UGLY AND ORDINARYARCHITECTURE jORTHE DECORATED SHED

1. Some definitions using the comparative method

BY ROBERT VENTURI AND DENISE SCOTT BROWN

These are excerpts from Learningfrom Las Vegas by Robert Venturi,Denise Scott Brown and StevenIzenour, to be published shortly bythe MIT Press. An earlier portion, "ASignificance for A & P Parking Lots,or Learning from Las Vegas," waspublished in our March '68 issue. Asecond excerpt will appear in theDecember issue. Robert Venturi andDenise Scott Brown are partners andSteven Izenour is a member in thefirm Venturi and Rauch, architectsand planners of Philadelphia.

64

"Not innovating willfulness butreverence for the archetype."

Herman Melville

"Incessant new beginnings leadto sterility.'" Wallace Stevens

"I like boring things."Andy Warhol

To make the case for a newbut old direction in architecture,we shall use some perhaps indis­creet comparisons to show whatwe are for and what we areagainst and ultimately to justifyour own architecture. When ar­chitects talk or write, they philo­sophize almost solely to justifytheir own work, and this apolo­gia will be no different. Ourargument depends on compari­sons because it is a simple argu­ment-simple to the point ofbanality. It needs contrast topoint it up. We shall use, some­what undiplomatically, some ofthe works of leading architectstoday as'contrast and context.

We shall emphasize image­image over process or form­in asserting that architecture de­pends in its perception and crea­tion on past experience and emo­tional association, and that thesesymbolic and representationalelements may often be contra­dictory to the form, structureand program with which theycombine in the same building.We shall survey this contradic­tion in its two main manifesta­tions:

1. Where the architectural sys·terns of space, structure, andprogram are submerged and dis­torted by an overall symbolicform: This kind of building-be­coming - sculpture we call theduck in honor of the duck­shaped drive-in, "The Long Is­land Duckling" illustrated inGod's Own Junkyard by PeterBlake.2. Where systems of space andstructure are directly at theservice of program, and orna­ment is applied independently ofthem: This we call the decoratedshed.

The duck is the special build­ing that is a symbol, the decor­ated shed is the conventionalshelter that applies symbols. Wemaintain that both kinds ofarchitecture are valid-Chartresis a duck (although it is a dec­orated shed as well) and thePalazzo Farnese is a decoratedshed - but we think that theduck is seldom relevant todayalthough it pervades Modernarchitecture.

We shall describe how wecome by the automobile-orientedcommercial architecture of urbansprawl as our source for a civicand residential architecture ofmeaning, viable now, as the turn­of-the-century industrial vocabu·lary was viable for a Modernarchitecture of space and indus­trial technology 40 years ago.We shall show how the iconog­raphy, rather than the space and

Crawford Manor Paul Rudolph, Architect

piazzas, of historical architec­ture, form the background forthe study of association andsymbolism in commercial art andstrip architecture.

Finally we shall argue for thesymbolism of the ugly and or­dinary in architecture and forthe particular significance of thedecorated shed with a rhetoricalfront and conventional behind:for architecture as shelter withsymbols on it.

The Duck & the Decorated Shed

Let us elaborate on the dec­orated shed by comparing PaulRudolph's Crawford Manor withour Guild House (in associationwith Cope & Lippincott).

The s e buildings correspondin use, size and date of construc­tion: Both are highrise apart­ments for the elderly of about90 units, built in the mid-1960s.Their settings vary: Guild House,although freestanding, is a six­story, imitation palazzo, analo­gous in structure and materialsto the surrounding buildings, andcontinuing through its positionand form the street line of thePhiladelphia gridiron plan it sitsin. Crawford Manor, on theother hand, is unequivocally asoaring tower, unique in itsModern, Ville Radieuse worldalong New Haven's limited-ac­cess, Oak Street Connector.

But it is the contrast in theimages of these buildings in re­lation to their systems of con-

FORUM-NOVEM BER-1971

struction that we want to em­phasize. The system of construc­tion and program of Guild Houseis ordinary and conventional andlooks it; the system of construc­tion and program of CrawfordManor is ordinary and conven­tional but doesn't look it.

Let us interject here that wechose Crawford Manor for thiscomparison not because of anyparticular antagonism towardthat building-it is, in fact, askillful building by a skillful ar­chitect, and we could easily havechosen a much more extremeversion of what we are criti­cizing - but in general be­cause it can represent establish­ment architecture now (that is,it represents the great majorityof what you see today in anyarchitecture journal) and inparticular because it correspondsin fundamental ways with GuildHouse. On the other hand, choos­ing Guild House for comparisoninvolves a disadvantage, becausethat building is now five yearsold and some of our later workcan more explicitly and vividlyconvey our current ideas. Lastly,please don't criticize us for pri­marily analyzing image: we aredoing so simply because imageis pertinent to our argument,not because we wish to deny aninterest in or the importance ofprocess, program and structureor, indeed, social issues, in archi­tecture or in these two buildings.Along with most architects, we

probably spend 90 percent of ourdesign time on these other im­portant subjects: The yaremerely not the direct subject ofthis inquiry.

To continue our comparisons,the construction of Guild Houseis p04red-in-place concrete platewith curtain walls pierced bydouble-hung windows and en­closing the interior space to makerooms. The material is commonbrick - darker than usual tomatch the smog-smudged brickof the neighborhood. The me­chanical systems of Guild Houseare nowhere manifest in the out­side forms. The typical floorplan contains a 1920s-apartment­house variety of units to accom­modate particular needs, viewsand exposures; this distorts theefficient grid of columns. Thestructure of Crawford Manor,which is poured - in - place con­crete and concrete block facedwith a striated pattern, is likewisea conventional frame supporting­laid-up masonry walls. But itdoesn't look it. It looks moreadvanced technologically andmore progressive spatially: itlooks as if its supports arespatial, perhaps mechanical-har­boring shafts made of a con­tinuous, plastic material reminis­cent of beton brut with thestriated marks of violently heroicconstruction process embossedin their form; they articulatethe flowing interior spa c e,their structural purity never

punctured by holes for windowsor distorted by exceptions inthe plan. Interior light is "modu­lated" by the voids between thestructure and the "floating" can­tilevered balconies.

