The Problem of Irony. A Call for Architecture to Rediscover its Mass Appeal by zimmie.sutcliffe

AR7049 The Problem of Irony

Regrounding: A call for architecture to rediscover its mass appeal Zimmie Sutcliffe - 18015382

Contents 1.0 - Abstract 2.0 - Restraint or refrain? 3.0 - Wicked problems 4.0 - Rise of the social 5.0 - Questions of value 6.0 - Failures in communication 7.0 - Refocusing skills 8.0 - References

1.0 - Abstract “It is a hopeless enterprise to search for meaning in politics or significance in history when everything that is not every day behaviour or automatic trends has been ruled out as immaterial.” (Arendt, 1958) In documenting the rise of the social in the public realm and its equalising, or reductive, effect, depending on your outlook, Hannah Arendt also identifies a critical issue in contemporary architectural discourse, the mealy-mouthed contextualism and “sweet natured niceness” (Meades, 2014) that pervades, particularly in academia. The risk averse intellectualism of the modern urbanite, betraying the vacuum of self-assuredness aroused through “a cultural imagination founded on irony, or scepticism, as a symptom of the sophistication of our times – a kind of mental agility that makes it all-too-easy to skate over the surface of things so that one never fully grasps an object’s meaning.” (Barac, 2015) This is not to denigrate the pursuit for an architecture of subtlety, a humble acknowledgement and representation of the apparent human need to be anchored to a fixed notion of place, identity or common heritage, particularly in the face of a world seemingly “governed by a logic that is out of control”. (Barac, 2015) It is instead to argue that a retreat into a space of intellectual detachment is in essence the architect admitting their inability to effect positive change in the world of reality so confining their efforts to the world of theory and isolated exemplar.

2.0 - Restraint or refrain? I would like to begin this discussion with a comparison of two award winning residential schemes, both acclaimed for, among other things, their sensitivity and embodiment of place; seemingly the high-water mark of contemporary architectural ambition. Lochside house by HaysomWardMiller Architects, winner of House of the Year 2018, “looks as though it’s grown out of the ground.” (RIBA, 2018) Conversely, Goldsmith Street by Mikhail Riches, a RIBA East 2019 winner, “captures the spirit of a very special place” (RIBA, 2019). This comparison does not serve to evaluate the success of either scheme, as they are both outstanding architectural projects worthy of their accolades, merely to shine a light on the tension between the apparent priorities of architectural thought versus their reflection in built outcomes. As Oliver Wainwright states in The Guardian, Goldsmith Street “might not look ground-breaking, but this little neighbourhood represents something quietly miraculous.” (Wainwright, 2019) And what is this little miracle you might ask? “This is proper social housing, rented from the council with secure tenancies at fixed rents.”(Wainwright, 2019) Yes, the awe inspiring feat of this endeavour is that it provides the best in architectural quality for the “common person”, the masses, the regular folk, at a price they can afford. Again, the intention here is not satirical, and it is clear the causes of this issue extend far beyond the control of the architect, however to highlight the absurdity of architects turning their considerable skill to the areas where their input is most desperately needed, being singled out for special praise is to begin to identify the failings of the architectural profession to translate its ideals into reality. It is symbolically significant that Lochside house “sits on the edge of a lake in the West Highlands”, (RIBA, 2018) one of an increasingly large list of architectural exemplars condemned to geographic and cultural obscurity.

3.0 - Wicked problems Why then, in order to realise the most complete embodiment of their vision, must the architect seemingly be restricted to the “one-off”, the private client, the hill top villa or valley dwelling retreat? In part I believe the current impotence of the architect is a result of the professions own drift towards intellectual escapism, aesthetic niceties, a reflection of the “metropolitan milieu” (Barac, 2015) in the face of the wicked problems born of 21st century technical complexity. In his essay Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Richard Buchanan defined so called wicked problems as “a class of social system problems which are ill-formulated…where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.” (Buchanan, 1992) He also documents how “we have seen design grow from a trade activity to a segmented profession to a field for technical research and to what now should be recognised as a new liberal art of technological culture” (Buchanan, 1992), in line with the advance of knowledge and ever increasing complexity of the modern world, noting “The circle of learning was further divided and subdivided until all that remained was a patchwork quilt of specialisations.” (Buchanan, 1992) The dispersal of responsibility to a range of ever-increasing specialists within the construction (and numerous other) industry is undoubtedly necessary when faced with the pace and complexities of the 21st century; “At the same time that the problems increase in quantity, complexity, and difficulty they also change faster than before.” (Venturi, 1966) No single architect or architectural practice can be expected to manage single handedly the volume of design and technical considerations required of a modern building, with increasing demands on energy, services, electrical equipment etc but unwittingly, by ceding control of these matters of technology to specialist consultants, the architect has also begun to cede control over design, as the heightened technical demand and difficulty of building mirrors the heightened technical demand and intricacy of the world, thus resulting in the architect as glorified consultant, co-ordinator in chief.

