Part 1. FoA

(Part of a series constantly evolving, but you can read and happy to hear comments)

Throughout the trip we had been discussing our future, the future of architecture, the course of building in Los Angeles as we saw it. I never really think of myself as a modernist, but whenever the thinking gets complex I think about Corbusier. He touched on all aspects of architecture from urban planning and manifestos to some clearly amazing projects that can be very different from one to another. I mean he mixed it up. And he was rigorous- tons and tons of houses pursuing a central idea- his sketchbooks are voluminous, but his drawing skills were really not that good- which is comforting- but he kept tons of them. No idea wasted. The artist Doug Aitken is that way as well, and i really admire both of them for it.

But back to Corb. It is just that he is very clear and diagrammatic. And he is not bothered by being a bit polemic, which makes for some good entertainment. So hell, why not he's a good role model. And when thinking about something like lets say the future of architecture- he's a good brain to have on your side. So what is it? The future, I mean? I mean everything is changing around us. Especially in how people are living. Huge demographics are moving far out into the suburbs, while another huge swath is returning to the city. The city dwellers are yearning for a quality of living that we stopped building 100 years ago. Everyone thinks of San Fransisco and New York or Europe for walkable cities, but thats just a few cities. What do you do in LA or Charlotte? It has got to be invented. And what's getting made? Lets be honest, the good ideas get hogtied by zoning or the results are often plastic looking and contrived (Which is happening for a whole slew of reason's-some controllable and other's not). There are reason's that SF, NYC, and medieval towns had integrity and it goes much further than just stacking uses on transit nodes. They grew organically and even more importantly they were market driven. Its perverse that people clamor for walkable cities and detest traffic, and yet cannot abide to allow commercial zoning within their midst. They want it! Otherwise they would not be driving daily to get it. Small markets would do well in communities and folks often point to it when they have it AS community, but do not be fooled. It is grandfathered. They would never get a variance now. Oddly homeownership leads individuals away from market economics and more down the road of petty dictatorship attempting to maintain property values by freezing the neighborhood from change through NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard). The result is a mall in a greenfield.

Ok- a bit of a rant. But I want to describe the battleground because the future of the cities we love (read: SF, NYC, San Gimignano...) is looking good. Its the future of cities where the city IS what i described above- coincidentally where most of us live- that is in trouble. Cities built by the car, cities built in the boom for the baby-boomers, cities created for property value and not as living communities- This is where the discussion is most important. Once again the future of architecture lies in residential housing. And interestingly as the demographics shift and cities start to reassess if current zoning is helping- the house is being asked to change from the inside out as new technologies are allowing more and more people to create flexible hours and to work from their home. Like in times when those walkable cities were built, the house is being asked to do more than be an investment, a shelter for the family, and an escape from the 9 to 5. The house is being asked to become the center character in peoples lives: A place for family, business, public meeting, playground, and convenience (as it replaces escape). And when the house becomes this, people have more free time- they then escape not in an entropic, hidden way, but rather seek new stimuli in the culture of the city and the city finds new meaning.

The issue is that there is not a vibrant discussion of the future of the house within architecture. There is little reassessment of it in relation to these new demands on its internal programming. I see investigation of form and of technology. Houses are of course being tailor-made by architects for families with these needs mentioned above. Do not get me wrong it is happening- but it is happening in a boutique way and not acknowledged as an opportunity to re-shape architecture.

And now back to Corbusier. When he first mentioned the house as a Machine for Living and he set up his five points for architecture, he said it because he meant it and he was rallying architecture to move forward. You do not have to read "Toward a New Architecture" to get it. While architects at that time are doing or being trained to make lacy Beaux-Arts buildings or tricked out Art Nouveau, Corbusier makes a book full of pictures of steamships, cars, airplanes, and grain silos. All images of engineering. He is like folks-, "Wake up! Stop making boutique. Make a Machine for Living like that dude Henry Ford and give it to the masses!" Ok- That was conjecture...but this is not an academic discussion and neither was Corbusier's. It is a simple point. Technology had allowed for a paradigm shift, the market had followed within other fields, and people were living differently. So if he did not want the engineers to start doing the architects job (or more true to what happened the developers doing our job after post war economics hit the residential mentality); if we want more than boutique we better engage and play with the new landscape and invent a new language.

The same can be said today. It is time to play with a new language. To take a new look at residential architecture that trumps antiquated zoning restrictions and prioritizes the convenience and art of the home over static notions of property value. (Property values will rise because this new architecture will better match demand).

This is all a bit daunting. But let us say "Toward a New Architecture" was a response to a new world. A world of engineering and efficiency. Is not this a good model for addressing our new world? A world that has passed the infatuation of globalization and email and now demands convenience and global service. I mean, I am writing all of this from a wi-fi cafe in Buenos Aires- where my billing for a project under construction in Utah is subsidizing a lifestyle I could never afford in Los Angeles. If trouble comes i can be in Utah within 12 hours and for under a few thousand dollars. Hell- the Japanese just launched a satellite that will provide 1 gig per minute of basically global wi-fi. The kids growing up are not going to be amazed by google earth like we are as we point out delightedly to our collegues, "Look i can see my house!" They are going to say, "Look at that place, it looks cool. Lets go there." Oh, did i mention they will get internet from there- phone free through skype- faxes emailed- pictures sent- video posted- Do i need to go on? If global living is (already has) changed that much, are not they going to expect something more from their home?

So let's start with a name- Machine for Living is out of date. No one even talks of machines-they just want the results. Whatever it is-it is invisible.
Nomad Living
Homeless (joke)
Synesthetic Living
Link Living
Live-Breathe Home

I dont know its all too much. More to come. If you are interested. Comment...