“That’s not writing, that’s just typing.”

An ancient definition of architecture suggests that three terms best pertain: Commodity (convenient, functional, useful), Firmness (lasting, robust, sturdy, resilient) and Delight (attractive, beautiful, harmonious, graceful).  Though this characterization of the art of building has been with us since the 1st century BCE, it has proven to be extraordinarily durable. Its author, Marcus Vitruvius Pollio – recognized by us simply as Vitruvius – was the author of De Architectura, which we now know as his Ten Books of Architecture. His work was rediscovered in the early 15th century, it was translated and discussed widely, and one of the artists touched by his words was Da Vinci, in his “Vitruvian Man.”

Vitruvius had much to say, and much to teach us, about making sound and pleasing constructions. Importantly, he noted that architecture must have harmonious proportions, in concert with the harmonious proportions of nature (thus the Vitruvian Man – the harmonious human body).

I mention all of this because I recently made note (to a local group of urbanists) of the eroding quality of large-scaled mixed-use development in our city, and in many cities across the nation. To illustrate what I see as a vexing trend in designing banal structures of shocking similarity, I showed these (and 12 more – 16 total):

Surprisingly I heard strong and vocal disagreement from local colleagues, like this:

“And I honestly don’t understand people’s revulsion to new buildings. They look fine to me. The state shouldn’t regulate taste.”

Not sure who said anything about regulating taste, but I also got this response:

“….I mean I could line up 16 different early-20th century Neoclassical buildings, 16 different Gothic Revival churches, or for that matter 16 different Frank Lloyd Wright houses from different cities and they wouldn’t look any less similar to each other. There was never a time in history when every building was mind-blowingly distinct from every other building. I get that it’s en vogue nowadays to bash the fast-casual style, but the plain fact is this is what contemporary architecture looks like, and it’s almost a truism at this point that every generation hates their own contemporary architecture.”

Fast-casual style! I could not think of a better way to define this detritus – contemporary architecture – with a term that sounds like a crowded but prosaic, and commonplace franchise restaurant. I did not know the style had a name, but I will stick with it – a perfect descriptor of what is happening to the private and public realms of our physical cities. Bullseye.

Anyway, there is more to parse in this correspondent’s words.

He is incorrect, of course, about the similarities that characterize the historic architecture that he references. Let’s look into this further.

First, I don’t think he meant early 20th century “neoclassical” architecture. If the buildings were neoclassical, then of course they would be derived from the classical language of building and would therefore be similar. You know, like the Parthenon is related to the Pantheon:

I think he meant early 20th century Main Street buildings – retail down and mixed use up. But of course, while these buildings observe certain shared conventions of materials, artisanship that is encouraged – even expected, and uses of retail at the street and residences or commercial above, they are nonetheless substantially varied. Like this:

All Main Streets are certainly not the same.

I won’t offer similar responses to the contentions about Gothic Revival or Wrightian structures, but the differences in examples of these significantly outweigh their similarities. Compared, that is, to the shared banalities of fast-casual.

Finally, let us look at the claim that “every generation hates their own contemporary architecture.” Really, I cannot think of a more strikingly flawed observation. We have lived through at least a century of incessant whining about the critical need to create in the “spirit of the age.” We must honor the zeitgeist, we must innovate, we must be original, we must express the chaos and disorder of our time by making something contemporary and new and up to date. For decades, every generation has claimed that their cities and their buildings are the best of contemporary architecture, truest to the moment.

No, I think my criticism of fast-casual stands. The software that architects use to create today’s architecture, and our now instant electronic communication and illustration of the “latest” have helped to spawn a vastly lowered and deflated set of standards in contemporary architecture. That and the ever-present twin ideas that govern so much that fills our cities: we must express ourselves as architects (but really, in the end, who cares? If you have the pencil in your hand, doesn’t that make this matter moot?) and we must express the sentiments and sensibilities – the zeitgeist – of our time (what makes your time so special? What about her time, or their time, or a time you don’t know anything about but was yesterday?).

