Candy is Dandy, But Brickers are Quicker

I love living in London. There, I said it. It's not just because there is a vast network of design, architecture, culture, music, art, whatevs. No, it is a city that seems to be keenly aware of all mid-twenties' flaws and interests. First we'll talk social, then we'll talk architecture.

1)  The bars close about midnight.
At first this seems like a terrible idea, I mean aren't you going to make more money after people get really, really drunk at 11:30? England says 'No. You are drunk. Go home.' and shuffles the group out the door. Sure there are clubs that stay open later, and I'd be lying if I hadn't been to several of them.

 (including one in Bethnal Green that looked like a haunted house. I've been trying to find it since then and that club is like a darker, spookier Brigadoon. No one knows what I'm talking about. But I've seen it, I was there)

However, like a responsible friend, the city remind you that a lot of things done after midnight are really, really bad ideas. Kudos.

2) OMG Food.
Dude, I can't even. I have lost my ability to even. All even has forthwith left the premises. There is a stereotype about British Food being bland and terrible and that's just not true (except in the case of Sainsbury's Pastys. I'm sorry. They're awful). You get everything. Let me say that again: OOOOOVVVEEERRRYYYTHIIIING. And now that I've found a carryout website for my area, the chances of me turning into this are more likely than ever.

So why bring these aspects up? Isn't this an architecture blog? Why are you talking about your overeating and drinking you hedonistic, hippopotamic land mass? I'm getting there, hold on.

In my adventures around the city I have come across some pretty good bars that are in honest-to-God beautiful buildings. Knowledge which I will now share with you. So see below for my list of the best architecturally themed bars in London:

1) The Corner Room
Town Hall Hotel, Patriot Square, E2 9NF, E2
If you want to go somewhere to feel like you run the British empire then check out the Corner Room. The Town Hall Hotel is exactly what it sounds like. Previously a civic center it was abandoned for a number of years before it was taken over and re-vamped into a hotel. The private room is in an old hearing chambers and screams 'damndable inconvenience this First World War what what!'

2) One Marylebone
1 Marylebone Rd, NW1 4AQ, NW1
Originally designed by the famous Architect John Soane, this former church now serves as an event venue/sometimes restaurant/sometimes bar which has a pretty flexible interior space. As their website states: "It was the most expensive, and externally the most architecturally distinguished of [Soane's] three churches...Apart from the loss of the original chancel and most of the original fittings, the basic structure of Soane’s church survives complete, and is of national architectural and historical significance."

3) Architectural Association Bar
36 Bedford Square, WC1
This may be a little bit biased as it's literally the closest bar to my School, but it can't be beat for student prices and has a pretty decent selection. Located on the second floor on a refurbished Georgian house in the last full Georgian-era square in London, the AA bar might not be the most glamorous but it has always got an interesting exhibition on and as an architecture school, a space layout to be proud of.

4) The Shoreditch
145 Shoreditch High St, E1 6JE
We may be seeing a pattern here. Old buildings refitted with new bars: not this one. I'll get real with you here: There are better bars in Shoreditch, there are better bars in Hackney, there are better bars in Hoxton but as an architecture bar, I do like this one. It seems that between 2006 and 2011 there was an obsession with shipping containers as architecture, the blame for which I place directly on to 'Yes is More' and just as wood paneling screams of some kind of Mad-men-esque mid-century California modernist ideal so does this bar say 'It was 2013 and I was listening to Animal Collective and The Weekend on my shuffle while this Dude-bro was yaking on and on about his organic urban bee-farming project.' Just put on your 60$ flannel shirt and get with the Zeitgeist. I promise you, 40 years from now people will think it was cool. Whatever that means.

 5) River Cafe
Thames Wharf, Rainville Road, W6 9HA
I should start off by clarifying: I am specific kind of poor right now. Not 'I'm starving' poor. Not 'I don't know where my next paycheck is coming from' poor. Not real poor. I'm the kind of poor where you get really pretty before you go out so you can charm someone into buying you drinks based solely on your appearance. It's something that I like to call 'Con-man' poor and while it shames me to admit it, it works. That being said, the River Cafe is the kind place that is so expensive looking it makes a drifter-fly-by-night-Carney like me nervous. It's a 2008 Richard Rogers/Stuart Forbes set-up so while vaguely reminiscent of an Ikea, it's less meatball and more money ball.

6) Coq D'Argent
Central Boulevard, Blythe Valley Business Park, B90 8AG
If you're more of James Stirling quasi Post-modern fan, then the Coq D'Argent roof deck is a great place for you. The word for this building is 'Unsubtle' so you will be able to spot it from a ways away. Some people love it, others hate it, but regardless of preference you can't deny it's got style. Nestled deep in the financial district you can get a great view of the city and the river from one of the weirdest, most wonderful buildings in London. And I will fight anyone who says different.

So that's all I've got for now. Is it a complete list? No, of course not. In fact there is a woeful lacking of 'Pubs' which are the most ubiquitous and comforting of all English Bars. Just take these as a recommendation if you like buildings and liquor in the same place.

