The Journal of the School of Architecture University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Reflections The Journal of the School of Architecture University of Illinois at Urbana-Ghampaign No. 10 Spring 1995 Board of Editors 1994-1995 R. Alan Forrester, Director, School ofArchi Paul J. Armstrong, Chairmaii and Managing Edil Kevin Hinders Anne Marshall Jory Johnson Lisa Busjahn Copy Editor Mark Witte Graphic Design Reflections is a journal dedicated to theory and criticism. The Board of Editors of Reflec- tions welcomes unsolicited contributions. All submissions will be reviewed by the Board of Editors. Authors take full responsibility for securing required consents and releases and for the authenticity of their articles. Address all correspondence to: Reflections The Journal of the School of Architecture/ Building Research Council University of Illinois at Urbana-Ghampaign 608 E. Lorado Taft Drive Champaign, IL 61820 © 1995 by The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Printed in the USA 1SSN:07399448 Contents Architecture Between Tradition and Progress 4 Andrzej Pinno Invasion of the Building Snatchers 22 A Contemporary Architectural A-vant Garde and Its Heritage Thomas L. Schumacher Architecture of Liberative Movement 36 A Design Thesis 1992-1993 Benjamin K. Nesbeitt What's Behind the Wall 50 Why Progressive Public Memorials are Designed for Private Commemoration Jhennifer A. Amundson Learning and Labor In Architecture 66 A Pavilionfor Virginia Park Jefferv S. Poss Projections 70 Kevin Hinders Movement" Cover: Master Architecture Thesis Project "Architecture of Liberative by Benjamin Nesbeitt. Henry Plummer, thesis critic. See page 36. Architecture Between Tradition and Progress Andrzej Pinno The paper discusses the present debate between modem and postmodern architecture in University of Texas terms a conflict inj^rained in human nature: a conflict between structure evolution, at Arlington of and traditiim and pro^i^ress. It tries to show the inevitability ami indispensability of such a conflictfor architecture and, at the same time, its apparentflitility. It gives a briefoverview ofsome ideological battlesfor and against progressfought since the Industrial Rcvoluti(m, presents examples of their interweaving through history and how, for better or worse, they have influenced the evolution of architecture. It sees the present architectural struggles blurred by the plurality of various trends, lost in esoteric philosophical and aesthetic concerns, and mostly directionless. It links the causes of this malaise to the impasse of the once progressive tradition of Enlightenmeiit and suggests that the emerging Ecological Revolution may, as the Industrial Revolution before, change the hierarchy ofvalues and, in this way, refocus ami redress the never emling conflict between the old and the new in architecture. Modern science and technology progress with In such a schizophrenic society, various fields frightening speed. New achievements in of human endeavor try to define their biology or medicine, physics or information character anew. Architecture, too, seeks a multiply ever faster, and together with global relevant role for itself and in this process economy, intercontinental communication, oscillates among diverse trends. Some idolize or supersonic travel open new possibilities high technology, others indulge in historical for man. At the same time, however, the very forms and popular culture, and still others achievements of Western Civilization destroy agonize over the ambiguities of language. traditional structures of societies. Ethics is The progressive architects believe that it is helpless in the face of the alleged objectivity the future, especially the technoscientific of science; families disintegrate, and the future, that can offer what the present is individual is lost in the ambiguity of moral unable to deliver; the conservatives beUeve precepts. Knowledge is replaced by infor- that a return to the past can give us back the mation, books by TV, dignity by success. lost values; while a third group shows Examples like these abound and force us to indifference toward the outside world and ask whether progress can be stopped and concentrates on the internal order of whether tradition can be disregarded. architecture, on architecture for its own sake. Amonji the progressives and the of thinking, two ways of looking at the world. conservatives, as Aldo van Eyck su^ests, The moderns believed in the logic of rational the technocrats sentimentaHze about the thinking, in the power of science: in progress. future, and the antiquarians sentimentaUze Their adversaries, the ancients, sought about the past. But our attitude toward the knowledge among the authorities of antiquity future and toward the past