The Bigger the Better?

“Skyscrapers capture the public’s imagination through novelty and sheer size”

A new phenomenon occurring in the world today is the construction of skyscrapers.  One fact I found extremely interesting was that in 1990, 80% of the 100 tallest skyscrapers in the world were built in North America and by 2010, and by 2010, 80% of the tallest buildings were out there.  Skyscrapers often represent a city’s ambition to create an image of progress and to show the rest of the world who they are and that they want to be known.  Living in Chicago most of my life, I saw the pride our city takes in the Willis (Sears) Tower.  You can’t find a postcard without the Chicago skyline, in particular the Willis Tower, on it.  It has truly become a landmark and tourist attraction. 

Being a big fan of Frank Lloyd Wright, I decided to look deeper into the Mile High Illinois Skyscraper he proposed for downtown Chicago.  I was surprised to see that the Burj Khalifa truly does bear a startling resemblance to Wright’s design.  Because of the height and complexity of Wright’s proposed structure, the building was divided into three sectors, each with its own sky-lobby that could accommodate landscaped open space "rooms", a concept that is now commonly used in towers constructed around the world.  Frank Lloyd Wright was truly a visionary.  Fifty years later and the world’s tallest building is almost an exact replica of his drawings. 

With the expanding population growth as well as the continuous development of urban centers, buildings in general will be getting taller.  I decided to research more about the skyscrapers of today and when I did I came across an article by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) about a concept called “Vanity Height”.  According to the article, vanity height is the distance between a skyscraper’s highest occupiable floor and its architectural top.  The results demonstrated that skyscrapers have a surprisingly uneven ratio of habitable and non-occupiable space.  From the diagram below you can see that 30-40% of some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers are non-occupiable.  It seems as though the architect is more concerned about the art and form of the building rather than the function.  While there has indeed been a growth in population, if the new skyscrapers being built are 30-40% non-occupiable, are they really benefiting the population crisis as much as we think they are? 

The Burj Khalifa’s total vanity height is 244m which, on its own, would stand as Europe’s 11th tallest skyscraper.  Cities such as Dubai are putting a great emphasis to create skyscrapers, purely to attract tourists.  Oftentimes in skyscrapers, you tend to see more of the architect’s characteristics then the city itself.  The city's identity and culture is being lost in these buildings.  As architects and designers I believe it is our job to reflect the identity of the people we are designing for.

Today, the motivation to build skyscrapers is less about economic demand and more about prestige, attracting tourists and businesses, and attaining global status.  In a way, it seems that skyscrapers are less about creating an architectural solution and more about creating an attraction.  Skyscrapers are aiding in environmental problems, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.  The competition to see who can be taller may result in more harm than good.  My hope is that if we are building taller, we are also building greener.  

Iconic Architecture or Global Propaganda?

There are some important concerns that arise when emerging cities use skyscrapers, designed by star architects, as a means of asserting their global significance. Large-scale skyscraper projects, using the latest in engineering technology and cutting edge design, are prevalent taking place in cities such as Dubai and Shanghai. In these locales they are being used to bolster the local economy while asserting their global status as an emerging and prosperous city.

Both Kheir Al Kodmany in Importing Urban Giants: Re-Imaging Shangai and Dubai with Skyscrapers and Paul Goldberger in Castle in the Air: Dubai Reaches For The Sky, explore this phenomena. These symbols of prosperity are often lacking in functional design and do not meet the needs of the location nor reflect the culture. Goldberger notes, “As cities, more than nations now compete to attract global investment and global tourism, they seek differentiation and symbolic modernity. (…) However these architects’ work is often conceptual displaying their personal creative artistry and they often overlook the fine grain of culture, identity or locality (24).” When there is an economic downturn these buildings quickly loose their original identity and intent, adding to their impersonal nature. The Burj Khalifa in Dubai and the current title holder of World’s Tallest Building, was originally built to assert Dubai’s growing influence on the global stage but it was in fact named for another city’s Sheikh. Neighboring Abu Dhai’s rule Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan revived the project when Dubai experienced a financial downturn. The enormous financial implications of these projects leave them vulnerable to being stripped of their original intent altogether. Additionally, Burj Khalifa’s design did not incorporate its original inspiration of local plants, another example of the architects’ disregarding the local culture.

