Americans bring their “can-do” approach to Venice


Wednesday, August 25, 2010 3:06 pm

Duck-and-Cover_2 (2)

The form of Duck-and-Cover produces the big box logo from a Google-Earth point of view, and a verdant garden at street-level, image courtesy RSAUD

Starting this Sunday, August 29, when the Venice Biennale opens (and runs through November 21), there will be a lot of chatter about what feeds architecture and design thinking in 2010. Here, we’re kicking off the discussion with a look behind the scenes at the U.S. Pavilion. Its curators, Jonathan D. Solomon and Michael Rooks named their show Workshopping: An American Model of Architectural Practice. The title, they say, is meant to evoke our “can-do mentality”. Solomon, acting head of the department of architecture at the University of Hong Kong, for instance, starts his catalog essay by recalling the work of engineers who figured out how to save the Apollo 13 mission, urging architects to act as “initiators” who collaborate with other professionals to create a “charged atmosphere of solution-finding”. Could this be Horatio Alger meets Bob the Builder? No, it’s more like a call to action to solve some fierce, global problems: flooding, sprawl, lack of housing, poor access to fresh food and clean air. I spoke to Solomon and Rooks, who is Wieland Family curator of modern and contemporary art at Atlanta’s High Museum, just as they were about to fly to Venice to mount the show.

How do you define “workshopping”? How is that different from collaboration?

Jonathan D. Solomon We use the word workshopping to define architect-initiated collaborations that advance in the spirit of problem-defining as well solution-finding. This way of working privileges research, social engagement, and private initiative for public benefit. It empowers architects to take on the needs of the city. While workshopping, like all architecture, requires collaboration between multiple disciplines, it sees architects as initiators and leaders of these collaborations.

Why did you choose the particular participants? What aspect of their work fit the exhibition?

JDS We wanted this exhibition be a conversation, so we chose exhibitors who would be able to set off each other’s differences rather than take refuge in their similarities. We gathered a geographically, ideologically, and generationally diverse group who represent seven very different approaches to practice in the American city.

Mobile Food Collective_1

The Mobile Food Collective, Image courtesy Archeworks.

Michael Rooks ArcheWorks is the alternative design school in Chicago, New York’s Terreform is the research NGO founded by Michael Sorkin, and cityLAB is a UCLA think tank. They are examples of hybrid institutions that see the city as a territory for working out social and cultural problems of our day. The projects range in focus from resource management to social sustainability, from post-urban public space to affordable housing.

New York City (Steady) State_02

New York City (Steady) State, Terreform, New York, NY Michael Sorkin

Guy Nordenson’s team of professionals and institutions from a variety of fields combines research, analysis, and design, which becomes the foundation for proposing solutions to rising sea levels in New York and New Orleans. Their collaboration, under the team’s leadership, transcends any one purview.

aerial with 5 diversions

Mississippi Delta: Construction with Water: A collaboration between Princeton University and the Coastal Sustainability Studio at Louisiana State University Guy Nordenson and Associates, Catherine Seavitt Studio, Anthony Fontenot, and the LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio.

John Portman & Associates epitomize the model of a practice where the architect acts as designer and developer. By working in both public and private spheres the Portman office has been able produce truly transformative results like bringing their home city, Atlanta, into the 20th century. More importantly the model of space the firm invented in the 1960s—the continuous private interior for public use—has in this century become a model for development worldwide, especially in Asia.

Peachtree Center_Interior

Peachtree Center, Atrium Interior Copyright 1985 Jaime Ardiles-Arce

JDS Walter Hood runs a small landscape architecture firm in Berkeley along principles of community participation, while maintaining the authorship and expertise of the architect. His approaches are radical; we are showing a model that his office built to be carried out into the site so that anyone passing by could leave comments on post-it notes. Then the model comes back in and new iterations are prepared.

Greenprint_2

Greenprint, the Hill (Pittsburgh, PA), Perspectives along Centre Avenue. Image courtesy Hood Design.

