Matter and Mode
A blog, focused on buildings, the title of which comes from an essay by Flannery O’Connor, “The Nature and Aims of Fiction,” in which she makes this compelling observation:
“It is a good deal easier for most people to state an abstract idea than to describe and thus re-create some object that they actually see.”
So I try to be concrete.
Visit it here: tculvahouse.tumblr.com.
Which Way, New Orleans?
Illuminating the spatial character of New Orleans and its roots in the interchange among culture, topography and urban development. A series of articles based on this material, published on Places:Design Observer, begins with “Stoop, Balcony, Pilot House: Making It Right in the Lower Ninth Ward.” Subsequent articles include “The New Orleans Corner Store” and “Black In Back: Mardi Gras and the Racial Geography of New Orleans.”
More from the series here.
“But I Still Think It’s Ugly”: Explaining Architecture to Non-Architects
A series of articles, published by the AIA California Council (aiacc.org), intended to help architects better explain architecture to other people, with the goal of increasing their appreciation of the buildings that give us such joy and wonder and satisfaction. We want people to like the buildings we design, because, speaking candidly, we want them to ask us to design more of them.
Part 1: Divergent Mindsets
Part 2: Reason and Effect
Part 3: Coming to Terms
Part 4: What the Client Wants
Part 5: How Architects Think
The Tennessee Valley Authority: Design and Persuasion
(NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007)
“The landscapes, buildings, details, graphic elements, and murals of the TVA form a unified ensemble, a completeness in the classical sense, in which nothing may be added or taken away without diminishing the whole. The comprehensiveness of this vision is perhaps as important as any of its explicit messages in asserting the value of the TVA’s unprecedented transformation of a region. In the work of the TVA’s first decade, design is persuasion . . . . Of course, not everyone was convinced . . . . The intricate weave of people’s lives in the landscape does not readily admit comprehensive visions or earthly utopias. Resentment of the TVA’s reengineering of the region lingers there. But just as certain are the benefits to the region, rich in new ways of intertwining our lives with the land.” Tim Culvahouse, editor’s introduction.
Travel suggestions from The Tennessee Valley Authority: Design and Persuasion available as a PDF here.
Buy The Tennessee Valley Authority: Design and Persuasion here.
Follow on Facebook here.
Once Again by the Pacific: Sea Ranch Condo I
Lisa Findley, co-author (Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 2001)
“If you spend only one weekend at the condominium, the unit to rent is Charles Moore’s own, number 9 . . . . Let the others take the loft beds . . . . Volunteer for the window seat. There is surely no finer place to wake up in the morning, overlooking the edge of the bluff, with the surf surging around huge rocks where sea lions are also waking, as the mist dissolves and the sun breaks through the fog . . . . This place, secure and comfortable, and yet on the edge and also reaching beyond the edge, beckons the moment you arrive. And that is the crucial moment, . . . since the weekend itself is hardly more than an extended arrival, ending in a last-minute departure. It is not only for the sake of the preservation of the landscape that the condominium does not encourage you to spill out onto the lawn with your Weber grill and your whiffle ball. You have no time for such things. Instead you find, packed into the simple volumes, a complex set of spaces that allows two people to begin a conversation without preliminaries, or a half-dozen people to sit down to a meal in a setting that is contained and yet open, obliquely, to the sea.”
Looking Backward: Architectural Theory Since the 1960s
Review of Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, edited by Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf; Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: an Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-1995, edited by Kate Nesbitt; and Architecture Theory since 1968,edited by K. Michael Hays (Design Book Review, Fall 2000)
“As I was pondering the years these books cover, the invitation for my twenty-fifth high school reunion arrived in the mail, prompting, as such coincidences will in midlife, questions: Is this my architectural life? Can I claim the familiar but at times uncongenial legacy described in these anthologies as my own? Must I? One does, after all, want to belong, to have been part of the memorable movements of one’s time. To have been present at the beginning of something—the first days of the Fillmore, or CBGB, or postmodernism. Perhaps this is one reason we write theory: to certify our place amidst the contingencies of our time. Remember that day? What a time that was. I was there. The flip side, of course, is that people are already starting to talk about deconstruction the way people talk about Woodstock.”
Review of Kenneth Frampton, Labour, Work and Architecture: Collected Essays on Architecture and Design
(Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 2003/Winter 2004)
“[Frampton wants us to] remember that the conditions he evokes—the definition of domain, consonance with climate, material textures—are discovered in the world not as absolute qualities but as relative ones (‘the intensity of light and darkness, heat and cold; . . . the relative inertia of the body as it traverses the floor’). The faculty required to effect such qualities is not the faculty of choosing, but that of judging. Not ‘whether,’ but ‘how much?’—how dark? how rough? (There is no such thing as a perfectly’ rough surface.)”
Hello . . . Is Anybody Out There?
(Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 1999)
“’The ideal kind of building is one you don’t see’: this is a characteristic remark of Joseph Esherick, AIA Gold Medalist, who died this past December. His New York Times obituary begins, as if in wonder that such a thing could be, ‘Joseph Esherick, a self-effacing architect . . . .’ Esherick shares this improbable quality with a distinguished line of San Francisco Bay Area architects, from Julia Morgan to William Wurster to Jim Jennings. Of these, Wurster is the acknowledged master of the invisible building; beginning in the 1920s, he designed houses for comfortably well-to-do clients who, as a matter of principle, took care not to be conspicuous . . . . Walter Benjamin, writing in 1935—the year [Wurster’s] Gregory farmhouse was published in Architecture—made an observation that will be familiar to many readers of this magazine. He was trying to imagine the effects of the mechanical reproduction of images on our reception of works of art. What sort of difference might it make that people could pick up a color lithograph of the Mona Lisa for a few reichsmarks? Casting about for an analogy, he struck upon architecture, which, he writes, ‘has always represented the prototype of a work of art the reception of which is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction . . . .’ Imagine the consequences for architectural theory of a proposition that asserts not Joseph Esherick’s aspiration that buildings not be attended to, but rather the inevitability that they won’t be. When has contemporary theory paused to consider this question of reception? The short answer is: it hasn’t.”
Figuration and Continuity in the Work of H.H. Richardson
(Perspecta 24, 1988)
“Richardson clearly exults in . . . ambiguity . . . . He accepts (whether consciously or not) that buildings are both necessarily continuous and necessarily figurative. They are necessarily continuous, because they are part of a physically and temporally continuous world; they are necessarily figurative, because that is how we perceive things and represent them. These necessities may be turned to advantage. In architecture as a continuous thing we may find our home; in architecture as a figurative thing we may find our voice.”