Architecture + Morality

The Architecture of Faith: A Sermon

2009-11-18T11:05:00.000-08:00

The following is a sermon. I am not usually inclined to publish sermons on our blog, but because the jumping off point of the sermon was the architecture of the temple, I couldn't resist. Hopefully, it reads similarly to our essays. The text is Mark 13:1-8.

Architecture has as much to do with religious buildings as any other sort of building. While we might think that architecture is the province of industry or residence, designing skyscrapers and houses, churches also see the need to consult with architects from time to time. They help provide insight on what kind of space engenders worship, how to best use natural light, and how to ensure that Word and Sacrament are at the center of our life together. Indeed, architects are vital cogs in a design wheel that have great influence on where we live, what our neighborhoods look like, how we feel when we’re at work, and of course, how our faith is represented in our houses of worship.

Because worship of our Lord is among our highest priorities as a civilization (or at least it used to be), our worship spaces are often ornate, decked out with stained glass, elaborate pipe organs, perhaps even statues or inscribed stonework. The spaces are often large with vaulted ceilings, full of religious symbols like crosses, and of course home to the altar and the font. Some of the greatest tourist destinations in Europe are churches: Notre Dame or Sacre Coure in Paris, the cathedral in Milan, or Saint Peter’s Basilica. Those buildings may have taken a century to build, and often the best architectural minds in the world lent their considerable talents to get the job done. These days, in a world of scarce resources and the automobile, architects consult with congregations to plan and produce less glorious buildings, but buildings that continue to bear witness to the transcendence and majesty of our God. Lord willing, the result will be a beautiful space that draws people into reverence and awe before the prelude is ever keyed by the organist.

With all of that said, does Jesus tell us we are not to be impressed with such glorious buildings? In the 13th chapter of Mark, Jesus is teaching in the last week of his life inside the great temple of Jerusalem. This was truly one of the wonders of the ancient world, as early historians tell us that people traveled from many miles away to catch a glimpse of it. As detailed in 2 Samuel, Solomon built a temple fitting for our God, using the finest wood, stone, gold and jewels.

Since the disciples lived primarily in northern Israel and were poor Galilean fisherman, it is quite possible this was the first time they had seen the temple. And like kids in a candy store, they stood there with their mouths hanging open, thinking to themselves, “Golly, this sure is a nice building, huh Jesus?” Like Little Red Riding Hood standing before the wolf saying, “What big teeth you have”, the disciples stood before Jesus in the temple and proclaimed, “What big stones this temple has!”

“The better to impress you with,” Jesus replied. Jesus saw where the disciples were going, and he didn’t like it. It likely wasn’t just the building itself that the disciples were impressed with. It was the power the building represented; for the Jewish people, nothing epitomized power more than the temple in Jerusalem. It was the site of the holy of holies, where God himself resided. This is why Jesus taught here in the last week of his life, this is why he turned over the tables, this is why he saved his harshest rebukes for the Pharisees until he was in the temple. The temple was the seat of power in the Jewish world, and the disciples were probably thinking to themselves, “Hey, we’re hanging around with the Messiah, so all of this is about to be ours.”

We do the same in our own ways. Jesus becomes our way out, our ally in our salvation. We are set to inherit the earth because we have Jesus. That is true to an extent, but it is not exactly accurate. We are saved by the radical grace of God. But Jesus isn’t exactly our ally, because it takes two parties with a shared worldview to be considered allies. We are, more often than not, enemies to the cause of goodness, and only by grace are we saved, not the inherent goodness within us, as the disciples hoped. Did we get a promotion at work? “It must be because God loves me,” we say. Did we get the new house we wanted? “Must be because God loves me!” we say. Did you get into the college you wanted? “Must be because God loves you!” we say.

Maybe it is! God is the source of all good things! But our blessings are not rewards for our goodness, and the temple was not to be a reward for the disciples, even though they were licking their chops over that piece of real estate. We would do well not to emulate the disciples walking around in the glorious temple, thinking we are about to inherit it because of our friendship with Jesus. In fact, Jesus tells them just the opposite.

Following Jesus not only means for the disciples that they won’t inherit the temple that stood before them, it means a life of cross-bearing. For so long, the disciples thought they were following Jesus because he was the way to glory. But they were only half right. He is the way to eternal glory, there’s no disputing that. But he is not the way to worldly glory. The architecture of their faith was wrongly built on the gilded tabernacle, Lebanon cedars and heavy stones of the temple; the architecture of faith in Christ is built on two wooden beams, suitable only for supporting a human body.

It’s not just the disciples’ ill-conceived notions of power and self-glorification that Jesus addresses: it’s also the end times. This portion of Mark is often called the “Little Apocalypse.” But just because bad things happen, Jesus says, doesn’t mean it’s the second coming. You may have seen the previews for one of the worst movies of the year, the disaster film of all disaster films, 2012. Supposedly, this work of fiction is based on the truth that the world really will end on December 21, 2012. This is based on the Mayan calendar, which supposedly ends on that date. Jesus warns us about such movies, er, predictions. He tells us that many will come in his name, and predict the end of the world. But the actual end times won’t look like much of anything compared to the second coming of Christ.

In fact, wars and rumors of wars, buildings crumbling, and famines are just a fact of life for us, Jesus says. Some lousy pastor or conspiracy theorist will always try to capitalize on the human fear of catastrophe by saying that this war or that famine is proof of the second coming of Christ. Cult leaders have been doing it for centuries. That is a narrow view of God, though. Even the images of this new movie 2012, where aircraft carriers pile drive into the White House with a rising sea, and downtown Los Angeles collapses into a heap of burning rubble do not to justice to what the second coming of Christ will be.

See the disciples wanted control, which is why four of them asked Jesus in private what he meant by buildings tumbling down. They wanted the inside scoop so they could live without the fear of God’s invisible action. But Jesus doesn’t give in, and pastors would do well to do the same. We are not in control; we are not the seat of power. The architecture of Christian faith is not built on the ability to predict the future; it is built on the sure and certain hope that God loves us so much he gave his only son to earn a very costly salvation for us. That is about all we can count on for sure, and we don’t even have control of that. It is completely in God’s hands, thanks be to God.

For both of these reasons, because the power of this world does not impress God and because many will falsely come in the name of Jesus, we are called to a faith in Jesus Christ, and Christ alone. In our worship, we express that faith and experience that grace in Word and Sacrament. Far from a false or superficial veneer of faith, we have the scriptures, some water, some bread and some wine as the ultimate expression of our faith. We confess that these things are means of grace, that they are out of our control, and they are not crystal balls we use to look into the future. They are bearers of the promises of God, that even though we do experience difficulties, even though our relationships are broken, even though the job market is bleak, God has not forgotten us.

Sometimes, it’s hard to end a text like this, where the disasters of this world are written off as merely “birth pangs,” by saying, “The Gospel of the Lord.” But it is the gospel. How? Because Jesus is saying that the problems we experience in this life, the wars that we witness and the famines that we mourn are nothing compared to the separation from God the unbeliever will experience. Even though we are like the disciples and we long for powerful buildings and knowledge of the end times, Christ still loves us enough to die for us, to forgive us of our sin and to offer us a life of peace. We won’t ever solve the problems of this world; our sin prohibits it. But we can delight in knowing that our God has divine plans for those who partake in a life of Word and Sacrament, a life in which we give full honor and credit to our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

A Park, not a Neighborhood: the problems and possibilities of the Dallas Arts District

2009-11-07T17:00:00.000-08:00

There has been an air of celebration among Dallas civic boosters, local media and even among many of its citizens these past few weeks. The opening of the $350 million AT&T performing arts center marks the culmination of an ambitious vision set forth by city leaders over 30 years ago in the establishment of the country's largest Arts District. Along a once vacant six-block stretch in downtown just north of the city's gleaming commercial skyscrapers, the Dallas Arts District features museums and performance halls designed by the world's most renowned architects, four of which are Pritzker laureates. The two newest additions to the district, the Dee and Charles Wyly Theatre by Rem Koolhaas (and his ex-partner Joshua Prince Ramus) and the Bill and Margot Winspear Opera House by Foster and Partners, now join the two year old Booker T. Washington School of the Arts by Allied Works Architects, the six-year old Nasher Sculpture Center by Renzo Piano, the twenty-year old (and still sumptuous) Meyerson Symphony Center by I.M Pei, and finally the Dallas Museum of Art by Edward Larrabee Barnes that opened in 1984. Add to those a new SOM-designed city performance hall building under construction and recently unveiled design for the Perot Museum of Nature and Science (yes, that Perot) by Thom Mayne of Morphosis less than a quarter mile away and you have one of the most elite concentrations of contemporary architecture of any city in the U.S.

While impressive, the city's traditional tendency to enthusiastically embrace big-name architects in the realization of its monumental palaces of culture and business (Pei, SOM & Philip Johnson) reveals all the more what is still missing in downtown: day to day urban life. Lurking in all the media attention about the opening of the opera house and the theatre was the question, "will the completed Arts District finally bring life to downtown, by attracting people to live there and sustain viable neighborhoods?" Will it lead to the rebirth of downtown, a pedestrian oasis in a metroplex built on wide spaces and lots of driving?

To any casual observer on the street on any, Dallas feels pretty dead. Other than the handful of office workers walking to their favorite eateries during their lunch break, the sidewalks are empty and many street level businesses close around three in the afternoon. So far the Arts District has fared no better, as few pedestrians can be found lingering outside the museums or performance hall for the reason that there is nowhere else worthwhile to go.

That being said, downtown Dallas in the past few years has become for more 'alive' than at any point since the businesses and people left for the suburbs after the second world war. There is a feeling among the city's champions that all the pieces are finally in place to spur a viable downtown neighborhood. Several older office towers have been successfully converted into apartments and condominiums, a grocery store and a large CVS drugstore have opened, restaurants and night clubs have opened in isolated spots, and a handful of Fortune 500 companies (AT&T, 7-Eleven, Comerica) have made downtown their new home. An urban dog-park is set to open next year, complete with an outdoor cafe for all the yuppie singles and couples to enjoy as the walk out from their lofts.

The thinking goes that now that the fine arts performances and museum exhibits are all concentrated in one area, people will want to live nearby to enjoy an endless stream of cultural events year-round. Restaurants will want to set themselves up to cater to the endless streams of opera, theatre and symphony goers. The 7-Eleven headquarters building that bookends the district is topped by several levels of condominiums featuring balconies and a rooftop pool that overlook into the performing arts buildings next door. A more affordable 5-storey apartment block is currently near completion as well. The performing arts high school may encourage some parents of students to live closer in. But will all these developments amount to much?

Answering this depends on how we understand how cities change and develop. It also forces us to define what makes a city district, and whether a certain balance is desirable. Personally, I'm quite sympathetic to the Jane Jacobs point of view, which focuses less on architectural form and spatial solutions to cities than on the location and synergies of a variety of uses and the observed behavior of people on the street. My views are further influenced by my own experience as a designer of retail projects, which requires an understanding of how different stores and public spaces reinforce each other and draw foot traffic. Dallas seems to have followed the car-based urban planning fads popular from the 50s to the 70s while belatedly embracing current trends espousing walkability, mass transit and dense mixed-use blocks. All have the flaw of being mostly aesthetic and idealized, in that the vision of what could be supersedes the reality of what is actually there as well how things actually work.

In the case of the Dallas Arts District, it suffers from the out-of-date planning concept of the precinct, in which a set of buildings with similar functions are grouped together and set apart from its surroundings. Government entities do this often, forming a kind of citadel where council chambers, the courts, and bureaucratic office buildings are all next to each other, which may be optimal in the functioning in the daily business of government, but offer a dull pedestrian experience. Lincoln Center in New York has been cited as a major influence in the planning of the Arts District, which has struggled throughout the decades in pulling in foot traffic from the surrounding blocks of Manhattan. The idea of an urban precinct goes back since the beginning of cities, such as the Acropolis in Athens. In most instances, there is a sacred role in these districts, and configuring arts palaces in a similar way lends an air sanctity and elitism in spite of the planners' desire to let the entire community take part. For as long as public ritual was important in the daily lives of city dwellers, these areas formed an indelible part of a city's memory. Kevin Lynch, one of the most influential writers on site design and urban geography, popularized the notion that citizens and visitors retain an image of the city that makes them intelligible and familiar. Lynch also chose the site for a new arts district at the request of Dallas city elders in 1978.

While the vision of such a district mesmerized city leaders and benefactors for the next few decades, the reality on the ground was a bit more sobering. Other than the occasional school field trip or matinee performance, the district was dead during the day, drowned in a sea of parking and marred by the ruins of an abandoned construction site for an unrealized mid-eighties high-rise. While the institutions that have made their home in district have endeared themselves to art lovers over time, the district itself has struggled to become a popular destination to most Dallasites. Evidence of this was apparent during the grand opening celebrations on October 18th, where over 40,000 people showed up to take part in the festivities and stand in line for guided tours of the new opera house and theatre. Too many of them were consulting their map hand-outs to figure out where the buildings were, even though all of them are very architecturally distinctive and all face one short downtown street (Flora). For so many thousands of of people who have live here not to be able to recognize their city 's shining cultural monuments is a tad embarrassing.

Despite this disturbing fact, the grand opening offered hints of promise. My impression of those who were not familiar with the district was that they still very much liked what they saw. The lines to see the buildings inside were very long and slow-moving. Cameras were out in full force, capturing views of the giant metal canopy extending beyond Foster's opera house, the shimmering red glass of the opera's auditorium's skin and the gleaming curtain of vertical aluminum tubes that cloak Koolhaas's theatre (Pei's Meyerson symphony hall next door still retains its majestic allure, but its smooth stone walls looked understated in comparison). Children (including mine) frolicked in the large 1/2" deep reflecting pond, with their parents looking on seated on landscaped benches and green lawns, all protected from the hot sun by the canopy hovering above. Although the completed landscape design was not as impressive as when it was first presented a year ago, it helped make the overall space feel much more inviting than all other designated public spaces in downtown.

But the real masterstroke in my view is Foster's canopy. Though I was initially underwhelmed by his scheme for the Winspear Opera House, in which it seemed like he was repeating himself from his other projects (Maison Caree in Nimes) but also looking sterile in massing and materials, standing underneath its canopy I finally got it. Foster seems to have understood something about large outdoor spaces in Texas that up to this point was never realized (probably for budgetary reasons) in our city: the critical need for shade. The canopy was mainly presented as a means of adequately shading the glass curtain wall wrapping the pre-function spaces around the red horseshoe-shaped auditorium. In contrast to the traditional opera house that veils the social spaces within from everyday pedestrians outside, the Winspear takes the veil away thus encouraging those outside to look in (similar in concept to his redesign of the Reichstag in Berlin). Beyond the question of whether it is good to democratize the traditional elite urban role of the opera house lies the more important point that the building reaches out to the public in grand fashion and alleviates to some degree the introverted and sometimes fortress-like character that defines much of the district's buildings. People are drawn to walk under the canopy, not only as a refuge from the sun, but as a comforting place in which to gather. This is further reinforced by the placement of a large grass-covered amphitheatre under the canopy's northern quadrant, which is set to open next spring when the outdoor concert season begins. On a larger urban scale, the canopy sort of functions like a park pavilion, located at the end of a green swath of landscaped blocks that forms that act as a transition between uptown and downtown. Currently this new park is a major 8-lane underpass, but construction is underway to build a suspended "deck park" over it.

And therein lies the best case scenario for the Dallas Arts District: as a kind of large central urban park. Dallas still does not have its own version of Central Park in New York, Grant Park in Chicago or even Herman Park in Houston. And while the Arts District will never offer traditional park amenities such as playgrounds and sports fields, its atmosphere is still quite park-like. Walking on the sidewalks of the district one senses a pleasant calm, the shade of low hanging branches of densely planted trees that separate the sidewalk from the cobblestone paved street, which itself seems as seems to be mostly barricaded from car traffic. The Nasher Sculpture Center is essentially a lush landscaped sculpture garden, screened from Flora Street by Renzo Piano's see-through covered pavilion. Flora Street's hardscaping gives way to copious planting beds and trees, and the plazas nestled in front and in between buildings have more of a relaxed social patio feel than urban squares criss-crossed by the hustle-and-bustle people on the go. I can envision a very green district punctuated by sculptural architecture pieces and pavilions, functioning as a buffer offering visual and sensual respite between the central business district to the South and uptown district to the North.

As for its potential as a 24-hour neighborhood, the chance was missed when the District's founders opted for precinct-like approach. Of all the lots remaining in the district only two have not been developed- one of which is slated to eventually become a 42-story tower full of high-priced condos, and the other whose value has been bid up to such a high level so as to preclude affordable housing or retail. All other blocks are now mostly single-use buildings, forcing any new housing to be built at the far edges. Restaurants, which thrive on foot traffic, are also tucked far enough away from the main draws of the district so as to make them a bit inconvenient for those wishing the dine-in and watch the latest play or opera without a car trip in between. The light-rail stop is about four long city blocks away, which bodes ill for the neighborhood aspirations of the Arts District if the majority of Dallasites cannot find their way through downtown streets to begin with. The Monday after the opening festivities, what were once outdoor spaces containing tens of thousands of people were back to their usual emptiness.

Despite concerted efforts to get people out of their cars, Dallasites are at heart car people. They will walk just a little bit here and there, but the roads are for the most part relatively fluid so as to make the alternative of walking everywhere and taking the bus or train less sensible. City life will emerge downtown, and has already begun in various pockets, but it has an extremely long way to go before it achieves the ideals of a fully pedestrian-oriented city like Boston or Manhattan. As those downtown areas slowly fill up, wouldn't it be nice establish a unique, world-class park featuring masterpieces in music, drama, art and architecture? Everything is already in place and it comes as a relatively small expense to the city (90% of the $350 million price tag for the Arts District's newest phase came from private donors). There are plenty of other places in the city that can foster naturally occuring neighborhoods, but there is only on place that can set the template for a one-of-a-kind art park.

$200K Grants for Changes in Church Policy: Welcome to the New Way of Being Church

2009-10-30T13:56:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I lamented that everyone wanted to be a politician, even those who lead the Church. Simply preaching and defending the gospel has ceased to be enough of a calling; the so-called “social gospel”, enacted by achieving social justice now deserved top billing. This social gospel compelled those who should have been churchmen to become politicians, by lobbying politicians, preaching on the social ills of the world and the building of God’s Kingdom as a remedy, or using plays like The Vagina Monologues to make a “religious” point about the abuse of women. The examples are myriad. It turns out I was more right than even I imagined, especially if one of the hallmarks of politics is behind-the-scenes deal-making and huge sums of money being used for lobbying purposes.