Needless to say, these projects typically serve global ambitions that do not respect nor consider local needs or culture. This is evidenced by the Burj Khalifia debacle but there are other examples as well. The Abraj Al-Bait Towers Complex was recently completed in Saudi Arabia on a site overlooking Islam’s holiest shrine, the Kaaba. With its large elevated clock, a seven star hotel, an enormous prayer area and a shopping mall, the enormous building has been lauded with destroying the historic character of the holy city and the sanctity of the holy site containing the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba in order for Saudi Arabia make their mark on the global stage and accommodate the rich.  For The Shanghai Tower Gensler applied the design concept of traditional lane houses where rooms are arranged around a communal space.  Despite this well-intentioned start, when this concept was applied to a vertical building it lost its meaning altogether.

There is a clear disconnect between the goal of these emerging cities and the needs of its citizens in the undertaking of these building projects. It appears that the city intends to create record setting, iconic skyscrapers using modern technology and designs in order to promote their cities as global players. However its citizens hold the desire for these buildings to meet their functional needs as well as give a global impression that accurately reflects their unique culture. These cities have their eyes so focused on creating a spectacle of wealth and engineering that impresses their counterparts that they are missing the mark in terms of creating a skyscraper that is functional and culturally appropriate. It reminds me of women who covet th expensive bag Birkin bag, an outrageously price $15,000 purse and status symbol. Is it likely that this bag meets the needs of every customer in its size and storage capabilities? It is highly unlikely. And yet, function is overlooked in order to make a statement of status and wealth. I see this same problem present in the commissioning of large-scale skyscrapers with the intent to attract more wealth to a city and send a message of prosperity to the world. Without meeting the functional needs of its users and incorporating a cultural uniqueness to its design, can these buildings even be considered iconic? Or are they just shallow displays of propaganda?

Mirror image

Humanity & Design

“The building …becomes a receptacle for human-centred values working in concert with the technologies of the machine age. The human-ness of Lever House has something to do with its egalitarianism in the use of light and colour ; the building’s luxuries are equal-access.

Lees-Maffei, Grace (2013-09-12). Writing Design: Words and Objects (Kindle Locations 2834-2837). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Why is design something to be critiqued? What are we looking for out of it? 

Maybe “good” design comes from the pursuit to better understand ourselves, and why we are here. Maybe, the most complete way to critique a design is to ask, ‘Does this thing reflect a greater understanding of humanity?’

The readings outlined several different considerations, which effect how a design is received by the public, and of course by the critic. You have,

1) Economically - The place of the design in the local and global economy. Think about how The open door policy 1978 gave way to the skyscraper boom in China. 

2) Politically - The place of the design in local and global politics. In a post- 9/11 world, Mohamed Ali Alabbar, Chairman of EMAAR Properties stated Burj Khalifa is,  “…meant to counter that [negative] image by bringing ‘good news.’ …the developers stated (EMAAR, 2006):The goal of Burj Dubai [Khalifa] is not simply to be the world’s highest building. It’s to embody the world’s highest aspirations.” IMPORTING URBAN GIANTS:
Re-Imaging Shanghai and Dubai with Skyscrapers

3) The superlative nature of a design – Does the design hold a title, push limitations?

4) The effects of the design on the environment, i.e. - The sinking city of Shanghai.

5) The connection between design and local culture

6) The user experience in the space

All considerations are important, but why are they being considered and how would a designer achieve a ‘good’ review based on these considerations?

My understanding is that the most complimentary reviews were given to those designs that paid attention to the humanity of world the design inhabits – this would be a consideration of culture, physical space, time, and technology (I am separating technology from culture because the former is a mechanical, technical, and tangible item, while culture, even though technology is a huge piece of it, is intangible, historical, and emotional).

