More on CNU, "the raisin in the oatmeal" and pedestrian-oriented starchitecture6/21/05 update

"The raisin in the oatmeal." The exceptional, weird, goofy, iconic structure amidst a sea of mere urban excellence. That's what the Charter is discussing and it is on this paragraph that Stefanos Polyzoides claims to justify an urban design award to Frank Gehry:

Excerpt from the CNU Charter:

The Block, the Street and the Building # 7
Civic buildings and public gathering places require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.

It's saying that there are special, exceptional buildings which should be allowed to vary from the default position of the pedestrian-oriented building (i.e. allow departure from the Three Rules). Putting aside the make-weight cant of "community identity and the culture of democracy," I agree entirely. The Three Rules are merely the rebuttable presumption, the default position. Should we allow exceptions to them? Absolutely yes!

But the manner in which the Charter phrases this exception is imprecise and needs clarification and tightening up. There are at least three big problems:

1. It's unclear as to what is allowed. It allows for far too many types of uses. It is so broad that the exception will swallow the rule. For example, what are "Civic buildings and public gathering places?" The ceremonial "City Hall" might well be exceptional butCivic buildings could well include an office building in which municipal employees work. Such a structure is essentially an office building -- to the pedestrian it doesn't matter who is working there. As to "public gathering places" -- that could include, taking the words in their plain meaning, a Starbucks, and that wouldn't be any sort of perversion of the language though it might be of the Charter's intention, which of course is precisely the problem. The excerpt above might have been intended for concert halls etc but that's not what it says. Furthermore, if it is intended for concert halls, then why not for movie theaters? The writing is vague and unclear which is usually a sign of faulty thinking from the outset i.e. clear expression emerges from clear thinking. Paragraph 7 is muddled in both concept and expression, though I sympathize with what I guess is its intent.

2. Because the paragraph is unclear as to the range of uses, it fails to set forth any sort of hierarchy which might be used by a public process -- and yes there has to be a public process -- to decide which "exceptional use" is truly exceptional. When you start to consider the vast number of public and NGO institutions (forget about profit-making enterprises for now) which could qualify under the rubric of " civic buildings and public gathering places" you realize that there wouldn't be very many "unexceptional" buildings left. If Disney Hall can unilaterally declare itself exempt from being a good urban structure then why can't Planet Hollywood or some other music club? Which qualifies as a "public gathering place?" Do you have be a non-profit beggar to be exempt from the responsibilities to the sidewalk?

3. Most importantly perhaps, it sets up a false premise -- that the "exceptional building" can not be pedestrian-oriented. Why says? Why not? The elements are so incredibly simple -- respect for The Three Rules is all it takes -- that it astonishes me that some think there is an inherent conflict. Could Gehry (who I have no doubt is extremely skilled) have designed Disney Hall so that it had a good street presence? Absolutely yes. Of course; it's a no-brainer. You can walk around the structure and see the many lost opportuinities. We can have our cake and eat it too. You can have pedestrian-oriented starchitecture if you know to ask.

There are probably other problems with this paragraph (from the Charter) but that's a good start to undermining any rational basis for awarding Gehry an urban design award for, of all things, Disney Hall.

Update:

Yet another problem with basing an award on this paragraph.

It's called timing. Disney Hall has not been in existence long-enough for one to call it an organic prt of Los Angeles. Is there any to indicate that Disney Hall is actually a "public gathering place" of any real psychological and lasting importance to the community? It's premature to make such a judgment. Of course Disney Hall gets a lot of media attention now and takes up a lot of psychic room because -- it gets a lot of media attention. But does anyone really care about it? Is it beloved? Is it iconic in the way that the Troll statue in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood -- modest as it is -- has become something that people like and care for. I don't dispute that one of the goals of Disney Hall may have been -- in some vague and poorly-thought through way -- to be a part of the community etc etc. But is it? It seems to me that there must be some sort of showing -- over a period of years -- that the structure is an important part of the city and Disney Hall is simply too young to be able to demonstrate that.

Comments

[A.C. Douglas]

The Three Rules are merely the rebuttable presumption, the default position. Should we allow exceptions to them [for exceptional buildings]? Absolutely yes!

Keep on writing stuff like that, and you'll lose your SSB status PDQ.

Regards,

ACD

[David Sucher]

ACD,
I appreciate the possibility that I might possibly be redeemed from the black-hole of bourgeois babbibtry. But let's not go overboard too quickly -- the "exceptionalism" exemption is to be bestowed rarely, sparingly and probably by SSB urbanists just like me. It is not a license to shock & awe but to surprise & delight. And -- as I think I make fairly clear, above -- there are actually very few circumstances in which a building can claim that it cannot follow the Three Rules -- exceptional situations, in fact. Please consider The Three Rules as something so simple -- like having two fire exits -- that it is hardly worthy debating and by no stretch of imagination can it take away from artistic (ugh!) "genius." The Three Rules are like gravity -- inescapable if you want a walkable city.

[doug kelbaugh]

what are "the three rules" to which this text refers?
they sound like gospel from the lack of need to identify them!

and what is "excellensece" in the first sentence (just kidding.)

doug

[David Sucher]

Yes I need to be more careful of spelling. Thanks.

As to the Rules, please see The Three Rules.