I recently heard about a $200,000 grant to an organization called Lutherans Concerned, a self-described advocacy group that worked for change within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). (Details about the grant are here.) Lutherans Concerned is not affiliated with the ELCA, and the exact cause they supported is not my concern here, though I will say I am not in favor of their agenda. The fact that a seemingly secular organization could so influence the life of a denomination does not surprise me. But it does shock me. It is not the business of any foundation, or in this case the Arcus Foundation, what the ELCA chooses to do with theological issues before it. Yet they got involved, and no doubt Lutherans Concerned was only too happy to take the money.

Why would a secular organization, with seemingly no “skin in the game” get involved in an issue like this? My sense is that the church was merely used as a vehicle to lend moral credibility to the cause. If lobbying efforts were successful (and they were), and a “majority” of ELCA Lutherans voted to approve the action that was lobbied for, then the Church would be seen as speaking in a new way. No doubt this must please many who have been lobbying. But isn’t it a rather shallow victory? Is this what the Church has come down to? Majority votes? Lobbying? Secular foundations dictating the mission and conversation of the Church?

For many mainline Protestants, this is indeed the case. Liberation theologies have so infested these church bodies, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the “social gospel” and what I like to call the “actual gospel.” Even those who are not in favor of the changes that have come to the ELCA continue to defend the ELCA as though its mere existence was to be celebrated. But this is not the mission of the Church, to state the obvious. Is it possible that Protestants are finally in a context (Postmodernism, relativism, post-Christianity, etc.) in which their Achilles heel is on full display? I think that is the case. Conventional morality and fidelity to the faith that Europe politicized for 1,000 years could only keep the faith relevant for so long. Once secular forces became too strong, the Protestant church began to fulfill every Roman Catholic stereotype: it was fractured, splintered and weak. Who knew? The Magisterium may have been the way to go after all.

The irony is that as the mainline churches get more political and take up every social cause imaginable, the more irrelevant we become. Our numbers are plummeting and our social influence is nil, even as bishops did all they could to “speak truth to power” when President Bush was in office. (Now that President Obama has been elected, speaking truth to power is passé. Amazing how that happened.) Votes and social statements and lame television ads are all but meaningless in our secular age. Any political victory on either side of any issue is sure to be heard as a dull thud by those looking on from the outside.

Which, as always, leaves us with the question of where to go? There is no new place to go. There is only the truth to turn to, the basics of the faith. Lutherans would say Word and Sacrament. Perhaps Roman Catholics might cite the early church fathers. Some congregations are even talking about reinstituting “thee” and “thou” language in an attempt to recapture the sense of truth from previous generations. However it is done, mainline Protestants would do well to remember that there is nothing new under the sun. So quit voting on it. And for the love of God, quit using secular money to push so blatant a political agenda. It’s rather un-churchly.

Podcast 8

2009-10-08T06:04:00.000-07:00

In this podcast , Corbusier and Relieveddebtor discuss a recent trip to eastern Europe and what really defines vitality in the life of a city. Listen and subscribe here!

Beyond the Shell: Impressions of Post-Communist Germany and Romania

2009-09-12T11:30:00.000-07:00

Though it was far too short and hectic for my taste, I was grateful for the chance to recently travel to Europe. Part of the trip consisted of revisiting old haunts while the other entailed exploring a new place of which I had lots of curiosity for. My itinerary through the former East Germany and Romania offered a vivid glimpse of the changes that have occurred since the Communist control. In the case of reunified Germany (or more accurately the Western acquisition of the East) a massive transfer of wealth from the West was infused to rebuild an entire East to the point that it is has become more 'modern' than its Western counerpart. Romania, which went through the typical motions of electing ex-communists before pursuing pro-market and pro-American foreign policies, is rebuilding from a much lower base and a more devastating architectural legacy left by its swiftly executed dictator, yet it it still is blessed with gorgeous landscapes and endearing traditional architecture. Though I've been living in the U.S. for a long time, my background of having lived in Europe and maintaining close family ties there have colored my impression during my travels. It is not enough for me enjoy Europe's visual delights without trying to get a grasp of what goes on beneath it all. If there is one lesson from this trip, it is that what is built and the life that goes on within it are not always harmonious. In one place, what was built was but an elegant shell concealing social rust and decay. In the other, a rusting and decayed shell was giving way to a recovered social vitality and optimism.

Federal State of Saxony, Germany

I returned to this area of Germany for the first time in 12 years, visiting friends that I have known since my year as an exchange student three years after the reunification of East and West (I also share my impressions of the place here). Upon arriving to my final destination in the beautiful hilly countryside outside Chemnitz (pop. circa 300,000), the physical changes to this area was striking. Whereas I had left Saxony with memories of crumbling roads, dilapidated and dull gray building facades, old Trabants and Wartburgs (defunct East-German car brands) and dreary Soviet-era architecture, what I now saw the opposite: the roads were the newest (and fastest) in all of Germany, facades were colorful and painstakingly restored, Trabants were almost nowhere to be seen, the ugly towers were re-clad with aluminum, glass and balconies. Overall infrastructure is well known to be newer than in the West, with better phone lines, broadband and power grids. Giant wind turbines dotted the landscape, standing majestically on the wheat-covered hills (surely the farmers were remunerated generously for them).

The quiet village where I had stayed also showed signs of transformation. A brand new industrial zone with clean modern factories had been built in what had once been pasture. The main stone bridge over the river had been renovated (twice), a new residential subdivision blossomed with meticulous flower gardens (very German) and all the houses transformed with new facades, additions and of course solar panels on the roof (heavily subsidized, it was admitted). Older, out-of-the-way country roads were being gradually being closed off to cars, left to disappear over time. as newer roads and ramps were opened to replace them. A spectacular 150-year old stoned viaduct bridge ceased servicing trains, remaining now a s a local landmark and the site of yearly festivals in the area.

In other towns the changes were visible everywhere. Local parks with the newest play equipment replaced former abandoned factories. Public squares were graced with gleaming restored city halls (Rathauser) and new paving. The central districts of the larger cities like Chemnitz and Dresden have been subject to a major face lift and some reconstructive surgery. Where once were over sized hard scape plazas flanked by faceless concrete slabs so beloved during the Soviet era, there are now reconstructed blocks built in a modern but conforming traditional style. Sleek shopping malls wrapped in shiny curtain wall now anchor the pedestrian experience in the urban core, and once vacant historically significant buildings have been transformed into new retail spaces. Streetcars and buses gleamed, and the stops increasingly built in the high-tech vocabulary of glass and steel. Even some of the old communist landmarks such as hotels and convention halls were spruced up, looking more like nostalgic 60's architectural relics of the West than the soul-crushing monuments to an oppressive region that they really were.

What was obvious to me and probably to many others is that German obsession for tidiness applies in the East just as much as it applies in the West. Forty years of Communism did little to dampen this, and, given enough resources, Saxony other federal states that once made up the GDR now live up to their current name of the "new" federal states (die neuen Bundeslander). To designers like myself, who imagine all sorts of ideal environments in a new and untainted state, Saxony must have been a feast for the eyes. But just as cleaning one's house is in truth an act of temporarily covering up the uninhibited way we live day to day, I perceived the conspicuous new-ness of everything I saw as covering up a larger more sober reality of this area of Germany. It was a reality that has afflicted all the former East German states ever since reunification with the West nineteen years ago.

Behind the veneer of new facades, new roads and new shopping centers lies a place stricken by chronic high unemployment, low birthrates and few young people. Despite the sacrifices of brought on by additional taxes (e.g. Einheitsteuer ("Unity Tax") that help fund the rebuilding of the East, and no matter how much subsidy the the central government has issued to Western companies to expand their businesses, the unemployment rate still hovers around 15 percent. Many of the youth continue to head to the West for work, with cities like Munich, Hamburg and Frankfurt offering abundant opportunities in spite of their older buildings and relatively worn infrastructure. New apartments remain vacant due to the lack of demand and one major city I visited implemented of planned decline, in which apartment blocks built during the communist era were singled out one by one for demolition to make way for open green space.

If one word could characterize my most recent experience in this region, it would be that of 'quiet'. Beginning with the arrival in Dresden's brand-new but mostly empty airport, to taking a ride on the traffic-less Autobahn and then in visiting the town and city centers throughout, I was left to wonder where all the people were. In the idyllic village where I stayed, a place with a 600-year old history, was planning to close its century-old elementary school building due to lack of school-aged kids. Everywhere there was evidence of consolidation, in which there was a deliberate abandonment and demolition of old roads, factories and apartment blocks and a determination to update and often reprogrammed what remained. From an aesthetic point of view, the results were quite nice, and for the visitor, the stress-free calm was a welcome relief. But in the eyes those who were living there, there wasn't much to look forward to, much less any sense of fulfilling the promises made to them upon reunification.

Romania

Leaving quiet Dresden and arriving in Bucharest, there was an obvious contrast, to be sure. It felt kind of like leaving the U.S. to go to Mexico, which in reality Romania had much in common with the latter country in terms of socio-economic development. But despite many decades of brutal communist dictatorship, and having being situated in the roughest neighborhood in Europe, Romania today seems to be in better shape than our own neighbor to the south. While I was surrounded by an overwhelming sense of insecurity in Mexico, I was at liberty to go anywhere, take any taxi or bus, and trust almost any stranger. Romanians, who speak a Latin-derived language, like to compare themselves to the Italians and Spanish, except that they happened to be stuck in the wrong corner of the continent. After experiencing a post-communist economic rut during the 90's, it was clear that the country was on upward trajectory if one were to judge the abundant construction cranes, new shopping centers, office buildings and the fleet of re-vamped Dacia cars zipping about. It wasn't chaotic as much as things simply felt a bit un-regulated, with people appearing to do things as they pleased that in more prosperous countries would have been curbed by social custom. The cultural and religious traditions of the place ensured a consistent moral order, but the fluid economic circumstances prevented an overriding civic order from taking shape.

Like any post-Soviet survivor that was not the recipient of decades-long generous flows of money coming from a much wealthier half (i.e. Germany), the built fabric of Romania has been struggling to keep up. Car traffic is a problem, express highways are rare, and many of the urban plazas still need repaving. In the larger cities, the brutal, overly monumental and dreary Soviet architecture was everywhere, while in the smaller towns along the Carpathian mountain range, older buildings and charming houses were proudly dressed in the local vernacular. As many who have traveled to Romania will tell you, the countryside is quite beautiful and pristine and more revealing of the country's culture, while the cities' dehumanizing Soviet architecture rob them of their appeal.

This notion actually reveals something about Romania that isn't as obvious in countries to the West, namely its essence as a mostly rural society which is still trying to establish a mature urban identity. In spite of Ceausescu's top-down approach in radically urbanizing the Romanian landscape with mega-housing blocks, broad boulevards and palaces and monuments to his megalomania, the ubiquity of cottage gardens adjoining houses situated in dense city neighborhoods acts a reminder of the peasant origins of many of today's city dwellers. Once these cottage gardens, which produce some of the freshest, tastiest produce you'll ever eat, evolve into flower gardens that have no other purpose other than aesthetic delight, then a mature and authentic urban culture will have truly taken root.

By virtue of being Romania's capital and its largest city by far, Bucharest manifests the most obvious example of an authentic urban identity. Compared to the placid lethargy that characterized the city centers of eastern Germany, the hustle and bustle of Bucharest was strangely exhilarating. If one were to look past the grossly over-scaled boulevards and soul-crushing Soviet style architecture that characterizes much of the city, what I witnessed were the unending stream of cars, buses and trams, with herds of people catching the subways or crowding the sidewalks. Bucharest felt alive, as people who were preoccupied with the daily stresses of work or school were walking and driving in a purposeful way that is characteristic of commercially driven urban areas.

Contrast this with the leisurely, an thus purposeless, way that people walked in pleasure cities such as Dresden. Another major difference is the role of graphics in the embellishment public spaces. One clever way to mask the dreary Communist-era buildings was to drape them with large billboard advertising and neon signs. It’s a common thing to see in most large commercial capitals throughout the world, and it manifests a yearning to play a part in the globalization of commerce. But in more regulated urban environments (such as Dresden), billboards and large lighted signs are eliminated, leaving just the signs above street storefronts. This lends a more orderly appearance, to be sure, but at the expense of taking away surrounding feeling of vitality.

Comparisons: Beauty or Vitality?

My recent trip to these two different countries revealed various aspects of cities that are both important but sometimes remain contradictory. In Germany, the towns and cities exhibit a cultural preoccupation with environmental perfection both in the landscape and in the built fabric. Saxony truly was 'picture perfect' in a way that Romanian cities never could be. At the same time, places like Bucharest illustrate the importance urban vitality brought about by rising economic activity and a low level of regulation, things that won't necessarily arise in eastern Germany now or even in the future. The irony is that Romanians would love to grace their cities with even a fraction of architectural masterpieces found in even in most modest of German cities (which the abundant examples of turn-of-the century Hapsburg-inspired villas in the Romanian mountain towns attest), but the people in Saxony would never tolerate the level of urban vitality brought about by rapid economic development. Judging by the unending series of large illuminated corporate logos crowning the top of mostly faceless buildings, it is clear that Bucharest is an attractive place in which to do business, helped certainly relatively low barriers to entry and a flat income tax. In Germany, the policy since reunification has been to impose higher taxes on everyone while implementing regulations on the newly acquired federal states in the East that have long applied in Western states. This had the effect of dampening the East's competitive advantage over the West and preventing local industries and specializations to develop independently.

In my view, the economy of the former East Germany will remain depressed so long as the mechanism to attract development though lower taxes or suspended regulations. And while the results are visually attractive in the form of new construction, a cessation in the subsidizing of East German economy will spur incentives for locals to form their own companies and eventually become independently competitive. This naturally would have demanded some pain and sacrifice at the outset, as the Romanians know all too well, but it would have resulted in a people proud of accomplishments that can own. Instead, Germany opted for unity and security, ensuring a generous social safety net long before enabling a self-sustaining path toward economic self-sufficiency. The result has been an unending bitterness in the local population, disappointed that the promises made to them upon reunification have not been fulfilled and frustrated that any development in the East was in reality a colonial policy run by West German conglomerates. I didn't detect that same kind of bitterness in Romania, since their perspective is shaped by such a difficult past. Most of them have had a hard life, which makes them quite generous, and there is an overriding desire to open up to the world around them, whether through their embrace of Western alliances (EU, NATO) as well as their extraordinary facility for foreign languages.

Beyond this comparison between two contrasting European countries lies a debate about the kind of things cities should strive for. Is it all about looks, as many urban planners would more or less suggest? Or is it about what lies beneath: businesses, industries, institutions and the policies that beget and strengthen them? It's sort of like the difference between San Francisco and Houston: the former a beautiful destination for the elite leisure class with most of the inelegant hustle and bustle taking place in the outer reaches of the Bay Area, while the latter is a rather architecturally unremarkable place known for its traffic, pollution, energy companies, ports and industry but still a thriving and diverse city with a highly mobile middle class. One is posited as the ideal by planners for those cities wishing to emulate it in the search of an authentic urban feel, while the other is quite urban in every way except in form. One loses an important regenerative demographic (families w/ children) even as it gains more tourists, while the other gains those as well as other groups due its abundant opportunities and affordable lifestyle.

So far in my experience, I've been more drawn to the less glamorous 'cities of opportunity', partly because these cities are oriented towards the future, a kind of future whose appearance is undefined and open-ended. This irks a great share of my architect and planning colleagues, who are vested in the notion that the future must follow a carefully designed plan, its shape already defined by masterplans and zoning regulations. For them, the lives of people must be governed by the constraints of a wisely designed environment, such as forcing them to live in density and take mass transit. By ordering the activities within in a city in such a precise manner, it becomes mechanistic in quality, and ultimately quiet and lifeless. I seem to revel in places where the order sort of breaks down, such as traffic jambs, semi-legal private bus companies, or neighborhood districts that take on a radically different ethnic character. What is so appealing about such nodes of disorder? They are reminders of a genuine, familiar humanity that designers are all to eager to conceal by way of design, which has to do with the art what should be. The honking of horns, the tacky hanging of retail signs and ingenious reuse of forgotten spaces remind me of people at their most resourceful and most improvisational, and hence, at their most real.

This is not to say that the people who live in beautifully manicured towns are any less real, only that there is a far larger social and economic reality to what we see. Most designers could not begin to understand all the things that people do in cities and should not pretend that their designs can completely account for all urban activity. While architecture serves to more concretely express how a place's inhabitants see themselves, it cannot by itself generate more urban dynamism. Buildings are shells of activity within, activities that are the result of business, and government policies and cultural influences that regulate it. The shell can be immaculate, but it does not reflect the human vitality within it for as long as it changes over time. In Saxony, the shell has reached a near-perfect state, but its vitality has yet, if ever, to return. The brutal shell that characterizes Romanian cities like Bucharest has indeed a long way to go, but it was evident that the people have begun come out of this shell. It was fascinating to observe it from eye-level.

Additional reading: This article by Gerald Robbins goes into further detail with regards to understanding the current mood among East Germans. He observes that the rapid growth of the Leftist party, comprised mostly of ex-communists and Stasi officials, may have something to do with an emerging romantic nationalism for the former German Democratic Republic.

The Statesman and the Churchman: Lost American Icons

2009-08-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

Everyone wants to be a politician. Which is rather odd given their reputation. Everyone complains about politicians, most agree that 100 politicians on the bottom floor of the ocean would be "a good start," and we tend to see them as sellouts devoid of principle. For a politician to be trusted in America, he or she has to overcome the pre-existing baggage that comes with the job. Yet, it is hard to find leaders that don't seek to be politicians. Even politicians want to be politicians.

Let me clarify as there are alternatives. In the political realm, one can choose to be a statesman. Perhaps this is a man who doesn't accomplish all he might like. He may take the high road, he may compromise some of his own agenda, and most importantly, he always represents his nation before himself or his ideology. He may refrain from defending himself against attacks for the good of the nation. And he governs with the wisdom of the ages, knowing that the problems he faces will never be completely solved by his efforts. (But that doesn't stop him from trying.) The statesman represents the ideals of his state before the ideas of his party, though the two can often work together in legislative efforts. He is modest, but forceful when needed, gracious, but firm. He and the state are not one; but the values of the state are represented by the life of the man.

Compare that with the crowd in Washington, and the contrast is stark. I will be so generous as to say this is true of both parties from time to time. Both sides have policy initiatives they want to get through, and both sides will engage in "hardball" tactics to get them through the slimy, greasy gears of the law-making machine. But there does seem to be little of the statesman in our current administration. Instead of defending the honor and the values of this nation, our president besmirches the good name of America while currying favor for himself in Europe and the Middle East. Instead of admitting errors when speaking of police action or attempting to force legislation that would forever change healthcare in this nation, he persists even harder in his original mistake. Instead of respecting the natural, unforced political action of grassroots conservatives, many on the left are remarkably un-statesmanlike in their assessments, even accusing such protesters of being un-American.