The architectural elements forsupplying exterior light in GuildHouse are frankly windows. Werelied on the conventional meth­od of doing windows in a build­ing; we by no means thoughtthrough from the beginning thesubject of exterior light modula­tion but started where someoneelse had left off before us. Thewindows look familiar; they looklike, as well as are, windows,and in this respect their use isexplicitly symbolic. But like alleffective symbolic images, theyare intended to look familiar andunfamiliar. They are the conven­tional element used slightly un­conventionally. Like the subjectmatter of Pop Art, they are com­monplace elements, made un­common through distortion inshape (slight), change in scale(they are much bigger than nor­mal double-hung windows) andchange in context (double-hungwindows in a perhaps high-fash­ion building).

Decoration on the Shed

Guild House has ornament onit; Crawford Manor doesn't. Theornament on Guild House is ex­plicit. It both reinforces andcontradicts the form of thebuilding it adorns. And it is to

65

Crawford Manor Guild House

some extent symbolic. The con­tinuous stripe of white-glazedbrick high on the facade, in com­bination with the plane of white­glazed brick below, divides thebuilding into three uneven stor­ies: basement, principal story,and attic. It contradicts thescale of the six real and equalfloors on which it is imposed andSUggests the proportions of aRenaissance palace. The centralwhite panel also enhances thefocus and scale of the entrance.It extends the ground floor tothe top of the balcony of thesecond floor, in the way, and forthe same reasons, that the in­creased elaboration and scalearound the door of a Renais­sance palace or Gothic portaldoes. The exceptional and fatcolumn in an otherwise flatwall-surface increases the focusof the entrance, and the luxuri­ous granite and glazed brickenhance the amenity there, asdoes the veined marble that de­velopers apply at street level tomake their apartment entrancesmore classy and rentable. At thesame time the column's being inthe middle of the entrance dim­inishes its importance.

The arched window in GuildHouse is not structural. Unlikethe more purely ornamental ele­ments in this building, it reflectsan interior function of the shed,that is, the common activities atthe top. But the big commonroom itself is an exception to

66

the system inside. On the frontelevation, an arch sits above acentral vertical stripe of balconyvoids, whose base is the orna­mental entrance. Arch, balconiesand base together unify thefacade and, like a giant order(or classic jukebox front), un­dermine the six stories to in­crease the scale and monumen­tality of the front. In turn, thegiant order is topped by a flour­ish, an unconnected, symmetricaltelevision antenna in gold ano­dized aluminum, which is both animitation of an abstract Lippoldsculpture and a symbol for theelderly. An open-armed, poly­chromatic, p I as t e r madonnawould have been more imagefulbut unsuitable for a Quaker in­stitution that eschews all out­ward symbols-as does CrawfordManor and most orthodox Mod­ern architecture, which rejectsornament and association in theperception of forms.

Explicit and Implicit Associations

Adornments of representa­tional sculpture on the roof, ora prettily shaped window, orwittiness or rhetoric of any kindare unthinkable for CrawfordManor. Appliques of expensivematerial on a column or whitestripes and wainscoatings copiedfrom Renaissance compositionsalso it doesn't sport. CrawfordManor's cantilevered balconies,for instance, are "structurallyintegrated"; they are parapet-

ted with the overall structuralmaterial and devoid of orna­ment. Whereas, balconies atGuild House are not structuralexercises, and the railings areadornments 'as well as recollec­tions at a bigger'scale of conven­tional patterns in stamped metal.

Guild House symbolism in­volves ornament and is more 'orless dependent on explicit as­sociations; it looks like what itis, not only because of what it isbut also because of what it re­minds you of. But the architec­tural elements of Crawford Man­or abound in associations of an­other, less explicit, kind. Implicitin the pure architectural formsof Crawford Manor is a symbol­ism different from the appliqueornament of Guild House with itsexplicit, almost heraldic, associa­tions. We read the implicitsymbolism of Crawford Manorinto the undecorated physiog­nomy of the building through as­sociations' and past experience;it provides layers of meaning be­yond the "abstract expression­ist" messages derived from theinherent physiognomic character­istics of the forms, their size,texture, color, and so forth.These meanings come from ourknowledge of technology, fromthe work and writings of theModern form-givers, from thevoca bulary of industrial archi­tecture and other sources. Forinstance, the vertical shafts ofCrawford Manor connote struc-

tural piers (they are not struc­tural), made of rusticated "rein­forced concrete" (with mortarjoints), harboring servant spacesand mechanical systems (actual­ly kitchens), terminating in thesilhouettes of exhaust systems(suitable to industrial labora­tories), articulating light modu­la ting voids (instead of framingwindows), articulating flowingspace (confined to efficiencyapartments but augumented byvery ubiquitous balconies thatthemselves suggest apartmentdwelling), and articulating pro­gram functions that protrudesensitively (or expressionistical·Iy) from the edges of the plan.

Heroic and Originalor Ugly and Ordinary

The content of Crawford Man­or's implicit symbolism is whatwe call "heroic and original."Although the substance is con­ventional and ordinary, theimage is heroic and original. Thecontent of the explicit symbolismof Guild Mouse is what we shallcall "ugJy and ordinary." Thetechnoiogically una d van c edbrick, the old-fashioned, double­hung windows, the pretty mate­rials around the entrance, andthe ugly antenna not hidden be­hind the parapet in the acceptedfashion, all are distinctly con­ventional in image as well assubstance or, rather, ugly andordinary. (The inevitable plasticflowers at home in these win-

dows are, rather, pretty and or­dinary; they don't make thisarchitecture look silly as theywould, we think, the heroic andoriginal windows of CrawfordManor.)

But in Guild House the sym­bolism of the ordinary goesfurther than this. The preten­sions of the "giant order" onthe front, the symmetrical, palaz­zo-like composition with its threemonumental stories (as' well asits six real stories), topped by apiece of sculpture - or almostsculpture-suggest something ofthe heroic and original. It istrue that in this case the heroicand original is somewhat iron­ical, but it is this juxtapositionof contrasting symbols-the ap­plique of one order of symbolson another-that consitutes forus the decorated shed. This iswhat makes Guild House an ar­chitect's decorated shed-not ar­chitecture without architects.

The purest decorated shedwould be some form of conven­tional systems - building shelterthat corresponds closely to thespace, structure and program re­Quirements of the architecture,and upon which is laid a con­trasting-and if in the natureof the circumstances, contradic­tory-decoration. In Guild Housethe ornamental - symbolic ele·ments are more or less literallyapplique: The planes and stripesof white brick are applique; thestreet facade through its dis-

fORUM-NOVEMBER-1971

engagement at the top cornersimplies its separation from thebulk of the shed at the front.(This quality also implies con­tinuity, and therefore unity, withthe street line of facades of theo the r older, nonfreestandingbuildings ori. each side.) Thesymbolism of the de~oration hap­pens to be ugly and ordinarywith a dash of ironic heroic andoriginal, and the shed is straightugly and ordinary, though in itsbrick and windows it is symbolictoo. Although there is amplehistorical precedent for the dec­orated shed, present day road­side commercial architecture­the $10,000 stand with the $100,­000 sign - was the immediateprototype of our decorated shed.And it is in the sign of GuildHouse that the purest manifesta­tion of the decorated shed andthe most vivid contrast withCrawford Manor lies.

Ornament: Signs andSymbols, Denotationand Connotation,Heraldry and Physiognomy.Meaning and Expression

A sign on a building carriesa denotative meaning in the ex­plicit message of its letters andwords. It contrasts with theconnotative expression of theother, more architectural, ele­ments of the building. A bigsign, like that over the entranceof Guild House, is particularly

ugly and ordinary in its ex­plici t commercial associa tions. Itis significant that the sign forCrawford Manor is modest, taste­ful and not commercial. It istoo small to be seen from fast­moving cars on the Oak StreetConnector. But signs as explicitsymbols, especially big, com­mercial-looking signs, are anath­ema in architecture such asCrawford Manor. Its identifica­tion dees not come through ex­plicit, denotative communication,through literally spelling out "Iam Guild House" but throughthe connotation implicit in thephysiognomy of its pure archi­tectural form, which is intendedto express in some way housingfor the elderly.

Is Boring ArchitectureInteresting?

For all its commonness, isGuild House boring? For all itsdramatic balconies, is CrawfordManor interesting? Is it not theother way around? Our criticismof Crawford Manor and thebuildings it stands for is notmoralistie, nor is in concernedwith so-called honesty in archi­tecture or a lack of correspon­dence between substance andimage per se-i.e., that Craw­ford Manor is ugly and ordinarywhile looking heroic and original.We criticize Crawford Manor notfor "dishonesty" but for irrele­vance today. We shall try to

show how, in both the methodand the content of its images,Crawford Manor (and the ar­chitecture it represents) hasimpoverished itself by rejectingdenotative ornament and the richtradition of iconography in his­torical architecture and by ignor­ing-or rather using unawares­the connotative expression itsubstituted for decoration. Whenit cast out eclecticism, Modernarchitecture submerged symbol­ism. Instead it promoted expres­sionism, concentrating on theexpression of architectural ele­ments themselves: on the expres­sion of structure and function.It suggested, through the imageof the building, the reformist­progressive social and industrialaims that it could seldom achievein reality. By limiting itself tostrident articulations of the purearchitectural elements of space,structure and program, Modernarchitecture's expression has be­come a dry expressionism, emptyand boring. And in the end,irresponsible: i ron i c a I I y theModern architecture of CrawfordManor, while rejecting explicitsymbolism and frivolous appliqueornament, has distorted thewhole building into one big orna­ment. In substituting "articula­tion" for decoration, it has be­come a duck.

PHOTOGRAPHS: page 64, Peter Blake.Page 65 (top, middle), page 66 (right),page 67, Wm. Watkins. Page 65 (right),page 66 (left), Robert Perron.

67

UGLY AND ORDINARYARCHITECTUREORTHE DECORATED SHED

2 Theory of ugly and ordinary• and related and contrary concepts

BY ROBERT VENTURI AND DENISE SCOTT BROWN

48

y

Let us describe our own expe­rience as architects to explainhow we came to ugly and or­dinary architecture. After theappearance of Complexity andContradiction in Architecture, webegan to realize that few of ourfirm's buildings were complexand contradictory, at least not intheir purely architectural qual­ities of space and structure asopposed to their symbolic con­tent.

Most of the complexities andcontradictions we relished think­ing about we didn't use becausewe didn't have the opportunity.Venturi and Rauch didn't get bigcommissions who s e programsand settings' justified complexand contradictory forms, and asartists we could not impose onour work inapplicable ideas thatwe liked as critics. A buildingshould not be a vehicle for anarchitect's ideas, etc. Also ourbudgets were low, and we didn'twant to design a building twice-once to fit some heroic idea ofits importance to society and theworld of art, and after the bidscome in, a second time, to reflectthe client's and society's re­stricted idea of our architecture'svalue. Whether society was rightor wrong was not for us at thatmoment to argue. Therefore ourBrighton Beach Housing entrydid not turn out a megastructurefor living in, nor our Fire Sta­tion in Columbus, Indiana, a per­sonalized essay in civic monu­mentality for a pedestrian piazzaby the side of the highway. Theyturned out "ugly and ordinary,"as two such divergent critics asPhilip Johnson and Gordon Bun­shaft have described our work."Ugly" or "beautiful" is perhapsa question of semantics in thiscontext, but these two architectsdid catch the spirit, in a way.

