| TMP Article:
An exchange of views between Oscar Machado and Lucien Steil |
| "The gradual solution is to teach architecture in context with urbanism in architecture schools." -- Oscar Machado.
"Architectural education of course is a priority, and you give the direction." -- Lucien Steil.
Oscar Machado and Lucien Steil,
May 2002
Reprinted from PRO-URB listserv | |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Oscar Machado
Sent: vendredi 10 mai 2002 00:52
To: PRO-URB
Subject: some thoughts on the style debate
John asks: "Where do we go from here ?" My pessimistic answer is nowhere for now, as it relates to architecture. Unfortunately we have not made much progress in the past 20 years with respect to architecture. In fact we have succumbed to the odious suburban stereotypes invade NU territory.
I agree with John's critical assessment of his tour of NU projects. I have seen these projects also and the most noticeable problem they have is the implementation of architectural projects. It is at the architectural scale that NU is failing, in 95% of the cases. This is the fault of the architects without a doubt. Amazingly, in some cases, it is even the fault of the urban "master" planners that just don't know how buildings work.
In Architecture I notice the lack of understanding of scale, composition, balance, rhythm, authenticity, function, materials, site disposition, room arrangements, patterns, elements, attachments, characteristics, style. should I go on. No! why should I? We just don't have time to teach (the ones involved) ARCHITECTURE. The best we can do for now is set traditions. Usually the projects heavy on tradition are the better ones.
I think it is going to take another 20 years at least, with perhaps another generation of architects, for architecture and urbanism to work in synchrony. I accept mediocre architecture (to my dismay and of many others, I am sure)but have no tolerance for bad urbanism.
The immediate solution to this problem is simple: Have both urban and architectural designers learn about building types as it relates to their site disposition and configuration. And with more descriptive urban and architectural standards these two critical definitions of building types can hopefully guarantee better urbanism.
The gradual solution is to teach architecture in context with urbanism in architecture schools. This is for the long haul for we have unfortunately begun with a clean slate as a result of modernism's destruction of tradition. To this day not too many architecture schools have taken this agenda.
Then, some day if we are still around, we can debate style.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucien Steil
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 01:55:10 +0200
To: PRO-URB
Subject: Re: some thoughts on the style debate
Oscar
Bravo Monsieur Oscar. I hoped you would say it!
Where do we go from there?
Architectural education of course is a priority and you give the direction. Nu has to interfere very offensively in this matter and I know that this is happening in the very moment!
However the scission between Architecture and Urbanism is not only a general fact in the Academies, but it is also a quite common practice in NU. The reasons are not an ignorance of the importance of architecture but the belief that architecture is a discipline which is autonomous of the larger scale of the city. Some classicists think that a good building creates by its excellence its own context and some New Urbanists think that excellent urbanism can take any architecture. Both are fallacies!
Oscar, you are very pessimistic and slightly disillusioned...My experience with first year students is very encouraging, because the argument is so limpid that there can't be much resistance.
Urban architecture in context and with clearly articulated civic responsibilities: the students feel it as an honour to serve the community rather than to meditate on their private torments. Working in a complex and real social and urban context makes their project endeavours so much more stimulating. The limitations and rules increase the challenge of creativity rather than to destroy it! To develop a particular character and a proper originality within the conditions of a precise program and a local culture offer incredible opportunities of emulation to students and architects alike!
I think it depends very much whether the CNU takes the challenge to define far more clearly how architecture and urbanism have to relate to one another. It is definitely a choice to be made in favour of more articulate architectural integration within the urban planning process, acknowledging that the principles which guide the urban design cannot be abandoned when it comes to architecture. The liberality and opportunism of architecture compromises the strength of NU, because if style might not be the central preoccupation, the consistance and excellence of architecture should in no way be inferior to those of NU!
The terrain of masterplanning and typological coding has been quite thouroughly consolidated. It might be very appropriate, if not urgent to go at architecture with a similar rigour and intelligence. Besides the definition of general principles it seems very reasonable to me to consider architectural coding in a far more comprehensive way and above all in a perspective of legal instrumentality. This has happened all through the history of architecture and has demonstratedly not prevented genius to flourish within a freedom with rules.
Best regards
Lucien |
|
| | |
|