But, as I said, one can safely assume that sort of behavior in the political world. Egos and legacies are at stake. It is especially disgusting in the Church. A friend of mine told me of a group of 20 clergy who attended a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania. They arrived en masse, well organized and prepared to support the nationalization of, er, addition of choices and competition in healthcare. At the current Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA, the activists have stuffed the ballot box, redefining what is biblically normative regarding human sexuality. The presiding bishop read a letter from President Obama at a recent youth gathering 36,000 strong, where the president urged the young people to be active in their communities working for change. This is not a church that is afraid to get involved in politics; far from it. Clergy want to be politicians.

So whatever happened to the churchman? You know, the wise pastor who has seen it all before? The soft-spoken clergyman or woman who is content to trust in the Gospel, to trust that God is leading his Church, to defend the doctrines of the Church while mourning the inevitable conflict? The churchman, like the statesman, is willing to sacrifice his own ego for the good of the Church, to sacrifice his own agenda for the traditions and truths the Church has always taught. The churchman is kind and warm, even to his enemies, and he loves those who do not believe as he does, even as he tries to change their mind. The churchman is never too upset by the daily scheming of clergy around him and is happy to serve where he is needed. They are the trusted clergy that may not produce the flashiest sermons or be the most socially popular, but they are called upon when there is a tragedy, or there is a need for clergy to speak to an especially difficult moment. They build up enormous spiritual capital through years of faithful preaching and teaching, capital that they never spend, but instead keep in the bank out of humility.

Like the statesman, the churchman is largely gone. In an age of slick media, protestant seminaries produce effective communicators who tailor a message around the needs of the unchurched rather than the needs of the faithful. Success is not measured in right preaching or teaching but in achieving change, either "prophetic" or by increases in attendance. Wisdom takes too long to accumulate, and the masses must be gathered and counted quickly. ("Quick, start the rock music!") Pulpits are traded in for stages and altars are traded in for trap sets. The pastor is no longer a man pointing to Christ as a good churchman might do; he is squarely in the middle of it all, with props, designer clothes and hair gel aiding in his effectiveness.

Yet it is these men and women, the statesman and the churchman, who are vital characters in the civil society. (I would add that journalists should perform a similar role, yet they also want to be politicians. As two of the greats have passed this week, it is worth remembering them as similarly objective and wise, and needed.) They function as wise grandparents who are able to adapt to change even as they fight for traditions. They are able to be strong when others panic. They are able to speak of deep truths instead of mere sentiment. They are the keepers of knowledge and readers of books, while most of us remember facts and peruse articles. The statesman and the churchmen are our barometers, our measuring sticks, our role models and our mentors. Where have they all gone? Far too many of them are more interested in playing politics than defining and defending core values. I hope they make a reappearance soon.

The New Discrimination

2009-07-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

Political Correctness has brought us some of the more absurd moments in human history. Contrary to common sense and organic checks and balances, it sacrifices the war for small victories, time and again. You see it in the hope of helping minorities and single mothers through the Great Society, only to create more poverty and destroying minority families through perverse incentives. Feminism seeks to create equality among the sexes, yet its adherents are so off-putting, they often become caricatures who demand special treatment. The Gates' case in Cambridge last week is another example of the politically correct class seeking special treatment, and expecting discrimination when none exists. Even if Dr. Gates wins this battle, the impression he and the president have left has garnered no sympathy. And then there is environmentalism, a movement built around the adoration of life that is fundamentally at odds with human flourishing.

We've reached another milestone in contradictions this month. The American citizen is currently faced with a healthcare "reform" bill that would leave no option but to discriminate against those who need healthcare the most: the elderly. Simple reason should help us to see how this is the case. There are more folks poised to go on Medicare in the coming decade and cuts to that very program are necessary to pay for this legislation. Logically, how can we have more, better care, with less money in the system? The math just doesn't add up. Similar systems to what has been proposed (notably Canada's and Britain's) cut back on the care they offer to seniors as they are the most expensive and in the most need.

But aren't we the nation that goes out of its way (and rightly so) to ensure that no employer can discriminate because of age, among other things? I remember working as an executive recruiter when a story swept through the office. Apparently, a recruiter's office had been audited, and this recruiter had written "TFO" on top of many of the resumes that were sent to in. What did "TFO" mean? "Too freaking old"...to put it nicely. Needless to say, that recruiter faced fines or worse for his discriminatory practice. We were reminded that if we were to discriminate, to not make a note of it on paper or in the database. And such discrimination laws can be good, so long as they don't result in quotas or the inability to reject less qualified candidates regardless of their age, sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

So how did we get to the point where we discriminate against certain people on something as important as healthcare while its illegal to discriminate based on virtually any factor in the workplace? Amazingly, it's all part of the same incoherent philosophy. Both philosophies claim the moral high ground, and both claim to be for the people. Discrimination in the field of healthcare is necessary to insure that we can provide healthcare for all those who can't afford it. That's the compassionate thing to do. Right.

And of course, it's equally compassionate to regulate the hiring practices of corporations, even if corporations often have legitimate reasons for not hiring certain qualified individuals. Maybe a more senior candidate would expect too much salary, and would move on too quickly to a different job that pays more for his skill set. Maybe an older candidate wouldn't fit into the culture, an underrated but important qualifier in a corporate setting. Maybe they've been a manager before and would have a hard time reporting to a manager now half their age. Those strike me as pretty acceptable reasons for not hiring someone who is more senior, yet a corporation could never voice such concerns for fear of legal repercussions. But, it's okay to deny that same senior healthcare? I don't think so.

Environmentalism makes similar discriminations. In defense of everything from caribou to spotted owls to fish to the infamous polar bear, human flourishing is prohibited time and again. It must be. If humans cause global warming, and global warming has ill effects on the earth, then carbon must be restricted. And the only entity big enough to do so is the government, and the only way it can do so is through taxation, regulation and the inevitable cronyism that comes with such monopolistic power. Some environmentalists have been so honest as to admit that they care little for the human species at all. (I presume they don't feel that way about themselves.) It's not uncommon for beached dolphins to be mourned while the death of millions of humans via malaria is practically ignored. Yet another contradiction.

I'm sure others could point to data that says the elderly will be better cared for under this plan. If this legislation does pass, I hope that is the case. I just cannot comprehend why we constantly cut off our societal nose to spite our face. We make all sorts of advances as a civil society, respecting the rights and dignity of others naturally and freely. Yet we are in danger of chaining ourselves as a society, binding ourselves to a future with less choice and less dignity. If we just extended the same courtesy to the elderly with respect to healthcare that we do with those interviewing, I'd feel far better about the legislation working its way through congress.

UPDATE: From the American Thinker. Even the word "discrimination" itself is used by one of Obama's top medical advisers, Ezekiel Emanuel. "He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years'" (Lancet, Jan. 31). Is that not at least a little creepy?

Bound to Nothing

2009-07-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

Postmodern philosophy is finally starting to get personal. No doubt it has been personal for many for a long time, but I have largely managed to escape its grasp until now, always safely hiding in bureaucratic layers and protected locales. But now, it seems that every institution has accepted the poor idea that the person and the civil society need not be bound to anything, except for himself or itself. Power is in the hands of those who espouse relativist philosophy, and they are doing their best to legislate it or sell it across the board. One sees it most clearly in the courts, but it is also evident in the church and in the arts. It is no longer an ivory tower thought experiment; it is becoming policy and it's starting to hamper our way of life.

The hearings for potential Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor are perhaps the easiest example, and one I won't need to dwell on. One either sees the Constitution as the founding governmental document of this nation, and one then that must be interpreted as the framer's intended...or not. The "originalist" position is the only valid interpretation of the Constitution in the same way that the only valid way to interpret your home mortgage is by the original terms of the deal. Yet, Sotomayor is a typical product of the "social justice" school of thought that pervades and animates academia, which essentially argues that the "social good" must be brought about whether it complies with the law or not. Social equality and "fairness" then allow for an alteration of the deal, the concept of the "living and breathing" contract, or Constitution.

So the justice is bound to nothing, but his or her understanding of what is socially fair and just. Others have commented on the paradoxical nature of this construct, but as obvious as it seems to me, others seem incapable of understanding that preferential treatment for one group necessarily comes at the expense of another. Or, as a 4-year-old might understand it, two wrongs don't make a right. But now that she will likely be the next Supreme Court Justice (and sounding more conservative than John Roberts in the process), preferential treatment apart from the law could become a frequent pattern of law. Relativism will be legislated, at the expense of justice.

In a more local level for me, my denomination (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has spent the better part of the last decade discussing and debating the role of openly homosexual clergy in the life of the church. As one might expect, this is a highly polemic issue that, even though nothing has officially been decided, has effectively split the church into two camps. As an official vote looms in August, those that refuse to bind themselves to the church catholic, the scriptures, or even the tradition, may hold my future in their hands. Along with thousands of other clergy, I may be in the position of either staying in a denomination that departs from 2,000 of orthodoxy (but it sure is "prophetic!") or leaving to smaller fringe groups that also largely fail to represent the church catholic. (Please note that this is not a political issue, one in which I am fairly libertarian. The Chruch and state having different binding documents when dealing with this issue.)

There is even a distinct possibility that my future will lie outside the church in what's left of the business world simply because there will be no place to go. It is possible that even if the ELCA survives, it will be a shell of its former self, and will have done nothing with this decision to stop the steady decline of membership. Indeed, why should the laity be faithful to a denomination that is not faithful to its own principles because it defends "the bound conscience?" The ELCA is like a host of protestant denominations that has stopped seeing itself as bound, and has started seeing itself as a social justice playground. Only now it's not a pipedream of seminary professors; it will be a vote for the church, a vote that may tear the denominations apart.

The evangelical churches may fare no better, but for different reasons. In a similar effort to be relevant, big box megachurches have played to the culture, responding to "felt needs" at the expense of the gospel. They are equally bound to the whims of what consumers want out of churches, or at least what consumers say they want. In the long run, it will cost them dearly. Megachurches in some form or another are here to stay, but they cannot possibly live up to their own expectations, nor can they proclaim the truth, because they have not been disciplined enough to refrain from culture's influence. Even though these are the sorts of churches that tend to complain the most about pop culture, they have been corrupted by it.

A few weeks ago, I visited Savannah, GA. While there, I perused their local magazine, The South, and I found what I consider to be a rather typical example of an artist's profile. While the artist clearly has good technical skills, I did not discern a great deal of depth in her approach. More to the point, the driving force of her artwork was geared towards a deconstructionist mindset. The artist was predictably at odds with Christianity and vexed over our overuse of the earth's resources. Her most powerful images and themes were borrowed from Christianity and the "green" sentiment so popular in her circles. Simply putting the two together seemed to create meaningful art.

I highlight this simply as a way of saying that this is representative of the art that dominates the landscape, art that is boringly against traditions of all shapes and sizes. The artists of my generation have bought into the myth that they have enough to express within themselves that they need not be bound to any other authority. That's not to say, of course, that all art should be religious, but it is ironic that a use of religious imagery that wasn't sarcastic would be the rebellious act by today's standards. (This article is an excellent commentary on the end of art.)

All of these are snippets that speak of how we are moving further and further from a hold of something. While fundamentalists cling too strongly to their doctrines in some parts of the world, we are often in full-scale retreat, bound to nothing lasting and nothing permanent. We want to shed restrictions on our own ambition. But in the process, we are leaving things worse for the next generation. We are encouraging a fundamentally childish ethos, and we shouldn't be surprised when it starts to affect us personally. It has for me.

An Empty Victory: When urban planning fails to live up to expectations

2009-07-07T11:56:00.000-07:00

As the current severe recession shuts down countless buildings and spaces everywhere, it is a good time to take stock on why some real-estate ventures succeed and others fail. The generous financing available the past five years not only led to lots of construction but also enabled the consideration and speculation for new models of development. Many large-scale buildings and instant communities were planned and built to a degree never seen before. Urban concepts that were confined to academia not long ago were suddenly put to the test as built projects. For example, entire abandoned airports were transformed into attractive neighborhoods with commercial town centers. Many cities seized industrial brownfield sites as a way to regenerate urban life by masterplanning dense mixed-use districts. After decades of rapid suburban development, the central city was due for a comeback, as demographic developments, pollution reductions and changing tastes conspired to make downtown living look enticing. It was just a matter of finding an ambitious project to kickstart it all.

Dallas was no different. Having for a long time failed to populate its dowtown with any residents, the city made a concerted effort (i.e. gave lots of tax incentives) to refurbish and even repurpose vacant office buildings into top-of-the-line apartments and condominiums. It even subsidized a neighborhood grocery store to get residents to stay. Yet these efforts were modest compared to one of the largest new mixed-use developments just outside the central business district, Victory Park. The brainchild of Ross Perot Jr. (the son of the former presidential candidate), Victory was advertised as the the premier masterplanned urban community, designed for the on-the-go single professional who desired place to live, work, shop and play. Anchored by a state-of-the-art basketball arena and a luxury condo-hotel, Victory was going to be a district defined by high-rise apartments, fashionable street retail, trendy restaurants, and a public plaza surrounded by gigantic and moving digital projections. Apparently, what Dallas needed was an instant Times Square, complete with a glassed-in television studio at the corner to highlight the crowded pedestrian-filled sidewalks that are common in the city (...uh huh). After an early flirtation with a low-rise, historicist architectural theme, it was decided for this district to appear distincitively contemporary, with multiple glass skyscrapers of at least 25 stories, bamboo landscaping and reflecting pools with clean edges.

Now, only a few years later, Victory Park seems to embody at the local level the wreckage wrought by the global real-estate bust. The trendy restaurants have been shutting down one by one, the public plaza feels like a ghost-town when basketball and hockey games are not taking place at the arena. Most of the shops have closed their doors and many residential units remains unsold. Another major hotel flag, the Mandarin Oriental, backed out of the project, leaving a large parcel at the center of the development undevelopped and further undermining viability of the planned street blocks. The local television newscast still broadcasts from Victory, but struggles to show an outdoor shot due to a constant lack of passerbys. Despite civic groups' efforts to stage rallies, awards ceremonies, film festivals and new year's parties, Victory continues to fail as a favorite place for everyday people to regularly congregate. Ross Perot Jr. has had to sell a majority stake to a German financial entity to keep the place going. There's no sign of deterioration or neglect, just on overall impression of emptiness, an utter lack of street life. Affluent yuppies do live there, and the luxury W hotel stays busy. A brand new office building just opened, with high-profile corporate tenants such as Ernst & Young. But most Dallas residents agree that the story of Victory is much like the one where someone throws a party and everyone is invited, only to find that no one shows up. Where did it go wrong?

In Rockwall, a surburb 25 miles away, just a stone's throw from the interstate highway at the edge of a large reservoir lake lies a much more modest, less showy, mixed use development-The Harbor. There are no condos, apartments, or offices. There's no professional sports arena and definitely no fancy LED projections. There is a hotel anchor, a small Hilton, but nothing as ambitious as the W in Victory. There is also a 12-screen movie theatre, fountains and a collection of relatively middlebrow restaurants. A green lawn with a gentle slope serves as an outdoor amphitheatre. A small marina lies at the edge, complete with an abnormally small lighthouse. In contrast to Victory Park's cutting edge modernist style, this suburban development chose to emulate, however clumsily, the look of a Mediterranean seaside town. Hip roofs covered in red clay tiles, arcades, pergolas and warm palette of colors evoke the Southern European architectural tradition, but it is nontheless a vocabulary promotes a sense of ease. In spite of my own personal quibbles with its cheap construction (tilt-up with EIFS...ugh!) and plain cardboard-like facades, I question most the neo-Italianate style's genuine appropriateness for a community in North Texas.

And yet, the people come-in droves. Having spent many weekend nights at The Harbor, I can attest that the place is packed everytime, restaurants overflowing with diners, live music acts at almost every corner, and hundreds of people strolling past the marina and standing by the mini-lighthouse. The Harbor has a compelling reason for people to come- it's the only place on the town's long lakefront the public can access. The creation of the lake 40 years ago transformed Rockwall's identity, from a quiet rural county seat to a rapidly growing suburban community defined by the water and all the kinds of leisure activities associated with it. Hence, the Harbor in my mind has achieved something Victory has yet to have-a real sense of place. Given that there are little to no civic spaces in Rockwall other than historic courthouse square, there was already pent-up demand to create a place that interfaces with the lake.

One can hardly say that there was much public inertia to create a place like Victory Park. Although many people can agree that an entertainment district adjoined to a major sports arena would be nice, there was no convincing reason why this was to come at the expense of established nearby areas. Both the Harbor and Victory Park were public-private collaborations, but the need for having the latter was never obvious and was thus perceived as a much more speculative venture. Though the Harbor was as much speculative venture as Victory, its unique location and the lack of other places for public gathering made it appear a a more organic result. Even if it were to take on a different scope and architectural character, a mixed-use retail development on the lakefront was inevitable given how Rockwall bills itself as a lakefront community, down to its official logo.

There was never anything self-evident or organic about Victory Park. Worse, it was envisioned as a district too exclusive to most Dallas residents. Mr. Perot wooed the most luxurious retailers, the priciest chefs and the upcale hotel tenants. Whether you were interested in buying chocolate, jeans, artwork, you could be sure that the stores did not expect middle- or even upper class customers. During a stay at Victory over a year ago, though the stores were open, my wife and I were the only ones in the stores, and the salespeople 'working' in them never appeared more bored. In spite of having hundreds of people living in apartments and condominiums just above street level shops, the stores were devoid of customers. Somehow, more serviceable retail for the neighborhood, such as a small grocery store, a drug store, even a dry-cleaner were nowhere to be seen. For some reason, it made perfect sense to Mr. Perot that upscale yuppies could live in his neighborhood and buy $400 dollar jeans on daily basis. Nothing is more bizarre than to watch the thousands of sports fans making their way to the arena dressed in team jerseys walking past restaurants catering to the fashionably dressed and high-spending clientel. Other than a gelato shop (since closed) there is no other retail attraction for middle-class families in the entire mega-development other than what's inside the arena (ahhh- a Chili's restaurant). After almost everything has shuttered, desparation has finally forced Victory's owners may finally get its tenant mix right- a Hard Rock Cafe is moving in.