In response to the repositioning of architecture “in the context of signs, symbols, and visual communication” (Buchanan, 1992) in postmodern thought, there has developed a tendency towards the “intellectualistic indifference” to protect the individual and block out the “urban cacophony” (Simmel, 1903) described by Simmel, but in this instance perhaps, could “the individual” be substituted for “the architect” and “urban cacophony” for “consultant cacophony”? Now, projects like Lochside house of course require consultant input; any building is a collaboration, but the cacophony is less, allowing the designer space, a greater modicum of control, more the conductor than say the cello player in a 500-unit, new London vernacular orchestra. But what good is being the conductor if audience access to your broadcast is limited by virtue of the poor radio signal in the West Highlands? Could this intellectualistic indifference not be redirected as a means of “maximum engagement” through “necessary detachment”? “The challenge is to gain a deeper understanding of design thinking so that more cooperation and mutual benefit is possible between those who apply design thinking to remarkably different problems…In turn, this will shift attention toward audiences as active participants in reaching conclusions rather than passive recipients of preformed messages.” (Buchanan, 1992) Goldsmith Street, and its recognition on the Stirling Prize short list, a space in recent memory reserved for the likes of Norman Foster’s “£1bn building that looks like a regional department store” (Wainwright, 2017) and Caruso St. John’s white walled cathedral of contextually aware, metropolitan detachment, is a sign of the influence still available to the architect through directing their efforts towards the greatest social need, that doesn’t require a compromising of progressive principle or ambition. The fact a simple council housing scheme in Norwich could be afforded the most prestigious architectural prize in the UK, ahead of one of the largest infrastructure projects of the last decade, shows the value still of such “mealy-mouthed” qualities as humility, quiet dignity, the common good; where better embodied than in a council estate?, as long as directed in the right way and to the most urgent problems. Here, I believe Buchanan signals a way forward “The power of design as deliberation and argument lies in overcoming the limitations of mere verbal or symbolic argument – the separation of words and things, or theory and practice remains a source of disruption and confusion in contemporary culture.” (Buchanan, 1992)

4.0 - Rise of the Social Calling for a more effective method of integrating theory and practice may not strike one as a lofty or novel aim yet I believe if “Architecture is a social art” (Mockbee, n.d.) then the two-need reconciling. As Bruce Mau puts it “Architecture is largely irrelevant to the great mass of the world’s population because architects have chosen to be.” (Mau, 2011) A remark intended to provoke perhaps, but not entirely untrue in its assertion. Part of the cause of this perceived irrelevance is highlighted in Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition, namely the “striking decline of all the more public arts, especially architecture, is sufficient testimony to a close relationship between the social and the intimate.” (Arendt, 1958) The rise of the social across all aspects of life also extends to architecture, particularly architectural education, where a narrowing range of opinion, although not explicitly enforced, has led to a decoupling of the more banal, common sense elements of practice from the theoretical discussions around architecture’s purpose and ability to be a tool for societal change. This over emphasising of superfluous theorisation inhibits the ability of students to apply the truly radical, transformative ideas cultivated over 7 years, a state elucidated by Alain de Botton “architecture is perplexing in how inconsistent is its capacity to generate the happiness on which its claim to our attention is founded.” (Botton, 2006) The failure of architecture to connect with large parts of society is also in part the fault of society itself “With the emergence of mass society, the realm of the social has finally; after several centuries, reached the point where it embraces and controls all members of a given community equally and with equal strength…the victory of equality in the modern world is only the political and legal recognition of the fact that society has conquered

