Pater Familias

CONCRETE OR WOOD? In the article I linked to yesterday on the remodeling of Saarinen’s library at the University of Chicago Law School, I counted five references to the use of wood to make the new interior more comfortable. One of the drawbacks for the architecture of the sixties is that reinforced concrete was a fashionable material for buildings. One reason it was fashionable was the enormous influence of the architect Le Corbusier, who is quoted here as saying, “I have given my life to concrete.” This review of an exhibit in Poland begins: “Concrete Legacy: From Le Corbusier to the Homeboys focuses on concrete block housing as one of the gravest consequences of Modernist architectural thought. Large, prefabricated concrete slabs, used in entire housing developments, individual blocks and individual dwellings, continue to determine living conditions for, and shape the thinking of, millions of people.” Not surprisingly, people don’t like interior concrete walls. Architects seemed to know this. The interior walls of concrete buildings were often striated to evoke the feeling that wood gives.

GREAT ARCHITECTURE AND BUDGETS. In the article I linked to today on Saarinen’s library Joel Henning says that some of the problems with the uncomfortable interior of the building resulted because “the structures had been compromised as the money ran out before completion, not unusual in ambitious architectural projects.” One of the talents that is valuable for an architect is the ability to obtain large budgets. I spent a great deal of time in the Harvard Graduate Center which was designed by Walter Gropius. I thought it was a great success, especially the centerpiece, Harkness Commons. The law students and graduate students who lived in it found it uncomfortable. I was told that Gropius was the only major architect who was willing to undertake the commission on the budget that was provided and that, after he accepted the commission, no allowance was made for post war inflation so that he had to cut corners to complete the project. People who live in and look at architecture do not usually allow for the cost constraints the architect faced.

SAVING MODERNIST BUILDINGS—SAARINEN’S LIBRARY. Eero Saarinen designed some of my favorite structures, including the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the TWA terminal at Kennedy Airport and the CBS building in New York City. I first saw his library at the University of Chicago Law School in the early sixties, just after it had been built. I thought it was magnificent. The law school faculty was very proud of it. An article by Joel Henning in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal describes how the library has now been restored and improved. It’s hard for some one like me who grew up loving many Modernist buildings to realize that consideration was given to demolishing the Saarinen library in the 90’s, at a time when “mid-century Modernist architecture was largely scorned.”

MUSSOLINI, THE INFLUENTIAL–GOVERNMENT. When I wrote yesterday about the pervasiveness of unofficial government by gangs, there was an echo in my mind of a passage from the great Murray Kempton. (Kids, Murray Kempton was a proud journalist and a brilliant writer. It is hard to use short quotes to convey his cynical, ironic, affectionate stance toward events, but I will try.) The echo in my mind was of Kempton claiming that Mussolini was the most influential political figure of the twentieth century and that one could confirm this by going down a list of countries at the United Nations. When I read that, I thought: Of course! So many governments combine thuggery and grandiosity. I have happily spent time just now in the archives of The New York Review of Books looking for the quote (The archives are a wonderful bargain, especially if you are a subscriber). I was unable to find the quote, but in “A Genius of Journalism”, from the October, 1982 issue, I found: “Our century has come up with too few improvements in the way it manages to govern, but it has marvelously advanced, while coarsening, the techniques for controlling the governed; and Mussolini is to this dreadful science what the Wright Brothers were to aviation and Colonel Tom Parker to rock-and-roll.” As an aside, I also found this quote about Mussolini’s influence in architecture: “Any day’s passage through Rockefeller Center suffices to convince us that Mussolini’s aesthetic taste is our century’s dominant one.”

WEIGHT-BEARING WALLS. Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article by Catesby Leigh on Princeton’s new Whitman College, which will be dedicated Thursday. I had noticed below the suggestion that Harvard should preserve its brand by keeping Georgian style for its buildings. Princeton’s new college will retain the Collegiate Gothic style, which, I guess, is Princeton’s brand. Leigh’s article also points out that the new buildings will use “traditional load-bearing construction” with walls that are about one foot and a half thick, much less than the six foot walls of the Monadnock Building from 1891.

BEAVERS AND REGULATIONS. This seems to relate to the post below on the encroachment of regulations on architects and builders. The incident is confirmed by Snopes. Thanks to Howard Johnson for calling this to my attention.

IS HARVARD’S ARCHITECTURE IN DECLINE? This article in Harvard Magazine thinks that it is. The article laments the inability of Harvard to build new designs by Renzo Piano and Hans Hollein and describes the obstacles that are presented by neighborhood groups and the Cambridge Historical Commission. Apparently, neighbors are still bitter about Peabody Terrace designed by Josep Lluis Sert, where some of my graduate student friends lived forty years ago. My friends liked the efforts to make the building tenant-friendly. The neighbors hated that it was scaled too big for the neighborhood. I was struck that Robert A. M. Stern thinks that Harvard should adopt a neo-Georgian style because that is now Harvard’s brand. I was told years ago that the neo-Georgian buildings for the Harvard houses were unusual because they were the only Harvard buildings that were not built in a contemporary style (contemporary to the date of their construction).

LOOKING AT WHERE WRITERS WRITE. I can hazard some generalizations about the work places of the writers in the study I linked to yesterday. The most obvious one is that they could all answer the question (where do you write?). They all have a fixed place where they write. Jacqueline Wilson says she does most of her writing away from her office, but her office is special for her. Hillary Mantel says, “All the world’s a desk,” but she writes in her office. Most have have very personal places where they write, often surrounded by favorite objects. Jonathan Safran Foer is an exception; he writes in a public library, and has even switched from one library to another. It looks as if the clean, uncluttered environment favored by some designers is uncommon. Will Self works with a wall full of post-its. Hillary Mantel seems to have the simplest office, with only one ornament. Most of the offices are crammed with books.

WHERE WRITERS WRITE. I remember seeing a complaint by a writer that the questions people asked him were usually directed at how he wrote and where–did he use a typewriter or a pencil? I think people ask this kind of question because readers often feel that they are in a conversation with the writer, and imagining the writer in the process of writing makes the conversation more vivid. Here is the link to a survey of where some three dozen contemporary writers do their writing. (the wonderful link is from Howard Johnson).

THE LAURENTIAN LIBRARY. The comments to the link to beautiful libraries nominated for inclusion the Laurentian Library in Florence, which was designed by Michelangelo. These photos do not fully convey the powerful effect of the library. Notice in particular the staircase in the bottom picture with the quote from Vasari: “Nor was there ever seen such resolute grace, both in detail and overall effect, as in the consoles, tabernacles, and cornices, nor any stairway made more commodious. And in this stairway, he made such strange breaks in the design of the steps and he departed in so many details and so widely from normal practice, that everyone was astonished.” Michelangelo designed another beautiful staircase (pictured here) which had the effect of changing the orientation of the Capitoline Hill away from the Roman Forum and toward Catholic Rome.