MOS, a young and dynamic office from New York City, is engaged in rethinking architectural solutions from the ground up. Asked to conceive an installation for the pavilion’s open courtyard that would encourage social interactions, they proposed a canopy of reflective Mylar balloons tethered to nylon straps. Like their installation at PS1 last summer, the Biennale’s Instant Untitled envisions not only new structures and uses for materials, but new ideas about what public space in the city can be: temporary, a little precarious, ecstatic.

Instant Untitled_Rendering

Rendering of Instant Untitled, a new site-specific installation for the courtyard of the American Pavilion at the 12th International Architecture Biennale. Image courtesy of MOS.

MR What binds these diverse practices together is a shared conviction and commitment to better the city, and shared willingness to re imagine the practice of architecture, if necessary, from scratch.

Christopher Hawthorne (one of cityLAB’s board members) recently wrote an essay called “ On Credit” in which he points out that many architects refer to the importance of “collaboration” but, at the end of the day, are not at ease sharing the limelight. Would you say that Hawthorne’s assessment is an accurate one? If so, is it one that’s changing?

JDS I would be inclined to turn this around and say that architects need to be even more aggressive about being recognized for the work they do, especially when in a collaboration. We need to respect our profession as the leader of the building industry, if we expect others to respect us. A basic principle of this stance is to insist on being recognized for our unique contributions. Workshopping requires architects to take responsibility for the solutions they propose. How can they do this if they are not recognized for the contribution they make?

MR For example, if you look at what cityLAB has brought to Venice, you’ll find a rich lineage (they call it their Operating System) for the architectural project mapped out on the wall: They document how the project was initiated, how is it supported, how is it researched, and eventually how is it designed. The architect is, and should be, identified among all the professionals in this process.

JDS This is another way in which we would differentiate workshopping from a typical collaboration, which tends to be accompanied by the flattening out individual contributions in order to recognize collective effort. We are very interested in the different forms of hierarchies that different forms of practices employ. To compare the cityLAB Operating System with the organizational charts for John Portman & Associates for instance, is fabulously illuminating.

Please explain what you mean by architect-initiator. Do you think an architect is better suited to be initiator of such collaborations than, say, an urban planner?

MR Our exhibitors include architects, landscape architects, engineers and academics. The kind of initiative we admire is hardly the province of architects alone.

JDS Architecture, by its nature, is collaborative, and architects receive one of the broadest educations available, which positions them well to work in this way. Architecture creates excellent conditions for workshopping but what really matters is the initiative.

How is workshopping American? Or how is it an American model?

JDS We are very sensitive about this title! In fact, in Venice, we are taking every step to open up our conversation to a global context, and we are finding a good degree of agreement amongst our colleagues that this type of work in the city can take place in North America much more readily than in, say, Europe or Asia. This is not to say that these practices could not flourish elsewhere, but they would have to overcome significant obstacles that conditions elsewhere—political, regulatory, cultural—may not be friendly toward.

MR It is our responsibility as curators not simply to select our country’s most talented or accomplished architects, but to put forward the proposition that the United States offers something unique to the global community. We humbly present workshopping in Venice as an American model, with the hope that the international community can benefit from the work we’re showing.

Angela Starita is a writer living in Brooklyn. She recently went back to school to study the work of architect Lina Bo Bardi.



Categories: Q&A, Venice Biennale

advertisement
advertisement
4 Comments »
  1. This project is a sadly muddled and arrogant mythologizing of what America is in 2010. The architects are stuck in some sort of patriotic bedtime story written in the 1950’s. Maybe this is about them trying to get government work or promote their own brand-name.

    The reality though is that America isn’t uniquely suited to address the world’s ecological problems. If we were, we wouldn’t be getting left in the dust by Brazil and other more forward looking countries that don’t have our political baggage.

