Cecil Balmond's Informal

The Architect Renzo Piano once spoke of a book that he liked so much that he carried it around until all of its pages fell out. Cecil Balmond has written such a book: "Informal."

Cowritten with Januzzi Smith, the tome is a visual and idea-filled tour de force. This isn't your stuffy architectural historian's coffee table book. It instead brims with ideas and dilemmas. Charles Jencks points out in a thoughtful introduction "that whenever there's a revolution, or fast change, in architecture, professional barriers break down as specialists change roles." He continues: "Architects become sculptors, and enigineers become designers, artists turn into architects, and all these job descriptions become fuzzy. This happened in the Early Renaissance, during the building of the dome for Florence Cathedral, when Ghiberti and Brunelleschi switched professions from goldsmith to sculptor and artist to architect."

Balmond is a participant in this great adventure. An engineer by training, he is originally from Sri Lanka, a country known more for its tea. Mr. Balmond is one of the partners at the legendary engineering firm Ove Arup in London. He has worked with many of the world's leading architects on some of the most interesting Architecture of our time and this book is a log of some of these projects.

But why write a book?

Balmond recounts the story of Thomas Telford, the designer of the first structural iron bridge, "He was in a coach that broke down. He got down, fixed the problem and then wasn't allowed back inside, having got his hands dirty and revealed himself an artisan. That summed it up for me."

Balmond said that engineers have historically been looked down upon as the profession that does other people's dirty work.

He wrote the book to educate people and fight this misconception. The designers Michelle Januzzi and Richard Smith assisted Balmond. The layout of the book is remarkable -- it's colorful and put together with a picturesque-like informality that keeps it fresh. The designers justified all the text on the space between the fourth and the fifth word in a line.

There is an introduction, 14 chapters and an appendix.

One of the first chapters is on Rem Koolhaas' Bordeaux Villa for a couple and their children. The first that thing you notice are the illustrations -- there's a sepia of the vines and the view from the hill where the house is situated and more importantly there are Balmond's sketched diagrams. One victim of the dot com/computer age is the sketch. I was once asked by the Prairie Avenue Bookstore if I had any sketches that they could include in their catalog. All the architects they talked to stopped sketching. Perhaps that's the case in Chicago, but in London the sketch is still a valued currency. (And they're not the "pretty" drawings we were tautght in school but, rather, are expository in their intent.) Balmond describes the site and then the task of "levitating" the building. His sketches tell a story of a master who can accimplish something 10 different ways. He and Koolhaas decide on a strategy of rest the box or culvert on 2 supports, one in compression and one in tension. Then came the nitty gritty of loads and calculations. The plot thickens because the Virendeel beam require to stiffen the box was too deep and made the project untenable. Balmond went back to drawing board:

"We decided to start fresh, drawing the simple culvert shape again; I restated the dimensions as if the questions against it had never been. Perhaps it was just the renewed focus that helped, for things quickly fell into place. The slabs worked, the beams worked. Conduits, slots for door slides, drainage falls, free edge deflections, were all somehow solved. We were back on track. What had all the fuss been about?"

It takes a master to take a complex and challenging problem and make it look easy. In reality it wasn't; but it is fascinating to watch this process play itself out. And it shows how Balmond, an engineer, has a very large hand in designing and more imporatntly making this building.

So pick up a copy and tell us what you think...

Kamin vs. Muschamp over the WTC

xencial
to do buy xencial online and buy cheap generic
xencial also order xencial online .
http://www.bszz.com

Both of these men call themselves critics. Therefore, to begin, I would like to distinguish between a reviewer and a critic. A reviewer, such as a movie reviewer, describes a work the reader has yet to see. Perhaps the reviewer gives a recommendation, but it never rises to the level of thoroughness and rigorous scrutiny of criticism. Criticism, on the other hand, assumes you are already familiar with the work being discussed. The task is no longer the description of the object but how to interpret it. The command "look at the object" is not sufficient for criticism. Any architect making claims for his work beyond professional competency, i.e. into the realm of ideas or into Architecture (with a capital "A"), must be incredibly scrupulous with the details of their position. If the details are sloppy, nonsensical or fall into the realm of cliché, then serious doubt is cast over the claims about their work. This is exactly what Muschamp (Libeskind's statement is above) the Critic did and he concluded that Libeskind's entry is:

"an emotionally manipulative exercise in visual codes. A concrete pit is equated with the Constitution. A skyscraper tops off at 1,776 feet. As at Abu Simmel, the play of sunlight is used to give a cosmic slant to world history. A promenade of heroes confers quasi-military status on uniformed personnel."