E-Verify

I just learned about this new statute signed into PA law that requires all public works contractors (and subs) involved in projects over $25,000 to use E-Verify.  From what I understand, E-Verify is this online system that basically confirms your work eligibility in the U.S.  The intention is to ensure all American jobs go to American (or legally-employable non-American) workers, for public construction projects, for all the typical reason you could imagine.  It is also my understanding that not all states have adopted this statute.  For PA, this statute takes effect for contracts signed on and after January 1, 2013.

While I do not foresee much impact on my day-to-day with this particular new statute, I can see where other firms with larger and public sector projects might find some initial delays.  I don't know if you need to do E-Verify every time you start a new contract, every year, or what the case may be.  My first reaction is that it is probably something that could be seamlessly incorporated into the hiring process.  Particularly considering some of the other more involved requirements for public sector projects, e.g. all on-site individuals involved in the construction of a public school must have their fingerprints taken and on record.

I need to look into more issues like these, but I just heard about this and thought I would share quickly!

All my Victorians in the house say 'Whaaaatt?!'

What's that you say? You want to hear MORE about Museums in London? Well. Give the people what they want.

London Museums Part II: Al and Vicky want to party with you

Ahhh Queen Victoria, is there any more confusing idol for modern women? On the one hand you were the unquestionably dominant ruler of a vast empire (granted, a lot of people in that empire were not interested in you ruling them, but still). On the other hand, you were a big supporter of a woman's place being squarely in the home, idealizing womanhood as being submissive, delicate, passive and pure. The idea that a person is either 'pure' or 'fallen' just doesn't sit right with me: placing the value of a human life on whether or not they put out is not only unfair, it's also untrue. 

Also, the period Queen Victoria came to be the symbolic representation of produced some of the weirdest, most incorrect takes on history. See the death of Horatio Nelson. Yet, this period also some of the greatest contributions to literature the world has ever seen. What to do, what to do? Do we hate Victorians for their general characterization of being ethno-centric, tree-cutting, whore-mongering, bizzarre, repressed and even sometimes unbelievably rascist/sexist jerks? Or do we celebrate their industry, their imagination, their thirst for knowledge and their belief in social reform and improving the lives of the poor? To quote John Green "Stupid History. Always resisting simplistic understanding".

So it's with this state of mind that we look at the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The V&A had originally gotten it's start in the 1850s with the intent that the "decorative arts" may improve the life of the common workers in London. For a while the collection moved from venue to venue until it found it's permanent home near Hyde Park, where it stands today. To date, it is the world's largest museum dedicated to the "decorative arts" which we will find means basically whatever you want it to.

I had been interested in visiting this museum for quite some time, but for some reason, something had always came up on the day of and I'd have to cancel. That is until a cold October day when class was suddenly cancelled and I had nothing else to do. A few tube stops later I entered the belly of the beast.

It's a really extraordinary place, not only as a collection of decorative arts, but for how many people are there. Seriously, this place was like a circus. If you are the kind of person who is into the hushed awe of an empty museum then this is not the place for you. Kids, adults, everybody, they're all over the place. And for good reason, in what other museum can you see Edwardian Gowns next to a display about 'Gothic Lolitas' or enormous cast reproductions of Trajan's column next to some beautiful little Korean bowls.  I think what I enjoyed most was the cast rooms, not only for the sculptures, but for the scale. It's three stories high and you can follow everything from top to bottom.

Though points need to be given to Tipu's tiger, which is a bizzare contraption that I think could serve as a very good metaphor for the museum as a whole.

Weird? Yes...but also kind of cool.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: The V&A. Weird...but in a cool way.

So What Exactly Do You Do in Grad School?

Good Question. For the past 5 days (that is, ever since I got back to London) I have been hauled up in my apartment writing term papers that were due today. They have since been turned in and I can feel a brief respite of freedom until tomorrow, when Term 2 starts. I'm not going to put the entire papers up, but I'm going to put a few on here to give you a taste:


Paper 1 - The Accidental Iconoclasts for the class: Aesthetics, Architecture, History
Trailer: IN A WORLD...where Street Art was being systematically lost ONE MAN...was irrelevant because this is a choice we make as a community.

“Art cannot be criticized because every mistake is a new creation”: this is the poster-dogma of self named Street Artist “Mr. Brainwash” for his first UK show, a reinvention of his premier show in L.A., Life is Beautiful (Old Sorting Office, New Oxford Street, Bloomsbury, London). Initially the stenciled image invokes an avant garde battle cry; yet this call to arms may actually be an act self-defense, given the Artist’s back-story. Mr. Brainwash came into the public eye via the documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010). Mixing the mythologies of Emperor Claudius and Darth Vader, an odd but otherwise harmless shop-owner becomes seduced by hype, media, and the benefits of being a dangerous Street Artist via his cousin, the Artist Space Invader. To mark the metamorphosis, Thierry Guetta changes his name to “Mr. Brainwash” and via a large public show, betrays the Street Art community by stealing their ideas to gain notoriety. At the end of the film the viewer, like the other Artists, is meant to mix revulsion and indignation at the commercial success of Mr. Brainwash. He is portrayed as someone who never truly suffered for his Art or developed a style - a fraud. We’re meant to be mad not because he made money, but because he cheated.

