The time that we are in now is often compared to the Great Depression. Also links are made between the New Deal, WPA and other programs with the Stimulus Package, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other associated programs. I’m not in the position or carry any real expertise to compare and contrast the economics and effectiveness of the programs. However, I’ve been having a thought pattern flowing regarding a direct comparison of the design of those.

While, I wasn’t alive during that time, it seems clear the WPA was visible in communities making things happening and getting people to work. It’s evident in Fresno from the concrete stamped with WPA in the Tower District to the Chandler Airport.

There also seemed to be a concentrated effort to leverage design for education and raising moral. I’ve always been a fan of the depression era WPA posters. And frankly there are allot of them. Good design makes a world of difference.

My point here is the current Stimulus and ERRA do not seem as well branded as the New Deal and WPA. To me it seems that there should be more educational graphic content on the street. Perhaps that is why many in this country struggle to understand exactly what the program is doing and how it effects us.

Compare these two signs. The one on the left uses 1 icon, 2 logos and 13 words to convey it’s message. The one on the right clearly conveys is message with only 2 words and 2 acronyms which is also its logo. Please share your thoughts on this topic.

Today, I received a copy of BLDGBLOG BOOK by Geoff Manaugh. I was intending to purchase a copy through Amazon, but then the economy caught up with me. Luckily, Mike Osegueda writer with the Fresno Bee and blogger for FresnoBeeHive received a press copy from Chronicle Books. Through twitter mikeoz wrote “i got it in the mail yesterday. (I get all kinds of odd books). i’ll give it to you.”

And indeed it is a weird book. BLDGBLOG began as a blog focused on but not limited to architecture. While we are familiar with old media going to new media. However New media going to old media? A blog becoming a book? To top it off it’s on my favorite topic: architecture and the built and unbuilt environment.

Why is this a theory thursday? Well with a table of contents like 1)Architecture, Conjecture, Urban Speculation; 2)The Underground; 3)Redesigning the Sky; 4)Music Sound Noise; and 5)Landscape Futures; you can imagine it is chock full of theory. I plan to fully explore the ideas and blog/review about it as I go.

I hope Geoff Manaugh will forgive me for not purchasing his book. Maybe he’ll forgive me for putting a press copy to good use and hopefully inspiring some Fresnans to purchase a copy.

Here is the abstract:

Far from being limited to the construct of our built environment, architecture has long been considered a venue for tracing human thought – how we perceive and judge our world is recognizable in the buildings we create. Challenging us to look beyond the present paths of thinking and into the future of architecture is Geoff Manaugh, creator of the popular website BLDGBLOG.

Read by millions since its launch in 200, BLDGBLOG is the leading voice in speculation about architecture, landscape and the built environment. Now The BLDGBLOG Book distills author Geoff Manaugh’s unique ideas, offering an enthusiastic guide to the future of architecture, with stunning images and exclusive new content. From underground exploration to climate change, via the music of icebergs, J. G. Ballard, and tectonic warfare, this is a fascinating and unpredictable.”

Also inspiring is the first paragraph:

I started BLDGBLOG in the summer of 2004, inspired more or less by four things: I was writing a novel about surveillance, terrorism, independent film, and the London Underground; I was auditing a course about Archigram, the 1960s British pop-architectural supergroup that once dreamt of bolt-on instant cities, “mobile villages,” and inflatable utopias; I was reading a lot of J. G. Ballard (Super-Cannes, Concrete Island, The Drowned World, Crash); and I was feeling generally hemmed in by the city in which I lived. Whil my initial impulse might have been to complain – noting every little thing about the world that bothered me – I decided, in fact, to do the opposite: I made a conscious decision to write only about the things that interested me.

Dear Archop Nation,

I was intrigued by the recent ‘Theory Thursday’ post concerning the concept of authenticity. Below is my attempt to further the discussion.

The notion of authenticity has in it the idea of a pure, genuine original, a sort of Platonic ideal – ‘this is an authentic 1952 Tops Mickey Mantle Rookie card, all others are copies, replicas, or fakes’. A thing’s authenticity is a measure of its faithfulness to the original; and its value is measured by the degree to which it approximates the original. The authentic rookie baseball card is a far greater prize than the re-issued anniversary edition.

Applying this model of authenticity to the built environment sheds light on a notion of authenticity that enables us to assess the building’s value. If an exact replica of the Eiffel tower were erected today in Buenos Aires, it is doubtful that it would become the same symbol of national identity and pride for Argentinians that it has for Parisians.

If the London bridge was removed from its original location and reconstructed in Lake Havasu City, Arizona –then it would be an abhorrent grafting that stripped a historic structure of any meaningful contextual significance.

Rootedness

What is clear from the above examples is that the measure of a building’s authenticity is inseparably wed to its time, its place, its people, its cultural milieu. It is not so much the degree of faithfulness to the original that matters, but, rather, the degree to which a building is faithful to the environment in which it exists. It is this notion of “rootedness” that provides us with a meaningful tool for assessing the value of authenticity for a built work.

