Architecture Here and There

Andres Duany, town planner extraordinaire in the New Urbanist way, was impressed by a site offering some helpful town-planning hints to the growing ranks of Occupiers, or, as they hope to come to think of themselves, Occupants. The site is here.

And what follows are a few shots of Occupy Providence, which I invaded a few moments after its opening gong, supposedly at 5, this Saturday afternoon. (Click to enlarge.)

This week, the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art announces the winners of the New England chapter's second annual Bulfinch Awards. These five examples of the classical in art and architecture show a refined appreciation of how the principles of classicism beautify and ennoble the past and the future. This region of the nation, so graced by the hand of history on its heritage, appreciates the new classical revival more, perhaps, than her sister regions. With this awards program the chapter takes pride in its role as a leading proponent of a movement that seeks to return art and architecture to their central influence on the quality of civic life in the region and the country.

The winners of this year's Bulfinches will be honored on Wednesday, Nov. 30 at the Massachusetts Statehouse designed by Charles Bulfinch, whose work transformed New England's capital into a city whose look would increasingly reflect its greatness. The keynote speaker this year will be Judge Douglas Woodlock, a U.S. district court judge in Boston since 1986 who helped develop design guidelines for the U.S. court system. The victorious entries will be on display in the Statehouse's Doric Hall for five days, Nov. 28-Dec. 2. To register, visit the link following your scroll through the display of the five winning entries.

Grand Prize:
Civic: Restoration of Waterbury City Hall, by DeCarol & Doll Inc. of Meriden, Conn.

Tradewood Windows & Doors

Elwin Designs

Click here to register for the November 30 Awards event.

General Eisenhower in a jeep, in Europe during World War II (From the Internet)

Frank Gehry's proposed modernist design for a memorial to Dwight David Eisenhower on the National Mall is being blasted by a well-aimed (and well-deserved) bombardment.

This summer, Gehry's proposal suffered the indignity of a design competition held to find a classical alternative -- so as to honor Eisenhower more properly. The competition basically said that it's okay to object to the design of the world's most famous architect.

Last week, the National Archives held a forum with Gehry about his design. The proposal is not his typical whirly-swirly concoction. It features a relatively staid, up-and-down set of 80-foot posts upholding metal mesh screens the size of basketball courts (wow!) to display imagery related to Eisenhower.

Still, the forum audience peppered Gehry with hostile questions. Though he is more used to being fawned over than criticized, this was no big surprise. America has a long history of honoring its heroes in a grand manner. Kicking tradition in the shins, as the Gehry design does, was sure to raise a lot of eyebrows.

But it did not end there. The National Capital Planning Commission -- which must approve the Gehry design before it is built -- has also raised some difficult questions.

The Associated Press reported "strong reservations" among commission members about the scale of the posts, and the size of the mesh screens, which could block views to and from the U.S. Department of Education, across the street, not to mention views of the U.S. Capitol down Maryland Avenue. Also noted was Gehry's apparent desire to play down Ike's military career and play up his Kansas roots. [AP's report from Washington Post is here.]

Now the Eisenhower family itself has joined the chorus of criticism. Last week, the general's three granddaughters called for a pause in the memorial's design process.

Susan Eisenhower and her sisters Anne and Mary Jean issued a statement saying that they "are concerned about the concept for the memorial, as well as the scope and scale of it. We feel that now is the time to get these elements right -- before any final design approvals are given and before any ground is broken."

I called Susan Eisenhower to ask about the statement, and she emphasized that the family is "unified" in its concerns. She sought to clarify reports that her brother, David, "supports the design." She said that he has said only that as a member of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission that is sponsoring the memorial, he "supports the work of the commission."

The Eisenhowers, whose letter thanked the Congress and the White House for honoring their grandfather, worry that the Gehry proposal, in its scale, misrepresents the essential humility of General Eisenhower.

Regarding that, Gehry says: "I've read everything I could find about him, and he kept referring to Abilene [Kansas, where the Texas-born Eisenhower was raised]. He talks about the barefoot boy who went on this odyssey."

But Gehry has overreacted, confusing a memorial that honors modesty with a modest memorial. He amended the memorial to honor Eisenhower's roots rather than the man himself or his achievements as supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in World War II and as 34th president. Gehry has reduced the stature of the memorial without much apparent reduction in its mammoth scale.