Architecture may be ordinary- or rather, conventional- intwo ways: in how it is construct­ed or in how it is seen, that is,in its process or in its symbolism.To construet conventionally isto' use ordinary materials and

These are excerpts from Learningfrom Las Vegas by Robert Venturi,Denise Scott Brown and StevenIzenour, to be published shortly bythe MIT Press. An earlier portion, "ASignificance for A & P Parking Lots,or Learning from Las Vegas," waspublished in our March '68 issue. Thefirst excerpt appeared in the Novem­ber issue. Robert Venturi and DeniseScott Brown are partners and StevenIzenour is a member in the firmVenturi and Rauch, architects andplanners of Philadelphia.

engineering, accepting the pres­ent and usual organization of thebuilding industry and financialstructure and hoping to insurefast, sound and economical con­struction. This is good in theshort run, and the short run iswhat our clients have largely re­tained us architects for. Archi­tectural theories of the shortrun tend toward the idealizationand generalization of expediency.Architecture for the long run re­quires creation, rather t hanadaptation, and response to ad­vanced technology and sophis­ticated organization. It dependson sound research that may per­haps be promoted in the archi­tect's office but should be fi­nanced outside of it because theclient's fee is not adequate forand not included for that pur­pose. Although architects havenot wished to recognize it, mostarchitectural problems are of theexpedient type, and the morearchitects become involved insocial problems the more this istrue. In general the world can'twai t for the architect to buildhis utopia and in the main, thearchitect's concern ought not tobe with what ought to be, butwith what is-and with how tohelp improve it now. This isa . humbler role for architectsthan the Modern movement haswanted to accept; however it isartistically a more promising one,

Ugly and Ordinary

Artistically, the use of conven­tional elements in ordinary archi­tecture - be they dumb doorknobs or the familiar forms ofexisting construction systems­evokes associations from pastexperience. Such elements maybe carefully chosen or thought­fully adapted from existing vo­cabularies or standard catalogsrather than uniquely created viaoriginal data and artistic intui­tion. To design a window, forinstance, you start not only withthe abstract function of modulat­ing diurnal light rays to serveinterior space, but with theimage of window-of all thewindows you know about plusothers you find out about. Thisapproach is symboli'cally andfunctionally conventional, but itpro mot e s an architecture ofmeaning, broader and richer ifless dramatic than the architec­ture of expression.

We have shown how heroicand original (H&O) archi­tecture derives dramatic expres­sion from the connotative mean-

---

heroic communication throughpure architecture. Each mediumhas its day, and the rhetoricalenvironmental statements of ourtime-civic, commercial or resi­dential-will come from mediamore purely symbolic, perhapsless static and more adaptableto the scale of our environ­ment. The iconography andmixed media of roadside com­mercial architecture will pointthe way.

Symbolism and Association

Basic to the argument for thedecorated shed is the assump­tion that symbolism is essentialin architecture and that themodel from a previous time orfrom the existing city is part ofthe source materials, and the rep­lication of elements is part ofthe design method of this archi­tecture: that is, architecture thatdepends on association in theperception of it depends on as­sociation in the crea tion of it.

We have approached the justi­fication of symbolism in archi­tecture pragmatically using con­crete examples, rather than ab­stractly through the science ofsemiology or through a prioritheorizing. However, other ap­proaches have rendered similarresults. Alan Colquhoun haswritten of architecture as part ofa "system of communicationswithin society" and describesthe anthropological and psycho­logical basis for the use of atypology of forms in design, sug­gesting that not only are we not"free from the forms of the past,and from the availability of theseforms as typological models, butthat, if we assume we are free,we have lost control over a veryactive sector of our imaginationand of our power to communi­cate with others."

Colquhoun argues against theproposition of Modern architec­ture that form should be the re­sult of the application of physi­calor mathematical laws ratherthan of previous associations oresthetic ideologies. Not only arethese laws themselves humanconstructs but in the real worldor even the world of advancedtechnology, they are not totallydetermining; there are areas offree choice.

The viewing of physical lawsand empirical facts as the funda­mental source of form in Modernarchitectural theory, Colquhouncalls "bio-technical determinism."The limitations inherent in thisapproach even for technical en-

ings of its "original" elements:it gives off abstract meanings­or rather, expressions-recogniz­able in the physiognomic charac­ter of the architectural elements.Ugly and ordinary architecture(U&O), on the other hand, in­cludes denotative meanings aswell, derived from its familiarelements; that is, it suggestsmore or less concrete meaningsvia associa tion and past expe­rience. The "brutalism" of anH&O fire station 1. comes fromits rough texture; its eivic monu­mentality comes from its bigscale; the expression of structureand program and "truth to ma­terials" come from the particulararticulations of its forms. Itstotal image derives from thesepur ely architectural qualitiestransmitted t h r 0 ugh abstractforms, textures and colors, care­fully composed. The total imageof our U&O fire house 2.-an 1.image implying civic character aswell as specific use-comes fromthe conventions of roadside ~ UUlI;architecture that it follows; from ----------l~the decorated false facade, from .1 --1~~;;:.----_the banality through familiarity :: -'-:;'-of the standard aluminum sashand roll-up doors, and from theIlag pole in front-not to men­tion the conspicuous sign tha tidentifies it through speIling, them0 s t denotative of symbols:FIRE STATION NO.4. Theseelements act as symbols as wellas expressive architectural ab­stractions. They are not merelyordinary but represent ordinari­ness symbolically and stylistical­ly; they are enriching as well be­Muse they add a layer of literarymeaning.Richness can come from con­

ventional architecture. For 300years European architecture was 2.variations on a Classical norm:a rich conformity. But it canalso come through an adjustingof the scale or context of fa-mi�iar and conventional elementsto produce unusual meanings.Pop artists used unusual juxta-Xlsitions of everyday objects in~nse and vivid plays between~Id and new associations to floutme everyday interdependence ofwntext and meaning, giving usI new interpretation of 20th cen-tury cultural artifacts. The fa-~iliar which is a little off has a;trange and revealing power.We uphold the symbolism of

me ordinary via the decoratedIhed over the symbolism of theeroic via the sculptural duck,~ecause this is not the time andJUrs is not the environment for

FDRUM-DECEMBER-1971 49

gineering problems w ere ac­knowledged-obliquely-in Mod­dern theory, but they were to beovercome through the integrat­ing magic of intuition and with­out reference to historical mod­dels. That form results from in­tention as well as deterministicprocess was acknowledged in thewritings of Le Corbusier, LaszloMoholy-Nagy and other leadersof the Modern movement in theirdescriptions of the "intuition,""imagination," "inventiveness,"and "free and innumerable plas­tic events" that regulate archi­tectural design. What resultedwas, Colquhoun says, a "tensionof two apparently contradictoryideas-biological determinism onone hand, and free expression onthe other," within the doctrine ofthe Modern movement. Throughexcluding a body of traditionalp. r act ice for the sake of"science," a vacuum was leftthat was filled ironically by aform of permissive expression­ism: "What appears on the sur­face as a hard, rational disciplineof design, turns out rather para­doxicalIy to be a mystical beliefin the intuitive process."