Perhaps no living architect embodies this notion of “rootedness” better than the Australian architect Glenn Murcutt. When asked what idea he is most concerned with communicating to his students, Mercut replied:

They must think that every project they do is worthy of being. Their work has to speak about place, technology, climate, structure, materials. They must work honestly, with heart and mind, rather than structuring what is a visual delight alone. Their work has to have roots. I think what we admire
most about architecture of all periods is rootedness, authenticity. We recognize authenticity, and we recognize the five-minute flash. The authentic lives on; the flash quickly dies.

Almost all of Mercutt’s work has been done in his native geographic region. He does not have a single high rise, flashy concert hall or show piece museum on his resume, yet he has received the two highest professional honors that can be bestowed upon an architect – the AIA Gold Medal and the Pritzker Prize. What he has left is a trail of thoughtful, progressive, sustainable ‘gifts’ to his clients and fellow Australians. I offer his Marie Short House, built in Kempsey in 1975, as a model of an authentic building rooted in its environment. A May 2007 New York Times article entitled “The Native Builder” features the building.

Our challenge as designers will be two-fold. First, we must study, comprehend and recognize what is unique to our culture, our area, our people. Second, we must share and celebrate these findings in the public forum that is our local built environment. Beauty will have no choice but to follow; and we will all have reason to smile. I will be listening with open eyes and mind.

Humbly,

Michael Pinheiro

To build without engaging the “cluster” is impossible. To design without engaging the “cluster” is a missed opportunity.

Though it had been published several years prior, I can recall being captivated by the notion of “clusters” in Michael Porter’s article in the Harvard Business Review called “Clusters And The New Economics of Competition”. As Porter has described it, clusters are geographic concentration of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field. As I had interpreted it, the “architecture cluster” is the network of interrelated professionals – with whom I was responsible to be exchanging information with.

As architects, we are traditionally very good at exchanging information among our peers – essentially only a single sector within the “architecture cluster.” This phenomenon can perhaps be traced back to our days in studio when the entire design process was transparent to our colleagues, professors and critics alike. This form of information exchange is embedded in our working models and should remain. However, where I see huge potential for improvement is within the “architecture cluster.”

Recognizing the value that other professionals can add to our design process is the first step. As mentioned, architecture can not be realized without the participation of interrelated disciplines such as; finance, development, engineering, planning, environmental sciences, marketing, journalism, product design, product suppliers, construction, etc. We share space within the “architecture cluster” with these professionals but too often exclude them from the design process.

In Porter’s article, he draws upon the example of the California Wine Cluster. Among the 680 commercial wineries, it includes grape growers, suppliers, irrigation utilities, harvesting equipment suppliers, label printers, advertising firms, etc. Recognizing all too well that without one of these components, the availability of wine to the consumer would be compromised.

Admittedly, it will most often be the architect’s responsibility to organize and engage the related disciplines when working on a new project but with digital communication and social media marketing tools available to us today, this is significantly easier to organize and facilitate.

As always, I welcome the opportunity for this to be more of an open dialogue. Perhaps a suggestion to others who are contributing to this topic to think back on projects in which information was exchanged within the “architecture cluster” and how beneficial the information was to the help deliver a successful project……….

Yesterday, our humble website strode clear over a milestone. For the first time we had over 100 visits to the site in a single day. By midnight, we actually had 184 visits. Our previous high was 79 visits, set on April 14th during National Architecture Week.

We built this website back in January with the help of Paprika Studios to feature the steadily growing archop exhibits. We also wished to introduce content that can’t be found in any other Fresno media. That is critiques and commentaries about Fresno’s built environment, uniquely focused on design. Other local media report on architecture and the built environment. The focus is often on economics or reported as a current event, rather than exploring the implication for the built environment. The question of ‘why does that building look that way?’ or ‘is that a good or successful design?’ or ‘what does this building say about us and our city?’ rarely get explored. Also the question of ‘who is the architect?’ is left unanswered.

In other cities it is common place for newspapers to employ architectural or urban design critics, much like providing readers with food critics or cultural arts critics. John King who writes for the SF Gate and SF Chronicle come to mind. That is not currently the case in Fresno. We intend to change that paradigm here.

The 1st critique I wrote was of Tower Tattoos. That was a success story of good architectural design. That was a small tenant improvement project that we were able to dig into details of the design. It was also the beginning of what I believe is essential for pushing our Fresno’s and the region’s built environment forward.In that post I wrote:

“We need to offer constructive criticism to buildings, architects, and developers that are not preforming. We also need to highlight and reward those that demonstrate high quality design and positively contribute to a healthy and vibrant built environment.”

On Tuesday I wrote what I hope is constructive criticism on the Granville Homes’ L Street Village project. The post was the main driver for site traffic yesterday. It launched our site traffic through the roof (would our roof be a flat glass roof, maybe a sheet metal butterfly roof, or even a green roof?). The post has drawn 247 visits since Tuesday.