Gehry's high-handedness was on display at the National Archives forum. From the audience, Eric Wind, chairman of the National Civic Art Society, whose competition got the critical ball rolling, asked: "How does this memorial design reflect [Eisenhower's] great deeds and his great works? I think of . . . the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument . . ."

To which Gehry replied, "The Lincoln Memorial is in the form of a Greek temple. What's that got to do with Lincoln?" Huh?! So the only proper memorial for Lincoln would be, in Gehry's opinion, what? A log cabin?

In fact, Lincoln's role as savior of the republic is perfectly reflected by his memorial's classical idiom. Classicism combines grandeur and simplicity to express the classical virtue of humility. I do not want to suggest that the Eisenhower family's concerns are identical to mine, but Eisenhower's greatness deserves the dignified representation offered by classicism.

The Washington Post's Philip Kennicott has put his finger on what Gehry wants: "To break with centuries of tradition in the aesthetics of memorialization." Gehry is not the first, only the latest architect to inflict such a break on the public -- and with the same predictable result: a negative public reaction. The public is tired of being the lab rats for modern architecture's addiction to experimentation. May the spirit of General Eisenhower put an end to that.

[The National Civic Art Society was joined by the Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art in sponsoring the classical counter-competition.]

[In addition to the essay by Dhiru Thadani linked to from the caption of his drawing (at left), here is a fine essay by NCAS board secretary Justin Shubow, in the Daily Caller.]

David Brussat is a member of The Journal's editorial board (dbrussat@providencejournal.com). This column, with more illustrations, is on his blog Architecture Here and There at providencejournal.com.

* * *Counterproposal by Scott Collison

My last column about the Eisenhower memorial design by Frank Gehry concluded with the hope that the Eisenhower family would weigh in on the proposal. They did so last week, in a statement calling for a pause in the design process. Thursday's column will unveil the statement, and put it in context amid criticism incoming (so to speak) from mortars and bazookas positioned on various heights around the District (of Columbia).

The National Civic Art Society sponsored the alternative design competition for the memorial this summer, along with the Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art. The vital role of the NCAS in pushing back against Gehry's design continues to drive the issue.

A source who attended last Wednesday's public forum at the National Archives (lovely building!) held to discuss the design with Gehry kindly taped the event and diligently transcribed portions, and sent me the transcript. It is quite revealing, and it is here:

Introduction by General Carl W. Reddel [from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission]: ...and tonight as a result of the leadership of David Ferriero [Archivist of the U.S.], who has recognized the unique relationship between the designer of the Eisenhower Memorial and the great president that we are honoring. In a nutshell, one of the great transitional leaders in American history was Dwight David Eisenhower: Last president born in the nineteenth century, among other things, the first president to look at reconnaissance photographs taken from satellites in space that he put there. A transitional leader with many other levels, and tonight we have the privilege of hearing from another great transitional leader--in architecture. Frank Gehry, arguably, has brought the architectural profession to a whole new level of understanding of itself. For this great architect, along with his collaborator Robert Wilson, to have the opportunity to share with us the creative process which will enable and result in this great memorial.

[...]

[Introducing Gehry and Wilson] Ferriero: ... Mr. Gehry's work reflects his concern that people live comfortably in the spaces he creates. His buildings address the contexts and culture of their sites, and the budgets of their clients. ...

Collaborating with Mr. Gehry is theater [garbled] Robert Wilson. Mr. Wilson has decisively shaped the look of the theater.

He [Wilson] became a leader of Manhattan's downtown art scene, and turned his attention to large scale opera. ...

***
[Ferriero asked how Gehry and Wilson collaborated]

Gehry: I was sort of the lead in the architectural thing. ... In order to do the competition, I read everything I could [to stomach?], and realized what a great man he [Eisenhower] was. I had no idea he was great. ... It seemed to me that I needed someone who understood how to present the man, how to present him. Somebody who is an actor in his own [garbled], and knows how to develop a character. ... We've known each other a long time. He's turned out to be ten times more than what I expected or what I thought I needed, and now I know I needed in developing this scene. It is, after all, as the great Bard said, "All the world's a stage." We are creating a scene, but it's a complicated one. It's in a complicated place at a complicated time. And so it's very delicate and hopefully subtle. Hopefully in the spirit of the man--the modesty that is all over the history of this man.