Firmness + Commodity = Delight

Vitruvius wrote (via Sir HenryWootton) that architecture wasFirmness and Commodity andDelight. Gropius (via the bio­technical determinism just de­scribed) implied that Firmnessand Commodity equal Delight:that structure plus program rath­er simply result in form, thatbeauty is a by-product, that­to tamper with the equation inanother way - the process ofmaking architecture becomes theimage of architecture. LouisK;lhn in the 1950's said that thearchitect should be surprised bythe appearance of his design.

Presumed in these equationsis that process and image arenever contradictory and that De­light is a resultant which comesfrom the clarity and harmony ofthese simple relationships, un­tinged, of course, by the beautyof symbolism and ornament orby the associations of precon­ceived for m: Architecture isfrozen process.

The historians of the Modernmovement concentrate on theinnovative engineering structuresof the 19th and early 20th cen­turies as prototypes for Modernarchitecture, but it is significantthat the bridges of Maillart arenot architecture and the hangarsof Freyssinnet are hardly archi-

50

tecture. As engineering solu­tions, their programs are simpleand without the inherent contra­dictions of architectural pro­grams: To traverse a ravine di­rectly, safely and cheaply or toprotect a big space from therain without intervening supportsis alI that is required of thesestructures. The unavoidable sym­bolic content of even such sim­ple, utilitarian constructions, andthe unavoidable use of what Col­quhoun calls typologies was ig­nored by the theorists of theModern movement, although theornamentation of utilitarian sup­erstructures is typical of alltimes.

Industrial Iconography

More important than forget­ting the decoration was copyingthe shed, tha t is, deriving as­sociations from the body of thebuilding rather than from itsfacade. The architecture of theModern movement, during itsearly decades and through anumber of its masters, developeda vocabulary of forms basedon a variety of industrial modelswhose conventions and propor­tions were no less explicit thanthe Classical orders of the Ren­aissance. What Mies did withlinear industrial buildings in the1940's, Le Corbusier had donewith plastic grain elevators inthe 1920's, and Gropius had donewith the Bauhaus in the 1930'simitating his own earlier factory,the Faguswerk, of 1911. Theirfactory-like buildings were morethan "influenced" by the indus­trial vernacular structures of thethen recent past, in the sensethat historians have describedinfluences among artists andmovements. They were explicitlyadapted from these sources, andlargely for their symbolic con­tent, because industrial struc­tures represented, for Europeanarchitects, the brave new worldof science and technology. Thearchitects of the early Modernmovement, in discarding the ad­mittedly obsolete symbolism ofhistorical eclecticism, substitutedthat of the industrial vernacular.They employed a design methodbased on typological models,and developed an architecturaliconography based on their inter­pretation of the progressive tech­nology of the industrial revolu­tion.

Symbolism Unadmitted

A contradiction between whatwas said and what was done was

typical of early times in Modernarchitecture: Walter Gropius de­cried the term "InternationalStyle" but created an architec­tural style and spread a vocabu­lary of industrial forms that werequite removed from industrialprocesses. Adolf Loos condemnedornament yet applied beau­tiful patterns in his own designs,

. and would have erected the mostmagnificent, if ironic, symbol inthe history of skyscrapers if hehad won the Chicago TribuneCompetition. The later work ofLe Corbusier started a continu­ing tradition of unacknowledgedsymbolism, whose indigenous­vernacular for m s, in varyingmanifestations, are still with us:from La Tourette 3. to Boston,4. New Haven 5. and Houston'sWestheimer Strip. 6.

But it is the contradiction-orat least the lack of correspond­ence-between image and sub­stance, that confirms the role ofsymbolism and association inorthodox Modern architecture.As we have said, the symbolismof Modern architecture is usuallytechnological - functional, butwhen these functional elementswork symbolically they usuallydon't work functionally, for ex­ample Mies' symbolically ex­posed but substantively encasedsteel frame, and Rudolph's betonbrut in concrete block or his"mechanical" shafts used for anapartment house rather than aresearch lab. Some latter-dayModern architectural contradic­tions are the use of flowingspace for private functions, glasswalls for western exposures, in­dustrial clerestories for suburbanhi g h schools, exposed ductswhich collect dust and conductsound, mass produced systemsfo r underdeveloped countries,and the impressions of woodenformwork in the concrete ofhigh-labor-cost economies.

We catalog here the failuresof these functional elements tofunction as structure, program,mechanical equipment, lightingor industrial process, not tocriticize them (although on func­tional grounds they should becriticized), but to demonstratetheir symbolism. Nor are we in­terested in criticizing the func­tional - technological content 0

early Modern architectural sym-:bolism. What we criticize is the I

symbolic con ten t of current!·Modern architecture and thearchitects' refusal to acknowl­edge symbolism.

Modern architects have sub-

FORUM-DECEMBER-1971

stituted one set of symbols(Cubist - industrial - process) foranother (Romantic-historical-ecl­ecticism) but without being a­ware of it. This has made forconfusion and ironic contradic­tions that are still with us.

Slavish Formalism andArticulated Expressionism

Substituting non - functioningimitations of a deterministicprocess for preconceived formhas resulted not orily in confu­sion and irony but in a formal­ism that is the more slavish forbeing unadmitted. Those archi­tects who decry formalism inarchitecture are frequently rigidand arbitrary when the timecomes for committing their proj­ects to form. They adopt thefashionable shapes of the archi­tectural leader who is fanciedat the time, whether or not thisleader's formal vocabulary wouldbe more relevant to the problemthan some other formal vocabu­lary.

The substitution of expressionfor representation through dis­dain for symbolism and orna­ment has resulted in an archi­tecture where expression has be­come expressionism. Owing per­haps to the meager meaningsavailable from abstract formsand unadorned functional ele­ments, tlie characteristic formsof late Modern architecture areoft e n overstated. Conversely,they are often understated inthis context, as with La Touretteor the Westheimer Strip. LouisKahn once called exaggerationthe architect's tool to create or­nament. But exaggeration ofstructure and program (and, inthe 1950's and 1960's, mechani­cal equipment, i.e., ducts equalsdecoration) has become a sub­stitute for ornament.

Articulation as Ornament

To replace ornament and ex­plicit symbolism, Modern archi­tects indulge in distortion andoverarticulation.

On the one hand, considerthose residential, civic and in­stitutional buildings whose thincomplexities (stepped terraces;accordion sections, or plans orelevations; cantilevered clerestor­ies; diagonal zoots; textured stri­ations and flying bridges or but­tresses) almost parallel the stri­dent distortions of a McDonaldHamburger stand but lack thecommercial program and dis-

tracting setting that justify thestridency of Strip architecture.

On the other hand, considersensitively articulated structuralframes and cantilevered baysthat modulate a facade, defineinterior spaces, or reflect varia­tions in the program. Thesebusy bumps and subtle dents areput there for scale and rhythmand richness too, but they areas irrelevant and meaningless asthe pilaster bas-relief on a Rena­issance palace (which they re­semble) because they are most­ly seen in big spaces (oftenparking lots) and at high speeds.

Space as God

Perhaps the most tyrannicalelement in our architecture nowis space. Space has been con­trived by architects and deifiedby critics, filling the vacuumcreated by fugitive symbolism.If articulation has taken overfrom ornament in the architec­ture of abstract expressionism,space is what displaced symbol­ism: space dramatized by anacrobatic use of light. Our heroicand original symbols, from car­ceri to Cape Kennedy, feed ourlate Romantic egos and satisfyour need for spectacular, expres­sionistic space for a new age inarchitecture. To day, however,most buildings need reasonablylow ceilings and windows ratherthan glass walls for light, tocontain the air conditioningand meet the budget. Thereforeour esthetic impact should comefrom sources other than lightand space, more symbolic andless spatial sources.

Megastructures andDesign Control

R e c e n t Modern architecturehas achieved formalism whilerejecting form, promoted expres­sionism while ignoring ornament,and deified space while reject­ing symbols. Confusions andironies result from this un­pleasantly complex and contra­dictory situation. Ironically weglorify originality through repli­cation of the forms of Modernmasters. There is little harm inthis symbolic individualism ex­cept for its effect on the budget,but there is harm in imposingon the whole landscape heroicrepresentations of the Modemmasters' unique creations. Suchsymbolic heroism is the sourcefor the megastructure and for"Total Design." Architects who

demand evidence of process inthe forms of individual buildingsreject it in the form of the citywhere it is arguably more defen­sible. Total design is the op­posite of the incremental citythat gro'ws through the decisionsof many; total design promotesthe messianic role for the archi­tect as corrector of the mess ofurban sprawl, that is, for thecity dominated by pure architec­ture and maintained through "de­sign review": that is for thearchitecture of Urban Renewaland of the fine arts commissions.The Boston City Hall and itsurban complex are the archetypeof enlightened Urban Renewal.Its profusion of symbolic formsthat recall the extravagances ofthe General Grant period and therevival of the Medieval piazzaand its palazzo publico is, in theend, a bore. It is too architec­tural. A conventional loft wouldaccommodate a bureaucracy bet­ter perhaps with a blinking signon top saying "I AM A MONU­MENT." 7.

However, no architecture isnot the answer to too mucharchitecture. The reaction of theantiarchitects 8. of ArchitecturalDesign is perhaps as futile asthe endless fondling of irrelevantsubtleties at the other extremein the other magazines, thoughit is possibly less harmful be­cause it seldom get s built,plugged in or inflated. The worldscience futurist metaphysic, themegastructuralist mystique, andthe look-Ma-no-buildings envir­onmental suits and pods are arepetition of the mistakes of an-

51

other generation. Their overde­pendence on a space age, futuristor science fiction technology par­allels the machine estheticismof the 1920's and approaches itsultimate Mannerism. They are,however, unlike the architectureof the 1920's, artistically a deadend and socially a cop-out.

Meanwhile, every communityand state is appointing its designreview board to promote thearchitectural revolution of thelast generation and corrupt itsmembers through rule-by-manrather than rule-by-law proce­dures. "Total Design" comes tomean "total control" as confi­dent art commissioners, whohave learned what is right, pro­mote a deadening mediocrity byrejecting the "good" and the"bad" and the new they don'trecognize, all of which, in com­bination and in the end, makethe city.

Misplaced Technological Zeal

Part of being "heroic and orig­inal" is being advanced tech­nologically. The discrepanciesbetween substance and image inModern architecture's technologi­cal machismo and the costlinessof its frequently empty gesturesemerged earlier than architectswould admit. Methods of indus­trial production turned out to belargely inapplicable to the con­struction of buildings. Manye leg ant structural systems­space frames, for instance-al­though they were highly efficientin relating stress to material andeconomical for spanning largeindustrial structures, failed de­cisively to work within the pro­gram, space and budget of themore prosaic and usual archi­tectural commissions. As PhilipJohnson said, you can't put adoor in a geodesic dome.

Furthermore, architects whoconcentrated on eng i nee r­ing forms, tended to ignore thoseaspects of the building industrythat involve financing, distribu­tion, existing trades and conven­tional materials and methods;these are aspects that, as thedevelopers have known, are high­ly subject to the improving ef­fects of technology, includingmanagerial technology, and af­fect the final form and cost ofarchitecture substantially morethan does innovative construc­tional tee h n 0 log y. Archi­tects have contributed little tothe crucial building needs of thiscountry-especially in housing­partly because their predilections

52

for advanced technology of thesymbolic and visionary kindhave impeded their effectivenesswithin the going systems of con­struction.

