Ode to the code
I was enlightened to read the editorial in the March 2008 issue regarding Architectural Record's code of ethics [“What is your perception?,” ]. It was heartening to learn about the effort that is required to maintain ethical standards in journalism for a balanced viewpoint and outlook.
I always look forward to the new month with curiosity and high expectations for stories that ignite my imagination and transport me to projects, works, and thoughts, to which I cannot easily make the journey to experience. I do commend you and your team for the quality you strive for.
Living single
I notice most of the houses in your 2008 Record Houses issue make some claim to sustainability. I think this does a disservice to the profession, ruins our credibility, and strains the public’s credulity. Single-family homes are inherently unsustainable and even antisustainable. Sustainable single-family housing is an oxymoron, like hybrid SUVs. Even Dwell has begun to admit they probably aren’t an optimum approach. When will McGraw-Hill catch on?
I was disappointed to see that you were unable to find more than three houses in the United States for this year’s issue of Record Houses. As a member of the AIA, I find it appalling that your editors were unable to find suitable residences here. I would call this the “slat wall” issue.
I enjoyed the coverage of Sean Godsell’s Glenburn House in Australia [page 92] in your Record Houses issue—thank you for including more international examples in your fine magazine. However, as an Architectural Record subscriber currently residing in the southern hemisphere, I cannot help but point out an example of northern-hemisphere-centric thinking in the issue, which may have impacted the inclusion of this house as it was judged, presumably, on its ecofriendly characteristics. As a result of this myopic thinking, the claim of one such characteristic is invalid.
The photo caption on page 96 states, “The living and dining space faces the landscape on its northern side. The southern side is partially banked in the earth to shield it from the sun.” Yet the photo clearly shows sunlight pouring in through the northern windows. Why? Because the house is in the southern hemisphere, of course! The house is hardly shielded from the sun, as the photo proves, and the southern face, given the house’s orientation (page 94), would never receive the midday sun an Australian house would need protection from.
All of the architecture design guides I have ever seen are not only northern-hemisphere-centric, they only focus on that part of the earth north of the Tropic of Cancer. Where I reside, about 4 degrees south of the equator, the midday sun shines on both the northern and southern faces of my house over the course of a year, and twice a year the sun is directly overhead. Point is, the sun doesn’t shine on the whole world in the same way. Architectural Record should know better. Next time you judge a house based on its ecofriendliness, please make sure all claims made are actually valid.
The editors respond:
The Glenburn House is actually oriented slightly west of north. The earth is built up on both the northeast and southwest (i.e., the long sides) of the building. On the southwest side, the earth insulates the building from the hot, late-afternoon summer sun. On the northeast side, the earth also acts as an insulator and filters particularly the early morning sun. In the photograph with the caption, the earth finishes flush with the concrete seat on the left-hand side of the picture.
I design homes for a living, and I have to tell you: The collection of Record Houses you recently featured truly did set a record for being the most jaw-droppingly ugly, wastefully expensive, and totally impractical homes I have ever seen in one place at the same time. I guess that’s why non-architect designers like me have plenty of work these days: We design homes as if someone will actually live in them.
The Nora House by Atelier Bow-Wow featured in Record Houses 2008 [page 110] is a fascinating study in planes, volumes, and craftsmanship. The compact home features interwoven spaces on nine different levels connected by a series of open steps. As a reasonably fit and athletic individual recovering from an ankle fracture, I can also tell you those with disabilities might consider the Nora House a house from hell.
Brooding in the coop
The brooding mass of Coop Himmelb[l]au’s BMW Welt [March 2008, page 86] needs to be assessed in an appropriate global context, away from the rock-star reputation of its creator. Its structural gymnastics framing a limited brief of vehicle delivery/car showroom cannot justify the deployment of such a vast quantity of resources. Nowhere was the squandering of such an enormous building cost better illustrated than in the juxtaposition of a talk by Wolf Prix with that of Indian architect Anupama Kundoo at the national conference of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects in 2006. Kundoo worked with India’s rural poor to help build small houses from site-baked mud bricks, incorporating the kilns as part of the houses. Every brick counted. Prix’s BMW Welt consumed resources at a rate sufficient to build scores of whole villages.
I have no objection to the building of major cultural institutions designed to contribute to the life of the community. But surely there is a limit to the amount of money corporations are prepared to spend to enhance branding at the expense of genuine additions to the cultural assets of our urban populations?
Wild west
I enjoyed Michael Sorkin’s Critique of the Hudson Yards project [“Making (too) big plans for Manhattan’s West Side,” February 2008] and agree with much he had to say, particularly how the MTA—and others—have tricked people (including architecture journalists) into looking at the wrong thing, namely the architecture. What is missing is any real discussion and debate regarding the planning (or rather, lack of planning) for the site. While he hints at this at the end of his article, I wish he had given some attention to what a responsible program for this site might have been.
Please send letters
via e-mail to editor-in-chief Robert Ivy at
rivy@mcgraw-hill.com.
Letters may be edited for style and format.
 |
|
© 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved
© 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved