Stairs that lead to nothing

"You should build a stair that leads to nowhere." (2015)
"..."

That above comment was told to me during one of my studio reviews by a professor at Clemson University, and I was dumbfounded.  My problem with an architecture that lacks function is that it costs real money to make, to construct, to build.  The idea of wasting a client's money to build something that is a dead end corridor or stairwell that doesn't lead to anything is absolutely crazy to me.

Peter Eiseman's Frank Residence (No, I'm not giving you the roman numeral number) have a master bedroom with separate twin beds for Mr. and Mrs. Frank, the client.  Tired after a long day of work and want to cuddle before going to sleep together?  Nope, not in this house.

Frank Residence, Exterior Shot

Frank Residence, Master Bedroom

I can understand that Eisenman is trying to create a "language" of architecture elements - the column, the wall, the floor - he's pulling apart elements to look at them as objects then using drawing as a machine for building his little architecture.  I think architecture is more than objects that devoid of meaning can be changed and reconfigured around a rules of operation with action verbs such as cut - pull - twist - rotate.  Spaces and rooms have some social and cultural meanings and when you strip them of those meanings I think this is the bad architecture that results.  (@Juhee back me up here.)

Eisenman and I are just interested in different things - and that is okay.  I'm interested in space as volume, natural daylighting, passive strategies, materialism in craft, exploring buildings through details, haptic phenomenology related architecture, and forms that respond to climate and local building materials - architecture of place.  This is just an architect that I don't think we share the same values or interests.  (Can't wait until we get to something I'm more interested in a few weeks with Zumthor and Critical Regionalism.  I'll just sit here and wait.)

It appears to me that Eisenman is interested much more in clash of programmatic functions and spaces, a interplay of structure and form.   Eisenman fucks site and context - he doesn't care about those things.  I'm baffled about how you get clients to pay for that - but I like Yage's comment in class where just have to be famous.  I'd love explaining to a residential client or a business owner that I built a stair that went to nothing and ended with a dead end - but I'll never do that.  I'm not interested in wasting your money for my architectural ego.

Really love these big houses?  You can buy one:
(By the way, $1.4M down to $850K is a 60% off value so the house value hasn't aged well and has been on the market for 5 years.  That's not a good thing.  Houses that are on the market for long periods of time like that either have something wrong with them or the owner is asking for too much money.)

The number of times I tried to insert, "paradigm," into my post was silly.  I couldn't justify it.

Comments

  1. When the Franks seeked out Eisenman to design their house, they knew what they were signing up for. They wanted the full Eisenman experience. When you seek out a high-profile architect, you are not only signing up for their design, but their name, ego, and the overall experience of working with them. The Franks were quoted in "House VI: The Client's Response" claiming how they loved living in the poetic structure. The house did it's job, it met/exceeded expectations of the client. Eisenman doesn't care what we think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with that when some clients looking forward to have a house designed by Eisenman, they are actually looking for the reputation of Eisenman, or maybe buy it like an investment of an art work and looking for the potential rising in price in the future, or just for own collection and enjoyment.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts