Question 3

Frampton strongly disagreed with the notion that public spaces are obsolete now that newer technologies, such as the television, preoccupied the spare time of many Americans. Robert Venturi, in his writings, even went far enough to suggest that Americans SHOULD be in front of the television rather than in public spaces.

I understand the possibility of Frampton dishonestly framing the debate to paint Venturi as reckless, but I do agree with his stance. The need of physical public spaces will never disappear simply because of technological advancements. Modern humans have an intrinsic desire to share spaces to physically gather and exchange ideas. Even new forms of public spaces are emerging and adapting to changes in culture. This is evident in recent movements to create new urban parks in unconventional spaces (like the Highline).

question tres

3. what is Frampton's critique of Venturi (and Scott-Brown)? do you agree?

I think Frampton's critique of Venturi stems essentially from Frampton's earlier diagnosis of the Avant-Garde and its lack of critical substance, coherence, and consistency. The post-modern architect, against which Frampton rails, is directly embodied by Venturi - who Framton claims to be "reactionary". In this sense then, I agree - Venturi simply observes the state of society, reformulates it into an architectual idea, and expounds upon it. Architecture is art, art is a commodity, and architecture is a commodity. However, i feel that Frampton's embrace of "Critical Regionalism" is no less manipulative and reactionary than Venturi's free-wheeling brand of post-modernism - infact, it is a sub-movement. Frampton's labels are too flimsy and general to be taken seriously; his views, too two-dimensional. Architecture today is being pushed back and forth, as well as in every direction away and towards the center point (0,0), the status quo, of placelessness and meaninglessness. Framton's "Arrie-Garde" IS the avant-garde - as is Venturi's post-modernism as is deconstructionism. In this sense then, while Framton's critique is true, it is ONLY completely true within the logical and linguistic framework that he has set up.

Is meaning determined by place? or the individual experiences of people on which architecture has only a very limited effect?

our first online debate--excellent!

1 - How to Connect a Building to its Place

Frampton claims that for architecture to remain a critical practice, it must both remove itself from extensive use of advanced technologies as well as resist the tendency to regress into the architectural forms of the pre-modernized world. By doing this, architecture "has the capacity to cultivate a resistant, identity-giving culture.

To create an architecture that has a connection to place, Frampton proposes we follow the strategies of Critical Regionalism. The key is to "mediate the impact of universal civilzation with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place". One must create architecture that is separate from the typical manifestations of world culture. This means getting away from the exotic forms that have been made possible and even typical by advancing technologies.

To create an architecture that is regionalized, it is best to take inspiration from the natural elements inherent to a region, such as topography, climate, and local light. Regarding topography, it would encourage placelessness to bulldoze a site so one could build from a flat base. One should terrace the ground and build into it, and in doing this the architecture would be acknowledging the history of the site, it would embody "its archaeological pst and its subsequent cultivation and transformation across time". By building this way, fundamental elements of the site are incorporated into the architecture in a way that is not overt or distasteful. Frampton dispises the air conditioning. He hates it because it is applied everywhere and it makes the climate of the place basically irrelevant. Frampton advocates attention to the behavior of climate and light, and the appropriate incorporation of the favorable elements of these into a building with natural techniques. By this i mean building massing to optimize wind conditions or top lit galleries with a system to filter direct sunlight. In this way, users of the architecture will appreciate the behavior of the natural elements of a place, and therefore have a regionally specific experience.

Question 4 (Realm of the Automobile)

There is an interesting relationship between public and private within the realm of the automobile. People are in visible contact with other drivers throughout the day; however, windows tend to keep drivers from direct interaction. Thus there is still a distinct sense of privacy/security.

There is no true realm of the car, but with respect to actual motopia architecture I am inclined to agree with Julie Williams’ response to the question; albeit my point about direct contact. Nevertheless, I think Drew Ross brings up an interesting point about the domination of the car motivated architecture. I think a better solution than trying to “take back the built environment” is to integrate the two realms. Although safety is a common issue, future computer systems will have the ability to fully operate a car, allowing such an interaction to transpire.

Question 10

Frampton makes the argument that architecture today must assume an arriere-garde position, that it must distance itself from both "high tech" and old sentimentalism. He argues that chasing new technologies has the danger of wiping out the cultural roots of a civilization, or as Frampton writes, "the ground in which the mytho-ethical nucleus of a society might take root has become eroded by the rapacity of development. In the same way, digital fabrication has the same dangers of producing by means of the technology available rather than from the society it is for. Frampton talks about Jorn Utzon's Bagsvaerd Church as an example of a building that is only partially successful at taking on the benefits of prefabrication. The outer prefab concrete in-fill panels are great and economical due to its universality but the interior reinforced concrete shell speaks to a foreign form that does not relate to Western culture, but instead to eastern culture. One of Frampton's fears is that universalization destroys culture. In my sociology class over the summer, we learned that globalization actually creates two opposite responses. It both creates a homogenization as well as a greater investment to cultural roots. The greater investment to cultural roots is exactly the result of Frampton's and others who shared his fears. Then one can argue that both responses to universalization is good. A forward movement to economy, as well as global, shared understanding, as well as a movement to preserve the societies roots. Essentially the question for architecture is, "Is architecture suppose to be primarily from the society or for the society?"