It is true that at any moment, the best buildings share certain conventions. These relate to the materials from which they are constructed, the manner in which these materials are handled, the proportions and arrangement of the structures, and the ordering of the buildings’ uses. After those shared traits though, the final expressions of the architecture range widely.

But my sixteen fast-casual examples are flat, planar, and with almost no articulation. The way they are made, or from what, seems to have no role in their final appearance. They all seem to have little regard for their locales – they could be anywhere. They all look low-priced (perhaps their strongest shared characteristic) and of low quality:  it is almost as if their designs were never completed before they were rushed into construction.

In the end let us use Vitruvius’s three descriptions of what defines architecture: the commodity of this group of designs is unclear; their firmness is most questionable (will you give them 10 years? The terms of their mortgages?); and they are without delight of any kind. Harmonious and attractive and graceful would never be words used to describe these buildings.

Buildings they are. Architecture they are not. Which brings us to the famous criticism that Truman Capote leveled at the work of Jack Kerouac: “That’s not writing, that’s just typing.”

6 thoughts on ““That’s not writing, that’s just typing.”

  1. Great to see this! I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one around here who despairs at the state of the “architecture” going up here and around the country. Fortunately there are some who are trying to do something about it. Are you familiar with the Building Beauty Program in Sorrento, Italy (https://www.archdaily.com/945133/christopher-alexander-is-building-a-legacy-in-beauty) or the Living With Beauty report from the UK? (Living_with_beauty_BBBBC_report.pdf)

    Our local architects could benefit from some of these ideas.

  2. Tim, thanks for the recommendations. I am grateful for your concurrence, though I continue to be exasperated at the state of our built environment. Most current work is hackneyed, cliched, banal. And the work that is praised and held to offer greatest value is self indulgent, indecipherable, self absorbed and self-congratulatory. Finding simple work that has dignity, and a modicum of self respect and modesty, is nearly impossible. What a time this is.

    I did not know of either of your recommendations, though I have now acquainted myself with the Alexander and Dickinson project in Italy, and I have downloaded and will plow into the BBBC report. At first glance, its illustrations are wonderful.

    Thanks for the connections!

  3. The most alarming thing about the current practice of architecture is the lack of introspection and intrigue with regard to traditional approaches to building. The profession of architecture should seek to engage opportunistically with a variety of approaches to design. The lack of this engagement with traditional architecture is confusing. If a design or process has thousands of years of development and evolution, why wouldn’t that be an exhilarating opportunity for exploration? There is almost a contemporary aversion to the principles which you described: harmony, beauty, gracefulness for the sake of cost and efficiency. In other professions for example, if you are a bad chef or a bad musician with poor taste, you do not work. There are many buildings that are antithetical to this idea, that if they are somehow graceful and beautiful, they are somehow un-intellectual. Beauty in the architecture profession is almost regarded as a point of suspicion and is often disregarded for the sake of some pseudo intellectual approach to design and the need to feel contemporary.

    I love your work by the way.

  4. Drew thanks for joining the conversation. And thank you for the compliment – appreciated.

    I agree with your observations. Architecture, I believe, has accrued a deep and significant body of knowledge across centuries. For practitioners to believe, suggest, or declaim that only the most recent events in that body of knowledge are germane – as so many do – seems to me like a return to blood letting and leeches. We did do that once, and then we learned it did not work. So the body of knowledge which is medicine is informed by what has achieved stature by virtue of validity.

    Our body of knowledge (which is architecture) – which most architects have an imperfect mastery of, at best – has so often discounted successful measures for no reason other than fancy and whimsy. Thousands of years of wisdom, so many years of achieving work of dignity and long-lasting value – are discounted for reasons of personal (and poor) generational taste. No wonder we have so much construction that is ugly, without value, and ultimately destructive of the ravaged world we inhabit. What a mess!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s