[...]

Wilson: [Explaining why he chose the image of Eisenhower as a little boy] ... [searching] Eisenhower's life trying to find one point that somehow balances the span of life. Say that, a man at A, could be alive this long [spreads hands], B could be living a life that's that long [adjusts distance between hands]. And could I find this A point, in this man's life, to balance this longer lifespan? ... The beautiful thing that kept coming back is -- this man who was a general, a public man, the history of the war, peace, the president -- that throughout his life you can see the little boy in him. And that's so touching. Baudelaire said, "Genius is childhood recovered at will." ... So that became this A point.

[...]

Wilson: ... Part of the American myth is that it's simple as apple pie. Jackson Pollock painted with house paint. Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin. So this idea, the barefoot boy from Kansas ...

[...]

Gehry: And it worked with the site. When we started out, we have a bunch of complicated images. We wanted to build a tapestry. Uh, we did a lot of research in jacquard and Chuck Close is working with tapestries, and it was logical that it could be built with metal fibers. If it couldn't be done, we didn't have a Plan B. ...

And then when we realized we were 70 feet from the [U.S. Department of] Education building, and they didn't like the idea of looking into the back of a tapestry, that we had to make the tapestry transparent, which is very hard to do. You put the jacquard loom -- we managed to do it, but it lost its art and purpose and became more of a thing. And the Fine Arts Commission, one of the commissioners mentioned -- he thought we ought to stay away from making a billboard, which we all agreed. We wanted to have an artist do it, but if you ask an artist to do a tapestry like that like Chuck Close, he would select imagery, so we were stuck. We couldn't find an artist that would do it, and, lo and behold, there's a Polish fellow, an artist from Poland, that is kind of an all-purpose handyman. He's worked for [garbled]. He does construction work. But whenever I've had a problem of how to put something strange together, he always comes to the fore. And he kept saying to me, "Let me try it. Let me try it." And I said "okay," so then he made this [points to mock-up of section of the tapestry]. It's gotten much better -- this was the first try. And we studied Albrecht Dürer's drawings, and developed a language of strokes from the Dürer, and applied it to the photograph we had of Abilene [Kansas]. ...

[Showing photo of early design at the site.] We were thinking of visitors driving by. This is kind of like a theater. And maybe eventually you might find places to sit on the back of the aerospace [sic, Smithsonian's National Air & Space] museum, which is not used at all. It's a beautiful terrace that overlooks this thing. ...

And we made it to hold out the tapestry, and the engineers told me I needed a 10-foot round column to do it. So I decided at that point to make them in stone. And when we did that, it sort of clicked into Washington. I don't see it as a postmodern thing as much as a -- you know, those columns are -- I think they're bigger than the ones in the [Pension Building, site of National Building Museum] -- what do you call that building there?

In this [early] tapestry, we had VE Day -- so we covered that. We had Eisenhower in the cabinet. We had Eisenhower fixing a fence post. And we had talked about making reliefs, stone reliefs. I was hoping they would get as good as the [ancient] Greek Phidias sculptures. So that's the dream. ...

As we proceeded, we pulled in the tapestry quite a bit on each corner, so that you can see the Education building from Independence Avenue. ...

They sort of create the space because the [surrounding] buildings are very different designs. Some people don't like 'em. ...

When Bob came in with the Abilene picture, we realized this is an incredible fortuitous image from a functional standpoint since it allowed the most open space in the sky, so we could make it transparent ... It wasn't bombastic, overpowering, beating-your-chest Eisenhower. To bring in this Midwestern theme. ... I don't think there's a Midwest representation of the Midwest, and there's a lot of people out there.

[...]

[Referring to landscaping] In the summer, there are trees with leaves. Unfortunately, we can't put leaves on the tapestry. So it becomes a big park, a garden, where people can come and relax. They're not being pummeled with information. It's very subtle. And the tapestry turned out to be a lot more transparent than we thought. ...

[Referring to the "cartway" between the landscaped trees] There's one like it at Princeton. [Showing the photo from Princeton] I think this is called "Einstein Walk."