Where the design deviates from humanity is where the imperfections of the design are most present, and seem most highly critiqued.  In Re-Imaging Shanghai and Dubai with Skyscrapers The Burj Khalifa is criticized for its lack of obvious connection to the local culture. In Mecca, Saudi Arabia the Abraj Al-Bait Towers Complex has been criticized as destroying the “…historic character of the holy city and the sanctity of the holy site…”. In a talk to students at the Architectural Association in 1953, New York Times reviewer Mumford used the UN secretariat building as an example of “…‘folly-architecture’ that ‘consists in creating a monument to the architect and not a solution of his client’s problem’.” Lees-Maffei, Grace (2013-09-12). Writing Design: Words and Objects (Kindle Locations 2857-2858). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

 The UN secretariat building, New York, New York.

In these examples it is clear that the design neglected some part of the human experience, which we value. Whether it is a seemingly flippant exclusion of culture, a show of disrespect to the surrounding physical context, a lack of user-friendliness, or a pointless display of ego, design seems to be regarded as most successful when it begins to reach the ideals that we seek for ourselves as humans.

Looking back at the history of the US, we can easily see how design has reacted to the greater understanding of humanity. In the later half of the 20^th century, the US transitioned from spaces where people were segregated by race, to spaces where people interact are equals.

More recently, we have seen a great focus on recreating the office to facilitate productivity by finding new ways to organize communal space, recreation space, even the physical position in which people work.

In the readings this week, we hear Mumford vehemently praise the Lever House for a number of design choices because, for him, the building is a perfect specimen of Modernism and the attention paid to humanity in that moment.

All these changes in design were born out of a better understanding of how we function as humans and what it means to be one. As we look at how our culture has implemented our human evolution into design today, to me, this is synonymous with the evolution into a ‘glocal’ community, and the success of those designs built with an awareness of ‘glocalism’.

To me, glocal community is the landscape of the future, and will be (and really already is) the next level of deeper understanding of what it means to be human on this Earth in this moment. Thus, while the terms and ideas and linguistic structure of criticism changes, I think it all comes back to the pursuit to reflect on the best understanding of humanity in the now.

FINALLY MADE IT ON THE BLOG!!! This is last week's, tune in soon for this week's!

Does the problematic relationship between architecture and critics begin with the word ‘design’?

We hold artists of all kinds to higher standards than ourselves – While most of us have finger-painted, we are not all painters. While most of us have cracked an egg into a bowl of Bisquik, we are not all chefs. Our society recognizes one must acquire skills, experience, and talent to be an “artist”.  As soon as we collectively regard someone as an artist, their works as art or ‘designs’, we immediately seek out to be moved, feelings evoked, minds ‘blown’. While architects do acquire a certain level of education, and undoubtedly master a certain skill set, are our expectations of them, and thus the critics’ responses to their works, crippling their ability to develop architecture with a better sense of social and economic responsibility? *

The arts are historically connected with luxury – People with disposable income collect and/or are patrons of it, while the population with less disposable income lives without it, as it is not necessary to survival. Something luxurious is defined as, habitual indulgence in or enjoyment of comforts and pleasures in addition to those necessary for a reasonable standard of well-being. I offer the following assumptions:

1)    Only a certain amount of people can afford to hire an architect

2)    For this reason it can be considered a luxury

3)   Luxury comes with certain connotations – unnecessary, opulent, extravagant

4)    The architect feels the need to live up to the expectations

5)    The critic holds an architect to these expectations

If we linguistically regarded architecture as something other than art, if culturally we removed that stigma from it, firstly, would we begin to recognize it as somewhere between luxury and survival something of it’s own, and secondly, would criticisms begin to encourage socially responsible projects in light of that transition in thought? Would architects feel less pressure to impress?