In addition to the district's misguided social exlusiveness, Victory suffers from the kind of planning that unnecessarily isolates it from the surrounding existing urban fabric. The first fatal move was to force the location of the new light-rail line designed to feed pedestrians to the arena to the very periphery of the site. It seems that there was no intention to make Victory a functional 'transit-oriented' development, possibly because it may have gotten in the way of clientel showing off their cars at the hotel drop-off. For a place that bills itself as the ultimate walkable community in Dallas, Victory is not that easy to walk to. Whether you are coming from the historic West End immediately to the south or the uptown district a quarter mile away to the east, there is no natural pedestrian flow or wayfinding to the main plaza. The site is bound on two sides by highway overpasses, on one side by a vast lawn, and the north side by a sea of parking servicing the arena. Alhough there is a strong visual axis that ties the series of spaces within Victory into a cohesive whole, it is imperceptible from other major points of view elsewhere in the city. Useful gateways to the area are strangely obscured, with monumental corners taking precedence over the space defining the street. The result is that one's view is focused on the sculptural corner buildings, while the actual promenade that frames them is pivoted at an angle that makes it hard to see the end of the axis. This undermines a pedestrian's ability to make a quick mental map of the place, and unsurprisingly discourages people to wander towards the shops and linger. It has been observed that when the crowds walking from the West End make their way to the arena, they unknowingly bypass the main promenade and continue along the back side of the development. It also doesn't help that the main promenade is not lined on both sides by retail, further weakening the viability of the project.

All is not lost, however. By its shear location as a connector between the central business district and the booming uptown district, and by the fact that it is the only place to root for the Mavericks and the Stars, Victory Park will succeed over time. Mr. Perot gambled that he could create an instant high-end urban district that would be a magnet for the public. 3 years later, it's evident he lost that gamble based by underestimating the importance of catering to all the public, not just the cool few. The W hotel still stands, but the nightclub on the 33rd floor, popular with a few Dallas Cowboys and a handful of celebrities has recently closed down. More middle-brow restaurants would help, and some common anchor stores wouldn't hurt either. Something else to do when a game isn't playing would be nice, and rumors have been floating that some kind of movie theatre could be a part of the mix. A brand new Morphosis-designed Children's Museum is being planned, which should help. A city-subsidized grocery store should be opening its doors soon, which is better late than never. Victory will eventually become a lively district, but it will have a considerably different feel and image by that point. At any rate, it will definitely feel like a natural extension of the city, if it is to prosper.

Unfortunately, fixing the country's most ambitious urban mixed-use district will have come at tremendous cost to the city and its taxpayers. The enormous scope of the project posed a higher-than-normal risk for both public and private partners. Given the exclusive character of Victory, it's apparent that most Dallas residence helped finance a supposed public good that was not really oriented to all of them. The Harbor, for all of its faults, did not make that mistake- all types of people come there to spend time- from teenagers hanging out and playing music, to hispanic immigrants who watch their children revel in the interactive fountain, to middle-aged doctors and their families enjoying a 4-star meal at an outdoor dining veranda. The Hilton hotel at the end is constantly booked with wedding receptions, which adds a different dimension of family-centered activities in the Harbor. During the summer on Thursday evenings, several hundred people (and several dozen boats) fight for space to listen to a live music on the stage. This makes for quite a memborable scene for all the commuters driving along the interstate highway bridge as they approach the Harbor. It crystalizes an image of the family friendly and leisurely lifestyle of this emerging suburb by the lake.

This isn't to say that everything works at the Harbor. Some retail spaces have never been leased, and a number of shops swiftly went belly-up. The upper floors designated as office space remain unleased as well. What disappoints me most, however, is the harbor's poor quality of design and construction, as it permanently compromises the setting in which all the social interaction of the community takes place. It also serves as an indictment on the lack of aesthetic and cultural sophistication that characterizes the suburbs. Victory, though not perfect compared to older parts of downtown, still exhibits a quality of construction and detail that is dignified enough for a grand urban gesture for a some time to come. Even with its modernist vocabulary, it looks much more durable than the Harbor's cardboard-like appearance and obvious cutting of corners.

What can be learned from these projects? For one thing, scale matters a lot. Trying to do too much too fast sets one up for failure that much more easily. One of Dallas' most successful new districts is West Village, an area not much older than Victory but a lot smaller. It includes several blocks of low- to mid-rise blocks dressed in historicist (yet high quality) clothing and incorporating a lively mix of shops, restaurants, bars, a movie theatre and bookstore. It sensitively integrates with the surrounding neighborhoods and densities, incorporates the streetcar and the lightrail system. West Village functions as a connective tissue to smaller yet fast emerging neighborhoods, such as Knox-Henderson, with their traditional commercial cores lying nearby. Victory suffers from feeling like an isolated precinct, placed on a large abandoned site with nary a relation to the surrounding city. Its self-imposed architectural conformity in the use of the beige masonry, satin-finished metal panel and blue-tinted glass lend an unnecessary sterility to the place. By contrast, the random hodge-podge character of the older more established districts or the deliberate heterogeneity of styles in newer developments promote a lively feel for pedestrians. And lastly, when masterplanning a district it is more important to appeal to as many potential users as possible before creating a niche-based identity. It's understandable that selling a brand is critical in attracting high-paying residents to a new development, but this has to be balanced with the need to supply as broad pool of customers to support the retail. Apartment dwellers alone can't keep the street-level businesses below in business.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and I'm convinced that Victory's boosters were so enamoured with their project's futuristic vision that they had completely ignored the traditional realities of how communities and urban districts come into being. Planning a popular urban hotspot is indeed an art and at its heart a speculative exercise. A certain amount of humility is called for among planners and financial backers within government and the private sector, something I suspect is scarcer than we would like to believe. Start small and let the users sort out what fits in a district, allowing flexibility that certain elements will fail and unexpected successes emerge. It's sort of a democratic approach, but the results are a truer reflection of the community compared to the more authoritarian alternative. So long as people believe that their private truth can will itself into the world through the built environment, costly follies like Victory will forever go on.

Beware of the Aristocrats: Architects and the Elite

2009-06-12T17:00:00.000-07:00

Whether it's because humans have evolved in response to the challenges foisted on them by nature or because God wanted to ensure that universal agreement and understanding is impossible, people will always take sides. Humans belong to tribes, social classes, nations that compete against each other to obtain limited resources. Politics is by definition the study of this aspect of human behavior, as it tries to explain who gets what and why. There is much that can be understood about a political issue by taking looking at who represents either side. Knowing what cultural norms, values, and world views govern a tribe/class/nation/interest group will reveal lots about their motives and expectations facing an issue. Since there are as many groupings of values and philosophies as there are people and a finite amount of resources (natural and human) and time, political conflict will continue to remain with us. Compromises merely suppress long-running conflicts temporarily, or create new unforeseen conflicts (unintended consequences).

I keep the above concept in mind when looking at every issue, but in particular when it comes to environmental policy. As an architect these days it is well near impossible to avoid engaging in this issue. From my observation, architects, in desiring a status as independent crafts/artists, are relatively naive about the political dimensions of environmentalism and instead prefer to reflect on its attendant virtues of sustainability and harmony between man and nature. In the real world, our (architects') inability to solidly grasp the theory of economic value and the mechanics of wielding political influence makes us incapable in making lots money or effecting real change. As we strive to improve the look and feel of our communities, we are often blissfully unaware of people's economic interests and the major political factions and powerbrokers that make things happen in the real world (until it slaps us in the face in the form of architectural review committees, value engineering or canceled projects).

For instance, nothing makes us architects happier than to realize a structure that responds poetically to the landscape or achieves efficient ways of harnessing energy. Anything that can result in smaller mechanical rooms or reduced ceiling plenums is welcome by us designers. Smaller A/C units, more compact ductwork, eliminating waterheater closets and elevator machine rooms not only allow us more freedom, they are also usually greener. For urban planners, density in the form of compact infrastructure and utilities is preferred over suburban-style decentralization, and it also delivers greener benefits as well. In isolation such thinking becomes orthodox, and makes design professionals antagonistic to opposing points of view. Outside this architect/planner bubble, such orthodox assumptions look increasingly idealistic. It ignores the valid economic interests of a majority of people, and it is too myopic to consider unintended consequences of translating their ideals into public policy. Issues of cost, personal freedom, and social winners and losers are often not understood fully by us architects.

This myopia among architectural professionals also makes us unaware of where we stand in the existing political landscape. As a result we are repeatedly manipulated by outside factions and movements, with questionable benefits to our profession. Our willingness to side with whatever faction to bring about our own aesthetic and enviromental ideals contributes to the paradoxical way architects are portrayed in society: in spite our fairly middle-class incomes, architects are perceived as elitists. The values that drive our work and our thinking often mirror values of the economic and political elite. That's not surprising when we realize that our profession almost exclusively depends on these elites for our paycheck. After all, it is extremely difficult to derive an income from middle-class clients alone. Whether we recognize it or not, our political objectives as a profession rarely diverge from those pushed by entities at the very top of society. Architects throughout history have always been, to put it crudely, mercenaries of the powerful- from carrying out the will of kings, popes and aristocrats to concretizing social control on behalf of a modern technocratic state (Le Corbusier, Albert Speer, et al.)

The political agenda of the socio-economic elite and architects who depend on them continues to converge in the contemporary issue of environmentalism. As a philosophy, environmentalism offers a system of morals, values, an appealing sense of unity with the world for all people of secular persuasion. As a set of policies, however, environmentalism leads to inequitable outcomes that favor governments and their bureaucracies and encourage corporatist big businesses to use regulation hinder competition. Other winners are wealthy people who lament the upward mobility of the social classes beneath them. It is no coincidence that environmentalism emerged to the forefront of social consciousness as soon as a certain level of social wealth had been attained. This is firmly linked to people's natural concerns about quality once the material abundance brought about by prosperity reveals the shallowness of seeking satisfaction by sheer quantity.

To value the quality of things, to consider important yet immaterial matters- they are therefore luxuries. Before industrialization dramatically raised individual productivity and resulting in a broader distribution of wealth, land and political kinship were practically the only way to enjoy the luxury of contemplating about beauty, philosophy, science and mathematics. This traditional elite, the artistocrats or plutocrats, have been the lifeblood of cultural and intellectual development for most of human history. Although not necessarily the greatest minds themselves, they were benevolent patrons of the most influential artists, musicians, poets and philosophers. One thinks of King Philip of Macedonia and Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci at Amboise Castle, or of the lively salons taking place at a nobleman's (or noblewoman's) house. What are universities or non-profit organizations other than institutionalized salons where people can write, research, or create art and music on the dime of someone else's private trust (a modern legal form of aristocratic patronage) or taxpayer funds? These sorts of modern 'salons' are privileged settings where people can focus on qualitative matters that are given relatively short shrift in the world outside governed by economic rules, even if they rarely produce works of quality.

So it was with reading this post by Brendan O'Neill, a British journalist, about Prince Charles' latest hippocritical crusade, that I was reminded of a scene filled with finely clothed men in long white wigs longing on plush chaises longues listening to the latest epic from their favorite young poet. The future King of England, inheritor of a tremendous family fortune and one of the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayers' largesse, has dabbled in a number of public issues throughout his non-productive career. One of his main pursuits included architecture, in which he founded a school to promote the revival of traditional design. In recent years he has moved on to champion environmental causes and the virtues of growing organic food all while burning mind-blowing amounts of fuel on his private jet. As O'Neill reminds us, far from demonstrating the courage of conviction, Prince Charles is merely keeping up with his fellow English aristocrats who have played a larger than assumed role in raising environmental awareness. Reading the passage below undermines the idea that the environmental movement is a purely grassroots effort:

...Many of the major players in British environmentalism are posh, rich, and hectoring. One of Charles’s top advisers is Jonathon Porritt, a former director of Friends of the Earth and a patron of the creepy Malthusian outfit, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). Porritt is a graduate of Eton, Britain’s school of choice for the rich and well-connected, and is the son of Lord Porritt, the 11th Governor General of New Zealand. The increasingly influential OPT also counts Sir Crispin Tickell (who is as posh as his name suggests) and Lady Kulukundis, the wife of a Greek shipping magnate, among its patrons.The head of the organic-promoting Soil Association, Peter Melchett, is also known as the Fourth Baron Melchett: that’s because he is the Eton-educated son of the Baron and Sir, Julian Mond — former chairman of the British Steel Corporation — and is heir to Sir Alfred Mond’s extraordinary ICI fortune...

...Zac Goldsmith, editor of the greens’ monthly bible The Ecologist, is the son of a billionaire (Sir James Goldsmith) and an aristocrat (Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart, the daughter of the eighth Marquess of Londonderry.) And if you thought it was grating to be lectured to by the mansion-owning, electricity-zapping Al Gore during his Live Earth bonanza two years ago, then spare a thought for us Brits: during Live Earth, we were given the Gore-approved “Global Warming Survival Handbook,” written by one David de Rothschild. Yes, David is a member of the mind-blowingly wealthy Rothschild banking family and is an heir to its enormous fortune.

Couple the above British "who's who" with their American counterparts, namely the Hollywood elite (like Al Gore's friends Laurie David and Leonardo Dicaprio) and it becomes clear that such consistent support from people at the top should make those of us below a bit suspicious. If one's convictions are influenced by one's social status, then it make sense to look into why this artistocratic class is so involved in environmental causes. An overriding sense of guilt due to their great fortunate is an obvious explanation, similar to my fellow architects' feeling of culpability in destroying natural resources and adding to the energy burden with every building they design. Tied to this is a belief that possesssing a public profile demands protraying oneself as a model citizen. Just as we had chivalry for medieval knights, and social expectations for aristocrats to exemplify virtures of loyalty, respect and a reverence for tradition and intellectualism, today's elite project an embrace of virtues that are judged preferable for public consumption. Being green is good, and no celebrity or European aristocrat could maintain a good reputation by openly shunning it.

Take away environmentalism's emotional and social dimensions, and we are left with its political and economic dimensions. Suddenly the moral standing of the aristocratic eco-warriors crumbles. To begin with, if politics is the study of who gets what, how and why, then it becomes apparent that the aristocrats have the least to lose from environmental policy. Isolated by their wealth from having to struggle daily to make a living, they don't tend to be aware of the vastly different priorities of people below them. Depending on what social status one belongs, priorities will range from the mostly material and monetary for those at the bottom, to ones that cherish qualitative, spiritual and intellectual at the top. Power enables one's priorities to be enacted over another. In an aristocratic arrangement, a small landed elite has power over everyone else and thus enforce their priorities at everyone elses expense. If something is favored by an aristocrat, it is prudent to question the political motives of these self-appointed leaders.

If economics is the study of how goods and services are produced, distributed and consumed, then who would be the least familiar with all this than these very people who don't produce anything but consume a lot? Environmental policies presents serious ramifications to economies worldwide, whether through regulations that that limit production or through subsidies that distort market signals and tax policy. While aiming to clean the environment and reduce carbon emissions, these policies tend to have the unintended (or intended) effect causing economic hardship to many and dragging down national economies through the wasteful use of capital and low productivity. From many contemporary architects' perspective, policies that would force urban density, mass transit and less automobile use would result in a better built environment The aristocrat would tend to agree, but for a potentially different reason: these policies would limit the personal and economic freedoms of the middle classes beneath them and would lower their standard of living relative to their own. It would keep the masses in crammed into cities, which tends to discourage property and home ownership, thus returning more power and influence to an oligarchy led by the governing elite and well-connected families.

Are these the kind of political bedfellows architects want? As a long-time admirer of the many fruits of traditional aristocratic culture, I understand the importance of the finer things that enrich life at an extremely deep level. It drives the passion of many designers and artists, and fulfills us more than an avaricious pursuit of profit. Greek and Roman patricians along with most European aristocrats had a high disdain for merchants, traders and self-made men for precisely this reason. But in this age of republican democracy, shouldn't architects respond to the ordinary needs of everyday people? Thus far many of us have been guilty of declaring that we are designing for the people, while in reality it was done from an elitist point of view. We claim to build and plan for the masses, only refer to them so abstractly that we come up with solutions that encumber personal freedom and economic mobility.

By embracing elitist points of view and political causes, architects are logically perceived as part of the world of elite, and not of the common man. Our services are considered by most people as a luxury, even if architecture has a useful role in enriching the simplest and cheapest of construction. It's ironic that although the building of shelter or the shaping of functional space are among the most primordial needs of man, the professional most dedicated to such endeavors, the architect, is considered largely unnecessary. If this is to change, it may require a revolution in the way we practice, but it has the promise of enabling architects to become independent advocates of design in the community rather than remote agents of the rich and powerful.

Fight Club in the White House

2009-05-25T12:38:00.000-07:00

Watching a recent documentary about The Pixies reuniting was a sobering moment. As a fan of The Pixies (just "Pixies" is more accurate, but awkward), I was interested to see what the group was like after 15 years apart. Somehow, this dysfunctional group managed to rock out like they hadn't spent the last decade estranged, when they either lost themselves to addictions or in their own solo music projects. That was onstage. Offstage, there wasn't a whole lot going on. Reports of what the previous years had been like were nothing short of depressing, and it seemed that all the members couldn't wait to get back together, but mainly for the paycheck that would come from filling music halls across the country. (The lead singer, Frank Black, did manage some wonderful music in the intervening years.)

Something else struck me about the group. I was reminded of the violence in their music, which was always oddly combined with a clean-cut look, an attractive (at least in the late 80s) bassist, and a calm demeanor between songs. This was a stark contrast to the overly rebellious music groups of decades past, whose violent music was always paired with a violent image. (Think Dee Snyder eating an oversized thigh bone, an iconic image at the time we would ridicule today.) Now, violence is an acceptable trait of the quiet man, the thinker, the amateur philosopher, the college student. What had once been public displays of pain turned into a controlled rage, a rage that was recognized, contemplated, and accepted. Who was it that bought tickets to see the Pixies on their reunion tour? 40-year-olds that listened to them in their heyday? No, from the looks of things it was 20-year-olds who still heard in the Pixies a freshness, and saw in them role models of their own controlled rage.

A few years after the Pixies broke up, a film was made that was seemingly adored by every one 30 years old and younger: Fight Club. Here again was a portrait of controlled rage, harbored by a seemingly secure, educated professional. But behind his superficial success was a disillusionment about the very institutions that had given rise to his way of life. He wasn't an individual, as he felt was his birthright; he was a robot, a number, an automaton, devoting his empty life to a corrupt system that was anti-human and soul-crushing. His response? A psychotic break and the birth of an underground fight club that would grow into an anarchist legion. By the end of the film, the group is responsible for destroying skyscrapers that house all records of debt for the American consumer, destroying capitalism in one fell swoop. The background music as the buildings crumble to the ground? The Pixies'Where is my Mind?

Was this just a cool film? Or a snapshot of how an entire generation now views/viewed institutions? Maybe both. It certainly wasn't the Magna Carta of Generation X, but a justification (albeit insane justification) for destroying capitalism and altering society had been portrayed and appreciated by millions, many without giving it a second thought. Destroy debt? Sounds good to me! Live my life on my terms, not dictated by some evil bureaucratic company? Awesome! As long as that attitude was the daydream of a few college students who would one day shed that naivete with their own mortgage, small business and car note, the film didn't bother me. But the sentiment at the core of the Pixies controlled rage and Fight Club is now on full display in the highest branches of our society.