the public realm.” (Arendt, 1958) This “equality” is reflected in much of our current built environment, a bland uniformity expressed in endless expanses of stock brick, mono-rhythmic projecting balconies, a removal of any expression of individuality; not the individuality of the designer, more the lack of expression available to the individuals who inhabit the almost identical cells in these buildings. Even the bricks aren’t real bricks, merely thin, cost saving slips to create the illusion of robustness, at the expense of depth, shadow, texture. In many ways these “faux façades” and homogeneous rhythms mask the rampant inequality inside many of these blocks, projecting a face of perfect “Statistical uniformity”. (Arendt, 1958) This façade of uniformity “is by no means a harmless scientific ideal; it is the no-secret political ideal of a society which, entirely submerged in the routine of everyday living, is at peace with the scientific outlook inherent in its very existence.” (Arendt, 1958) Georg Simmel “described the character of his protagonist – the typical urbanite – as essentially “intellectualistic”. Intellect, the power of the head over the heart, is interpreted as strategic.” (Barac, 2015) It is this character that I believe largely reflects the disposition of the architectural professional, developed partly in an attempt to rise above the trite developments described above, which through their hasty, one size fits all ethos do little for the public perception of architecture; as Barac states “Heidegger decried the tendency to react to overwhelming demands with a style of thinking that overlooks deeper issues.” (Barac, 2015) This is not to argue against deeper reflection, nor the intellectualisation of architecture – in a more complex and fragmented world the power of critical thinking and considered judgement is more essential than ever, it is to critique the isolating effects of this trend that allows “The ‘means-end’ schema widely deployed” (Barac, 2015) to continue apace, further disintegrating the city and alienating its inhabitants. There needs to be a method for increased testing of the ideas and theories developed in education in the real world, a more symbiotic relationship to counter the separation of thought and practice that stemmed from modernist theory. The “urban acupuncture” approach developed by Manuel de Sola Morales and adopted by contemporary practices such as Apparata, that views the city as a living organism and aims to relieve stress through “surgical and selective intervention into the urban environment” (Kay, 2011), is one such methodology that opens up new possibilities. It relies on a certain cunning and re-focusing of the increased “mental capacity to cope and our repertoire of adaptations” (Barac, 2015) found in the intellectual post-modern urbanite, towards identifying opportunities in which to intervene, holes in the urban fabric in which to stitch works that challenge, satirise and re-work the city from within. Whilst this approach does not solve the problem of scope and influence identified earlier, it does provide a more forgiving testing ground for new ways of building that still live within the city, not geographically and intellectually distant.

5.0 - Questions of value “Architecture, in order to be fine art, must portray the purposiveness within itself as an objective purposiveness, that is, as the objective identity between concept and thing, the subjective and objective…It removes the superfluous and that which merely belongs to individuality and allows only the significant elements to remain.” (Schelling, 1989) Here, Schelling attempts to dig down to identify the “essence” of architecture, with the aim of uncovering its role as art. In removing the superfluity in individuality, he portrays the architect as one who reveals or channels architecture’s “significant elements” and thus its power as art, rather than one who creates art. Similarly, Venturi claims “The architect selects as much as he creates.” (Venturi, 1966) The question of the architect’s role, even the foundational discussion of whether architecture constitutes art and on what grounds, still defines its perception, both within the profession, and in the wider public. The general disparity between internal and external value afforded architecture in part has contributed to the rise of inoffensive contextualism; the public lost confidence in architecture following the failure of some of the more radical 20th century experiments of modernism to reconcile us with the industrialised world or bring about utopian living, subsequently architecture then lost confidence in itself to tackle the big issues of our time