[...]

The final image [for the tapestry] -- Bob and I will go to Abilene and take a picture. ...

[Referring to the man making the tapestry] We've pushed him hard to make it look like a tree, but I think we pushed him too hard. We want it to be a little bit more artful. ...

It's going to be very subtle, it's going to be very quiet. It's going to say "Abilene," but it's not going to hit you over the head with it. ...

[...]

Wilson: You know I work in the theater, and it's a little bit like a theatrical scrim, which I've used in ... various productions. So this gauze, this tapestry, transparent tapestry. ...

[Referring to the image of the barefoot boy] It's probably not something that is the big headline of what you know of Eisenhower. ... But it was the one point we kept coming back to, the scene for me.

I made a work early in my career called "The Life and Times of Sigmund Freud," and reading about Freud, I read something that when he was 68, his grandson Heinerlie died. He said something within him passed away forever. And he said years later in one anecdote, he said, "I never overcame the death of Heinerlie, this eight-year-old boy." And it was in that year that Freud developed cancer. And it was just this little thing that kept coming back in my mind. Freud is so much discussed in history books, but he seemed to be really that Point A to balance with his life and times. And so this man who was a giant in so many ways was just a simple boy. I think it's a poetic way of looking at things. ... The barefoot boy in Kansas.

Gehry: [Referring to the statue of Eisenhower as a barefoot boy.] And it will be life-size, I think, it'll be sitting on a wall. ... And now we've got to figure out how to talk about him as a president and a soldier. And we're trying not to make it an episodic thing like the [recent Franklin D.] Roosevelt Memorial. ...

[...]

Gehry: [Responding to Ferrieo's question about what it was like to work with the federal government.] I loved the first meeting -- a lady brought in a little time clock. And it went off in an hour and she just got up and left. [big audience laughter]

[...]

[Chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission] Rocco [Siciliano] himself was Eisenhower's chief of staff when Eisenhower was president [ed.: not true]. At least he has the sense of what he did and what's going on. I think mostly we've had good vibes from people. ... We're not trying to jam something down people's throats. We're trying to make something that's lasting, that's in essence, that represents this man's character. And I think we're honing in on getting there. ...

We will tell those two stories [Ike as president and soldier], we will, we're not going to ignore them. ...

Wilson: The strength is -- there's nothing more beautiful than an empty room or an empty space. They say the best architecture is -- forgive me Frank --i s no architecture. [ed.: this is a reference to a line from Aaron Betsky, the "architectural queer theorist"] That's the beauty of this idea, that it's space. It's so much needed. It's not another blockbuster building. ...

[...]

Ferriero: Frank, you've described this project as an emotional portrait of Dwight Eisenhower using the power of architecture, landscape and visual art to tell this man's story, to represent his strength and values, and at the same time paying attention to the balance between respectful and boring.

Gehry: Well, it's hard to comment on that. I think expressing the man is not boring, and if we do it right, it will resonate.

Wilson: The history books record him as a certain way, but this is something that I think will be a backdrop in multiple ways.

Gehry: I think there are people that think this is too big a space for Eisenhower. He wasn't as important as that space is. Why does he have a space that's bigger than somebody else? He doesn't. He's gonna have a little plank, for a little boy. This is an image that's going to contextualize and modify the location so it can accept that little frontispiece and not get lost in the hubbub of the city. I think it's going to be very modest.

[...]

Ferriero: So this is still very much a work in progress.

Gehry: We're getting close. And, you know, we have budget and technical stuff. ...

We're pretty close to our budget. The maintenance part of this is very carefully thought out. We're doing tests on the tapestry to ensure it will last at least 200 years. But you see it's pretty simple, you can just spray and clean it. I don't think things are going to grow in it.

[...]

[Referring to tests of the tapestry] Tomas [the tapestry artist] made a face of Eisenhower's eyes in that material, and it's recognizable. So if we wanted to put figures -- we don't -- but if we wanted to, if it became an issue, we're able to do it.

[...]

Ferriero: ... Is there a particular memorial that you think is good?

Gehry: Lincoln.

Wilson: Absolutely, and Washington.

Gehry: And, uh, Maya Lin. [ed.: note he doesn't say the name of the memorial or what it's supposed to memorialize]

Wilson: Beautiful, what Maya did.