Before there was Fight Club, there was a guy who had authored a treatise on how to bring about social change. As it turns out, he worked in Woodlawn and Hyde Park, Chicago, where I went to school and were our current president lives when away from D.C. Saul Alinskyadmitted that his aim to bring about revolution by working within the system, harnessing a controlled rage by agitating institutions, especially financial institutions. (The picture below includes corporations, banks and utilities, but nothing is off limits.) He taught his followers how to create appetites for "change", how to get folks on board with legislating against one negative concept (like pollution) and expanding it to virtually anything else. Unlike Fight Club, blowing up buildings wasn't his preferred method of bringing about social change. But like Fight Club, Saul Alinsky worked in small groups in neighborhoods across the country, and the goal was to take down large institutions, one piece at a time.

And like Fight Club, there is a very real hostility against the very institutions that have created our comfortable way of life. Capitalism? It's surely imperfect, as all of humanity is, but the once fringe academic sense that capitalism was inherently evil is not so fringe anymore. In fact, I would argue it is incredibly likely that our president was highly trained in the sentiment that American capitalism was the moral problem, not the solution. His response as soon as he came into office? Virtually no element of our economy has gone untouched. Banking? Practically owned by the government. Automobile? Owned, at the risk of the rule of law, by the government. Credit cards? They're next, waiting for a takeover. Health care? By the end of the year, the government may have remade American healthcare in the image of England's failed model. The currency? Our own Treasury Secretary seems okay with the dollar no longer being the world's standard. The bailouts weren't a government loan to keep capitalism afloat. It turns out it was forced money that empowered the federal government to dictate changes in policy, without recourse. This article is a fascinating summary of just how unstable our economy is, and how much doublespeak is at the heart of it all.

In Fight Club, controlled rage is celebrated, indeed its needed, because the American system is immoral, corrupt and anti-human. This use to be a fringe idea, echoed only in the halls of colleges and by community organizing menaces like Saul Alinsky. Judged by his actions alone, a reasonable person can conclude that destroying America's fundamentally immoral foundations are at the heart of an Obama presidency. In the film, people didn't fight because they disagreed or were offended; they fight because they enjoy it. And at the core of the conflict, there is the desire to shed the institutions of the past, to literally destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. The film simply animated the mainstream views of the American professoriate. Now, that view is in real power for the first time. Let the fight begin.

UPDATE: Obama says he's ready.

Podcast 7

2009-04-28T16:30:00.001-07:00

Relieveddebtor and Corbusier take on green architecture and the changing institutional landscape in their most recent podcast. Enjoy!

As Institutions Crumble, What Will Take Their Place?

2009-04-17T15:29:00.000-07:00

Life is always changing. But sometimes, change happens so quickly that we consciously stop and take notice. This is one of those times. With great expectations, we hoped the rust from the Bush years would fleck off. Instead, there seems to be a sense that more rust, a lasting rust, is forming. While Bush had his strengths (not least of which was his surety), he didn’t inspire confidence, especially when it was clear he had run out of ideas and support. For better or worse, Americans still need able leadership, even though we are remarkably independent in nature and history, and we were indeed ready for a change. And the results aren’t uplifting. At least, not yet.

This isn’t a screed against the current president. Rather, it’s a recognition that we were naïve at worse and overly optimistic at best to think that one person could fundamentally change the suspicions that had been growing within us for some time: suspicions that something wasn’t quite right, suspicions that the numbers weren’t adding up, and suspicions that a growing detachment from reality was here to stay. All of these suspicions were put on hold while we put our hopes in one man to make them go away. But he, because he is only a man, couldn’t possibly quell all such suspicions, and the basic detachments we’ve long sensed are now becoming realities. These are the detachments that we are no longer able to ignore, and they are motivating us to take real stock of where things are, and where they’re going. But what are the fundamental detachments from reality that have given us pause?

On a philosophical level, the first and most basic detachment is from the truth. The assumption that truth is relative is a devastating philosophical point-of-view, one that seems to promise freedom, but ends in enslavement. If truth is relative, then what exactly does one hang his hat on? And what protects your version of the truth, if another’s version is more popular, armed, or powerful than yours? Truth, detached from central, traditional, historic mores is not truth at all, just one man’s opinion. And if that one man has a following, an army, or a judicial system in his favor, what about your precious truth? Who will defend it, and on what philosophical grounds? I won’t be so naïve to say truth is an easy discernment. But are we even attempting anymore, or have we given up, using the excuse that it’s not real anyway, so why bother?

Postmodern relativism is simply an untenable philosophical framework, and it has led to a confusion in reality. It is certainly helpful for polite society, as it is a quick way to end an argument (“Well, you can think what you want and I will think what I want, and we can agree to disagree”). But if nothing is true, then nothing is real. If nothing is true, nothing can be trusted. If nothing is true, there is no legitimate need for respecting, much less loving, those around us. The only possible result is increased alienation, meaninglessness and rampant secularism, no recipe for social harmony to be sure.

Leadership that adopts a relativistic framework is bound to decrease confidence and increase anxiety, and this leads to our second unsettling detachment, detachment from our government. Does anyone have a hand on this thing anymore? President Bush acting against his own principles to save his principles is still a startling example of a lack of clear thinking that resulted in a panicked market. Our current president also has a tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear habit that leads to confusion, if not outright disgust.

Even worse than personal shortcomings in our government leaders is the sense that its size is starting to get away from us. In reality, it already has; we’ve officially become detached when our staggering debt load is more than we’re even worth as a nation. We’re officially detached when the interest on our debt is our fourth largest expenditure as a nation, following Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those four expenditures don’t even take into account our annual federal budget! So while our government encourages us to save and be frugal, it is living on the domestic equivalent of credit cards with no prospect of income to justify the current purchases. When political promises are completely detached from what is fiscally possible (unless we charge more of China’s credit cards), we sense that governmental detachment is real, and worrisome.

This leads of course to our growing detachment from economic matters. If only 53% of Americans prefer capitalism to socialism, we must have a serious lack of understanding. Worse, we must have a lack of trust in the market, and hence, each other. As massive companies engage in billion dollar boondoggles, only to get trillion dollar bailouts, we lose any sense of connection to the market, and let these failed experiment define the market for us. The market has become those rich guys stealing my taxes instead of the diverse, brave and industrious system that it is. The market, according to 47% of Americans, has become the source of our problems, be they environmental problems, healthcare problems, unemployment problems, or inequality problems. For too many of us, the market is not the solution, and we are simply feeling detached.

(Other institutions are suffering as well, especially the Church. This article is an insightful essay on the dissolution of the American Mainline Protestant Church. This article outlines the future downfall of the evangelical movement.)

So amid all of that hopelessness, is there any hope? Of course. There is always hope. But it will be found in places we deem “authentic.” We see it in our food preferences as celebrity chefs are always on the quest for authentic food (eyeballs and testicles are always great fare for television). As our trust of massive systems and persons beyond our control depletes, we’ll rely on what we see in front of us. Local churches, local government, even neighborhoods may all experience revivals of sorts, if not in numbers, in intentionality. My guess is that we will seek ways to withdraw from the systems we do not understand, much less trust, and that instead of getting irate about the federal goings-on, we’ll be forced to ignore them. We’ll give credence to those on the ground floor, to those “in the know”, to those with experience, who have lived and gained experience. When institutions fail and demagogic promises don’t come to pass, authority will pass to those who are authentic from those who failed to deliver. At least, I hope so.

From a spiritual point-of-view, the little things of religion stand a powerful opportunity to become absolutely vital again, the exact opposite of rote. Communion, liturgy, the Bible, small groups…all of these things could again become “mainstream” sources of hope and meaning. After all, haven’t these things always stood, through the decline of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, Communism, and world wars? These little things have always proven to be authentic and lasting. I suspect they will continue to be seen in such a light, even as the big things around us become detached.

(Sometimes, it’s odd how articles with similar themes are born at the same time. I thought this said some of the same things I was thinking, in some ways better than I could.)

It's Not Easy Being Green- is it just about building performance or is there something else?

2009-03-25T12:26:00.000-07:00

For those who have read my previous essays on green architecture, it is evident that I share some doubts about some of its major assumptions, even as I support it many of its goals. Thus my response to most articles and lectures advocating green design begins with the phrase "...yeah, but..." when impractical ideas turn up and concludes with multiple eye-rolls when the tone becomes alarmist. So it was with actual relief when I sat though a seminar on green design at an architects' conference where the main lesson was practical and modest about our understanding about the issue. No less surprising was that it was given by Peter Pfeiffer of the Autin architecture firm Barley+Pfeiffer, who are regarded as pioneers of a sort in popularizing green design in Texas decades ago (and who also happened to be the first visiting critic when I was a mere naive beginner student). What appealed to me in Pfeiffer's presentation was its emphasis on maximizing performance with sensible detailing of the building envelope and using of age-old devices for shading, ventilation, and moisture protection. The priority should be on minimizing a building's energy load before adding fancy devices that tend to add tremendous inital costs and may operate with compromised efficiency.

Despite the technological advances that constitute much of green design, there is nothing exceptionally high-tech about Barley + Pfeiffer's architecture. If anything there is much that is traditional. Much of Mr. Pfeiffer's presentation cited pictures of other people's buildings that were featured in lifestyle magazines like Dwell that exhibited common 'green' techniques but failed to perform the most basic function of keeping water out and properly shading the building. It reminds me of what a good architect friend once told me: "to say that I can design a green building is really saying that I can design a structure that won't fall." Much of what is considered responsible design is already green and has been so for the last 3,000 years. Siting the building to maximize natural daylighting and breezes while reliably sheltering occupants from the elements was fundamental since not doing so would make life indoors extremely unbearable and a threat to health. Stale air, excessive heat, mold, water-borne diseases, and smoke inhalation from cooking fires were the consequences of from a failure to design according to traditional 'green' principles.

If designing green is nothing new, how come is it seen as the next big thing? First, beyond being a marketing gimick that endows a building with virtue, it's important to understand what buildings were expected to do before and after the machine age. Before the 19th century, the performance goals for buildings were limited by scarce resources that were readily available and the brute energy available from human and animal labor. Given this reality, it was important to concentrate the energy expended in a home to sensible and durable construction that required low maintenance and wielding natural forces for a minimal level of human comfort. The result was an extremely sustainable model of architecture by today's standards, yet driven by necessity rather than choice (the late Egyptian architect Hassan Fathy worked in this mode, with interesting results). The value of ornamentation in pre-machine era design was a testament to the triumph of the human spirit of frivolity and waste over a daily life that was mostly "...nasty, brutish and short." The act building was tremendous human endeavor, requiring enourmous amounts of manpower with the crudest means and most inefficient methods. But once a building was finished it used little to no energy, was passively cooled, and was made of non-toxic materials. Still, the buildings remained too dark more than half the time and still too cold (or too hot, depending one one's latitude).

Machines changed everything. They completely altered our expectation of what buildings could do in previously unimaginable ways. In addition to providing shelter from the elements, a building with the help of machines was capable of much more: providing a precise level of comfort, adequate lighting regardless of the time of day, clean our laundry, wash our dishes, rid waste, cook our food automatically and even irrigate the surrounding landscape. Thanks to advances in steam and electric power, fewer people were required in construction even as building size and interior expanded infinitely. The functions inside the home demanded less time and labor from members of the household and suddenly home had the additional task of providing spaces for private leisure. In contrast to a rough life of subsistence farming and huddling together with the family in a sparsely furnished hall, one could, thanks to machines and powered transport, pursue any occupation anywhere and eat food grown by others while lounging in compartmentalized rooms stuffed with affordable furniture.

As the building could now do more, more functions were naturally placed on it. Its value would be measured less by how well it kept the rain out or harnessed nature and more by how it performed other more specialized functions. The central question in much of the twentieth century was how could buildings accomodate the machine? After some experimentation during the 19th century, mechanical and electrical systems were to be integrated in the building once and for all, substituting the facts of nature within a sheltered space. HVAC systems could substitute the use of wind currents, fireplaces, and the sun to achieve unparalleled comfort. Modern plumbing systems, beyond eliminating the back-breaking and time-consuming labor of fetching water from the well, were a boon to overall public health and increased human longevity. Electric lighting conquered the night and the perpetually shaded recesses of our structures while ensuring much lower risks from destructive fires. By delivering energy remotely through wires, it also made all buildings capable of work. Before electric delivery, a space designed for the manufacture of goods required power to be available on site, whether sby relying on a wind or water mill, or by using animal strength. With electricity, the production of power is removed and therefore frees spaces to flexibly accomodate a countless number of functions, from industrial to clerical and domestic use.

All of a sudden, a building's performance was measured by how much work it could do within its envelope. More than just keeping the elements out or employing rules of composition and proportion, we now expect it to do things quite alien to Vitruvius and Palladio: it had to cool and heat mechanically, provide adequate power for artificial light and automated appliances, and pressurized fresh water for all washing and cleaning. All these modern functions would never have come about were it not for abundant and cheap energy. And this would not have been possible without a cheap and abundant energy source like fossil fuels. This abundance did not reward wastefulness as much as it encouraged innovation for the increase of production to create more human wealth. To produce more and make more money, it is essential to improve efficiency. Since the dawn of the industrial age, machines have progressively become more efficient at the same time that they could produce even more, which had the effect of consuming even more energy. This in turn increased the demand which then increased the supply of the most affordable and easiest to distribute sources of energy-coal, oil, natural gas, and later, uranium.

With the recently growing realization that these energy sources are inherently finite, there has been a rising call to maximize efficiency while consuming less. However, if the object is not to produce more to create greater wealth and value, there will be little incentive other than the high price of energy to become more efficient. Hence, the use of regulation to either artificially inflate the price of traditional energy sources or or the use of subsidies to deflate the natural high cost of renewable power. These methods of distorting the real physical value of resources (the pricing mechanism) are based on imaginary values derived from people's ideals and assumptions. Saving the environment is valuable in the realm of human morals and metaphysical understanding. It has yet to prove profitable or scalable in a free market, where it fills a niche and not mass market. What economic value remains for the environmental industry is chielfy dependent on government regulation and subsidy.

Does innovation on efficiency thus follow from regulation and subsidy? To a degree, they can, but at a much slower pace and at tremendous cost to lots of people (taxes, higher utility prices, etc.). Part of the reason for this is the fickle nature of discovery and innovation. They arise mostly from the muck of wasteful experiments and inventions, risk-taking, chance, and scientific accident. This is counter to massive government-led scientific research campaigns that tend to pursue narrow solutions. In a highly regulated and subsidized economic environment, the government-enforced high cost of energy and resulting reduction in productivity limits the conditions in which the 'muck' can thrive and from which most of our innovations come from. It is not a coincidence that most modern inventions and innovations since World War II (when all of Europe opted for democratic-socialism) have come from the U.S.-where entrepreneurial risk-taking and a desire to make things for which people willingly pay have fostered amazing technological advances at lower cost.

The current green movement is right to emphasize the maximizing of performance of our buildings in all various functions they assume nowadays. It conforms with the overarching trend of dramatic leaps of efficiency in our buildings taking place during the last two centuries. It is also good to learn from pre-machine-era buildings in how they made use of the climate at a time when energy was scarce and productivity was low. Especially when it comes shedding water and in shading from the sun, modern architects naively thought steel and concrete could 'reinvent the wheel'. The great modern masters' buildings were well known to leak which helped undermine the appeal of their work in the popular mind. Mr. Pfeiffer joked that there are only two kinds of flat roofs-ones that leak and ones that are about to. And although an unshaded curtain wall glazing facing south may look cool and sleek in Dallas, it doesn't excuse running a dozen A/C units hidden in the bushes (like this famous house). These shortcomings cost real money, and by properly addressing them with a tight leak-proof envelope (or a breathable one in some cases), sensible daylighting and shading, real long term savings are achieveable, especially in the long term.

That is, if the cost of energy stays relatively cheap. If the supply of energy stays the same and the demand for it declines because of conscious design, the price will decline. In this case, designing a green buidings is a matter of individual choice, where the inital extra cost of installing high-performance materials is weighed against long-term savings in energy consumption. Since going green isn't a self-evident economic choice on its own (as the need for tax incentives, credits and rebates makes clear), it remains a luxury made accessible to those who can afford and who adopt cultural values that endorse this choice. As I've described elsewhere, demand for environmentally-friendly products and services have grown in correlation to rising incomes.

But for many green enthusiasts, that is precisely the problem- as long as green design is a luxury of choice, it will be prevented from becoming the mainstream method of building. From their perspective, policies of government-led compulsion are the only way to make sustainable design widespread. That means government does what it can to penalize people who do not follow green practices, from artificially rationing energy or taxing it heavily, to radically raising the required performance criteria of targeted industries, to giving all sorts tax rebates or subsidies to green projects. Instead of thriving by selling goods for which there is a real market demand, the much ballyhooed 'green' economy can only be sustained by taking wealth from private enterprise and taxpayer income while willfully distorting pricing signals (eg. cap & trade). As an excercise, try to name one company or product that has been hugely profitable because of its sustainable features and not because of government help (The first thing that comes to mind is the Toyota Prius, but looking further one realizes that each unit is sold at a loss, its sales recently have been sinking faster than any other car due to lower gas prices and would be even worse were it not for generous tax credits.)

Since there is hardly a more regulated human endeavor than building, encouraging (or forcing) the implementation sustainable design has been easier than in other industries. In the interest of saving money on maintaining utilities and managing resources, municipalities and state governments push for better building performance. For one thing, it is relatively easy to hide the extra-cost of going green by means of codes, tax incentives and ordinances. This has the effect of raising real estate values, and attracts the well-off to move in and partake in the desirability of living the green lifestyle. Despite many people's faith in the virtue of green design, it almost never goes downmarket to benefit people of lower income. Unless a massive transfer of wealth is involved, the problem remains that environmentally-friendly policies usually have adverse affects on the poor. It is they who are more sensitive to the initial costs of things, and are rarely in the position of absorbing the sticker shock of the rich and planning out their finances based on life-cycle estimates.

That is why I favor simple moves to make a house perform more efficiently without raising the initial cost. It's no coincidence why learning and applying building knowledge of the pre-industrial past makes sense in the design of structures for the less well-to-do- it's about a return to an architecture made by people with lesser means. Because of all the thing a building is expected nowadays, this kind of building will not completely cut off energy consumption, but it could reduce it by a hefty margin. It is my believe that in the long run, this helps out more people, lessening costs without the burden of maintaining an expensive and unproductive solar roof panel or windmill (they often fail to provide more than 10% of a building's energy needs). The priority for the poor is not, in my opinion, to live more sustainably. By most measures, they already do live sustainably by virtue of the fact that they are poor (as were our pre-industrial ancestors). What today's poor have that their ancestors did not was cheap and abundant energy.