and is attempting to regain favour through displaying its softer side – the days of modernist acting out are over, no more youthful “I know best”. Architecture has matured, is once again respectable and serious. Schelling’s assertion that “that which merely belongs to individuality” (Schelling, 1989) prevents architecture attaining a higher level of meaning rings true, and neither “the incoherence or arbitrariness of incompetent architecture nor the precious intricacies of picturesqueness or expressionism” (Venturi, 1966) of the latter half of the 20th century has done much to restore public faith in the competence of architects, at least in their capacities as social catalysts. However, the shift to “An artful recognition of the circumstantial and the contextual and of the inevitable limits of the order of standardisation” (Venturi, 1966) has not been entirely successful in balancing the “false complexity” of the previous generation. It has somewhat restored belief in architects as considered taste makers, worthy of great respect, but there is still no great love for the profession or its creations. And beneath the surface of sincerity and calm, architecture and its purveyors must confess their desire to be held in high esteem, to be loved, venerated. And rightly so, considering the “complexity and contradiction” (Venturi, 1966) inherent in their chosen field, its arduous 7 year education, long hours, endless compromises; “characterised by endurance and longevity: a long education, long training, long hours and long lives.” (Quintal, 2019) Of all artists, architects perhaps hold the least affection in the collective mind. Whereas thousands flock to art galleries and museums every day, and musicians frequently take on almost god-like status, their creations and, perhaps more revealingly, their personalities capture and define whole decades, how many members of the general public can even name three architects? Never mind know any of their works or the stories behind them. Perhaps architecture simply moves too slowly? Its “endurance and longevity” (Quintal, 2019) incapable of satisfying the 21st century need for stimulation – constant, forever new, forever changing. A common critique is simply that architects over-blow their own impact, that people don’t particularly care for buildings because they aren’t of great importance in people’s lives, at least not in any artistic sense and that “Architects should accept their modest role rather than disguise it and risk what might be called an electronic expressionism” (Venturi, 1966) On this issue I differ slightly from Venturi’s assessment; while this would certainly be a way to reduce the pain of feeling under appreciated, if the architect doesn’t believe in the significance and value of their work then how is anyone else supposed to? And further, how is the architect to derive meaning from their work, and would not a lack of belief in its significance, accurate or not, result in a general decline of quality in the built environment? I believe the way for architecture to retain its cultural significance, the ability to foster and initiate social change, requires a genuine engagement with the more banal elements of every day, modern life as it is rather than how we would like it to be. This call for a humble, “common sense” approach should not be mistaken for a desire for functionalism, simplicity or “straight talking”. Quite the opposite, the richness and diversity of human experience, whilst by definition “every day” is also an incredible resource for deriving meaning, “But what we find again and again in current efforts to account for concrete reality is a tendency to de-situate experience.” (Barac, 2015) The power of architecture must come from within, from its deployment and use in the world, however confusing and infuriating that world may be. In this regard I am in agreement with Venturi when he states “Present day architects, in their visionary compulsion to invent new techniques, have neglected their obligation to be experts in existing conventions…but his innovating role is primarily in the what; his experimentation is limited more to his organisation of the whole than to technique in the parts.” (Venturi, 1966)

6.0 - Failures in communication

Essentially a failure of communication and application, the issues laid out do not find fault with any specific architectural style or theory, more so to critique the processes that deliver these to action, and where opportunities for action are sought. The issue of “de-situating experience” (Barac, 2015) is in many ways critical but potentially simple in its solution, as the architect has access to all of the resources they need, namely their fellow citizens and their “on the ground knowledge”, if they are willing to use them. Integrating the user into the design process comes with risk and difficulties but engaging them early on and, more importantly, during and after construction, is critical in them being able to identify with the work. Social statistics fail to embody the range of human experience and reducing the “user” to a number, or worse, an average is never going to succeed in providing for their needs, much less allowing them to find meaning in a space, so the engagement must take place on a much more human level. “Architecture, in order to be fine art, must portray the purposiveness within itself as an objective purposiveness, that is, as the objective identity between concept and thing, the subjective and objective.” (Schelling, 1989) Here, Schelling suggests architecture can be elevated into the realm of fine art but must incorporate both the subjective (the range of human interpretation and experience) and objective (the realities and limits of science, technology, material properties) to do so. This can be read as the duality of architecture as art and science. It is the correct mediating and expression of the objective and subjective that allows architecture to fulfil itself, and “as long as architecture panders to mere need and is merely useful itself, it is indeed only useful and cannot simultaneously be beautiful.” (Schelling, 1989) To produce an architecture of fine art the architect must possess a rigorous understanding of its “essential elements”; the underlying rules, which to be broken first have to be mastered. Schelling begins an attempt to define these characteristics, arguing “Architecture, as the music of the plastic arts, has, just as does music; a rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic element…The harmonic part of architecture refers primarily to proportions or relationships and is the ideal form of this art.” (Schelling, 1989) It is the rich understanding of proportion, composition, alignment, harmony that provides the foundations on which to speculate, to invent, otherwise the grand imaginings rife in architecture schools (at least a number of high profile institutions) fail to convince, that “By attempting too much they flaunt their impotence and risk their continuing influence as supposed experts.” (Venturi, 1966) It can be argued that the purpose of education is precisely to encourage speculative thinking and provide a space more accommodating to taking risks and testing than the harsh realities of the real world, and that by championing “the visionary view” (Venturi, 1966) the new ideas architecture, and society, need to progress are fostered whilst the inevitable mis-steps in the pursuit of the yet unimagined are confined to a place where they do no lasting damage. Whilst this is largely true, I do believe that radical thinking not sufficiently underpinned with the necessary skills to bring it into being has led to a situation where those with ideas to instigate change are increasingly isolated from the mainstream of the architectural world, pushed out by less imaginative, radical thinkers who convince more in their rudimentary skills, the nuts and bolts of practice life. The mainstream world of architecture must take its share of blame for this, as it is their risk averse hiring policies, along with the financially driven, “results business” in which they operate, that restricts opportunity for the visionary in favour of the solid worker. However, an emphasising of the less glamorous parts of architecture alongside the speculation could allow more radical ideas to infiltrate the “corporate” offices, which after all, whether we like it or not, have a big say in the development of the city.

