UselessBeautyGoncharfinal2

Useless Beauty
19
Vol. 1

Letter from the editor
The volume of Useless Beauty you are reading is in electronic version only.
It is in this medium because if it took the form of a paper publication, this
volume in itself would be ironic. The focus of this publication is to educate
the public and architects alike to the importance of designing buildings of
purpose. This issue is examining the system of sustainability and the future
of architecture and our cities. Sustainability in the climate we are facing is a
large source of purpose for the buildings we are designing. Architecture that
nods to the importance of being greener is gaining more traction and more
architects who hold the importance of sustainability in their designs are
climbing the ranking in the design word. This publication works to promote
and facilitate the ideas and designs of those who consider the land they build
on. In this issue we featured the writings of Mirela Ferreira, Alex baker, and
Nicholas Hersey and visual curation of
Nash Collings-Miller.
1
18

Credits
Mirela Ferreira Pg. 5
Object vs System
Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965-
1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.
Alex baker Pg. 16, 11, 12
-Greg Lynn, Architectural Curvilinearity, The Folded, the Pliant, and the Supple in A.K. Sykes, pp.
30-61
-John Rajchman, A New Pragmatism?, in A.K. Sykes, pp. 90-104
Nicholas Hersey Pg. 15
-Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, in K. Nesbitt pp. 72-77
Twenty by twenty by Nash Collings-Miller Pg. 3, 4
Agrest, Diana, and Mario Gandelsonas. Semiotics and Architecture.
From the book Theorizing A New Agenda For Architecture.
Stern, Robert. New Directions in Modern American Architecture.
From the book Theorizing A New Agenda For Architecture.
17
2

Architectural Curvilinearity, The Folded, the Pliant, and the Supple - Greg Lynn
A New Pragmatism? - John Rajchman
A building they talked about was Frank Gehry’s museum proposal in Jerusalem.
They were talking about how it was displacing the ground beneath it. Usually in a building
site you bring in the bulldozers so quite literally there would be displacement of the earth,
but because the site was a Muslim cemetery it was nixed. In the reading it mentions the architect
Charles Moore, the Piazza d’Italia was something he was known for architecturally.
He was definitely far out there on that design.
They talked about displacement, of buildings and architecture. They simple are calling
out this thing that happens with everything involving architecture, it does not really
change architecture just the way it is. The ways they talk about displacement are physical
and what the physical creates. So two walls displace the space between them to make open
air, or an interior room. Sometimes actually moving something away and relocating it, like
the soil before a house gets put in. The displacement of dirt with the foundation.
It is interesting for sure but that’s all it is, I think it would be interesting if they
applied it better and talked about it historically and for the future maybe how it could
change maybe with new technology. As far as the other reading it was all interesting to
hear about and think about but not a strong connection to architecture, the theme was
networking or systems and how a house can be a system and globally there are systems of
design, style, genre of architecture but there were no real examples of something that was
shared through this network. I see how each bit can be related to a house or building but
not the whole idea of architecture. - Alex N. Baker
3 16

The book review
Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture - Robert Venturi
• “La Tour des Cedres” in Switzerland,
by Stefano Boeri
• New York Five (Eisenman,
Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk,
Meier)
• Urban sprawl in Arizona
• Eco Home Design
• The building’s Environmental
Impact
In his text, Venturi critiques and tries to impose ways to “recover” from modernism.
Venturi claims that architecture in the modern style is too reductive. Reductivism is an
ideology that emphasizes extreme simplification of form in architecture. He uses one of
modernists’ main ideals, that “less is more” as an excuse to justify “exclusion for expressive
purposes.” By this, he means that modern architecture tries to simplify everything about a
design, to the point where certain details or forms may be sacrificed for the sake of being
minimal.
Venturi uses the term “exaggerated clarity” when referring to modern architecture.
This is accurate in the sense that modern architects’ desire for simplicity may sometimes
(and most of the time, according to Venturi) take priority over the real issues that the
design is meant to solve. Modern architecture developed in a way that started to remove
people’s agency from architecture. Everything was so minimal and simple, that there
wasn’t much room for “manipulation” or usage of a space according to society’s free will.
By doing this, Venturi discusses the lack of depth of modern architecture. No longer did
architecture have a deeper meaning or was it trying to convey an underlying message to
people. Venturi states: “modern architects recognize complexity insufficiently or inconsistently.”
Modern architecture dealt with most situations and people as if everything was the
same. In some cases, leveling the playing field solved the problem, but not for everything.
When an architect makes everyone and everything the same, where does individuality and
agency then come from? - Nicholas Hersey
• Balance/ the interconnectivity of
natural systems
• Renewable energies
• Questions of sustainablity
• Define sustainability
• Being self sufficient
• How to judge green architecture
• Falling Water Frank Lloyd
Wright
• Nature as a guide
• Chesa Futura (in Switzerland)
• Vernacular Traditions
• ACROS Fukuoka Foundation
Building, Fukuoka, Japan
• Sustainable building
• Masdar City - plan
• Masdar City Sustainability Strategies
• Masdar City Masterplan
15
4

Object vs System
An object is a physical thing that can be seen and touched. A system a set
of principles or techniques according to which something is done; a structured
scheme or method. But the definitions can be taken in various context, meaning
that there is no right or wrong way to use it in an architectural discussion.
Object can be seen in relation to a thing that exists by itself in the absence of a subject.
An independent self-sufficient thing becomes an object if we place it before us, either
by immediate perception or by bringing to mind a exemplification of itself. Building
as an object exists in the mind of an artist before it exists as a self-sufficient thing.
It exists as an object for the interpreter or viewer who goes for instance, to a museum,
eager to make contact with it. But its existence as a thing is only complete for the artist
and for the viewer in the communion of this potential object with its materiality.
Jacques Lacan said “Every man's way of finding the object is, and is no more than the continuation
of a tendency that is a lost object, an object to be found again”. The quote refers to
the connection between subject and object, that is, a repetition procedure, brings with it the
contradiction of the impossibility
of the recovery of this same object,
and the inherent conflict in every
search for the object. The analogy
with architecture is put in the fol-
lowing terms, does architecture
have an object? Or is architecture,
like history, a discipline with no
specific purpose? The object con-
trasts from the subject who knows
or transforms it, being suscepti-
ble of experience. In architecture,
the object that is envisioned to be
absolute and unique, is classical,
differs from its surroundings by
the exactness of its constituent
parts and the clear demarca-
tion of its limits. The classical
architecture, in contrast to that which surrounds it is complete and total, has harmony.
In the book Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture by Kate Nesbitt, Robert
A.M Stern states that buildings are designed to have a meaning, they are not airtight
obejcts; meaning that there is always a reason why something was created. Buildings
are not just made to occupy a space. They have functions, aesthetic or visual
purposes. His views are supported by Diana Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas, by saying
that objects have inherent meanings. What is understood is that, buildings are not simply
objects to occupy space, but also, objects have meaning behind what we visually see.
Systems aims to perform the analysis, understanding and conceptual modeling of the
organization's business. It results in an overview of the needs of information systems in an organization.
The desired results of the systems in Architecture are: new business process models,
data and information modeling, structuring of systems with mapping of organizational routines,
adequacy of the institution's infrastructure, with the implementation of new technologies.
Therefore, systems are driving the design discipline with the pressure of a larger agenda.
-Mirela Ferreira
5
The global crisis that architects and design currently need to respond to is climate
change. This is the system that needs to be driving design today. Instead of creating objects
within the context of LEED certifications and green building standards, our architects
need to respond to the global necessities. Some, in pursuit of sustainable design, overlook
the function of the building to the human inhabitants. These buildings are designed more
as testaments to current technologies rather than a care for sustainability and nature. The
larger agenda for the LEED fad is to disillusion ourselves into thinking we are contributing
positively to the environment. The buildings that are currently LEED certified are such to
make builders and the public feel better about what the structure is there for. In order to
truly be sustainable, the intention behind the building needs to be sustainable as well, rather
than simply a structure with an agenda.
We can see from Masdar City that this concept can be achieved. This city is completely
off the grid, a zero waste community, and does not conform to a certification board. Rather
than needing a label or a board to confirm sustainability practices, this city is simply doing
it, their actions speaking for themselves. No one had to tell them that they are sustainable
— they just are. However, this is not necessarily a practical way of living — it may not be
inhabitable or achievable for all humans. Therefore, Masdar City is just a pretty object — in
its design, it did not take account functionality and isn’t practical. This can be the downfall
of a lot of buildings — though they are pretty, they aren’t useful. They seem to check boxes,
but in practice are not functional.
Building, system, and object are all connected in architecture, they all have a roll in
influencing each other. In Herzog & de Meuron’s stadium, the system had come and gone
with the 2008 olympics and then the building was left as a lost object that need to be reasserted
with purpose. The Pruitt–Igoe complexes is an example of a system failing the building
and its intended purpose. Masdar city is the representation of the future, an example
of system positively influencing design with a higher purpose. Systems of design and of
thinking can influence a building to the extent of the building losing its intended function
turning the building into an object.
14

The object of useless beauty
There are two parties of thinking as it pertains to architectural design, one being the design
of object and the other with a focus on functional building. Many factors in the the
Architectural community can and do change the many faces of architecture. From the beginnings
of the architecture we know today, there have been systems that influenced design
— systems that have been developed to accommodate the time we are in currently. Systems
of design have influenced architecture and have made it what we know today. Sometimes
to its own fault it leaves out many groups and considerations in the process of “successful”
design.
Many of the architects we as a community hail for their awe-inspiring designs build
for the object and not the function. These designs seem only useful to be objects, to be
looked at and studied for their impacts. Such buildings include the Beijing National Stadium
by Herzog & de Meuron, which was built for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This building
was awe-inspiring in its design, captivating audiences and the architectural community.
But today, it will be turned into a mall and entertainment complex. The stadium costs $9
Million to maintain every year. The architects of the stadium designed and built it for the
olympics, and gave no thought to the future of the building, which can only be described
as uninspiring. Buildings like this do little to nothing to advance the design world; they are
heaps of metal that, in their design, payed little to no attention to use after it is realized.
Some buildings don’t take as much time to depreciate and become useless, while some are
built only for their initial intent, an object of useless beauty.
Many buildings in our current architecture world have designs that work for the human
experience; but, it is the system built around them that does not work. Complexes like
Pruitt–Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri, had true intentions in helping lower income families
receive housing — but the system built around the building failed the idea and realized its
end. In this instance neither design function nor realistic expectation was taken into consideration.
This has been the downfall many of architecture movements in the past.
13
6

Tiny houses are about getting back to nature and giving back to
nature in your own unique way. Many ads today focus on “home”
and “life” and how those two say a lot about how your home says a
lot about you while it also focused on nature. These cues were tak-
en and instructed this magazine to encompass the natural and the
beautiful. Also picked up was a theme of buildings in the context
of nature. Buildings that are built with the natural and the focus of
their design is nature.
7
12

11 8

Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter’s Collage City is an inspection of the context
of our cities. In the piece they examine the city of Rome and cities similar to such
cities. Rowe and Koetter look at the ideal city and what the consequences of the
ideal city. They seem to suggest that the ideal city is too closely a bridge to ethnic
cleansing. The argument seems to be that the lack of diversity int he design in the
city is closely related to the culture of the people in that city. The context of the city
is made up of the people and the execution of an Ideal city would drop context
and the different people that make up that context. These themes are consistent
through out the texts, in addition to the idea of the Suit and Dress view of architecture
with or without context. An idea that Koetter and Rowe explained made
the most sense to me. This was the idea of the Fox and the Hedgehog. The Fox is
the animal holds the symbolic architect/designer/person that knows little about
a lot of ideas, where as the Hedgehog who is very knowledgeable about one idea
or function. This is what I chose to talk about and lead a class discussion about for
I felt I could expand intelligently about.
These pieces equally made sense and also sometimes went off a little too far. The
argument of the Hedgehog and the Fox made sense and can be applied to many
areas. The argument that the ideal city leads to or represents ethnic cleansing can
be argued. The city of Masdar in the UAE is a ideal zero waste city and seems to be
so far successful. Master city is a blue print to what all our cities should look like
in our near future. One of the reading was All Dressed up And Someplace to Go
from Caroline O’Donnell, where she explores to some extent, the buildings’ ability
to blend in. O’Donnell brings up the thought that if a building is not blending in it
is standing out and can be in most cases, can be arrogant. If i could ask O’Donnell
about wether she finds any merit in these arrogant buildings. If in any way could
9
10