Article 5, Why Buildings Exist as They Do, March 1, 2014

Here we go again, another architect denied article. In my last article I wrote about Attractor Patterns and why buildings exist as they do (I was dealing primarily with the bad ones). That article was of course very basic and touched upon a very small part of how a building gains its architecture. You may have wondered how can something so complex be distilled to such a basic understanding? To this, I would respond, "you are correct." There are numerous factors as to why a building exists as it does. If I only touched upon a minimal part of it, than thank god. My method for unraveling very complex issues stems from the belief that any issue, no matter how complicated, is composed of a myriad of smaller little ones that can be easily understood.  So in that spirit I would like to continue to investigate why a building exists as it does. So going beyond the obvious obstacles presented before the architect (which I mention in the last article) I have to bring to your attention an architect that everyone should know beyond any other architect. To my architect colleagues of course you know him (but maybe not the aspect of him I would like you to know)  but to all others, know this name; Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe.  Ok, so this is Architect Denied alternative architectural information so I won't provide background info or describe this famous architect because well, he is famous (for those who do not know him here is a link  Mr Ludwig) But if you're not an architect, or engineer or involved in a related field, beyond owning a home, you may be asking why in the hell would I want to know about him? The reason why you should know about Mies is because, Mies is to architecture what Newton is to science-

Farnsworth House

You may have heard of Isaak Newton..cough, cough but  I'm sure not of Mies (you may have heard some of his  famous quip's like, "Less is More", "God is in the details") and why is that? That's because unfortunately architecture, unlike science, cannot be quantified or measured as of yet. So we know Newton because science is objective, based on fact but not so when it comes to architecture. So I say hey you there, I love that building and you say hey you there, I hate that building  and no one can say which one of us is right or wrong. Now if we are standing on the roof of a tall building and I say, hey you, if you jump off this tall building gravity shall carry you down until the road below blocks your fall and you say, hey you, I disagree I don't believe in gravity that will not happen, then one of us is right and the other is wrong. So for this reason, subjectivity, as my little analogy shows us, holds architecture back and objectivity advances science. So instead we have architecture as it exists, the good, the bad and the ugly, (wait that sounds familiar) followed by my law of Attraction (read previous article) followed by this statement from Mies:

"It is my growing conviction that there could be no architecture of our time without the prior acceptance of these new scientific and technical developments. I have never lost this conviction. Today, as for a long time past, I believe that architecture has little to do with the invention of interesting forms or with personal inclinations...True architecture is always objective and is the expression of the inner structure of our time from which it stems"


Those with a super strong ego have just received a brick to the head... yes I know, that hurt. OK I digress. So how is this the linear progression of why a building exists as does? Well as Mies just said no one really cares about your interesting forms or personal inclinations: that is not architecture. Today's architecture stems from our current technological innovations and from the lessons learned upon the,  "shoulders of giants." But there is also another architecture that stems from our times but not strictly speaking unique to our times: greed, ego, and dare I say cowardice, well the lack of courage to be innovative. I see this all the time, people wanting safe marketable and cheap architecture for resale purposes or other self indulging reasons (Hey I'm paying for that! Give me what I want!)  These qualities stem from the ignorance of the mind, time immemorial. So you see, architecture like the Guggenheim museum of Bilbao, (or the one in NYC)  or Dubai terminal 3, or anything from Calatrava could not exist without the technological scientific advances of our time.

Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao Spain

Dubai Airport Terminal 3

However, mixed in with these great buildings is the majority of our architecture; strip malls, cookie cutter sprawl neighborhoods (sorry cozy comfy people) tenements, box stores, etc.  This architecture is not a reflection of our technological advanced times but the self serving product of a few at the expense of society. This pervasive component of our times comes from those people who know how to exude their power, (unfortunately not for good), which is a direct response to our primal base behavior, greed, self preservation, ego, ignorance, lust for power. These lizard brain qualities shall always be with us no matter what the times. My point in writing this article is not to change those people, I could only hope they use their powers for good. Nor is it to guilt the everyday person searching for a home into doing better when they cannot in most cases. HEY! You say, I love my little Cape with the white picket fence!!! I can't change those people either. Most other writings, blogs, videos, magazines will present to you the over the top technological, progressive, green,  awesome architecture which is but a small fraction of the architecture most people out there experience on a day to day basis. What I am saying is that when mankind moves beyond base human behaviors and the science of architecture gets it together, it will be possible to have a true architecture that stems from our times because people will demand it and architects will have no choice. To achieve this and to make this type of architecture more a reality for the everyday person it is my hope that we can advance the science of architecture, remove such things as subjectivity and sentimentality from architecture and discern that which stems from our times and that which is still basking in the glory of mans ignorance to primal evolution. I dare say that in the future, architecture will move in the direction of pure science with a more rigorous  appreciation of art (which it is) and the science that governs it. I hope to see future architecture rated objectively to be either visual pollution or not...to be called architecture or not, one day.

So my question to you is this: why does the "Freedom Tower" also known as One World Trade, look the way it does and not like the award winning design that Daniel Libeskind won in the competition?

Design As Per Libeskind 

What's being built

Daniel, Architect Denied...Signing out, be sure to catch my next article of Architect Denied.