when working on the Mongile (now Coors) residence right next door. I never got tired of looking at it.

The Belcaro neighborhood has other outstanding works of architecture, including a copper-roofed house by Taliesin Associated Architects (Frank Lloyd Wright's successors) and a bold A-frame by Bill Muchow.  The centerpiece of the neighborhood is the massive (33,000 square feet; 70+ rooms) Phipps Mansion designed by Fischer and Fiscber in 1931.  Ironically, the neighborhood has long been a focal point for change and architectural diversity.


Having noted all the good things about Mr. Yourtz's existing house and neighborhood, none of this matters.  In the end, this issue is analogous to free speech rights. Mr. Yourtz's property is his forum to speak whatever architectural tounge suits his fancy. As long as he doesn't harm his neighbors through code or zoning violations, what business is it of ours that he replaces his mid-century modern design with something new?  Some argue that there is harm to the community by "robbing" us of an important piece of our architectural heritage. That argument is, first of all, an abstract asssertion that lacks proof and, more importantly, a huge expansion of the definition of "harm." Warping words in this manner diminishes the impact of real, physical harm when it occurs.

The Denver ordinance allows anyone (in the case of Mr. Yourtz, his antagonist did not even live in Denver) to cause great mischeif.  Any house could be labeled "historic" until proven otherwise. Councilman Charlie Brown has indicated he may seek changes in the ordinance; I hope he moves forward with this idea.

Exterior materials are white brick and stained wood.

Finally, what is to be done with historic and architecturally significant buildings?  The Phipps Mansion provides one example.  It was purchased recently by Tim Gill and Scott Miller.  They have the money and desire to restore the tattered structure to its original glory. That's what it takes: money and will. Old structures are expensive to maintain and restore. They require a sympathetic hand and an open purse.  It is presumptive to impose the burden of historic preservation on any individual out of the blue.  That is what was attempted in the case of Mr. Yourtz with his mid-century modern ranch house. I wish him well with his new home, whatever style it may be.

Architecture on Your Mobile Device

This blog is now mobile-device-friendly. If you happen to check out these posts on a smart phone it will present itself in an easier-to-read format. Thanks for reading either on your computer or your mobile!

John Lautner, Mid-Century Architect

John Lautner was one of this country's best architects, however, he is little known by the general public. His work is worth exploring as modern architecture of the mid-twentieth century enjoys a resurgence in popularity. 

1. Lautner's Chemosphere house, featured in many movies.

It used to be a truism that in bad economic times traditional architecture becomes popular because it is safe and comfortable. Conversely, contemporary - or modern - architecture was considered a risk during times of uncertainty. This has turned out to be a tired cliche. Times are not great, but forward-thinking architecture is far from dead and is no longer considered economically risky. Perhaps it has been around long enough that modern/contemporary design has itself become comfortable and familiar.  

2. The iconic Goldstein residence in Palm Springs.

Mid-century modern is a well-defined, but broad, category. It covers everything from the classic California ranch house to Frank Lloyd Wright usonian designs to the free-form swirls of Bruce Goff. It is the modern architecture of the 1940s through the 1960s. [Note: We will have to have a separate discussion on the difference between "modern" and "contemporary." The terms are often used interchangeably. Is there a distinction?]  John Lautner was a hero of the era, inspiring many architects who followed, including myself. There are several good books available on Lautner. The Hammer museum in Los Angeles staged an extensive retrospective of his work last year. If you haven't met John Lautner's architecture, enjoy this short clip from the documentary Infinite Space:

Photo Credits:

1. ikkoskinen.

2. Arch.james.

Architecture and Thanksgiving

1. The Parthenon.

Today is the American Thanksgiving holiday. On this day we think about those things for which we are grateful. Family. Friends. Good health. Comfort. Etc. Those are the typical thoughts we express. Maybe there is room in our thoughts for architecture: the architecture we may be fortunate enough to inhabit or public architecture we might see in our daily lives. Such thoughts may seem too materialistic for the holiday, but I don’t see it that way.  

No doubt: architecture is a luxury. Sometimes community-minded people try to force it into some other category. “We need better architecture for the poor.”  Or, “Architects need to solve the homeless problem.” Such admonitions are really about shelter, not architecture. The solutions to these problems are, more often than not, political, economic, social, and, at times, structural. They are not really architectural. Architects may choose to devote time and effort to finding solutions to these serious problems; that is a good thing. And they may craft clever designs to meet the needs of those less fortunate. But the root cause of such problems is not fixed by architecture, no matter how fervently academics and idealists may wish it so. 

2. Baths of Diocletian, Rome.

Architecture is a luxury. Yes, it can be sustenance for aesthetic hunger, but that hunger only exists when real hunger is at bay. Architecture -- how buildings look and feel and elevate your thoughts -- is only important after we are clothed and warm. When we have shelter against the elements. If we are concerned about the appearance and arrangement of our environment, then our environment must already be providing us with food and shelter.

3. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow popularized the concept “hierarchy of needs.” In his theory of human psychology, architecture (as a creative endeavor) is not important until all baser needs have been satisfied. It falls under self-actualization, at the top of his schematic pyramid.  

4. Calatrava library, Zurich.

Architecture is only possible when something is going right. It is a sign that not everything in the world is collapsing. For those of us fortunate enough to experience architecture in some way in our lives, we should be thankful. For those of us who are architects we should also be grateful for the patrons that support our work. Few people in this world are able to afford the cost of architectural services, so architecture is a rare commodity. It is almost frivolous. Architects do not save lives like surgeons. We do not, as a result of our profession, feed the poor. Architects do not provide some essential service such as unclogging your drain like a plumber or plowing your street when it snows. Architecture only happens as an extraordinary effort to reach beyond the minimum. Architecture is a luxury. We need such luxuries. Why do surgeons save lives? Why do the poor need to be fed? Why do we need plumbers, maintenance crews, a good economy, world peace, and happiness? We need satisfaction in these areas so we can enjoy life. And when we are equipped to enjoy life, we start expanding our hierarchy of needs into the realms of art, literature, spirituality, song, and, sometimes, architecture. 

5. Lotus Temple.

I am thankful that in a world with a dire economy, climate change, and multiple wars we still have the means and time to create and experience beautiful architecture. I would like to believe that the more good architecture we are able to create is an indication we are solving some of our more important problems. If we have any good architecture at all, something is going right.

Happy Thanksgiving.


Photo Credits:
1. Thermos.
2. Anthony Majanlahti.
3. Wikicommons.
4. Wouter Homs.
5. Vandelizer