opinion: mr woods and sandy

To me the death of architect Lebbeus Woods will unfortunately be associated with Hurricane Sandy, an unlucky juxtaposition of time and location. However the spirit of Woods could influence the re-building and reclamation of the post-apocalyptic cities that have devastated by the hurricane storm. His many theoretical and experimental projects gave rise to the consciousness of architecture; he seemed to understand the built environment and the very reality of its impact on the people.

drawing: war and architecture © Lebbeus Woods

In the essay ‘Freespace and the Tyranny of Types’, Woods comments that  “…architects argue that their concern is architecture and not politics, not social conditions over which they might also claim they have no control. The best of these architects believe that they are serving the “higher interest” of civilization, those qualities of thought and action that transcend the passing problems of the world, that are the timeless ingredients of art and science. But what if civilization itself is changing, and with it the very nature of its higher interests? What if these higher interests, that the architect seeks to serve, no longer require transcending the turbulent changes of the present, but active engagement with them?”

destruction on the east coast USA, photo © getty 

Now would be a chance to create engaging architecture in these cities, time to introduce variations that  allows for Woods turbulent changes, the passing problems of nature and society living side by side. Instead of serving power and authority, architecture could serve the people. It is an idealistic notion,  but it is the idea and belief of engagement that can drive it into reality. His work on War and Architecture could  be implemented in New York and other storm-hurt areas, that the post-storm (post-war) city could create the new from the damaged old. The new would build on the salvageable old, not just the old of buildings but the old of life. Society and its inhabitants are wanting more out of life; an increasing interest in community, sharing and a sense of ownership – ownership over destiny as opposed to consumer goods.

As Woods himself said “the familiar old must be transformed, by conscious intention and design, into the unfamiliar new”. Following the intersecting events of Lebbeus Woods death and the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, the time for transformation must be nigh.

opinion: Is the Stirling Prize a recognition of a Working Building?

With the RIBA Stirling Prize winner to be announced on Saturday, it made me think of a portion of my dissertation which talks about how not all architect designed accommodation meets the actuality of the needs of the occupants, and how this is evident in some of the previous Stirling Prize Winners.  However, this year I think the subtlety of the shortlisted buildings suggests an understatement that focuses on the users requirements and experiences of the spaces rather than the building as the sole object.

The Hepworth Wakefield, Wakefield by David Chipperfield Architects
RIBA Stirling Prize Shortlist 2012 (photo © Iwan Baan)

Not all buildings meet the reality of needs for the occupants. These can sometimes be as basic as the need for shelter from the elements and protection for belongings. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs establishes the five categories of needs that describe the growth in humans, from the most fundamental level of physiological needs through to esteem and needs of self-actualisation. The hierarchy is typically depicted as a pyramid, with the base layer of breathing, food, water, sleep and shelter forming the basis of human survival. The next layer is that of Safety Needs: security of body, family and property.  Buildings fulfil the most basic levels of shelter and security, but architecture starts to not only encompass these requirements, but also those of the Belonging, Esteem and Self-Actualisation categories. It gives the users a sense of ownership  and a presence in their surroundings. It can be a physical representation of their personality and values.

But what if the building does not even meet the two bottom levels of the hierarchy, if it is unable to offer protection and shelter? In theory it would then be seen that the architecture has failed. If a building is defined as “any permanent structure which provides shelter, encloses space and can be occupied by people” (Davies, 2008, p. 52) and it is unable to meet this definition it has become unsuccessful. It is not just small unknown buildings that can be plagued by failure. There has been documentation on well-known and very popular architecture that would not meet Maslow’s Needs for the everyday man. The RIBA Stirling Prize was established in 1996 and was announced to journalists at the time as being an award for buildings that worked, not ones that were just aesthetically pleasing (Silverman, 2006).

The journalist Rosa Silverman went on a Stirling Re-visited tour to see how these celebrated buildings lived up to their award and how well they really worked for the users. In an article for the Guardian News she commented that the “users I spoke to were at best ambivalent and at worst scathing. On almost every guided tour I was quoted a long list of faults, which detracted from the superficial splendour and raised the question of what exactly it was that the Stirling prize was actually rewarding.” The RIBA on their website have the criteria  for the Stirling prize. This includes design vision, innovation and originality, capacity to stimulate engage and delight occupants and visitors, accessibility and sustainability, how fit the building is for its purpose and the level of client satisfaction. If the award has been delivered to the building that most fits this criteria, the occupants of the building should be in delight of their surroundings and should enjoy being there. The award should be delivered to the building that most realises the influence of users on architecture. 

If the RIBA is rewarding architecture that does not fulfil clients needs and the criteria of its own award, then it is more than living up to media claims that the RIBA is out of touch and marginalised, that architects have become detached from everyday life*, especially if the prized buildings do not meet the upper needs of the hierarchy let alone the basic needs. Irena Bauman (a Leeds-based architect and chair of the Regional Design Review Service) pointed out that “Even iconic buildings, as Stirling buildings undoubtedly are, suffer from a host of minor defects which is forgivable. However, some of them are inadequate for their purpose. This is embarrassing in buildings receiving the highest architectural accolade in the UK” (Weaver, 2006).

The 1996 winner was the Salford university’s Centenary Building created by Hodder Associates which was designed for the Design Faculty with the notion of flexibility, allowing the departments within the building to be changed without too much disruption to teaching. It has been affected by leaking windows, faulty installation, and frustrating high noise levels, plus many design oversights which has led to maintenance and upkeep over the years being costly (Weaver, 2006).

The 1999 winner was the Natwest Media Centre, Lord’s Cricket Ground in London by Future Systems which was promised would be functional as well as pretty. Changes had to be made to the building once it was in use, despite the RIBA website stating that the window wall that looks out onto the pitch is inclined at 25 degrees so that it does not reflect sunlight into the eyes of the players (RIBA, 2005) there has been a problem with journalists being overwhelmed with light to the point it is so bright that you cannot see your laptop.

The 2000 winner the Peckham Library in south London by Alsop Architects has had Librarians complaining of dinginess and its lack of light, which is inadequate for a space that is designed for reading. Whilst in 2003 the Laban Dance Centre by Herzog & de Meuron in south London was credited for its amazing lighting by the Stirling judges, though users complain that it is too hot and too light in the space.

The way to solve this disconnection between the award and its own criteria of how fit the building is for its purpose and the level of client satisfaction was proposed by Silverman.  In her article for the Guardian she suggested that “the buildings should be judged, say, five years on, instead of in the year they open. And perhaps users’ views should be taken into account, rather than just the views of those who jet in from the outside and briefly sample the building like a piece of sushi on a conveyor belt. [...] it may just help to mend the disconnection between style and substance.” (Silverman, 2006).

Works cited:

Davies, N. (2008). Dictionary of Architecture and Building Construction. London: Architectural.

Hardarson, A. (2005). All Good Architecture Leaks: Witticism or word of wisdom? Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Project Metamorphose.

RIBA. (2005). RIBA Stirling Prize winner 1999 - Natwest Media Centre. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from The RIBA Stirling Prize: A Celebration of British Architecture: http://www.architecture.com

Silverman, R. (2006, October 14). Stirling Work. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from Art and Design, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk

Weaver, M. (2006, October 14). The truth about those iconic buildings: the roofs leak, they're dingy and too hot. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from UK News, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk

 * A Constructing Excellence Report was compiled from industry leaders including CABE and large practices, stating that the RIBA is out of touch according to an article on the BD Online website titled ‘Profession takes a Beating’. (BD Online, 2005).