It is for this reason that aggressively employing renewable energy like wind and solar is misguided. These are very expensive sources of energy, despite the belief that the the sun and air are free. They require lots of input for relatively little output and receive 20-40 times more subsidies from the government per kilowatt produced. Increasing output from wind and solar can be improved in small increments, but their inherent physical properties prevent them from producing even close to enough. Compared to the high level of energy density per unit of oil, or even the astronomical level found in uranium, wind and solar-by their diffuse nature-are an infinitesimal fraction. Since those two clean-energy alternatives make little financial sense without massive government assistance, the only other credible argument to employ them now is the fact they do not burn carbon. Unlike a several decades ago when burning carbon meant harmful paticulates in our air, our technological success in nearly eliminating that problem has now given way to suspicions that it adversely affects our climate. I call this a suspicion and not a fact since much of the credibility of anthopogenic global warming relies on observations that the global climate is changing (higher surface temps, icebergs melting, rising sea levels) and associating this to rising carbon dioxide emissions without undeniable proof. If the paradigm of man-made climate change collapses under the weight of contrary evidence, which is quite possible, then the rationale for designing according to carbon footprint collapses as well.

The fundamental question remains: how must a structure perform? What standards should be used to measure a structure's performance-does it shelter well or does it permit functional flexibility and convenience to maintain a modern standard of living? If it's the former, then durable construction and time-tested techniques in dealing with the local environment is paramount. If it's the latter, then designing to minimize consumption of water and electricity is sensible, as long as the cost savings are not exclusive to the building's occupants but to the all people who have a stake (i.e. taxpayers) Anything beyond these tasks, such as minimizing the building's carbon footprint should be paid for by the owner's discretion, since current solutions tend to inequitably place the cost on others and promotes unproductive state-dependent enterprise.

Everyone should go green in their own capacity, but no one should foot the bill in promoting green enterprises of questionable benefit. Extra money in one's pocket due to efficient design and construction is a tangible benefit. At this point in time, lowering the Earth's global temperature by a 1/2 degree in one hundred years based on estimates from historically flawed computer models is still an imaginary and unverifiable benefit.

What Does it Mean to be Cool, Anyway?

2009-03-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to be cool? I confess it’s a schoolyard question, but apparently, it’s one that matters politically. A lot. I remember thinking to myself “So what?” every time a political commentator mentioned how cool then-candidate Barack Obama was during the presidential debates. “It’s his ideas that matter,” I kept thinking, but no one seemed to agree. Not that McCain had great ideas (he never was able to mount himself as a viable option, as one appearing to have better ideas or a better economic philosophy), but Obama was scarce on details and a proponent of populist drivel when he did divulge. It wasn’t about ideas at all, I guess. Maybe it never has been. Maybe the schoolyard goal of “being cool” has smoothly transitioned into the most important issues and places of our time, to the point where actually debating an issue at length is no longer worthwhile. I find that alarming. Does anyone else?

Of course, being cool under pressure is an absolute necessity for any leader, especially the President. The pressures must be unbelievable, at least for a serious thinker, which I’m not convinced Obama is. Everyone aims for the top, and you have to balance hundreds of relationships and the finicky public. Being cool can help to get an agenda passed, ease tensions with rival nations, and calm the nation if and when the government turns a crisis into a catastrophe. My fear is that we have mistaken aloofness for coolness and arrogance and laziness for confidence. From a moral point-of-view, this article speaks to this perfectly. From a political point-of-view, read this.

But in the midst of lackluster performance and falling approval numbers, is this the right time to start re-evaluating the value of being cool? Are there other values that equally matter, maybe even matter much more? To my recollection, the cool kids were never particularly impressive. (Admittedly, I wasn’t the cool kid. Far from a brainiac, I was reserved, lanky and more focused on theatre and music. I was an average athlete and socially insecure. So perhaps I write from a place of envy.) But in an effort to be intellectually honest, can we agree that while everyone liked the cool kids, it was rarely for their achievements? It was for their persona, even if they couldn’t manage to actually accomplish anything significant or unique. Only later do we appreciate the deeper thinkers, the quiet and the awkward, especially as they build businesses, employ others and consume our products. We end up reading their books, watching their movies and being inspired by the visions they often kept to themselves.

In the short run, what is cool is often what’s rebellious, what’s confident, and what’s independent. Cool art pokes fun at the establishment. It’s violent and edgy, often in form as well as substance. It is at times vociferously anti-religion and anti-American. In many circles, if art isn’t rebelling against the perceived “status quo,” it’s not worth creating. To follow up on corbusier’s previous post, perhaps this is why conservative artists have a difficulty conveying their values and making it interesting, and why too much Christian art has become boring.

But here’s the irony: the conservative persona often defends the most artistically viable ideas. Oh, they may not be controversial and hence, they may not be as cool, but isn’t liberty the ultimate artistic value? Aren’t honor and perseverance and the quest for the truth all perfect subjects for art? Does no one sense the irony that since the 1960s, popular art, from Warhol to the Sex Pistols and everyone in-between, railed against centralized power, yet cheer it on when it grows right in front of their face? Meanwhile, the very values they should applaud – intellectual diversity, freedom and being true to oneself – are scoffed at every time talk radio becomes the subject of debate. Art galleries, recording studios and movie sets are full of the very people who thrive in a free society and the virtues that make it work, yet crave this version of “coolness” even though it will ultimately imprison the minds and property of many.

On occasion, some conservative art gets through. I am always struck by the deep themes of honor, faithfulness and republicanism that drive Gladiator. Maximus isn’t cool because he knows it all; he’s cool because he’s strong, yet humble. Gran Torino also thrives on deeply conservative themes. Service to nation, economic and urban diversity, personal responsibility and sacrifice all play critical roles to the film. Both films are art that don’t require gratuitous sex or anti-establishment sentiment to be cool. Where are the artists, the politicians, and the thinkers that are every bit as cool as the current president? Or does he have the monopoly?

I accept the reality that in 8th grade we like the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Do we do the same as voters? I’m continually struck by the incongruence between the values of Obama’s voters, and his own values. How many would claim to support such reckless spending on credit, to the tune of trillions of dollars? How many would encourage him to increase the taxes of their employers and to discourage private charity? How many appreciate the copious examples of double-speak, with plenty of examples to be found here. Is he so cool to transcend all of that? I guess so…for now. But in the long run, isn't it better that the most liberating and proven ideas win the day, not the coolest candidate?

Corbusier comments: For a good dose of 'liberating and proven ideas' that win the day, I suggest taking the time to read a superb lecture given by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. Murray's pioneering sociological research on education, the welfare state and human accomplishment offers insights that are quite disturbing to many of those consumed by leftist assumptions even as it describes society far more realistically. While his speech is generally directed at America's elites needing to rediscover the roots of American exceptionalism, he points to our contemporary elite class being more preoccupied in seeming cool and posing as Europeans rather than reexaming fundamental ideas that we inherit from a long and rich historical tradition. The socialist political experiments of the twentieth century seem to inspire many of our elites, since they entertain notions of remaking humanity and recalibrating natural social inequalities. Yet it's a fundamentally adolescent conceit as Murray remarks:

The twentieth century was a very strange century, riddled from beginning to end with toxic political movements and nutty ideas. For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: the twentieth century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human beings and human lives that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And twentieth-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way that adolescents react when they think they have discovered Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. They think that the grown-ups are wrong about everything. In the case of twentieth-century intellectuals, it was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas is no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.

The nice thing about adolescence is that it is temporary, and, when it passes, people discover that their parents were smarter than they thought. I think that may be happening with the advent of the new century, as postmodernist answers to solemn questions about human existence start to wear thin--we're growing out of adolescence. The kinds of scientific advances in understanding human nature are going to accelerate that process. All of us who deal in social policy will be thinking less like adolescents, entranced with the most titillating new idea, and thinking more like grown-ups.

As Relieveddebtor has written above, part of being cool is to reject the status quo and being completely confident in rejecting the wisdom of the past. Speaking as an architect, it's safe to say that the appeal of modern architecture is that it looks 'cool' compared to the 'stodgy' traditional styles. The problem with being cool is staying cool, since it is such an ephemeral thing. It is supremely difficult to achieve timelessness in the modern idiom, but relatively simple when following traditional design rules. Despite this temporary luster that supposedly 'cool' modern architecture brings, it exacts tremendous permanent costs by ruining our cityscapes and impoverishing urban life. There is a huge price to pay for adolescent experiments and the refusal to govern as a grown-up.

UPDATE: Peggy Noonan hints at these themes here.

Econ 101: It’s the Allocation, Stupid

2009-02-19T15:46:00.000-08:00

For those that are gracious enough to visit this site, you may have noticed that we try to combine a variety of disciplines: economics, architecture, religion, politics. Though it is true that we, like most bloggers, are better schooled in some areas than others (and consequently go into more depth in those areas), we do not neglect common sense when offering commentary on how it is we thing society is best ordered. I would like to offer such common sense as it seems (at best) a healthy minority of friends and colleagues refuse to investigate the realities of our current economic mess.

As I understand it, economics goes something like this: there’s a scarce amount of goods and services in the world, and we have to figure out how to allocate them. There are a number of ways of doing this, but two in particular have been tried most frequently, and one is in the process of being implemented in America as I write. The first way is to, as a society, do nothing. It’s often called the “free market” or “free enterprise.” It allows people, in a lawfully agreed-upon manner, to freely engage in trade. People are allowed to use their gifts, talents and skill to make products, offer services, transport goods, invent things, pretty much do anything that others place a value on. The market then acts not only as a place where goods are exchanged, but even more importantly, where information is exchanged. In trillions of daily voluntary exchanges, information on prices, demand, supply, production and everything related to the free exchange of goods is shared.

There are setbacks to this economic model. Good theology tells us people are sinful and imperfect, and in a free society, people’s innate sinfulness will spring up from time to time and cause harm. Most of the time, this sin, via the simple fact that sin will distort the free market and will thus corrupt the inherent value of goods and services, is localized and prosecuted, if it isn’t fixed within the market system itself. Greed is allowed to flourish in this system, as it does in all systems, and appropriate legislation and the rule of law are required to ensure the free market stays as free of corruption as possible. But greed, because it is spread so disparately across millions of producers and consumers, is rarely concentrated in a way that is finally detrimental.

The second model is one of centralized redistribution. The model is quite simple in theory and far older than the free market approach, but surprisingly complex in practice. The thinking says that we can morally take the property of individuals for the good of the collective, or use the excess of the wealthy to “balance” the poverty of the poor. In essence, through forced taxation (much like the medieval feudal system), citizens hand over their property to a central planner, who then “provides” for the needs of all. Various severities of this idea has been tried through the centuries. We seem, through the nationalization of several industries and by acquiring more debt than our GDP, to be slowly (or perhaps rapidly) adopting this point-of-view. Instead of feudal lords, the federal government is taking more and more of our property and centrally planning the economy.

There are setbacks to this model as well. History tells us that it is virtually impossible to administer this model because of its complexity, and because the voluntary information that flows so freely in a free economy is now choked off at several bottlenecks along the way. Information instead lies in the hands of a relative few people, people who cannot possibly have the adequate information to make informed decisions about the inherent value of goods and services. In other words, the proper allocation of resources becomes impossible, as an organic pricing system is replaced by an artificial pricing system. One small example might be the overabundance of size 12 shoes in the former Soviet Union, shoes that went unused. So where there wasn’t enough bread, there were far too many shoes that weren’t used. Information wasn’t able to be conveyed. There were simply too few ears for all the speakers.

There are serious moral ramifications of this collective model as well, too many to account for here. Suffice to say individual liberty and property are compromised. When allocation of resources is placed in the hands of a select group of people, rationing is the only possible result, as history tells us. So what inevitably happens is that the “class structure”, which are supposed to be eliminated through collectivization, is strictly enforced, as some get the scarce goods and some don’t, always for the good of the cause.

The difficulty with the free market is that it is that there is very little that is intuitive. It is not concrete. It really is the invisible hand. But we don’t like invisible hands. We like big concrete, centralized hands. We want someone else to produce X,Y, and Z, and we don’t want to leave that production to chance. What if someone doesn’t make it? What if they charge too much? What if I don’t like it when they do make it? Instead, we’d prefer to let a central planner tell us they’ll make it instead of leaving it to an unseen producer.

But with all its problems, one would have to be willing to live in ignorance not to be appreciative for all the free market does for us every day. It has solved, without anyone guiding it or directing it, the great problem of allocation. We have progressed as workers and are free to pursue those things we love to do precisely because we have allocated someone else to do the things we don’t want to do: grow food, ship food, build homes, build furniture, etc.. It wasn’t long ago that most folks spent vast amounts of their time in the drudgery of procuring food and shelter. Why don’t we anymore? We have let the free market decide how to allocate resources. At least we used to. Adopting the collective model will invariably lead to less efficient allocation of resources, bottlenecks, red tape and a terrible flow of information. At least, it always has.

Ideologues are Lazy

2009-02-06T14:01:00.000-08:00

The Presidential Debate proved to be chock full of ominous warnings. I’ve written earlier about how I was bothered that a distinction of what is and isn’t a human/civil right with regards to healthcare wasn’t clearly articulated by either candidate. I was also bothered when Jim Lehrer asked: “Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country…” Hmmm, last time I checked, Presidents don’t rule…at least not under our constitution. At most, they govern, they lead, they act as a figurehead at times, and they are the Commander-in-Chief. But they simply don’t rule, especially on the domestic front. This idea of lords and kings ruling over us was what we revolted against in the first place. We instead chose a far messier process: democracy. (Or as purists prefer, a constitutional republic.)

So this question would have been the perfect time for either candidate to inform Mr. Lehrer and the American audience that, in fact, Presidents don’t rule and it wasn’t their intention to rule. Mr. Obama might have won me over if he had said, “Well, I appreciate the thought, Mr. Lehrer, but it’s not my intention to dictate by fiat my ideology on 300 million people. It’s rather my agenda to sign legislation that the houses of Congress write that is in line with my vision for this great nation.” Of course, neither candidate said any such thing. Maybe its because they were quietly hoping they wouldn’t have to do all the hard work of governing, compromising and getting dirty with details of actually running a mammoth and complex government. With Mr. Obama, I’m getting the sneaky suspicion that he is more and more happy to rule, and less inclined to govern.

In his first 3 weeks we have seen him arrogantly throw the gauntlet on the so-called “stimulus” bill, threatening that if it isn’t passed there will be hell to pay. And one executive order after another has imposed a decree on corporate executives pay, among other things. Then there’s the “Rule as I say, not as I do” precedent where President Obama has ignored his own promises to refrain from hiring D.C. insiders and carrying about with business-as-usual pork spending. I’m not in the least surprised that Mr. Obama has carried on with a very typically liberal agenda, even as he promised change, even change from other liberals, like Hilary Clinton. (A great breakdown of this can be found here.)

And I’m not surprised for one reason: I always assumed that folks as ideologically driven as Mr. Obama were not tolerant of dissent, which to my mind, is a form of intellectual laziness. It’s not to say ideologies in and of themselves are bad. But Mr. Obama’s ideology is a simple one and a lazy one. His ideology is at best Keynes’ rejected idea of government spending, and at worst, a strong move towards socialism. According to the theory, government spending alone will stimulate an economy. Not only do I find this attitude foolhardy, I find it to be first-class daydreaming. Whereas markets take risk, this ideology hides behind false certainty, which is just another way of cutting off debate and refusing to engage in a diversity of ideas.

I have found few ideologues that can appreciate the inherent risk of the marketplace. Rather, they are intellectually lazy and push problems and solutions off on others. They often refuse to consider the unintended consequences of what might come, how government programs create terrible incentives, or that an honest solution might take more time and hard work than the phony solution of printing worthless paper. The solution to hand it over to someone else, especially a large seemingly beneficent government is far easier, even if fraught with peril in the long run.

And now that he’s not getting his way, he’s displaying signs of anger. That anger, that impatience that things aren’t getting done fast enough, that his nominations aren’t sailing through, that the pressures from foreign enemies are mounting hourly, are signs of his arrogance and his intellectual laziness. There is no evidence he has ever done the hard work of an intellectual. He has pontificated from time to time, but for the most part he has excelled at checkers. Presidential decisions are far more akin to chess. But ideologues don’t like chess. It’s too much work, too much scheming, too much preparation. It’s far easier to simply say “King me” and to rule. I have no doubt that’s exactly what he was expecting.

I remember a fascinating documentary about the rise of Nazism. One of the more striking details it revealed was the laziness of Hitler. You might think that a man as possessed as he was would have been a workaholic. But in fact, he often slept in until noon, watched movies, went for long walks with his dog, and routinely asked not to be bothered with work. Of course, there is no comparison to any American president with the evils of Hitler. My comparison is not one of morality, but one of temperament. An ideologue has no incentive to think critically, and that is precisely the problem with Mr. Obama. His mind is already made up, and that leads to pronounced intellectual weakness. For all of Bush’s faults (and he had many), a critic cannot honestly say Bush did not sacrifice his own ideology for the perceived good of the country. I humbly ask Mr. Obama to consider Mr. Bush's example.

Podcast #6

2009-01-29T22:18:00.001-08:00

In Podcast #6, relieveddebtor and corbusier discuss what impact the stimulus bill will have on architecture, an appreciate of contextualization in architecture, the beauty of Thorncrown Chapel, and how some Bible verses can be used to glorify ourselves instead of God.

O'Neil Ford: The Search for an Authentic Modern Response

2009-01-20T14:00:00.000-08:00

When my older brother was going to college in San Antonio, he would mention to me a particular architect that had designed much of the campus. During my visits, I found each of the buildings to be of distinctive modern design and the spaces between them intimate in scale and responsive to the steep site. My brother praised the quality of the architecture by this apparently celebrated designer, O'Neil Ford, and continues to insist to this day that it was one of the most beautiful environments he had ever lived in. I had never heard of this architect, and I would soon forget about him until a couple of years later, he had me visit a house that belonged to a family whose son he was tutoring. There was a particular crispness to the exterior sillhouette, fine detailing and an original palette of materials and finishes. Inside, the rooms were layed out along a hallway gallery, which functioned as an strong axial spine permitting uninterrupted views of a beautiful large garden beyond. Sure enough, this handsome home was an O'Neil Ford design, which thus piqued my curiosity about the man and his buildings that would endear to my continuing interest in how local and and global influences could interact in a meaningful way.

