The Question every Architect must Face

"Manhattan represents the apotheosis of the ideal of density per se, 

both of population and of infrastructure" 

–  Rem Koolhaas¹

The philosophical movement of Pragmatism emerged from the culture of the United States through the teachings of Charles Sanders Pierce. The Cartesian method of logic had previously influenced the western world for nearly three centuries before challenged by C.S. Pierce in the late 19th century. He summed up Rene Descartes' logical method into four maxims. Pierce himself responded to these four maxims with the foundations of what would become, Pragmatism. "Anything is thus inexplicable, can only be known by reasoning from signs", this, the culmination of Pierce's rebuttal.² 

The transition from Cartesian thought to the school of Pierce is best displayed by the works of architects Le Corbusier and Rem Koolhaas. Le Corbusier's Plan Voisin for Paris implemented a regimented series of skyscrapers to replace the old city of Paris. Le Corbusier's plan was a Modern approach and that of Utopian Urbanism, assuming an objective answer to a universal problem. Descarte's maxims began with the idea that the beginning of a logical approach should assume universal doubt and therefore, should seek a universal answer. Not unlike Le Corbuser's answer to Paris' urban central.

Rem Koolhaas could be used as an example of C.S. Pierce's Pragmatism. He analyzed the metropolitan nature of Manhattan, "where  the  antinomies  of  modern  utopianism  are played out."¹ In Koolhaas' work, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, he describes the natural reality of a metropolis instead of providing a visionary Modern solution to sociopolitical issues. It seems to be a step away from responsibility. The Modernist desired to take full responsibility in order to find -- and subsequently implement -- objective truths. This Postmodern Pragmatism analyzes the advantages of viewing reality without the courage to provide answers. Koolhaas promotes the Downtown Athletic Club's multi-purpose program. This case study represents the strength of Manhattan's diversity. It truly is an "apotheosis of density in population and infrastructure" and a exemplar of the so-called "Culture of Congestion". 

Koolhaas' assessment of this architectural masterpiece is undeniably accurate. However, it overlooks the glaring question that which Modern Architects were not afraid to address. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every architectural proposal will generate equal and opposite reactions to its cultural importance. A quintessential example is the reaction to gentrification; local population displacement. When faced with this debate, Richard Sennett unabashedly brings up Zorbaugh's assessment. "Tensions between rich and poor living close together on the near north side of Chicago gave the context; Zorbaugh focused on poor people living in the shadow of Chicago's skyscrapers."³ 

   

This is the question every architect must face. Whether they are prepared to brazenly address the question as the Modernists have or disregard it as Koolhaas does, this ethical question persists. Should the architect "represent society as it is, or seek to change it?".³ 

Above: Downtown Athletic Club

Above: Plan Voisin for Paris

                                                                                             

1. Pierce, C.S. Chance Love and Logic. 1923

2. Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. 1978

3. Sennett, Richard. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City. 2018
4. Image. Downtown Athletic Club. https://imgur.com/a/qqgNYLe
5. Image. Plan Voisin for Paris. https://imgur.com/a/GxPZ1dj