While it is easy to say, “well let’s just all begin to value economic, social, and environmental responsibility more”, what is not easy is catalyzing or furthering such a huge shift in thought. My opinion is, it is probably not possible to linguistically change how we address and discuss architecture. It is engrained in us, and comes from a long history undeniable of itself.

As a solution-oriented person, my question to myself is always, How can we improve that? How, in the future, can we as professionals in the design field, improve our critiquing skills in order to promote more socially, economically, and environmentally responsible buildings? As with many socio-economic issues in the world, I find the answer usually comes back to education and inevitably, money. We, in this class, are the answer to that this question. We are the ones who create the new culture around design. But the existence of an aware culture does not translate into physical change in world. Inevitably, people want an incentive to change. This, is where my questions still linger. In a culture which worships celebrity, which likens excess with access and success, what could incentivize people to make more responsible choices?

While this discussion just leaves me with more questions about the values and accessibilities of our culture, I think it is worth stating that the majority of people aim to please or accomplish goals -  If those goals, and milestones are linked to the ‘extravagant’ the ‘ never-before-seen’ , then what motivation does one have to strive for something more subtle, smart, accessible?

*This is not to say I want to devalue architecture by disregarding the creativity and innovation, which is inherently apart of it. Rather, I feel it is important to explore how connecting a certain set of words to an idea can shape our views on that idea.

Bethany Giblin

Written Critiques in an Image-Filled World

Lange and Maffei’s focus on the skyscraper and its symbolic representation within American architecture provided varying points of view on how architectural criticism can be applied to the same work. Having been unfamiliar with the Lever House prior to this week’s readings, I enjoyed getting to know the structure through the eyes of the critics. It was definitely tempting to pull up photographs of the building before and during the readings, but I am glad I didn’t. Reading about the building before seeing an image of it forced me to take each of Mumford’s descriptive details to heart. I had to build the structure from the ground up in my mind. In a world where 360° building tours can be Googled and HD images are right at our fingertips, I think the importance of written description and critique is oftentimes overlooked or seen as unnecessary. (Admittedly, I have found them somewhat of a drag and took the easy way out of simply looking at an image.) However, I found that by reading before seeing, I was able to imagine the importance of written critiques both in a time before the Internet and today, as well.

There are so many important buildings that are no longer in existence, in their most pristine condition or likely impossible for me to ever see in person. I’ve assumed in the past that pictures will likely do the trick to gain a decently full understanding of the structures. Ann Sobiech Munson’s elaboration on the New Yorker alone changed that for me. The description of the New Yorker’s audience and the world Lewis Mumford wrote in gave so much life to the Lever House that just can’t be passed along through a picture or virtual tour. Mumford’s detailed walk-through and Goldberger’s architect-focused point of view gave the Lever House a much more robust description and truly brought it to life.

I also found it interesting how the Lever House, in the sense of iconic architecture, was the impetus of a more human-centered design school. Light, open space and quality over quantity were the true focus for the architects and designers – as opposed to the ever-popular ‘taller is better mindset’. I’ve always thought of these as much more modern-day thinking – with a somewhat recent surge in research on things like sick building syndrome, optimum work environments, etc. In addition, I think this proves that one successful project can completely change the landscape of architecture.

On a somewhat separate note, I think it’s worth noting the seemingly drastic difference of focus of the Skidmore, Owing and Merrill group’s design approach. The Lever House proved to be thoughtful beyond its time. The focus was equally on form and function – and both innovatively impactful. I was shocked to read that SOM was also responsible for the Burj Khalifa. The idea of the building as a whole seems completely antiquated, albeit outrageous. From the descriptions in both articles, the structure and thought process around it feels lazy and loose – nothing like the SOM from the days of the Lever House. Perhaps I’ve been too swayed by the tone of the articles but to me, the overall purpose, spirit and outcome of the structure is artificial and theme-park-like. It reminds me of the discussion in our second class – can something be considered iconic simply because it’s part of history/sets a record (I think we were talking about iconic Presidents)?