Other than from admiring references mentioned by the older professors at school, it would be only until recently that I decided to become more deeply acquainted with the Texas master's work. Up to that point it was well known that he was among the most influential architects in Texas, responsible for establishing an emerging local Modernist tradition. His own firm survives under the name Ford, Powell & Carson, which still has a strong reputation in the state, even as it has relinquished trend-setting status long ago. Beyond being exponents of modern design, I became familiar with the firm's work in historic preservation upon working with their exquisite working drawings in trying to reconstruct details for a 19th-century courthouse in East Texas. At the time I had considered this as just another project specialty that countless other large firms had taken up as the market for architectural preservation was expanding. It did not occur to me that preservation was of special significance to the founder O'Neil Ford himself in his attempts in creating an authentically Texan modern architecture.

One of the most glaring realizations upon trying to get to know the state's most cherished architect was how little was written about him. If it were not for a valuable retrospect written by David Dillon, a widely read local architecture critic and scholar, even less would be known about Ford. He designed hundreds of projects throughout the state from the 1920s all the way to the 1970s, with a client roster that would include Texas' most iconic corporate pioneers in its trademark industries of oil, retail and microchips. He would lecture and teach at the most celebrated architecture schools, and would even serve on arts commissions under president Lyndon Johnson. San Antonio's skyline would be indistiguishable without its 750 foot tall Tower of the Americas, which Ford designed as part of the 1968 World's Fair. Great swaths of historic building fabric that help make San Antonio the most picturesque city in the state were preserved by Ford's important advocacy. He introduced innovative structural systems to buildings, exploring the possibilities of thin-shell concrete and paraboloid roofs for industrial and civic buildings, including some of the most elegant laboratories for Texas Instruments.

Beyond these notable accomplishments is the extent of Ford's influence on younger designers that would later shape the contemporary architectural landscape unique to Texas. The names of the interns that came and went at Ford's San Antonio studio serves as veritable "Who's who" of founders of major firms, deans at the major achitecture schools and signature local architects who would make their mark designing exquisite home for the moneyed local elite. Despite never having gone to architecture school, much less to college, he cultivated deep links with art and design professors at universities throughout the state and felt quite at home in a cultural salon setting with his artist friends. The almost bohemian way in which young designers would show up at his doorstep and agree to work for little to no wage in exchange for a small room near the studio eerily parallels the cult-like encampment at Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin compound in Arizona. Like Wright, Ford championed the importance of incorporating traditional crafts in his spaces, especially in the houses he designed, enlisting his brother, a master carver and sculptor, to create custom doors, screens, and louvered grates. Just as Wright expounded at length on the nature of materials and proper ways to use them, Ford demonstrated similar sensitivity, taking into account the climate, local availability and vernacular tradition. He detested the superficial treatment of the wall, joking that most brick veneer walls were "brick venereal." He would eventually develop his own vocabulary of materials that would later come to exemplify Modernism in Central Texas: massive masonry walls, either of stone or of pink brick, metal standing seam roofs with severely thin edges at the eave, floor to ceiling-glass, deep porches and simplified volumes that echo the pioneer sheds of the first settlements in the region.

Even as Ford helped usher a modern architectural idiom for Texas, he was a deeply involved in the preservation of its heritage. One of his earliest major undertakings was in the revitalization of the historic neighborhood of La Villita in downtown San Antonio during a time when the practice of historic preservation was unheard of. This ecclectic agglomeration of blocks built by Mexican and European settlers in throughout the 19th century just along the south bank of the San Antonio river was re-adapted into an arts and crafts colony and complements the rustic charm of the city's main tourist attraction, the Riverwalk. In contrast to other preservation projects at the time (late 1930s) that tended to make living museums out of entire districts by isolating them from the surround contemporary economic and cultural life (eg. Williamsburg), La Villita was to be integrated into San Antonio's cutlural life and produce artifacts that would help define the city's identity. There was little desire to recreate the look and feel of a place a specific point in time. Instead, the district would serve as an architectural panorama of the passing of time, emphasizing the evolving spirit of the diverse inhabitants and their affect on the built fabric. Ford's guiding reason for the district's redevelopment was "not archaeological-but rather attempt to preserve the spirit of architecture that is Texan".

The lesson to be drawn from Ford's achievements is in the value of acknowledging tradition as we try to create new forms for our own time. In undermining the widely accepted narrative of the Modernist movement's categoric rejection of historical reference and vernacular tradition, Ford, along with other contemporary 'critical regionalists' ( such as Alvar Aalto of Finland, one of Ford's personal favorites) used these influences as the foundation on which to design a new tradition. They did not romantically regard themselves as rebels breaking with tradition but rather as conservators who also innovated to fit the contemporary need of their times. A 'softening' of the hard straight lines and stark materials that exemplified the International Style was often the result from designers like O'Neil Ford, which endowed their works with humanity, warmth and a certain spirit that harmonizes with the surrounding landscape and the accumulation of the local culture upon it.

In surveying the buildings of O'Neil Ford, there is an emphatic response to question of who and where the inhabitants of a structure are and how they are different from everyone else. One can call this 'a sense of place' or 'authenticity', but this quality about his buildings only magnifies one of the central failings of much of Modernist movement: the ignoral of the environment in all of its cultural dimensions, the diversity in the particularities of people, its failure to belong to a place. When such links to place are missing, a Modernist building's answers to who is 'anyone' and where is 'anywhere'. This lends a certain self-centeredness to a building and often becomes regarded by a community as an offense to a harmonious environment it desires. Instead of embodying a genuine contemporary identity to a place, many Modern buildings appear to impose a threatening bland universality and reductionism. The same criticism applies to the ubiquitous practice of constructing in the mode of contrived historicism, which is just as guilty in imposing a cultural identity that is just as foreign and dishonest about the spirit of a place as any Modernist counterpart. Literally imitating another place and time (like many a New Urbanist suburban development) has the uneasy effect of answering the question of who (somebody else) and where (somewhere else).

In either the modernist or historicist mode, there seems to be an unfortunately tragic sense of cultural confidence. We are either anybody or we are somebody else, anywhere or and somewhere else, but never are we confident enough to reflect who we really are. An architecture that celebrates place and demonstrates a connection to its passage of time is therefore an affirmative act that will ensure the survival of a people's identity in the future. O'Neil Ford, along with his other global contemporaries trying to define a regional response to Moderism, serves as a model towards generating authentic solutions to modern problems that effectively preserves an authentic identity and spirit in the face of changing times. The practice of historic preservation and adaptive reuse is also signicant in achieving a cultural confidence through time, since one should never forget who they are and where they have been. Far from being a reactionary and defensive response to progressive calls for 'change' the appreciation of tradition as it has evolved in time encourages originality, spirituality and an overall depth that is sorely lacking in much our modern world.

Self-Help Christianity: Why Philippians 4:13 is So Popular

2009-01-15T20:30:00.000-08:00

In many ways, religion exists in America as marketplace. We have the freedom to pick and choose what we like about it, and what we don't, and we shop and buy accordingly. Its moralism is, one might argue, deeply stained into the fabric, the culture of America, and this is most apparent by what a "religious" country America is. America is far from morally perfect, but it can be a convincing argument that much of America is a morally positive place with a strong religious component. But, without borrowing from pietist or legalist strains, and without trying to ride too proudly on my high horse, I wonder how deeply that religion runs. It often just feels like a superficial clothing to an otherwise secular body, a moral garment to a wordly wardrobe.

One of the quickest ways to know which religious currents are making waves is to tally the most popular Bible verses. A few years ago, it was likely the prayer of Jabez, the promise that God answers prayer, especially materially-driven prayers. Perhaps the most popular today, and by popular I mean in a true "pop" sense, is Philippians 4:13: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me." "Him" refers to Christ and is often translated that way, even though Paul doesn't mention Christ by name in the verse. I don't know where I hear or see this verse, it just seems to be everywhere. And even if someone doesn't volunteer it as a favorite, I'm quite confident if I quoted it, many would nod and say, "Oh yes, I like that one." I mean who wouldn't like it? We all want to think we can do anything, even if most of the time we do next to nothing.

I was particularly struck by the popularity of this verse when I noticed it in bold white letters across the black backdrop of glare reducing strip as seen on the face of Florida Gator quarterback Tim Tebow. The guy has been roundly praised by the media and I have no sour grapes over his success. He's a public Christian, even if perhaps a different strain from me, and he deserves all the recognition he gets. But there it was, in several high profile games: "Phil. 4:13". (He used John 3:16 for the National Championship game.) Either he has a friend named Phil whose April 13th birth or death he was commemorating, or he was telling the world of his Samson-like source of strength. No doubt his faith, and this verse, was an inspiration for him, a reminder that he is never alone, that Christ does truly empower us in our daily lives to overcome challenges and press on towards the goal, in the words of Paul.

But there is something that irks me about this verse being so popular. It's starting to feel a whole lot like inspirational, feel good, lollypop, band-aid Christianity. It's so attractive because it's so self-empowering. We've even managed to make our favorite Bible verses ultimately about us, and about achieving. Has our need for success and material validation gotten to the point where we just select those verses that give us the power to carry on in our weary suburban lives? Where is the cross? Where is the sacrifice? And what is it we're supposed to be achieving, anyway? I have no problem with achieving excellence in life and being inspired by faith. I do think that, perfectionism aside, God calls us to excel, to maximize our talents, weather on the football field, in the marketplace, or as a parent. "Chariots of Fire" demonstrates this better than I can say it. But I also want to be honest to scripture, and I can't say that our use of Philippians 4:13 as self-help empowerment is exactly what Paul had in mind.

Paul was writing to a church in conflict, as many of them were. He was encouraging the Philippians to be of one mind, which in itself is an act of sacrifice. Jesus clearly told his disciples to carry their own cross, not exactly what we would call self-help. Indeed, the common refrain of biblical repentance, of changing direction, of living a life of service worthy of God, speaks not of self-aggradizement, but of self-sacrifice, so that one's true call might be revealed. I'm not trying to be preachy. I am trying to say that Christians, if we are to have relevance in an already narcissistic age, would do well to model how we find meaning in service, in losing ourselves to some degree rather than empowerment. "I can do all things"? Great. Just don't forget "all things" includes visiting the dying in isolation as well as running the 40 in under 5 seconds.

I suppose I can't complain that millions of people are exposed to what is a wonderful verse of scripture. And I shouldn't complain that many thousands may have been curious enough to actually dust off their Bible to see what Phil 4:13 had to say, even if they hadn't been to church in years. And, again, I won't fault Tim Tebow for being public with his faith. But I think it's worth asking if faith is really worth much if all it is a motivation to succeed. It's great if we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us if we really intend to do anything and everything, from winning a football game to speaking the truth to risking humiliation if and when the time comes. But if all things really only means material success, it is making Philippians 4:13 a terrible idol, and an unwilling companion to our sin.

Architects in a Downturn- Is it time to make buildings that matter?

2009-01-02T12:52:00.000-08:00

If it is not obvious to most people already, there is no doubt: the current economic recession has had devastating consequences to the building trades, in particular architects. As any of my colleagues can tell you, our profession is very sensitive to economic cycles, and a feeling of vulnerability accompanies us throughout our careers. Being laid off multiple times is not unusual (sometimes it's seen as a right of passage) and is one of the reasons people leave the practice of architecture in droves in favor of something more economically immune and higher-paying. Once an economic recovery is underway, firms suddenly realize that the pool of employable talent is remarkably thin, as the previous downturn harvested some of the best and brightest towards other more productive endeavours. In a perverse way, part of one's advancement in the profession is therefore to simply stick it out by working one's way up the ladder as vacancies are left unfilled.

The mood in firms right now is predictably quite different from just a couple of years ago. Back then, workers at all levels would suddenly dissappear out of the blue as a result of taking job offers at rival firms that offered a considerable pay raise. There would be new hires starting at the office each week, and new cubicles were being built into every nook and cranny to accomodate them. It felt cramped, a bit noisy and the hours were long. Now many desks are empty, it's much quieter and the hours are much shorter (or it could simply be the winter). Older architects will reminisce about their experience in previous downturns, often making it seem that it was a lot harder back then. Jobs would be so scarce that workers would migrate from one firm to the next as soon as word spread that a firm landed a major project.

There's no telling whether the current recession will be as bad, but times like these encourage some of us to be a bit more reflective about what it is we are trying to do. Without all the backlog of work to consume our schedule and sometimes our judgment, there is time to reassess priorities and restore quality in the work that luckily remains. Most typical businesses respond in this way, but overall, a good year is simply when revenues are high, while a bad year is the opposite. For many architects this quantitative view pales to their concern for quality. Success is seen differently by many of us, who would rather be proud of a beautiful project done during a time of scarcity than collecting year-end bonuses for voluminous yet mediocre work delivered during times of plenty.

Staying true to one's convictions in the face of financial hardship is a perennial romantic ideal among 'serious' architects, even as it is a major cause of why the practice of architecture is comparitively unprofitable (Rand's The Fountainhead, anyone?). The more designer-type architect is often a less than rational economic entity, who perversely revels in expending valuable talent, productivity and time in exchange for the slimmer than slimmest chance of being noticed. It is during economic downturns that firms participate in architectural competitions, since they are a means of keeping busy and honing one's skill once the seemingly endless project stream runs dry. While they promise to launch the career and reputation of the lucky winning firm, for everybody else it is large monetary loss despite the small consolation of having attractive glossy renderings handy for a variety of marketing materials.

As with any person caught in bleak situations, some architects have taken it upon themselves to make lemonade out of lemons. They console themselves to the belief that architectural output improves in quality in inverse relation to the decline in the overall economic climate. When times are going well and private money is flowing, the thinking goes, there is a temptation to substitute decadence and showy effects for thoughtfulness and social responsibility. Once the money becomes scarce and government funded projects are the only game in town, there is an assumption that the resulting buildings will be endowed with more noble virtues, since governments only build for those in most need that were otherwise not in the interest of the 'greedy' private sector.

What follows is a widely embraced conceit that designing for noble or charitable ends will more likely result in a higher level of design. Such is the overall tone of a few articles I've come across recently in architecture websites and professional newsletters. Nicolai Ouroussoff, an architecture critic at the New York Times, basically starts and concludes his piece with the assumption I just described:

...But somewhere along the way that fantasy took a wrong turn. As commissions multiplied for luxury residential high-rises, high-end boutiques and corporate offices in cities like London, Tokyo and Dubai, more socially conscious projects rarely materialized. Public housing, a staple of 20th-century Modernism, was nowhere on the agenda. Nor were schools, hospitals or public infrastructure. Serious architecture was beginning to look like a service for the rich, like private jets and spa treatments...

Still, if the recession doesn’t kill the profession, it may have some long-term positive effects for our architecture. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to invest heavily in infrastructure, including schools, parks, bridges and public housing. A major redirection of our creative resources may thus be at hand. If a lot of first-rate architectural talent promises to be at loose ends, why not enlist it in designing the projects that matter most? That’s my dream anyway.

It is implied that high-budget private commissions unleash the baser instincts from high profile architects, while injections of government policy and its attendant largesse will naturally bring out our more noble, and thus better, selves. Government is seen in this context to be the great arbiter of what 'matters', since private investors with the free-market system puts too low a price tag (which translates into mattering little) on things that are highly valuable (in a cultural and political sense) to the community at large. Government involvement in the construction businesses is lauded by many architects, since it allows for an ideal harmony between one's professional duty and his desire to insert himself in helping solve the supposed social or environmental problems.

Not enough of this was happening in during the recent global real-estate bubble, apperently. At at time when architecture firms around the world were swimming in private cash flows and freer than any prior time to push the envelope, the profession's leading lights failed to deliver. Or so it would seem from a blog post's comment about the quality of architecture of the first decade of the 21st century:

Take this article from New York Magazine on the architecture of the last building boom. None of it is great. I don't think any of it is good. Most of it is mediocre. A lot of it is awful. Architects not only got drunk on the methylated spirits of the last building boom, they went blind as a result. As a historian I seem virtually nothing of worth in this decade. Recently I had to give a lecture on the architecture of network society and I found plenty of it by OMA, MVRDV, Herzog and de de Meuron, FOA, and others. Unfortunately all of it was from the last century. Am I getting old? I ask my younger friends and they can't identify anything good new either. CCTV? That is a sad joke, an example of a once great architect doing a lousy imitation of Peter Eisenman for an evil client. I can't take it seriously. Good thing Corb never worked for Mussolini. You can only imagine what he would have done. Overexposed and uninteresting, I predict CCTV will sink like a rock. Gehry hasn't made a single good building since Bilbao, although he has built some unbelievably awful structures at MIT and on the West Side Highway. Herzog and de Meuron are boring beyond belief. I guess whatever talent worked for them in the 1990s went its own way. It's bad out there.

While I will admit that I have become over time more and more bored by the current architectural output that graces the magazines, I don't think it's fair to judge their merit until time and critical distance have had a chance to inflate (or deflate) their significance. The author does seem to suggest that the past decade's building boom seems to have clouded the judgment of these highly-regarded designers. Almost all of the architects mentioned above experienced tremendous growth in the number of staff, the variety of building types and services offered in the last ten years. Once they had won praise for a singular project (often realized during times of financial struggle within the firm) that would eternally cement their worldwide reputation for the rest of their career, these top designers aggressively tried to grow their practice to enable them to tackle even more opportunities that were previously closed to them. Their studio-like practice soon became a business, catering to an endless train of foreign and institutional clients that would require sustaining large teams of designers and builders. This development, however, often risked diluting what made the firm distinctive in the first place.

Had the leaders of such reputable firms refused to grow in this manner and instead focused exclusively on government or institutional projects, which are often awarded by competitions, they would no doubt be much smaller. Fewer architects would be employed by them and with it fewer young minds being offered the opportunity to learn from masters and participate in sophisticated design practices. Granted, firms shouldn't exist simply to provide jobs to those who want one. Rather they exist as a manifestation of the designer's core values. It's just that often this admirable loyalty to core values makes pursuing architecture career much less accessible for many people. It is not a coincidence that countries in which the state is a major client coupled with a comparatively weak private sector (eg. France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Finland, etc.) are home to some of the world's most celebrated firms, which not known for their volume of work but for their discipline in taking the time to do quality work. They are also places where many bright young people who prepared themselves for an architecture career face very limited opportunities. The few who are fortunate to practice do so with the likelihood of meager financial gain and fragile job stability. The rest go to the U.S or the U.K. to work for corporate firms that will sponsor their visas.