    The reality is that there are areas in America where this type of innovation can occur, where it’s always occurred (like California), but by and large, the political conservatism in America undermines any legitimate attempts at moving design into the 21st Century with any force or significant impact. And that’s largely why our economy is suffering - because our country’s political conservatism isn’t interested in inventing our way out of our problems (ie designing our way out of them). America’s CEO’s evidently have very little interest in investing in forward looking projects. Their behavior in the current economy has proven that without doubt. American private initiative has brought next to nothing to the table in the last few years and there’s very little reason to believe they will in the future. In the American economy, being responsible isn’t the way to maximize shareholder profits.

    I also noticed that the entire argument the interviewees built up about architects being the leaders in this discussion completely fell apart when they were asked about the role of urban planners, for which they evidently haven’t made room - instead choosing people like Michael Sorkin (who have important things to say but who aren’t able to realize their ideas in the actual built world, who aren’t able to navigate the political realm in a realistic way so that their ideas get built).

    Big failure here in my opinion. I’m not really sure how much the people in this article have to contribute to the larger discussion, which is probably why their project won’t really have any lasting impact on it, either in Venice or otherwise.

    Comment by James — August 25, 2010, @ 6:16 pm

  2. For anyone who believes America is uniquely suited to export our attitudes on urbanity and design, just look at the Mosque issue in NYC.

    American society in reality has very little that’s healthy to export when it comes to the discussion of design in the 21st Century.

    That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of architects in the US who have important ideas, but the likelihood that those important ideas and the values they represent are going to be built in the US in the next decade are pretty small in my opinion. Private enterprise won’t invest in real design. Only countries with a strong public infrastructure are going to have the resources to actually invest in 21st Century design, and Americans don’t believe in public projects.

    Other countries are far more interested in moving into the 21st Century than America is. The American population is simply too isolated from contemporary thinking on design, and too illiterate on the issues related to design to embrace it like the rest of the world will. And to compound the problem, Americans resent being confronted with the reality regarding their illiteracy, so they end up rejecting design and modernity as a default reaction, while other cultures are running to embrace it.

    Mythologizing and romanticizing America’s post-war innovation has nothing to do with America in 2010, and the longer architects refuse to face up to where we are today instead of playing to America’s ego and fetishizing our past, the farther and father behind we’ll fall.

    After the Korean War we had a 90% tax rate on the rich (in order to pay off our war debt) which fed our public investments in innovation.

    That will never happen in today’s America. The conventional wisdom on the role of the public sector has been so diminished (like unions have) over the last 50 years. The America of today is just a very feint shadow of what it was then. Wal Mart and the other multinational corporations that actually run our cities aren’t going to invest in the types of projects that would actually push us into the 21st Century and there’s no public money to do it in their absence.

    Comment by James — August 25, 2010, @ 6:29 pm

  3. Terreform was co-founded with Mitchell Joachim

    Comment by MJ — August 25, 2010, @ 6:45 pm

  4. Thank you for your input!

    We all understand that, with a four-fold increase in global populations in the last century, powered almost entirely by the combustion of fossil fuels, populations and civilizations could easily crash as these fuels are exhausted, and as their effects on our climates submerge coastlines everywhere!

    Designers and planners have the unique capability, and responsibility, for the creation of what will be the only viable solution, the world’s first 100% sustainable global infrastructure, ideas for which occurred to me as I struggled with my own existential crisis - the complete recovery from my heart stopping for 10 minutes following a car accident in Kenya!

    Please see the proposals on my website at http://www.greenmillennium.eu, and with which I challenge any of you to do even better, for the benefit of the components of our genes, which have stood the test of eternal time, existing ever since life first began here!

    Comments invited at humansolutions@greenmillennium.eu

    Thank you very much for your time and consideration!

    Comment by Mr. Kim Gyr — August 29, 2010, @ 9:57 am

Leave a comment

  • Connect With Us

  • Recent Posts

  • Most Commented

  • Metropolis Books




  • Links

  • BACK TO TOPBACK TO TOP

    Featuring Recent Posts WordPress Widget development by YD