Libeskind's equating the height of the skyscraper with 1,776 is rather twee as is the remark that the slurry walls were as strong as the US Constitution. Just because the height of something corresponds to the year of the signing of the Declaration of Independence at the Continental Congress doesn't mean your building has anything to do with freedom. (This kind of work -- using political metaphors for designing [landscape] architecture was done with panache, substance and wit by Uvedale Price, Capability Brown, et al. in 18th century England. These men could speak intelligently about freedom and liberty and their work was alive with ideas.) A further inspection of his accompanying statement doesn't disclose anything to strengthen his claim. At the AIA convention, Libeskind stated that he reread the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, poetry by Walt Whitman and "The Two Churches" by Herman Melville for inspiration. He retreats into the protective cave of the romantic genius. Further, several architects in the press have disputed the claim that no shadows are cast upon the sacred space on September 11th. (See "Shadow of Doubt" which talks about another architect questioning Libeskind's math in the May 5th NY Times.) It reaches comic proportions when he states that it's not about the ego of the architect but "presenting a medium and capturing emotions." For if it's not about ideas then what is it about?

Muschamp:

"the longer I study Mr. Libeskind's design, the more it comes to resemble the blandest of all the projects unveiled in the recent design study: the retro vision put forth by the New Urbanists designers Peterson Littenberg. Both projects trade on sentimental appeal expense of historical awareness. Both offer visions of innocence -- nostalgia, actually."

In fact, if you read Libeskind's statement, it is apparent that he has not strayed from the conventional path of non-thinking that has become the norm in architecture. His entry is "victorious," and:

"The great slurry walls are the most dramatic elements which survived the attack, an engineering wonder constructed on bedrock foundations and designed to hold back the Hudson River. The foundations withstood the unimaginable trauma of the destruction and stand as eloquent as the Constitution itself asserting the durability of Democracy and the value of individual life."

What does this mean?

The May 19th Newsweek featured an interesting story on the new Museum in Cincinnati designed by another Star architect Zaha Hadid. "I'm challenging typology," she says. "I'm rethinking organization and how to reinvent the civic domain." The reporter's response: "Of course, a lot of architects could say that -- whatever it means" And this is a major problem in Architecture today. (Postscript: Ms. Hadid was on Charlie Rose 16 June 2003 and she said some very interesting things about trying to work in architecture outside of the corporate realm. It can be a struggle. She was matter of fact, optimistic and fun -- it was refreshing.)

If 9-11 was going to be a paradigm-altering event like the Chicago fire, then Libeskind's entry doesn't measure up. It is the same well-worn, maudlin- romantic, Star-architect stuff. The jagged curvy forms are fine but wrapping them in sentimentality and tragedy is rather unconvincing. The lattice of the group favored by Muschamp does offer something new and exciting. It is a lattice work that houses structures, many of them cultural facilities, designed by different architects high up in the air. Like the Chicago after the fire, out of tragedy comes something bold and innovative.

Blair Kamin states that Libeskind's plan is "noble" and "logical." He declares it:

"an essay in taking the equivalent of exploded glass shards and reassembling them into a new, and coherent, whole. The quiet symbolism of death and rebirth could not be more powerful or appropriate."

Much of his article is devoted to discussing whether or not developers will change Libeskind's design. He responds to criticism about the "literalism" of Libeskind's design:

"[Critics] forget that a plan, like a play, needs to appeal on many levels. This one does that, both figuratively and literally."

Kamin then continues under a heading "The power of depth."

Muschamp doesn't see it and I confess that I cannot it find anywhere. Kamin finishes with the statement that:

"The sexy design contest is over."

If we accept that as true, it merely begs the question: Are sex and beauty merely skin deep? Are Libeskind's claims just hype and marketing meant to be tolerated and glazed over? Or is it the role of critics to go beyond description and hold the architect's claims to the rigorous scrutiny of interpretation and discover if the work holds up?

What do you think?