7.0 - Refocusing skills As this piece advocates for a refocusing on the skills required to translate profound architectural theory to actuality in order to re-instil public confidence in the power of architecture, it seems appropriate to conclude this journey back in Goldsmith Street. Although early days, the reception to this scheme in both the architectural press and amongst its inhabitants is almost wholly positive, partly due to the subtleties of its design moves; from the gently curving façade that wraps seamlessly into a perforated brick balustrade, to the precise angling of the roof lines to maximise daylight whilst preventing overlooking issues across its meagre but density maximising 14m wide streets. There are no clunky projections here, no lazy repetition. Equally, there are no radical re-imaginings of how we may live, no excessively complex forms or mixing of uses, simply 7 terraced streets executed exquisitely. Alongside its skilled, intelligent design choices, the attention paid to future residents stands out as crucial to its success. There is a strong appreciation of what most people value in a home and a community reflected in a scheme that focuses on enabling the strongest manifestation of these needs rather than an attempt to re order residents’ priorities or propose new ones. Each of the 105 homes has access to a small private garden at street level, giving a sense of ownership, whilst the simple two to three storey terraced layout fosters neighbourliness and a comforting, human scale. These two very simple features borrowed from the tradition of terraced housing in the UK allow the people who live here to feel valued both as an individual trusted with their own space, not a meagre sliver of balcony 8 storeys in the sky, and as part of a community, metaphorically and physically on the same level as their fellow residents. In many ways this is what it means to be connected to a place, to be part of the city and society; the recognition of your own unique individuality allowing you to take your place in the collective. Not every project can, or indeed should, follow this template but, in the residential realm at least, surely the job of the architect is to use their considerable talent, intellect and creativity to provide the best possible for the most people possible, within the myriad of restrictions placed upon them. This requires listening to and understanding of the needs and desires of those who will use the buildings, allowing the architect to use their unique talents to organise these requirements, whilst suggesting ways in which the fundamental tenets of living can be re-imagined, in short “As an art it will acknowledge what is and what ought to be, the immediate and the speculative.” (Venturi, 1966) Abstract word count: 236 Essay word count (not including abstract or titles): 3845 Total word count (not including titles: 4081

8.0 - References Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barac, M. (2015). Changing Places: Navigating Urbanity in the Global South. In H. S. Sternberg, Phenomenologies of the City (pp. 257-270). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Botton, A. d. (2006). The Architecture of Happiness. Penguin Books Ltd. Retrieved from Alain de Botton: https://www.alaindebotton.com/architecture/extract/ Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 5-21. Kay, L. (2011). Could cities’ problems be solved by urban acupuncture? Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/urban-acupuncture-community-localised-renewalprojects (Accessed: 23/07/2019) Mau, B. (2011, January 11). You Can Do Better. Retrieved from Architect Magazine: https://www. architectmagazine.com/design/you-can-do-better_o?utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com (Accessed: 20/07/2019) Meades, J. (Director). (2014). Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness: Concrete Poetry with Jonathan Meades [Motion Picture]. Mockbee, S. (n.d.). His Impact on Architecture. Retrieved from Samuel Mockbee: http://samuelmockbee. net/impact/architecture/?utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com (Accessed: 20/07/2019) Quintal, B. (2019, January 12). 121 Definitions of Architecture. Retrieved from ArchDaily: https://www. archdaily.com/773971/architecture-is-121-definitions-of-architecture (Accessed: 20/07/2019) RIBA. (2018, November 28). Scottish Lochside House named House of the Year 2018. Retrieved from Architecture.com: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/ house-of-the-year-winner-2018 (Accessed: 16/07/2019) RIBA. (2019). Goldsmith Street. Retrieved from Architecture.com: https://www.architecture.com/awardsand-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-east-award-winners/2019/goldsmithstreet# (Accessed: 16/07/2019) Schelling, F. W. (1989). The Philosophy of Art. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Simmel, G. (1903). The metropolis and mental life. Stimuli. Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Wainwright, O. (2017, October 25). Bloomberg HQ: a £1bn building that looks like a regional department store. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/25/ bloomberg-london-hq-norman-foster-architecture-review (Accessed: 20/07/2019) Wainwright, O. (2019, July 16). I’ve seen the future and it’s Norwich: the energy-saving, social housing revolution. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/16/ norwich-goldsmith-street-social-housing-green-design (Accessed: 16/07/2019)