While focusing on their favor­ite form of technological voodoo­ism over the last 40 years, thatis, res ear chi n g industrial­ized methods of prefabrication,architects have discovered themobile home industry. This in­dustry, without the architects'help and using a traditional tech­n 0 log y, essentially carpentrywhich is then related to innova­tive methods of distribution, isnow producing one-fifth of theannual output of housing in thiscountry. Architects should for­get about being great technicalinnovators in housing construc­tion and concentrate on adaptingthis new and useful technologyto more broadly defined needsthan it serves today and on de­veloping a vivid mobile homesymbolism for mass markets.

Which Technological Revolution?

The relevant revolution todayis the current electronic one. Ar­chitecturally the symbol systemsthat electronics purvey so wellare more important than theirengineering content. The mostu r g e n t technological problemfacing us is the humane mesh­ing of advanced scientific andtechnical systems with our im­perfect and exploited human sys­tems, a problem worthy of thebest attention of architecture'sscientific idealogues and vision­aries. For us the most boringpavilions at Expo '67 were thosetho t corresponded to the progres­sive structures of 19th centuryWorld's Fairs celebrated by Sig­fried Giedion; while the CzechPavilion - an architectural andstructural nonentity, but tattooedwith symbols and moving pic­tures-was by far the most in­teresting. It also had the long­est lines of spectators: Theshow, not the building, drew thecrowd. The Czech Pavilion wasalmost a decorated shed.

From LaTourette to Levittown

What architects now call a­nonymous architecture com e sclose to what we are callingordinary architecture, but it isnot the same because it eschewssymbolism and style. W h i I earchitects have adapted the sim­ple forms of vernacular archi­tecture, they have largely ig­nored the complex symbolismbehind them. They themselves

have used the vernacular vocab­ularies symbolically, to suggestassociation with the past andsimple, deterministic virtue, thatis, as early examples of a cor­respondence between structuralmethods, social organization andenvironmental influences, paral­leling at a primitive level thebenign processes that shape theindustrial vernacular. Yet ironi­cally architects have-except forAldo van Eyck in Africa andGunther Nitschke in Japan-dis­counted the symbolic values thatshape these forms and dominate,so anthropologists tell us, theartifactual environment of primi­tive cultures, often contradict­ing function and structure intheir influence on form.

It is a further irony that Mod­dern architects, who can em­brace vernacular architecture re­mote in place or time, can con­temptuously reject the currentvernacular of the United States,that is, the merchant builders'vernacular of Levittown and thecommercial vernacular of Route66. This aversion to the conven­tional building around us couldbe an exotic survival of 19th cen­tury Romanticism, but we thinkit is merely that architects areable to discern the symbolismin the forms of their own verna­cular; they are unable to discern,either through ignorance or de­tachment, the symbolism of My­konos or the Dogon. They un­derstand the symbolism of Levit­town and don't like it, and theyare not prepared to suspendjudgment on it in order to learnand to make subsequent judg­ment more sensitive. The con­tent of commercial hucksterismand middle-middle class socialaspiration is so distasteful tothem that they are unable eitherto investigate openmindedly thebasis for the symbolism or anal­yze the forms for their functionalvalue; indeed they find it diffi­cult to concede that any "liber­al" architect could do so.

Architects who find middle­middle - class social aspirationsdistasteful and like unclutteredarchitectural form see only toowell the symbolism in the sub­urban residential landscape; forinstance, in its stylish "bi-Ievels"in the Regency, Williamsburg,New Orleans, French Provincialor Prairie-organic modes, and itsornamented ranchers with carri­age lanterns, Mansards and an­tiqued brick. They recognize thesymbolism, but they don't acceptit. To them the symbolic decora-

tion of the split-level suburbansheds represents the debased,materialistic values of a con­sumer economy where people arebrainwashed by mass marketingand have no choice but to moveinto the ticky - tacky, with itsvulgar violations of the natureof materials and its visual pollu­tion of architectural sensibilities,and, therefore, the ecology.

This viewpoint throws out thevariety with the vulgarity. Insuburbia, the eclectic ornamenton and around the relativelysmall houses reaches out to youvisually across the relatively biglawns and makes an impact thatpur e architectural articulationcould never make, at least intime, before you have passed onto the next house. The lawnsculpture part way between thehouse and the curving curb actsas a visual booster within thisspace, linking the sYmbolic archi­tecture to the moving vehicle.So sculptural jockeys, carriagelamps, wag 0 n wheels, fancyhouse numbers, fragments ofsplit rail fences and mail boxeson erect chains, all have a spatialas well as a symbolic role: Theirforms identify vast space as dothe urns in Le Notre's parterres,the ruined temples in Englishparks, and the sign in the A&Pparking lot.

But the symbolic meanings ofthe forms in builders' vernacularalso serve to identify and sup­port the individualism of theowner. For the middle class sub­urbanite living, not in a medievalstreet, a Regency terrace or evenan antebellum mansion but in asmaller version lost in a largespace, ide n tit y must comethrough symbolic treatment ofthe form of the house, eitherthrough styling provided by thedeveloper (for instance, split­level Colonial), or through avariety of symbolic ornamentsapplied thereafter by the owner(the Rococo lamp in the pic­ture window or the wagon wheelout front).

