IDEAL CITIES - Contextualism is a given as far as we are concerned, both as service to the community but also as a boost to the bottom line via better acceptance by all stakeholders. We also were trained in the tradition of the great American architect Eero Saarinen, for whom every project was a fresh start, and not the imposition of a pre existing design sensibility. So Symphony House spoke to the early twentieth century high rise tradition in Philadelphia with its historist approach, while 3737 Chestnut, resolutely modern, was contextual with regard to the adjacent International House and its plaza (now filled, unfortunately). One Theater Square in Newark, originally intended to be 42 stories (then the tallest proposed building in NJ), was always to respond to NJPAC across the plaza. As realized at 22 stories, we think the results still fulfill the original goal.
IDEAL CITIES - Contextualism is a given as far as we are concerned, both as service to the community but also as a boost to the bottom line via better acceptance by all stakeholders. We also were trained in the tradition of the great American architect Eero Saarinen, for whom every project was a fresh start, and not the imposition of a pre existing design sensibility. So Symphony House spoke to the early twentieth century high rise tradition in Philadelphia with its historist approach, while 3737 Chestnut, resolutely modern, was contextual with regard to the adjacent International House and its plaza (now filled, unfortunately). One Theater Square in Newark, originally intended to be 42 stories (then the tallest proposed building in NJ), was always to respond to NJPAC across the plaza. As realized at 22 stories, we think the results still fulfill the original goal.
IDEAL CITIES – Being Philadelphia architects, we always cognizant of the presence of the past. We are currently being challenged by a tidal wave of cheap modernist development, but historically the best modern work in the historic cities of the east coast city has respected the past in order to create a cohesive environment which all can appreciate and in which all can thrive. In Newark we worked with Dranoff Properties and NJPAC to design One Theater Square, a 22 story apartment building with 280 car garage. The building was intended to blend with the outstanding NJPAC facility by Barton Myers as well as the historic context of Newark, in particular the row of historic buildings that line "Wayne Shorter Way" facing the recently restored Military Park. SOM, recently hired to build an apartment building on the other side of the theater, saw no such need to respond to context, creating a horrifying imposition on the urban fabric, IMHO. Being contextual did not mean that we did not meet the budget or create spectacular units and amenities that were completely new to Newark at the time.
Thursday 07 March 2024 is the centenary of the birth of John Greville Agard Pocock (07 March 1924 – 12 December 2023), better known to posterity as J. G. A. Pocock, who was born in London on this date in 1924. Although born in London, he spent much of his early life in New Zealand, and was a New Zealand citizen.
Pocock has had a significant influence on other historians, but is not widely cited among philosophers of history. He is associated both with the contextualism of the Cambridge School and the New British History. Both of these efforts seek to reinterpret history in a distinctive context not co-extensive with the context implied by traditional history.
In the 1960's an Italian collective named Superstudio became famous for montages of gridded megastructures in existing environments. These images were very seductive, but were meant as a criticism, not affirmation, of modernism. Adolfo Natalini, who died two years ago, subsequently had an extensive practice across Europe that resulted in contextual, yet modern, buildings that reinforced the urban fabric.
In What Style Should We Build? Part 2 - Contextualism
This is based on a discussion board post on the question “Is there a particular style that we should be designing in for now (eg. in NZ) that is preferable to others? what might this be and why?” and following on from my disagreement with the idea that this preferable style was parametricism. There will be interjections in italics defending my response against a fellow student who decided to pick holes in my argument.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to bring up exactly what I covered on the ornamentation discussion board. Much like there, I think that contextual consideration is first and foremost to choosing a style. It is in this regard that I have to dismiss parametricism as an option, since it is too tied into iconicism. Eden wrote a blog post about iconic architecture that fairly well sums up my own opinions on the matter.