Gehry: She was my student, so I'm kind of biased. [audience laughter]

[...]

***

First Questioner: So you may not remember this, but about three or four years ago in The Washington Post, there was this incredible photo of Robert Todd Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial when it first opened. And I would give serious money to find out what he was thinking. And so my question is: What kind of role did the descendants play in your analysis? His descendants: the grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Gehry: Uh, well, we've met with them. [audience laughter] Uh, they've been cordial, they have their opinions -- uh, they're strong. Uh, we've listened to them. I think that when we say we're finished, they'll realize that it wasn't [garbled]. Right now, the idea is the question about we have any stone dealing with the president and the military. So, everybody involved is questioning how you're gonna do that. And I'm questioning it myself. But we're getting there.

[NCAS Secretary Justin] Shubow: Mr. Gehry, previously you've been quite forthright publicly about your design philosophy. If I may quote something you've previously said: "Life is chaotic, dangerous, and surprising. Buildings should reflect that."

Likewise, while speaking of your thoughts for the Stata Center, you said, "I think of this in terms of controlled chaos. I always relate it to democracy. Democracy is pluralism, the collision of ideas. Our cities are built on a collision of thought. Look out there. There is a building by I. M. Pei, there is a bridge, there is that huge hunk in the distance. If it wasn't for democracy it would all look like one thing."

Given your stated predilection for chaos and danger in architecture, is this project a continuation of that or is it a departure? And, moreover, did you explain your design philosophy while applying to the Commission?

[Laughter and a tiny bit of applause.]

Gehry: You know, it's like you take -- I got a nose hair, if you wanna -- I don't remember the context of that talk. I was probably talking to a bunch of students, who are not, who are afraid, and I usually try to say that, um, the chaos of the world is a fact, and recently it's gotten to be more of a fact. And, um, how do you build what's in that. If I'm building a city in the 19th century or the 18th century, I have a format. The cities of Europe have six- or seven-storey buildings lining the streets. They're all similar. They're, they're -- they create a quite beautiful city.

In the democratic world, which I don't want to give up, believe me, everybody has their right to build what they want so long as they live within the zoning codes.

Shubow: Does that include Washington, D.C., and the McMillan Plan? Anything you want, no matter what if it's a big hunk?

Gehry: What?

Shubow: Does it matter that there's stylistic harmony within Washington, D.C.?

Gehry: Yeah, I know. [pause] I'm not talking about Washington.

Shubow: This is where the memorial is going to be built.

Gehry: [Pointing to the photo projection of his latest design] You think this is chaotic?

Shubow: Uh, well, I happen to think that the giant screen represents winter, permanent winter -- trees without leaves. It represents death and nihilism -- in the same way that I see your black t-shirt [referring to his attire], much beloved by downtown hipsters and nihilists everywhere -- and it's a total rejection of the past and tradition and, honestly, of everything that Eisenhower himself stood for.

[Applause and nervous laughter; Gehry said nothing.]

[NCAS Chairman Eric] Wind: Hi, uh, Mr. Gehry, thanks for coming to speak with us. [big laughter]

I just wanted -- a certain analogy popped into my head as we were while watching this, watching your explanation. I don't know if you're familiar with the story "The Emperor Has No Clothes," but they're weaving together invisible clothes and a little barefoot boy says, "The emperor has no clothes." And I just think, you said it's not very postmodern what you're doing, but it seems to strike me as very postmodern.

I don't know if you're familiar with C.S. Lewis and the Space Trilogy. In that age, they have metal trees -- they no longer have real trees -- metal birds, and in a place where there is a huge amount of space you can use real trees and you do use real trees, why do you think of making metal trees and doing something that seems so ridiculous? It seems to me like the emperor has no clothes. How is this a memorial reflecting his great deeds and his great works? I think of, as you said, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, things that are so striking in that they honor these great men, and this just seems to me --

Gehry: Do you have more?

Wind: Uh, that's it.

Gehry: Um, the Lincoln Memorial is in the form of a Greek Temple. What's that got to do with Lincoln?

Wind: I think my mic -- okay, it's on. The deeper symbolism, as they said, in the hearts of our nation -- these principles, which are classical, last forever.