The critics of suburban iconog­raphy attribute its infinite com­binations of standard ornamentalelements to clutter rather thanvariety. This can be dismissedby suburbia's connoisseurs as theinsensitivity of the uninitiate. Tocall these artifacts of our cul­ture crude is to be mistakenconcerning scale: it is like con­demning theater sets for beingcrude at five feet, or condemningplaster putti, made to be seenhigh above a Baroque cornice,

architect from his status in high iconography of Modern archi-culture. But it may alter high tecture and manifest through aculture to make it more sym- language-several languages-ofpathetic to current needs and form, and that formal languagesissues. Helping this to happen and associational systems are in-is a not reprehensible part of evitable and good, becoming tyr-the role of the high-design archi- annies only we are utect. '----__----tocoonjiS;scCllitioruurss="=o-ofthem. Our 0 er

Irony may be the tool with point is that the content of thewhich to confront and combine unacknowledged symbolism ofvalues in architecture for a plur- current Mod ern architecturealist society and to accommodate is silly. We have been designingthe differences in values that dead ducks.arise between the architect and We don't know if the time willhis clients. Social classes rare- come for serious architecturalIy come together, but if they oceanographic-urbanism, for ex-can make temporary alliances in ample, as opposed to the presentthe designing and building of symbolic offshore posturing ofmulti-valued community archi- the world futurist architecturaltecture, a sense of paradox and visionaries. We suspect that onesome irony and wit will be day it may, though hardly in theneeded on all sides. forms now envisioned. As prac-

Understanding the content of ticing architects in the here andpop's messages and the way that now, we don't have much inter-it is projected does not mean est in such predictions. We dothat one need agree with, ap- know, however, that the chiefprove of, or reproduce that con- resources of our society go in-tent. If the commercial persua- to things with little architecturalsions that flash on the strip are potential: war, electronic com-materialistic manipulation and munication, outer space and, tovapid sub-communication, which a much lesser extent, social serv-cleverly appeal to our deeper ices. As we have said, this isdrives but send them only super- not the time and ours is notficial messages, it does not fol- the environment for heroic com-low that the architect who learns munication via pure architecture.from their techniques must re- When Modern architects right-produce the content or the su- eously abandoned ornament onperficiality of their messages. buildings, they unconsciously de-(But he is indebted to them for signed buildings that were orna-helping him recognize that Mo- ment. In promoting Space anddern architecture too has a con- Articulation over symbolism andtent and a vapid one at that.) ornament the y distorted theOn the other hand, the interpre- whole building into a duck. Theytation and evaluation of symbolic substituted for the innocent andcontent in architecture are an am- inexpensive practice of appliedbiguous process: the didactic decoration on a conventionalsymbolism of Chartres may rep- shed the rather cynical and ex-resent to some the subtleties of pensive distortion of programmedieval theology and to others, and structure to promote a duck:the depths of medieval supersti- mini-megastructures are mostlytion or manipulation. Manipula- ducks. It is now time to re-tion is not the monoply of crass evaluate the once - horrifyingcommercialism. And manipula- statement of John Ruskin thattion works both ways: it serves architecture is the decoration ofcommercial interests and the bill- construction; but we should ap-board lobby, but also, through pend the warning of Pugin, itthe intimidating prestige of cul- is all right to decorate construc-tural lobbies and design review tion but never construct decor-boards, it promotes anti - sign ation.legislation and beautification.

The progressive, technologicalvernacular, process - oriented,superficially socially concerned,heroic and original content ofModern architecture has beendiscussed before by critics andhistorians. Our point is thatthese qualities are not abstractmanifestations or vague analo­gies imputed after the fact to theintentions of architects; ratherthey are explicitly there in the

High Design Architecture

Finally, learning from popularculture does not remove the

10.

outside a formal language andfind formal languages suited toour times. The s e languagesshould incorporate symbolismand rhetorical applique. Revolu­tionary eras are' given to didacticsymbolism and to the propagan­distic use of architecture to pro­mote revolutionary aims. This isas true for the African symbol­ism of the militants and for theultra-middle-class symbolism ofthe non-militants in rebuildingthe ghetto as it was for theRomantic Rom a n republicans y m b 0 lis m of revolutionaryFrance. Ledoux was a propagan­dist and symbolist before he wasa formalist. He saw, as we mustsee, architecture as symbol inspace before form in space. Tofind our symbolism we must goto the suburban edges of theexisting city that are symboli­cally rather than formalisticallyattractive and represent the as­pirations of almost all, includingmost ghetto dwellers and mostof the silent white majority.Then the archetypal Los Angeleswill be our Rome and Las Vegasour Florence; and, like the arche­typal grain elevator 9. somegenerations ago, the Flamingosign will be the cylindrical modelto shock our sensibilities towardsa new architecture. 10.

Social Architectureand Symbolism

We architects who hope fora reallocation of national re­sources toward social purposesmust take care to lay the em­phasis on the purposes and theirpromotion rather than on thearchitecture that shelters them.This reorientation will call forordinary architecture, not ducks.

Meeting the architectural im­plications and the critical socialissues of our era will requirethat we drop our involuted archi­tectural expressionism and ourmistaken claim to be building

for lacking the refinements of aMino da Faesole bas-relief on aRenaissance tomb. Also, theboldness of the suburban doo­dads distracts the eye from thetelephone poles that even thesilent majority doesn't like.

Many people like suburbia.This is the compelling reasonfor learning from Levittown. Theultimate irony is that althoughModern architecture from thestart has claimed a strong socialbasis for its philosophy, Modernarchitects have worked to keepformal and social concerns sep­arate rather than together. Indismissing Levittown, Mod ernarchitects, who have characteris­tically promoted the role of thesocial sciences in architecture,reject whole sets of dominantsocial patterns because the ydon't like the architectural con­sequences of these patterns. Con­versely, by defining Levittownas "silent-white-majority" archi­tecture, they reject it again, be­cause they don't like what theybelieve to be the silent whitemaiority's political views. Thesearchitects reject the very heter­ogeneity of our society thatmakes the social sciences rele­vant to architecture in the firstplace.

If analyzing suburbia's archi­tecture implies that one has letthe Nixon regime "penetrateeven the field of architecturalcriticism" then the field of urbanplanning has been infiltrated byNixonites for more than 10 years-such as Abrams, Gans, Web­ber, Dyckman, Davidoff. For ourcritique is nothing new; the socialplanners have been making it formore than a decade. But in thisNixon - silent - majority critique,especially in its architectural, asopposed to its racial and militarydimensions, there is a fine linebetween liberalism and old-fash­ioned class snobbery.

fORUM-DECEMBER-1971 53