This has got me thinking about the theory behind design critique and a driving theory behind the archop effort.

Architectural education is not a pat you on the back, everyone gets a gold star kind of education. It is rigorous and often merciless. Part of that gauntlet is to prepare us for a professional practice that is highly competitive, low in compensation, and high in liability. A profession where creativity, communication, and cool under pressure are equally essential.

Remembering those critiques, I was forced to completely reevaluate things I had accepted as fact. In that process I discovered so much about myself and the built environment we live in. And when you do something right it shines, like an awakening the world is new and makes sense. To impart that on Fresno would be a dream come true.

This is not an effort to be critical for the sake of being critical. It is not intented to be high brow. It is not out of spite or dislike for any person. We will strive to make these critiques constructive and accessible. Please call us out if that is not the case. This is a learning process for us all.

Let us work together toward architecture, landscape and urban planning that is: a steward to the land, authentically Fresno, offers all the amenities we require with the ease we desire, innovating the whole way through.

Authenticity is something we strongly believe in for Fresno’s built environment.

What does Authenticity mean?

Authentic architecture is unique to a place, it seems to fit. The building fits in both it’s geographic place as well as it’s place in time. Olive Avenue in the Tower District is authentic. Our old brick buildings downtown are authentic. Fresno’s version of Mid Century Modern is authentic. I could go on.

What is not authentic?

A new building that poorly mimics historic Fresno architecture is not authentic. It actually does harm to the historic integrity of a neighborhood. Suburban buildings in downtown are inauthentic. Covering up an original facade is inauthentic. Examples will follow in later posts.

I’d like to make an analogy here. I’m sure you’re all familiar with CliffsNotes. These are pamphlets that summarize a book and give a student everything they need to write a shortcut book report for English class. They don’t read the book and they don’t have an original thought. That used to fly. English teachers however, have gotten hip to this and other internet shortcut sources. So if they’re on there game they’ll flunk the student’s shortcut paper.

I feel like development in Fresno, specifically downtown can be linked to this scenario. It seems as if some developers working downtown read the CliffsNotes about historic Fresno architecture and contemporary urban architecture and are trying to pass off some bad buildings on the Fresno public.

Unfortunately, the Fresno public is not yet hip to this. We’re like old teachers that don’t know how to use the internet. We are allowing this inauthentic shortcut architecture in our downtown. These buildings even get praise at times. Perhaps because we don’t know better or are afraid no developer will turn in their paper.

So this sounds serious right? Damage to the authenticity of our built environment is being done. And buildings are pretty permanent.

What do we do?

Well it starts here. We need to first determine what is authentic for us. Then we need to start grading these building designs being proposed. And we can’t be afraid the flunk some designs. Some may get their feelings hurt. But it will be a lesson to start doing their homework.

Specific examples of this idea will follow. In the meantime, what do you imagine authentic contemporary Fresno architecture looks like? What does it pull from the past? How does it respond to our climate? Where do it’s inspiration and concepts come from?

For more about authenticity see the Mayor’s Creative Economy Council report

For the 2nd edition of Theory Thursday we focus on the small stuff.

What started as an ideas competition for a small sign sponsored by the City of Fresno’s Downtown and Community Revitalization department has ballooned in to a hot debate involving community leaders, downtown advocates, graphic designers, and city leaders. So how and why did such a small sign create such a big conversation?

There is a book called A Pattern Language, that is basically standard issue at the College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley, where I got my education. That is partly because CED faculty such as Christopher Alexander wrote the book. But a larger part due to its great success at dissecting planning, architecture and design theories in to small manageable parts. Those managable part can be discussed individually and as an integrated part of the whole. The premise being that a pattern language emerges.

The book is meant more as reference guide than a read it cover to cover kind of book. It begins with large sweeping topics like: Independent Regions, Distribution of Towns, City Country Fingers, Agricultural Valleys, etc. But as the book progresses its focus narrows to smaller more manageable theories like: Pools of light, warm colors, ornament, paving with cracks between the stones, climbing plants, raised flower beds, canvas roofs, seat spot, etc.

These small things are important and sparked a huge discussion about one little sign because they are tangible. We can much more easily grasp the idea of a sign or a bench because we have intimate experience with them. And it is the details that make a world of difference in design and our experience of the built environment.

Please share some of the small things that have caught or your eye or intrigued you in Fresno or other cities.

theory thursday will be a reoccurring string that will highlight a piece of scholastic architecture or introduce original theories for discussion. Yes this may get a little highbrow.

“The use of energy and exosomatic artifacts (tools, books, buildings), as well as the use of symbolic artifacts (etiquette, social relations, customs), substantially accelerate the rhythm of evolution and expand the scope of freedom. Material objects as much as social and cultural practices are transmitted and partly modified from generation to generation. Therefore, they can all be considered supports of a permanently renewed social memory.”

Fire and Memory: On Architecture and Energy

Luis Fernandez-Galiano

translated by: Gina Carino