Gehry: Okay, Okay. So in our nation, in our history, world history, the tapestries have been used to tell stories throughout the world. Raphael--

Wind: I find you saying this is a tapestry a little bit ridiculous. It's just metal. I don't call that a tapestry. But I guess it's [recording hard to make out]. Thank you.

The photo above was taken of Dwight David Eisenhower (center, with legs spread) when he was 17, and may represent the only image of the great general, president and patriot on the memorial proposed for Washington's National Mall by Frank Gehry.

The National Archives last Wednesday hosted a public discussion of the Gehry design. The public reaction was negative. The meeting also revealed the existence of a letter of concern regarding the design, including a call for a pause in the design process, from three of General Eisenhower's granddaughters, who have followed the design process closely.

The letter has not been made public, and has been seen, apparently, only by the Eisenhower Memorial Committee overseeing the design work and by Philip Kennicott, an architectural writer for The Washington Post, whose report on the meeting is here.

I am trying to find out what's in that letter.

I wrote a column on this issue last July in which I asked whether the general's family would make known their feelings about the Gehry proposal. This was after the winners of a alternative design competition sponsored by the National Civic Art Society were announced. Read it here. The NCAS is leading the fight against the Gehry proposal. The NCAS believes as I do that such a "memorial" would do little to honor Eisenhower.

Below is the latest proposed design by Gehry for the memorial.

Below is one of the alternative designs sponsored by the NCAS, by Michael Franck and Rodney Mims Cook.

This essay by Nikos Salingaros and Michael Mehaffy explains why modern architects might as well not have ears, let alone eyes - eyes they definitely do not have - and what is to be done about it. Click the link here.

Here is the summary of what they have written:

We highlight a little-understood cognitive phenomenon that may play a key role in the maladaptive failures of the modern human environment. There are implications for our future ability to integrate built environments into sustainable ecosystems. By discussing vision we mean how architects interpret what they see in front of them, not the brave new world they envision populated with their own designs.

Yes, that sounds dry and academic, but don't be fooled. Their essay packs a punch, and its punch is backed by science.

In reply to New York Times columnist Ross Douthat's piece "Up From Ugliness" on its Oct. 8 editorial page:

Kudos to Ross Douthat for noticing the difference between beauty and ugliness. His remarks about new urbanism suggest, however, that he doesn't recognize the difference between the future and "the future," or have much of interest to say about yesterday, today or tomorrow. Notiwthstanding Steve Jobs's excellent sense of design, there are more ways than one to move forward.

One is novelty for novelty's sake, which most architects, artists and other designers like to think they practice. Most architects are not Jobsian geniuses, however, and so their "novelty" generally is some form of copying the more recent past. The neo-Corbu, the contemporary Mies, the Brutalist revival, the proto-Eismanesque and the thousand-and-one ways to twist Gehry come to mind. In short, most modernists copy the past and are either too shallow to recognize it or too arrogant to imagine that any critic will call them out.

Another way to move forward is to embrace the lessons of the past. But criticizing tradition remains the hypocrisy that dare not speak its name.

Does new urbanism "save the row houses of yesterday without building the neighborhoods of tomorrow"? Douthat is way off the mark. Sure, some are suburban enclaves without any genuine walkability. But even some of those are no worse than collections of market tested traditional houses. Some traditional developments merely steal the label of new urbanism. The movement has grown popular throughout the country because new urbanism at least tries to embrace the sense of beauty Americans still pine for. In doing so, it picks up the evolution of place making where it was cut off. It moves neighborhoods back to the future, reclaiming and reviving the traditions of civic design that were once in the American bone, proud adaptations of the village and town concepts our forefathers brought from Europe.

Though most critics haven't noticed, the new World War II Memorial on the Mall embraces the stripped classicism of the Works Projects Administration. It has not Speer but FDR in its lineage. That's why it's rung a chord with so many WWII vets. It has the audacity to look like a monument!

The one thing you can criticize without hazard today is tradition. Critics of tradition carry a "get out of jail free" card. They have total immunity to spout whatever nonsense they want in denouncing attempts by designers in every field to learn from the past - which is really the only place that has anything to teach us, however absurdly many pontificos corkscrew reality in resisting that truth.