Do my shorts offend you
Reading about critical regionalism this week kind of made me reflect a little bit more about architecture and how it should contribute to helping us understand landscapes and places.
The image above is a printed short made by one of my undergraduate mentors while I was studying in Portland. As most of us are familiar with the Portland Building built by Michael Grave in 1982, there is no visual context that puts the building in downtown Portland street grid unless you walk by it and see how mighty this piece of architecture can make you feel. Being familiar with this building and passing by it each day, I can say that it stands as an icon in PDX, although its use by people is critical, the aesthetic and brutal subjectivism that this building create in people can be striking, I am an admirer of this piece of art (not profoundly, but I just love its aggressive contribution to the city's fabric).
The building itself is located between Portland City Hall the Multnomah County Courthouse which are both powerful administrative buildings. This is an example of politics when it takes over architecture and alter the city's fabric sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. This building calls for attention and yet was useless to people who had the chance to work there for a time (great news though, it went through a progressive renovation process that now make it useful again).
Thinking about critical regionalism in general and how architecture should give us an understanding of the place through every touch made by man to alter the landscape of the region, it is important for me to look beyond that. Of course, is the building aesthetic beautiful, yes! Is the building useful, it wasn't very much lately until it went through an interior renovation process in 2018 and is now open to the public. But fun fact, nothing has been touched on the exterior and the interior's most important elements were untouched, but why? AESTHETIC matters.
What strikes me though is that I love these shorts above, but still don't know how I feel about the building. Fashion and beauty go hand in hand, and I was wondering if the same factors could be applied to design. Should our criticism of buildings be reflected through the way they blend into the landscape, or should that same criticism be reflected through the building's aesthetical contribution to the overall fabric of a place ?
I think both aesthetic and landscape play a key role in how the building is appreciated or rejected by the general public, or again swiftly judged by people who haven't seen it or experienced it.
Moreover, what I think is important to consider when it comes to critical regionalism, is that, "Critical regionalism can be seen as an approach to architecture that strives to counter the placelessness and lack of identity of the International Style in general, but also rejects the whimsical individualism and ornamentation of Postmodern architecture." and this definition can be applied to both the way Kenneth Frampton, Alexander Tzonis, and Liane Lefaivre described the impact architecture can have in disturbing the fabric or aesthetic of landscapes and places.
The Portland building to me definitely has an individualistic nature which is the reason why it is not just a piece of art, but an iconic touch that helped put Portland on the map after it was built in the 90's. The building's power is hard to understand or imagine but again, I find it hard to reject its importance, as much as its impact on Portland's overall architecture. That again make me question, should we reject this kind of design approach, probably. Should we celebrate it though, I think we do and who wouldn't want a pair of these shorts anyway.
I love your take, Moh! I like your argument that this postmodern thing is a piece of critical regionalist architecture because it makes sense in the context of Portland specifically, in, like, a "just might be crazy enough to work here because it's Portland" kind of way. Am I interpreting your assertion correctly? Also, cool shorts.
ReplyDeleteYou do, and I admire the building's typology as much as its functionality so it is cool to work in there but then again do I still want to see it stand years ahead, yes. because it defines Portland weirdness in all its glory lol. Not that all Portland buildings are weird, but this one fit the metaphor pretty well.
DeleteGreat post and reflection of this weeks topics. I appreciate the inclusion of your personal experience as a Portlandian. I found it difficult to speculate on very urban and metropolitan contexts with regards to a critical regionalism approach as we previously discussed delirious New York and metropolitan architecture in class. These urban centers take on a global identity more susceptible to experimental periods of architecture that create new identities. Its like stacking a new region on top of an existing region. Which region are we critical?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the six points of an architecture of resistance serve as perfect evaluators for the Portland Building. It exists and is part of the urban fabric and should remain regardless of its aesthetic impositions to the urban scene in Portland. It is important culturally and historically but can play an important role in identifying a progressive architecture moving forward in Portland.
I'd buy the shorts for the same reason I wouldn't tear down the so hated building - for the novelty. I wouldn't make or sell the shorts though.
I agree with you J. I think mostly about that experimental period with post-modernism and the impact of progressive architecture in a city, which is not just relative to Portland but goes beyond that region. As much as the building itself became part of the fabric I can honestly tell you that I haven't seen one close to it in the same city, so again it is criticized by many architects and some love it, but for me personally, it is a tumultuous artifact that can rather be used as a model to sustain progress in building technology and understand the limits of aesthetic.
Delete