I must make it clear here that I am dismissing parametricism as “THE particular style that we should be designing in” as the question asks. As will be covered later in my argument, it is still an option as long as it fulfils the other requirements that I am about to lay out. The student then went on to defend iconism, saying I should instead have said “spectacular architecture” which is more visually biased. My response to that is, you’re splitting hairs. They’re essentially the same thing, my take from history is that iconic and spectacular architecture are equally visually biased, iconic architecture simply has the social and cultural status attached to them. Looking back at my notes from history I wrote “An iconic building tends to be big, have a unique form, does something that can have bragging rights by having the best or most of something in the world” which I think is enough for me to be correct in using iconicism in relation to parametricism. In regards to the defending of iconic architecture, I suggest a reread of Eden’s blog post, in particular the point about the gentrification that the iconic nature of Bilbao’s Guggenheim brought to the city. My distaste for iconic architecture is in that it typically does not meet the values I will list below as necessary to good design. The student claims “Icons should challenge or push the collective identity to establish new imagery of place.” While I agree to an extent that if iconic architecture is to be designed, challenges the cities identity is an interesting way to go about it to allow for the continued exploration of architectural style, I don’t think that iconic architecture should be the ONLY option, just like I said for parametric architecture. If all designs were intended to be iconic, no designs would be iconic as we would be awash in a sea of radical buildings. The student defends both of these styles as if I am threatening to remove them as options all together, but all I am suggesting is that they be used in moderation and only where appropriate to what I am about to cover.
I am more inclined towards the vernacular in the sense that it has strong consideration of cultural context, but I don’t think that is entirely the way to progress either.
Again here the student latched onto the idea of vernacular architecture, seeming to think that I was suggesting it as the one and only option we could possibly follow. If they had only kept reading before jumping to conclusions that (spoiler alert) I am advocating for every style where and when it is most appropriate to the given context.
However, while Schumacher makes all of his claims based on the idea that "the new diversity and intense interconnectedness of all social processes" is the most relevant issue to today's society, I instead propose the climate and our every increasing need to tread lightly on this planet as our biggest concern. While the human interaction side is obviously important, I think our approach in style should be one born from the desire to not kill Earth entirely. To me, this is the most important context that should define our architectural style. Of course, this means it will be different everywhere, which is in part the beauty of it.
International Style imposed an aesthetic worldwide that was entirely unsuited in many ways to the inhabitants or the climates it came into contact with. Plain white boxes that follow a set of arbitrary rules are of course not going to suit everyone. Taking into consideration the specific area you are designing in and allowing that to inform the style you choose is, to me, a far superior option.
I realise I'm talking around the question of whether a particular style might be preferable over others, and I have reasons for that. I think that once context has been taken into consideration in every regard - materials and where they will be sourced from, form and what is best suited not only to the climate (eg. Auckland weather), but to the specific site, and sustainable technologies available as per the budget and location, the rest of it be damned. I think that if all of those bases are covered, then it can be in any style you wish. As Zaina said in one of her posts, architecture school teaches us to have a reason for every decision we make, so as long as there is reason behind whatever madness you come up with, does it really matter if it looks like a 1920s bungalow, a decon monstrosity or a parametric swirly thing? I don't think so. This is in part why I take issue with Schumacher's slamming of pluralism. Why is it that the "pretence that all styles are equally "valid"" is a "pathetic abdication of intellectual ambition and responsibility"? What is so wrong with wanting variety in our cityscapes? This variety can include parametricism, but it doesn't have to be solely limited to it.
My conclusion from this (that was clearly necessary on the discussion board) is, once the design is suitable to the context, that will eliminate certain styles from being an option. Any style that is left available is fair game and I couldn’t care less what is chosen. Make it iconic, make it parametric, make it anything you like, my condition is simply that it makes sense.
Misterios en el mar 🤓 #artdrawingspotlights #ocean #triton #aliens #contextualism #arte #animacion3d (en Guayaquil, Ecuador) https://www.instagram.com/p/BnnNdu8gEAS/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=fl67dlqtda5k
I cannot abide the trendy habit of labeling historical persons problematic as a means of devaluing their contributions to modern civilizations. At best it’s simply naive, and in its very worst forms it is anti-intellectual and aggressively hostile to development, all imperfect reforms, and anything short of total iconoclasm.
Wouldn’t you know, there’s a word for it (rather, inclusive of it): presentism.
I’m not advocating strict contextualism, either. We’ve learned so much, over time. To ignore it would be as great a shame as to ignore the possibilities of our future history, lying within our potential. We will learn more yet. But we can’t build higher if we decide to demolish the foundation to spite the architects.
