Not An Egg

Laurence Aurbach writes:

Recently a winner in the Alaskan State Capitol Building competition was announced, a wan yet overbearing decon/avant garde/what-have-you creation by Morphosis and mmenseArchitects. Soon thereafter, Thom Mayne, the principal of Morphosis, won the Pritzker Prize.

Now the talented Marianne Cusato has designed a counter-project for the capitol building -- "Alaska Deserves a Real Capitol Building, Not an Egg" -- using the historic precedent of Russian civic buildings built in the 19th century. Cuasato is a 3rd generation Alaskan, born and raised in Anchorage and Kenai.

Cusato's proposal -- which she has offered as a private citizen -- is far better than the Morphosis design for several reasons.

First, it creates and orders its surrounding spaces into accessible, functional parks and greens.  Those spaces provide a suitably grand setting for the state's most important civic structure.  They relate the building to the street in a pedestrian-friendly manner and also mediate a difficult, steep site with graduated terraces.

Second, Cusato's design provides a more legible point of reference in the city fabric.  It creates a focal point for the main approach to the site.  It uses near/far layering and axes to establish a dramatic setting in relation to the background mountainous terrain.  It creates a distinct and comprehensible landmark for the city and its skyline.

Third, the design conveys meaning.  It connects to the nation's heritage of state capitol buildings, while also being uniquely Alaskan.  It demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of classical and traditional proportions, composition, and ornament -- one that conveys elevated values of order, propriety, balance and responsibility.  By drawing upon enduring principles of Western civic building design, the proposal avoids faddishness and instant obsolescence.  It promises to remain proud, relevant and well-loved, far into the future. 

Modernists will object that a tradition-based design is "not of our time." They argue that new materials and construction methods mean that only un-ornamented, machine-like designs with a high novelty factor can be authentic.

But does technological innovation require that we abolish all references to our architectural heritage?  Did the Romans abolish columns and pediments following the invention of concrete?  Did the architect of the U.S. Capitol abolish domes and cupolas following the invention of cast iron? On the contrary, those materials were used to take traditional and classical design patterns into new avenues of expression.

Comments about the Alaskan state capitol design may be sent directly to the Alaskan State Capitol Planning Commission at info@alaskacapitol.org

Cupolas of Capitalism: State Capitol Building Histories is a resource of state capitol building images from around the United States. Trivia question: Did you know that 40 state capitols have cupolas?

Comments

[Nick]

Two reflections:

1. It's apropos of nothing, I suppose, but it seems to me that this Morphosis design (what a hackneyed name for an architectural firm, by the way) is better than their usual work only because Alaskan cities tend to be... well, ugly. I've never been to Alaska, and I'd guess that a few of the oldest settlements have some interesting districts, but every photo I've ever seen of Alaskan cities is depressing. Utilitarian with no regard to aesthetics.

http://www.worldcityphotos.org/USA-AC/

I realize that many tiny Alaskan hamlets should be that way (no point in putting effort into a community tht consists of an airport, a general store and barracks), but Juneau is a proper town, and should reflect Alaskan history. Which leads me to...

2. I'm not particularly enamored of Casuto's design. OK: it's considerably better than the officially chosen Morphosis design, and I appreciate the amateur effort. Indeed, civic planners should look outside the architectural establishment more. What I see in the Casuto plan, though, is a direction rather than an end. A huge improvement would be made by switching the onion dome and the cupola. The main section of this capitol resembles the other forty with cupolas, and it's boring. Why not emphasize Alaska's uniqueness even more? One need not be trendy to do so; indeed, emphasizing Alaskanness would mean not neo-classicism, but a reflection of man's battle against and cooperation with natural elements.

I like the Casuto layout, but I'd center the focus on the onion dome, and I'd make the outside of the building look more rustic. Offhand, I picture the outside as rugged stone and wood, with nature-based bas-reliefs, and perhaps I'd add some industrial element to reflect the state's reliance on petroleum extraction.

[Nick]

Apology: I missed that Ms. Casuto is a professional architect, so ignore the word "amateur." As I said, the layout is excellent, and the drawings should have told me otherwise. That said, a survey of early US government building competitions indicate that amateurs are capable of worthwhile designs.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Thoughtful comments, Nick, thanks. The point of the counter-proposal is not that this particular design or this particular style is the best or only one suitable for the state capitol. It's more to let people know that there is a range of alternatives available, and that there are many architects who are skilled in the intricacies of traditional design patterns.