With private commissions drying up and in the spirit of times we live in, many architects are looking forward to a sort of government bailout for themselves. As part of his strategy to stimulate a weak economy, the incoming President Obama proposes massive infrastructure spending, which includes increasing efficiencies in government buildings by making them greener and in promoting alternative energy sources. By way of either massive deficit spending or by printing more money (inflation), many architects are elated that federal money will be headed their way not only to stabilize their shrinking practices, butalso to put their talents to more virtuous uses. They recall fondly of the Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs, in particular make-work programs such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and how it yielded elegant federal buildings, stunning infrastructure projects (Grand Coulee Dam and TVA) and beloved monuments. While the New Deal policies of the Great Depresssion did help foster memborable works of architecture, the historical record shows that it failed in reducing permanent unemployment and had a negative effect on economic growth. The more recent example of Japan during its "Lost Decade" of the 1990s is evidence that a massive program of public works projects throughout the decade delayed its economic recovery for more than ten years. Sure such Japanese luminaries like Tadao Ando, Shigeru Ban and Arata Isozaki were able to benefit and create some spectacular institutional buildings with all the government largesse available to them, but at great cost to the overall dynamism of the Japanese economy.

The main reason major public works campaigns fail to generate a meaningful stimulative effect is that they fail to allocate resources and capital efficiently. By taking capital away from the more efficient and accountable private sector (tax collections) and transfering to the most inefficient and unaccountable player in our economy (the government), productivity declines and with it economic growth. The free market is the most efficient way to choose winners and losers, between those that fulfill real needs and others that don't, in spite of other important, yet uneconomic, values. A market interfered heavily by the government yields the opposite result, since government, blinded by political gain and philosophical idealism, chooses winners that should often be the losers (Big Three auto bailout, anyone?). Thus our national competitiveness is futher compromised and growth languishes from the declining productivity of enterprises that would not survive without the state propping them up.

But who said that architects behave as homo economicus? For many among us, the quality of the built environment is of paramount importance and is always in need of an enlightened architectural response. It transcends concerns about monetary policy, pricing mechanisms, market values, interest rates--things that, though difficult to understand, tend to make the world go round. There is an admirable moralism that drives the agenda of many architects which unfortunately isolates them from a healthy curiosity in the inner workings of systems that govern how money moves around and how goods and services are exchanged. It's the reason why many of the prescriptions we give to solve urban problems tend to fail, favoring the directness of inefficient subsidies over the indirect yet more bountiful result of long-term profitability. It is also the reason why many architects tend to favor top-down solutions, that, while enabling the construction of what they would prefer, has the effect of making the practice a studio (which are economically difficult to sustain) instead of a business (which are structured to be economically viable-or at least try to be).

Just as the political winds maybe shifting in the midst this deep recession, leaders in the architectural profession will have to decide what policies they want and how to structure their firms accordingly. Should we continue to make the practice of architecture profitable and viable way for many people to have fulfilling careers and answering to real economic needs, or should we emulate the studio model that relies on government patronage, closed to only the most elitely talented and self-sacrificing individuals who often deliver delightful buildings no economic value? Architecture salaries grew at the fastest rate in the last decade due to the real-estate bubble. Is this trend worth abandoning so that we can make buildings for the "greater good" even as it impoverishes us?

UPDATE: Further reinforcing my argument that economic downturns encourage designers, rather than the opposite, take a look at this article in the New York Times.

Freedom, The French Revolution, and Christmas

2008-12-24T09:35:00.000-08:00

There are times when all one can do is remark at the rareness of freedom. For so long I have taken it for granted. But the more history I read, the more impressed I am with the American experiment, its founders, and most of all, its success. Freedom actually worked here, even while it has failed so often amid power grabs, ego and corruption. The basic statements worded so well by Jefferson, that men have certain inalienable rights, should never be assumed, as long as there is any chance someone can gain at someone else's expense. I feel quite fortunate that I have been able to take such freedom for granted, and freely experience, as much as I've been willing to venture, the fullness humanity has to offer.

But, like many others, I pause with concern about the future. Is the experiment coming to an end, slowly but surely? Or is that just the thought of your average paranoid conservative, worried what the next four years might bring? A few simple facts can no longer be ignored: our government is committed to spending more money than the nation is even worth, a staggering, astounding figure measured with twelve or thirteen zeros. There seems to be no stopping the idea that healthcare and education are "rights", and therefore moral entitlements to all Americans, a stark reality for any believer in limited government. Even those who are supposed to defend limited government have completely caught bailout fever, an embarrassment to say the least.

This is how it happens, I suppose. Freedom is lost, a little at a time. I guess it beats the alternative. I have only recently begun to study the French Revolution, a revolution I ignorantly always assumed to be similar revolution to America's, just having gone a little astray. While I've studied the Revolution in the past, I wasn't clear at how brutal, and absolutely Stalinist-like it really was. In the name of liberty 200,000 were imprisoned, about 40,000 were guillotined, the Church was basically destroyed for years, and an innocent aristocracy was gutted and murdered for having wealth. Atheism or agnosticism ruled in the intellectual classes and journals competed as to who could call for the more radical measures against royalty and the bourgeoisie.

Like Stalinism, many of the leaders of the Revolution favored a drastic redistribution of wealth as a means to solving inequality. The rich were seen to be the root cause of poverty and misery, and doing away with the rich was the only real solution offered to end such inequality. It is true that most Americans would think hereditary monarchies as untenable, but we would surely find mass murder in the name of liberty even more appalling.

In the long run, The French Revolution was a commitment to the material life as much as anything else. The Church was seen as the greatest intellectual and moral threat to the Revolution, and the vast majority of priests refused to go along with the tenets of the Revolution. They rightly saw that the attempt to create a materially equal society with an empty humanist morality was not only impossible, but also immoral. As the Revolution came to a pitiful end, it should have been apparent for all to see how little the material life offered, and indeed, how it ultimately always leads to envy, jealousy, and a society mitigated by skewed property valuations. When property is all there is in this world, it becomes a very prized commodity.

As I grow and acquire, I see more clearly that the material life has little to recommend it. That's not to say the acquiring of property is in and of itself a bad thing. That is how we provide for ourselves and families. But the material world is in a constant state of disrepair and disintegration. It takes time and labor just t keep up with the curve, to keep up with ever-changing styles, to fix what breaks, to solve persistent problems. Worse, it is a distraction, like a mistress that is never satisfied, that always needs more attention. Even our bodies are on a collision course with disease and death, health being a gift for a prescribed amount of time. I'm not convinced that a life seeking material gain only, either in governing philosophy or in personal accumulation, is paved with anything but trouble.

That brings me to Christmas, the most materialistic time of year for too many, myself included. Amid the failures of the material life come this most bizarre of promises, that a completely humble child born in the lowest possible circumstances offers us real hope. Not only do we get a vision of a life that is at peace despite our material bondage, we get a vision of joy that stems from a commitment to that child. There comes a point when the material world has failed us for the last time, and we ask what it is that we really want, where our hope really lies, and whether our future is as bright as it once looked. I can only speak for myself when I say that I am relieved to have an alternative vision for what life can be, permission to not be discouraged when the material life fails. It's not to say there aren't plenty of things to be perturbed about. Only that this little baby born so long ago offers us a different vision, and it's really a vision that offers the only legitimate freedom we'll find in this material world.

KRob 08- The changing landscape of architectural drawing

2008-11-16T07:23:00.000-08:00

In the last few years, I've tried to bring forth timely topics that currently affect the architectural profession. From writing about sustainability and urbanism, to technological and market trends changing the practice, it is apparent that there is a cornucopia of issues young designers can engage in. Certain issues have a particular appeal to young professionals because they offer a mission worth pursuing--making the world a better place by pushing more environmentally-friendly construction, or helping to making cities more healthy and enjoyable and improving society as a result. Other issues with a more technical emphasis, such as experimenting with computers and other technologies, appeal to those who want to expand the definition of what it is to be an architect the twenty-first century. There are countless organizations that address all these interests and that offer ways for like-minded professionals to share ideas with each other as well as to coordinate with communities from the local to federal levels.

With all these choices and all of the activities that can take an architect's meager amount of extra time, it is all too easy to forget an essential component that should inform what architects do over any other building-related profession: visceral beauty. Certainly beauty is always on our minds when we work, but rarely do we think about it on its own, detached from function, technical logic, budgets or what the client has specifically requested. Remove an object from the context that helped make it, and what meaning or significance is left? Does the object express intangible qualities that are unique to the individual that created it?

These are important questions we should always consider, even if they are too abstract for people who would rather make a 'real' difference. That is why I have been fortunate to be involved during the last few years in the longest running architectural drawing competition-the KRob. The Ken Roberts Memorial Delineation Competition poses precisely these questions and stimulates a rich discussion on why a drawing moves us, and the infinite number of thoughtful and beautiful ways we communicate ideas graphically. Many of us who have gone through schools are indeed mindful of this, but it always was seen as supporting larger architectural idea, not as a thing of value in and of itself. The irony is made clear when the invited jurors every year try to remind themselves what the basis of the judging will be, as it is quite different from the typical architecture competition in which winners are judged by how well they respond to a given program and not to the beauty of the drawings (though it helps).

The 320 entries submitted this year really brought into focus more clearly than ever how the definition of the architectural drawing has expanded and changed. The winners of the hand-drawn categories recall the original and most intuitive method of delineation, while those of the digital-hybrid media categories demonstrate how the computer has allowed drawings to transcend the two-dimensional plane and incorporate multiple layers of information and detail. Although technique was vital in judging entries, what put some over others was in what it had to say (...or what it was trying have us guess what it way trying to say). Although it may not surprise those who did go to architecture school, the submissions from students was overall a bit stronger than the professionals. Given the amount of time and the encouragement by their teachers to experiment and explore, their work often outshined the professionals who are pressed for time and pressured by commercial obligations to please clients.

This was the first year that KRob accepted international entries. Jungsoo Kim of South Korea won the ignaugural International prize with his series of renderings depicting an enormous fissure breaking open the ground plane to reveal an oversized man-made canyon. Some of the perspectives inside the fissure remind me of the parting of the red sea in the film "The Ten Commandments" only with more haze and and softer light. If you look at the top left corner of the drawing there is a temple complex at the end of the fissure's axis, indicating the space's function as a part of a spiritual procession. The earth is rendered powerfully here, and reminds us of our inevitable becoming a part of it upon our deaths. Glowing lights beaming out of from the surface add a magical quality to the drawing's overall expression.

In the hand-drawing category, the jurors were impressed by the winning professional entry by Scott Tulay which interprets the phenomena of light, shade and structure. The blue, black and grey charcoal palette helped emphasize the contrast light and mass, while the composition of intersecting beams and framing elements abstracted the reality of the interior of a barn or warehouse into a rich yet haunting spatial pattern. Tulay's drawing does recall in my mind the Cubist paintings of the early twentieth century, which attempted to reveal a more abstract and universal reality.

This was quite different from the winner of the hand-drawing student category. Matthew Sander's axonometric drawing of a mechanical tower along with an illustration of a shed in successive phases of construction (and a dog house!) won over the jury partly due to its mystery. The drawing selectively cuts sections of various elements, revealing the inner workings of the tower, the depth of the ground below and repeats one building over and over to give the drawing a sense of time in space. The smeared graphite sprinkled over the page (likely the result of dirty parallel bar wheels) is evidence of Mr. Sander's patient yet positively 'fussy' attempt put seemingly disparate elements into a whole. What the relationship was between the sheds and the tower (and that dog!) spurred lengthy debate , and made the drawing and example of how the story or its ambiguous meanings gave it special meaning beyond its common technique.

The strength in which a drawing tells a story also characterizes the winner of the digital-hybrid prize in the professional category. While the technical mastery of the drawing is evident, Aleksander Novak-Zemplinski's depiction of Los Angeles in a distant and greener future demonstrates the power a drawing has in transporting us into another believable reality. There is a multiplicity of scales, a high level of detail and a dramatic use of color and atmosphere. The futuristic blimps, the hive-like vegetated hillsides of densely packed dwellings and the buzzing human activity at the landing strips are just a few of many different elements that encourages the viewer to immerse themselves in another reality. Influences from science-fiction movies are obvious, and it turns out that the drawing is part of a visulization for a film project. It reminds us that one of the major objectives of an architectural rendering is not necessarily to depict a future building as realistically as possible in its given context, but rather to offer a glimpse of a more inspiring reality once the building is fully realized.

And yet, the winner of the best digital-hybrid drawing in the student category departs from visualisations of alternate realities to something altogether more abstract. Brandon Shigeta's winning entry is a handsome concept diagram that describes the transformation of an existing pattern of urban blocks. A greyscale aerial view of a portion of a city is overlayed with colors and graphic elements to communicate the idea of a park space that serves as buffer between two areas of the city. The drawing's composition of fading pixels, arrows and chaotic curvilinear lines gives it an aspect of motion and highlights the notion that the design cities are guided by many unseen though evident forces. They culminate at the green space, which in turn explodes outward in a perpendicular direction. Very little traditional drawing or figurative illustration is present. Instead, Mr. Shigeta likely used software that allows unlimited modulation of layers and vector-based linework. Such modern techniques that are becoming ever more commonplace, and the drawing represented to the juror's a striking example of the changing definition of the art of the architectural delineation. Concepts can be communicated with new tools that allow for an ever expanded range of meanings. Initially, Mr. Shigeta's entry was noticed for its elegant composition. But it was upon closer inspection that the jurors uncovered and were impressed by the drawing's complexity of information. With the manyfold effects of this drawing revealing itself with each glance, and from the breadth of discussion it stimulated among the jurors, Mr. Shigeta's urban diagram was awarded the KRob's Best of Show.

The result did not necessarily mean that the jurors decided to embrace the new. Each of the three jurors could choose a personal citation of a work that they felt strongly about. Two of the jurors selected works especially for their deference to traditional delineation. Dawn Carlson's watercolor of a Gothic church harkens back to the refined compositional drawings of the Beaux-Arts curriculum that were prevalent in all architecture schools before the onset of Modernism. The flat, non-perspectival picture of a city by J. Arthur Liu emulates the Oriental artistic tradition of depicting cities from above, which functioned as a sort of map of the area, and were featured in books, murals, and tapestries. For its incorporation of a technology unrelated to architectural drawing, Richie Gelles' entry showing a series of X-Ray slides describing his concept for a hospital won the admiration of the jury.

Overall, the winners of this year's competition were a diverse group. The jury was often split on many of the selected finalists, and often the debates about why they chose one over another were passionate. The value of these debates can not be overstated, and it is the desire of the organizers of the competition to create a more accessible forum for all to participate in the dialogue regarding the changes affecting architectural drawing. The success of the Ken Roberts Competition is critical to the continuation of this dialogue, and it invites all students and professionals to contribute.

I'm a Winner! Bobos, Millennials, and Obama: Why Conservatism is So Un-Cool

2008-11-10T11:03:00.000-08:00

This past election put two different personalities and two different generations on a stage for all to see. On the one hand was the old-school John McCain, the grumpy maverick who seemed glaringly inflexible and at times repetitive. On the other was the "coolest" politician since JFK, someone who appealed to young voters and monopolize the issue of change. Barrack Obama epitomizes, and personifies, so many of the values that have come to define almost two generations: flexibility, open-minded, post-racial, post-partisan, maybe even post-American. Scores of Americans are over the past, over history, or at least over a sense of history. Since American history is mostly negative, they might say, it's time to move on to bigger and brighter things. In that regard, McCain never had a chance. Even though he has been a rare individual among the groupthink in D.C., he was a product of a bygone generation that most young Americans would prefer stay that way: gone.

In the media age, image matters, maybe even more so than policies or governmental philosophy. (At least for now. A return to history could change all of that, and that return could be hurried along by an aggressive Russia or Iran, or a seriously damaged economy.) Obama had a glow, and that image was especially attractive to two groups in particular: Bobos and Millennials. Bobos are the Bourgeois Bohemians so appropriately detailed by David Brooks in Bobos in Paradise. Millennials are the Gen Y-ers, the grandchildren of the boomers, gifted with multi-tasking, love of community, and a profound sense of entitlement. Both of these groups, in ways both positive and negative, seek a break with the past.

The Bobos retreated from the elitism of the 1950s, the Donna Reed image where status was king. They desired a society where achievement dominated and trumped past values that championed last names, connections, and diplomas. What they created was a society built on several paradoxes: their achievement mindset led them to overcome the elites, but never be able to rest, lest they lose their prominent positions. They became a generation of reconcilers, who brought together two groups that had historically been at war, bohemians and the bourgeois. They sacrificed the virtues of the past, lest they interfere with the present, and they created a “nice” and “decent” society that stood for very little. They regarded wholesomeness as a newfound value, particular evident in a love affair of nature and all things organic, but rarely created time to actually enjoy such wholesomeness. Obama projects niceness, decentness, wholesomeness, and achievement. Like Bobos, he has earned the future.

The Millennials are the Bobos’ kids, but it doesn’t seem that they’re quite as much into achievement. (I found this 60 Minutes video worth watching.) They are rebelling against the achievement doctrine; after all, they never spent time with mom and dad because mom and dad were busy at the office. Moreover, achievement doesn't mean much to a generation who never grew up losing at anything, from T-ball on up to grade grades in college in part due to calls from helicopter parents. Millennials value friendships, openness and themselves above all other things, and bring a stark sense of entitlement into the workplace and relationships. They will sacrifice achievement for quality of life, and they seem to take the Bobos lack of respect for the past to a whole new level: Millennials are the future and they know it. For a generation used to being coddled, told "You can do it!" and who sincerely believes the future is also theirs (not because they've earned it, but because, well, it just is), the "Yes we can" message must have been familiar and encouraging, even if ridiculously empty.

Lost in all of this is a deeper discussion of principle. “As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition,” writes Jonah Goldberg. If conservatism is about principle, and if it is an ideological coalition, what chance does it have among a majority of Bobos and Millennials? Not much. These are two groups that are among the most narcissistic and self-assured generations in American history, who have never been challenged or rallied to a national cause. Indeed, they were probably laughing at McCain’s motto: “Country first.” I wonder how many Millennials were mortified at such an idea. Country First? Yeah, right after me, my dog, Facebook, and my iPhone.

Maybe I’m being too hard on these generations. Millennials certainly have their gifts, and in many ways they’re a breath of fresh air compared to grungy Gen X. From a religious point-of-view, I hope they will reject the Bobo’s “Flexidoxy” and come to embrace truth as found in the historical Church. But from a political point-of-view, as a conservative, I wonder if this isn’t a lost generation. Peggy Noonan points out that “many of the indices for the GOP are dreadful, especially that they lost the vote of two-thirds of those aged 18 to 29. They lost a generation! If that continues in coming years, it will be a rolling wave of doom.” Time will tell. For now, I’m already quite sure Obama will have serious challenges, and we’ll see how long the Millennial naiveté lasts.

Also, I know making generalizations about generations is a dangerous task. For a differing point-of-view, check this post out. There are great points here. But the voting numbers don’t lie. And it strikes me that there is something about conservatism this generation can’t tolerate. At least, not a majority of them.