Louis Kahn or Kahnt

     At the very beginning of Habraken’s “Questions That Will Not Go Away,” it is subtly mentioned that everyday architecture was never considered architecture. Reading this in the very first paragraph of the very first reading for this week was unexpected to me, as I completely disagree. I found myself immediately distracted while I continued to read, thinking about how often I hear the term starchitect in conversation. Although I fully understand this ambition and desperation to want great recognition and success in the design world, I struggle with connecting a starchitect back to absolute, perfect design as much as I find Louis Kahn’s work to be satisfying. I see the importance of architectural examples to study from, innovative buildings to be amazed by and striking built environments to feel unexplainable experiences in….but I also see how these accomplishments are perfect grounds for the removal of reality. 

    Defining architecture with these special, one-of-a-kind precedents and never alluding to the grocery store that we visit weekly or the apartment that I now studio from for long hours a day is incredibly silly to me. Why do we refer to the fancy and impressive buildings ten times out of ten and forget to bring our personal experiences to the table? For many of us, we have had to think about how to plan for a housing type project but never chose to include our childhood home. Stepping back for going too far into a tangent (shocking for me to have this many words ! ) the starchitect’s architecture is removed from the everyday environment. It all too often is a precedent example that is just another project from a big name architect - cue title reference here - , or even someone who chose to build an ordinary building with an extraordinary twist. Not to say that some great buildings are not as great as they deserve recognition for, but it is important for me to also see what happened in the design process that made them this great. 

    I naturally tend to lean towards precedent studies that logically make sense and realistically function in its most successful way. Small example being the Farnsworth house, a house that is beautiful to study at the time of a first year student… but by year four, after taking courses on knowing how to design with the site, I learned that Mies’ iconic structure sits perfectly in a prominent floodplain allowing for frequent water damage. Maybe if I was able to remove the building from the site, I would be able to categorize this as a stellar building everyone should speak with the utmost degree of architectural significance, but that is impossible. Taking away the reality of the relationship between building and site coexisting is undermining the possibilities of great architecture. Great architecture should be able to do both and do it well. Studying from examples that are disconnected from the traditions, constraints and limitations of everyday life isn’t pushing the modernist architect to the podium. 

The architecture that we live in, eat in and work in everyday… that’s the stuff we should be celebrating. There should be some thought as to why the most successful form of architecture, the spaces we interact with daily - our homes - are the least special forms we tend to celebrate. A well executed apartment could have very well been designed by John Smith, Mr. Developer man, maybe not even a licensed architect, but because his driving concept was the everyday needs of the resident, he was able to make a successful space. This space was raised above the floodplain and sits on floodwalls. His design decisions supported considerations of everyday life, as terms of improvements for the convenience of what I need to be able to make my breakfast in the morning. By comparing a starchitect’s ideology with John Smith’s reality in saying “death to the open floor plan,” he allows me to breakfast via Keurig without waking up a roommate who doesn’t want to hear it until noon.

Dramatic example, I know, and maybe this entire post but I think the point is made.