The irony of the award

I left this comment at John Massengale's:

Well of course I almost entirely agree with you; I only caveat your conclusion about the aesthetic appeal of Hadid's Rosenthal Center.

I don't swoon; but based on the photo, I rather like it. It seems to be an ordinary, decent urban building: a straight-forward "Three Rules" street-level frontage with diverting upper-stories. And it seems to have just-enough fenestration at the upper levels to prevent it from becoming a leaden, hostile "block." (I think we need to leave room for the infrequent architectural program such as a museum which discourage a lot of windows.) All-in-all, a decent job, done according to the basic rules of urbanism. Again, maybe not "great" or "ideal" but a credible work which helps create a good urban street.

So what is the irony? What I find ironic is that she is being given an award (primarily for this building, I'd wager, her first in North America) for a design which by anyone but a "name architect" -- i.e. a Starchitect -- would be ignored as "just another ordinary, decent urban building." She is rewarded for doing the banal. Judging by the exterior, she's done a nice piece of urbane and very corporate architecture. The building could easily have Exxon or Pfizer carved discretely in its facade. But no one will admit that this is just a decent street-enfronting urban building; instead and for some reason which escapes me, they cobble-together fantasmagoric expressions to try to convince that the Rosenthal is unusual, ground-breaking, cutting-edge, blah-blah-blah. That's irony.

Comments

[John Massengale]

What do you like? The Neo-Brutalism that makes the old New Brutalism look delicately scaled? The banal glass detailing? All the concrete? Or the way that it looks like all the concrete will fall on you?

Seriously - Cincinatti is a real city, and it's not enough to say that you like a building there just because it does what a few hundred other buildings in the city do, i.e., confirm the streetwall. What do you like about it?

I can understand the case for saying it's not bad, but what's good about it?

[David Sucher]

But John, I simply like it. I don't love it. And I agree that I like hundreds of other "ordinary, decent urban buildings." That's my point. She's done a fair job; you might well persuade me that it's not even a very good "fair" job.

But what I find astonishing is that this building is held up a poster-child for her ground-breaking design brilliance; but it in its gross outlines, it's just an ordinary urban building. And yet it is held up as something novel. That's what I find astonishing, ironic.

[John Massengale]

BTW, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. There are people who like this building, but I've never met one who can say WHY. And I don't like the building at all, although as I say in my blog, I like some of Hadid's drawings. I've seen worse, but I've also seen hundreds better in Cincinatti alone.

I think Paul Goldberger raved about the building in the New Yorker, but I never saw the review.

[David Sucher]

John, to answer your question, the difficulty is that it is a good "background building." It's basically fairly ordinary...it's not spectacular...the upper-story planes save it from being a blank wall, the up-lights add something to the night-time streetscape. I happen to like concrete, so a certain amount of brutalism is ok with me.

The larger point for me is that in our current urban state, I think it's ok to give people a lot of latitude above say, the 2nd floor (maybe 25-30 feet for a commercial building.)

There must be very strict rules for what happens in that first 30 feet --- but let the owner and designer get "goofy" above that level.

[Brian Miller]

That photo is pretty flattering, actually. I kinda like the "collage-style" of modernist building, so this doesn't bother me very much-from the photo (a dangerous source for making assumptions, as you noted David). Actual visitors, though, found it a functional disaster. Interesting how "functional" modern buildings often work poorly. Have to confuse that bourgeoisie, even if they are paying for the building :)

[David Sucher]

I wouldn't be surprised if the building was a poorly-designed one on the inside. But as a "basic urban box" it's ok.

What continually astonishes me as that not one of the review which I have read (of Hadid's ascedenccy) makes any coherent statement about what she has contributed. We read words like "provocative" but no one is able to explain what that means except with further vagaries.

[Tatyana]

About 5 yrs ago I recall the article in Interior Design magazine on one of "groudbreaking" Hadid residential houses. If I remember correctly, the main concept point she was praised for was the Idea of Emptiness, Nothing as philosophical category reflected in architecture. I vagely remember her talking in the interview of long tradition of Emptiness in Iranian literature, ancient illuminated manuscripts and even garden/landscape architecture(?) Now, since I know nothing (couldn'r resist, sorry) of these matters, I tend to beleive her. Judging by the description of the interiors at Rosenthal (by 2Blowhards commenter), here she went on same ideal again.
That's all commendable, I am sure, just not very comfortable for ordinary, not so enlightened people to live surrounded by...

[Christopher Davis]

Unfortunately, our web host for unfolio has been having problems with the server, so we're temporarily down.

But, those of us who post there are perhaps the only architecture bloggers who have actually visited the building and very likely the only ones who have been there multiple times and within the last week. The comments I made about the Rosenthal Center over at unfolio I think articulate why it is in many ways a good building.

First, let's accept that architecture is indeed a genre of art and it of course has to be functional. When Sullivan said form follows function he wasn't at all advocating big box suburban retail devoid of any emotional experience. FLW amended the quote, saying that "form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union." In fact, the ornamentation that Sullivan himself used, particularly in the Auditorium in Chicago, are very ornate. The art of architecture is what separates it from mere building.

That art of architecture is about the experience - physically, emotionally and intellectually - of space. A pleasant experience is precisely what you're advocating with New Urbanist and Classicist design. But I would question why the strictures of Classicism, which were very much based on material and construction limitations and their own philosophies, are any more valid than a modern interpretation of quality of experience. Zaha simply has a different conception of how to make successful spaces. Why should that be by definition wrong?

[Brian Miller]

I think Christopher Davis makes some good points. My only caveat is that modernist thought has not led to attractive or functional CITIES due to the propoensity for objects floating in space (or in a sea of parking). If a modernist building meets David's Three Rules, I frankly can enjoy odd geometries, sometimes.

I look forward to visiting the building. It does strike me as a little cold from photographs, though.

[David Sucher]

No conflict here with what Davis says. As I think I have said before, "Modernism" is fine with me if it follows the Three Rules, as Hadid does in the Rosenthal.

The interesting issue is why Modernist simply don't trump the issue and outflank the Traditionalists by following the Three Rules and creating buildings which embrace the sidewalk?

[Brian Miller]

Maybe partly because modernism is more than architecture, it was/is also a way of looking at cities-the functional city oriented around the automobile.

Also, since each architect is now an "artist" his or her building has to be displayed in glorious isolation. The city street intereferes a bit with this program.

I know there are certainly exceptions to this theme, but...