Opened to the public on May 23, 2004, the Seattle Central Library by Rem Koolhaas quickly became a tourist attraction in Seattle, Washington.

The 362,987 square foot building features an underground public parking lot, hundreds of computers, an auditorium, and “the book spiral” that allows visitors to traverse the entire book collection all on one continuous “floor” that spirals over 5 stories.  I found the entire structure to be amazing in both form and function.  Practical details like having floor air registers and waterless urinals are complimented by having text embossed flooring, and vertical circulation identified with a consistent bright yellow.

During my visits on June 27th and 28th I overheard an elderly woman comment that being in the building was giving her an anxiety attack.  I would agree that the building as a whole can seem a bit overwhelming, it is very different from the traditional library.  However, I found the building to be exciting and invigorating.  The building draws you to explore it and discover.  I think libraries as a whole can be very compartmentalized, but the spaces in Seattle Central Library were very connected not just horizontally but vertically as well.  I was also surprised by the numerous intimate areas that were created on balconies, and in glazed niches.  There were many places that I could see myself sitting for hours just reading.

Overall I found the building very impressive.

(Photo essay after the break)

Continue Reading »

Lloyd Alter, of TreeHugger, posted a great slide show today titled Green Roofs are Changing Architecture and Planning.  In 15 slides he gives a great overview of green roofs yesterday and today.

His thesis is summarized on the last slide with the words:

Perhaps to everyone’s surprise, [green roofs] have turned into planning tools to help put buildings where no building has gone before, are radically changing the architectural form of buildings, the way architects present buildings and the respective roles of architects and landscape architects.

He then gives this dire warning:

Let’s just be vigilant to ensure that [green roofs] are not misused and brought into disrepute by using them as excuses to put buildings in places they shouldn’t be, just because they are green.

I don’t see the problem.  When can a green roof be misused?  Maybe if you populate it with killer bees, but in the words of Mr. Molina, “Green is good.”

Continue Reading »

The WebEcoist recently posted a great article “When Caves and Architecture Collide” that showcases some of the extraordinary structures man has erected inside of caves over the millennium.  Matthew Rogers, the author, notes that he wanted to showcase what happens when “beautiful caves get mated with the architectural and artistic abilities of our ancestors (which, sadly, still seem to outdo us by leaps and bounds).”

Besides enjoying the stunning photographs, Matthew’s words made me think about a theme that has surfaced again and again among architectural thinkers:

Why do we frequently perceive the creations of the past to be superior to our own in the present?

Predjamski grad, Slovenia

I think there are many reasons why today’s architecture may be perceived as lesser then the past and I would like to explore a few of them.

1. We have placed limits on ourselves.  The people of the past were able to carve out massive caves and place stone monuments all over islands because they wanted to and there was no one to stop them.  I find it ironic that the WebEcoist posted a piece on how man has desecrated natural caves.  Our modern environmental sensibilities would never allow a developer to carve up a natural cave.  If you want to do that sort of thing you better be prepared for decades of EIRs and legal battles.
2. The economics don’t allow for it.  Ancient cultures often united for common architectural goal.  Stonehenge, the Egyptian Pyramids, and the great cities of ancient America come to mind.  If you can mobilize a society for one specific goal you can accomplish amazing things.  Today we don’t have the same collective will for great architecture, and when we do, as in the case of the the Freedom Tower in NY, we don’t have absolute leadership to organize and direct the work.  There have been a few exceptions that I can think of in recent times; the Mormon pioneers of the early 1800 worked collectively to erect their early temples, and the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River where massive government direction and resources allowed for this project to be completed.
3. Skilled labor is harder to find.  I’m really not sure if this is entirely true  since I don’t have any statistics comparing the percentage of skilled labor anciently to today, but I think in general terms the quality of craftsmanship in modern construction is in decline.  In the United Sates we don’t have an apprentice system or any formal way for craftsmen to pass down there skills.  The majority of construction workers today tend to have general skill sets and not a mastery of any particular trade.
4. 

   Burj Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

   We look around today and see all of our current creations, the good, and the bad.  We know from archaeological evidence that man has always built a lot.  The majority of ancient architecture was made of mud bricks or wood that has been washed away over time.  What remains are the monuments, the temples, the grand architectural statements.  I think that in a thousand years we will look back on today’s architecture with the same awe and reverence as we do to our predecessors of thousands of years ago.  All of the rubbish architecture will have been cleared away leaving only our grand statements, our monuments.  The people in the future will say, how did they build all of that without holographic modelers and construction robots?  We know from archaeological evidence that man has always built a lot.  The majority of ancient architecture was made of mud bricks or wood that has been washed away over time.  What remains are the monuments, the temples, the grand architectural statements.  I think that in a thousand years we will look back on today’s architecture with the same awe and reverence as we do to our predecessors of thousands of years ago.  All of the rubbish architecture will have been cleared away leaving only our grand statements, our monuments.  The people in the future will say, how did they build all of that without holographic modelers and construction robots?

Is the architecture of yesterday superior to our own by”leaps and bounds”?  In some ways I think so.  But I sure would like to see a medieval lord erect a 2,684 foot skyscraper.

The AFP ran a story yesterday about Prince Charles and his latest clash with architects over his traditionalist views on architecture.  (Prince Charles faces new architecture row)  This isn’t the first time the prince has angered British Architects.  25 years ago he described the proposed National Gallery Extension as “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”, much to the outrage of the British architectural establishment.

The Gherkin, old vs. new

Yesterday’s British press was rife with stories about the Prince and his architecture views, it was as if he had committed a great sin against humanity just by threatening to again express his views on architecture.  Yet, for Architects, the Prince really has committed an unforgivable crime.  In 1984, he was invited to present the Royal Gold Medal for Architecture to the Indian architect Charles Correa, instead of giving a simple toast and presenting Correa with his medal he lambasted the state of current British architecture.  All of this occurred at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).  So, now with the news that the prince was again to speak at the RIBA, and the release to the media of portions of his speech, he has reignited the flames.  What the prince doesn’t realize is that Architects more than anything hate to be critiqued, especially by those not in the profession.  In Architecture “everyone is an expert”, and that’s one thing Architects can’t stand.

Is Prince Charles really a living Ellsworth Toohey? Continue Reading »