The Morphosis proposal stirred up a lot of dislike and discontent and the Alaskan State Capitol Planning Commission has hastily gone into damage control mode, trying to reassure everyone that the Morphosis design won't be as bad as the drawings show. And now they are reminding critics that Thom Mayne won the Pritzker Prize, "architecture's highest honor, a la the Nobel Prize," as they put it. But the Pritzker Prize is not the be-all and end-all of architectural taste, and if the commission put the "novelty" proposals up against tradition-based proposals for a vote, it'd pretty quickly realize what the overwhelming public preference is.

[Will Cox]

Oh, I don't know, Nick. These pictures aren't depressing or ugly.

http://www.alaska.com/about/photos/places/
http://www.nps.gov/sitk/
http://www.sitka.org/
http://dioceseofalaska.org/aleutianchain.html
http://www.city.ketchikan.ak.us/
http://www.alaska.com/images/headers/header-tatitlek.jpg
http://www.juneauphotos.com/

What ugliness is shown are buildings that one could find in any of the lower 48.

[Dan]

I must take great exception to Nick's comment about "civic planners going outside the architectural establishment more." Architects are trained in much the same way as doctors or lawyers. They all have professional degrees. Would Nick suggest we look to a hack untrained doctor to perform a heart transplant?

In many cases, competitions like the one undertaken by the Alaskan State Capitol Planning Commission are to provoke ideas. If the design of something new or ultramodern in this case is entertained then a dialogue is created so the collective whole can design the correct image for what the Alaska State Capitol should look like. Thom Mayne's design was not an end all but simply the initial proposal. Designs always undertake several alterations and seldom end up as they were initially proposed (especially as more and more people's inputs are assimilated).

I'm not advocating Thom Mayne's design in this case as I was a bigger fan of the NBBJ proposal. But I do feel that all entries are far superior to Miss Cavuto's lame duck attempt at false historicism. Too many buildings built today are forced to fit in or made to look old. There is a beauty to having modern buildings next to 200 year old structures in they are able to place each other properly in history. Travel through Europe and you'll understand.

[Laurence Aurbach]

The idea of "proper placement" in history is a canard, a convenient fiction used to justify preference for one style over another. Let's face it, modernism is ancient history now. Frank Lloyd Wright developed the Prairie Style a century ago. In the 1920s, Corbusier issued his manifesto, built his iconic houses, and formed CIAM, the movement's organization that carried International Style to worldwide fame. For today's architecture students, it was the era of their great-great-grandparents.

And what of the neo-classical icons of American civic culture? They aren't all relics of the 19th century. The National Archives, housing the U.S.'s most important documents, was designed in 1930. The Jefferson Memorial, designed in 1937. The east front (main entrance) of the U.S. Capitol, designed in 1957. Are these designs more modern than Villa Savoye?

Modernists seem to think that history is something to run from. They accuse tradition-based designs of being "historicist," as if that was a moral crime. But Mayne's historical influences are apparent: Corbusian ribbon windows; ground-level pilotis and upper level overhang emulating Mies van der Rohe; sleek white International Style surfacing, etc. Cusato's design is equally innovative, if not more so. Her combination of territorial neoclassicism and Russian colonial elements is unique and previously unseen.

The whole argument is a sham. Modernism is so obsolete it's hip -- now being revived as ironic nostalgia for Rat Pack and Space Age cool. Furthermore, "modern" is a time period, not a style. Both Mayne's and Cusato's designs were created in the past six months; they are equally ultramodern.

[Frank Baker]

Alaska's architecture should aspire to match the resplendent beauty, particularly the shape of the mountains. A traditional dome reaching to the sky, using materials compatible and conforming to the look of the surrounding terrain, would be modified to contain some of Alaska's historic elements, i.e. Russian history, similar to Cusato proposal. The Morphosis design belongs in Las Vegas, or better yet, on the first Mars colony.

[Wade Price]

"Alaska's architecture should aspire to match the resplendent beauty, particularly the shape of the mountains" -- Skip the building. Just drive a shaft into the mountain behind Juneau. Create an underground complex. Voila'...A capitol "building" which is, most definately, unique and functional.