is more than a and history. The progressives heralded the question of sentiment: it is a conflict deeply rise of the Enlightenment and, thus, built the ingrained in human character. Although we foundations of modern, rational civilization. live in the present we plan for the future and The conservatives believed that Plato and remember the past. We cannot ignore either, Aristotle had more to offer than the assertions and, thus, are condemned to a life between of science and, thus, defended wisdom and these two poles. Can we, however, find a tradition against an uncritical science. Today balance between the future and the past, this quarrel seems to be losing direction. between progress and tradition? ('an we Rationalism, the tradition of Enlightenment, rationalize this situation? and scientific thinking are under attack and there is nothing available to replace them. To answer this question we must turn to histopi' The so-called pluralism of ideas and opinions which, in spite of our present irreverence for reflects the existing situation in which its truths, can still offer us some insights and nothing is clear, univocal, or decided. teach us, for example, that the battle between Western Civilization, threatened by its own the old and the new is old itself. successes-the ecological crisis or the nuclear threat for example-tries to reevaluate its Toward the end of the 17th century a famous very foundation and wonders whether quarrel between the "Ancients" and the progress promises a paradise on earth, or "Moderns" took place in France. Thequerelle leads to ruin; whether tradition is a panacea des ancients et des modernes, as it was for today's ills, or an escape from the called, pitched against each other two types uncertainties of the new. .Inhn Ruskiu. "Rinfkin Windiiw." Oxford Museum Conflict between these two approaelies in not only new solutions in architecture, but architecture has a long history. Riiskin and also suggested new ways of thinking.- Their Paxton, Sitte and Sant'EHa, Aspkmd and Le social consciousness and sensitivity to social Gorbusier, \'an Ryek and Woods, N'enturi injustices lead them to belie\'e that the and Eisennian are some of the architects character of man was shaped by tlie human who have represented these opposite environment. (Consequently, they directed positions and whose role in this conflict is their attention to the relationship between still being disputed. But the debate is not architecture and morality. They thought that over. It will go on from generation to the depressing and unhealthy dark, narrow generation for, as Leszek Kolakowski says in streets bred poverty and degeneration; and to Modernity cm Endless Trial: eliminate them, an environment of sun, air and greenery had to be created. To achieve The detail between the ancientand the modem this goal they declared that the continuity of is probably everlasting and we will never get space must take precedence over the rid of it, as it expresses the natural tensifjn continuity of buildings; the continuity of voids between structure and evolution, ami this over the continuity of solids. Thus, the existing tension seems to be biologically rooted; it is, urban fabric with its narrow streets was put to we 7nay believe, an essential characteristic of trial; the isolated buildings-objects in space- life. It is obviously necessaryfor any society gained significance, and, consequently, a way to experience theforces both of consei-vaticm was paved for the future Modem Movement- and of change.' a way lasting some one hundred years. ^ Today we can wonder whether their true legacy lies The hidustrial Revolution caused such a clash in their intentions or in the consequences of through unprecedented changes which it their intentions, whether they contributed to introduced in almost all domains of social and the modern world through their dreams of individual life. The speed of their succession creating a new and a better society, or through was of such a magnitude that the society of their ideas which lead to streetless and, those days could hardly comprehend their unfortunately, incoherent cities. meaningand significance. Thenewcivilization suddenly faced new problems which required When the 19th century Mctorian England and generated new ideas and solutions. Some celebrated the glory of the Industrial of them were Utopian, others remedial; some Civilization- the "golden age"- it also promoted revolutionary thinking, others witnessed a steady disintegration of its introduced piecemeal reforms. Saint Simon, society. This complex situation polarized Fourier, Owen, and later, Godin-the Utopian opinions and generated new struggles socialists-belonged to the first group. Being between the ancients and the moderns. In great critics of their civilization,