....Then some stuff gets explained....

The last, more diplomatic statement prompts a discussion about Art in a truly public sphere and by proxy references some very old concerns regarding aesthetics, the kind which were addressed by Immanuel Kant and challenged by Marcel Duchamp. Questions like: ‘Should we protect Art we don’t like because it speaks to our culture?’ ‘Is Art only ever really Art when viewed inside a gallery?’ and the worst of all possible questions: ‘Is it beautiful?’ With these heavy-handed intellectual debates in the mix, the removal of Street Art or Graffiti Writing might be a topic that an environmental employee for the local council may not be qualified to answer with satisfaction to the Art community. As stated by a spokesman for Transport for London in 2007: “Our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners, not professional Art critics.” 

...Then some more stuff happens..

The public sphere’s responsibility regarding Street Art is littered with tactile and delicate issues. Asking a government, especially government officials, to endorse Artwork that they themselves have not commissioned or had input on is highly impractical in the current media-savvy and salacious sound-bite environment. Further, there is the darkly practical issue of cost. If a government is responsible for maintaining a piece of Art, then the funding for that maintenance will come from taxes. Using taxes to pay for Art is a debate which is as prickly as it is tedious. So the easiest solution seems to be the one that Councils have started using, leaving it up to an eventual public complaint and/or private ownership.

...Then even more stuff happens..

Putting the public in charge of Street Art’s fate has a systematic logic and an inherent contradiction. An outraged public laments over the loss of Artwork and decry the officials who carried out the execution, but this is the same public who complained and asked for the work to be removed in the first place. ‘Public opinion’ therefore is a wily entity, as real as it is mythological. It makes ‘the public’ seem like a homogenous being, rather than a vast collection of entities. As if the ‘Third Estate’ the ‘Hoi Polloi’ the ‘Unwashed Masses’ were a group in constant agreement. What’s more, ‘public opinion’ can lead to the same problems that face the councils now; Art that is deemed not worth protection because no one asked for it and deserving removal when it becomes an ‘eyesore’, except this time we are without a party to blame. This is particularly dangerous for new Artists, as public shock is a very old enemy to aesthetic innovation yet rarely has singular public complaint of ‘eye-sore’ meant the Art’s destruction. If an individual grievance was the only means of determining the course of Art History then we might be today without the Pre-Raphaelites, the Impressionists or basically anything by Van Gogh.Then again, Dante Gabriel Rossetti didn’t paint Bocca Baciata on the side of a building, which makes this current problem a new take on a very old theme. For the councils it seemed to be damned if you do, damned if you don’t and opting for the better solution they turn to the camera and say “Britain, You Decide!” hoping that the fabled force can make a thoughtful choice.  

Then there is a conclusion. A SECRET conclusion.

I really enjoyed writing this one. If nothing else because I got to tromp around East London with a camera and a sense of purpose. The other paper is certainly dryer, and with a more academic lean - what do I mean? Well let's give you a taste:

The Villa Adriana is an outlier of Architectural history, not only as a collection of structures in a site but also for the vastly different ways it can be interpreted. Depending on the author, the Villa could be cast as the experimental workshop of a genius or the grotesque fantasy of a despot, an idyllic center for learning, or a junk pile of hedonism. UNESCO World Heritage describes the site as: “Many structures... arranged without any overall plan”.It appears in The Classical Tradition as “a paradigm in what might be considered the landscape of allusion”while Baedeker’s Guide to Italy takes a much more neutral assessment, describing it simply as an “Imperial summer residence". The Villa’s ability to inspire ambivalence is what makes it exceptional, a quality not lost on those who reference it. If we use the Villa Adriana as a case study example of the sometimes inaccurate self-labeling of the Architect (especially the labels of Architect/Engineer and Bricoleur) then two prominent figures are self-evident, Le Corbusier and Colin Rowe. Both writers use the Villa Adriana as a paradigm of excellence in Architecture and planning (via Vers Une Architecture and Collision City and the Politics of Bricolage respectively). However, that is where the similarities stop. Le Corbusier, looking for a traceable lineage to justify his work, alluded to the Villa as a prime example of moral, geometric and rational planning. While Rowe, aiming to contradict and reinterpret the former’s manifesto, saw it as the fusion of fragmented objects with competing agendas. By looking at how these two authors use the Villa Adriana to construct their arguments, it becomes easier to understand the problems with their self-identification; specifically by studying the philosophies that produced the labels, the authors’ analysis of the Villa and the media representation that they chose to depict their findings.

....then a lot of stuff happens...

Though their Architectural solutions are arguably timeless, in choosing their self-applied labels, Colin Rowe and Le Corbusier define themselves within the context of twentieth century mind frame. In choosing self-apply their own labels, rather than allowing the reader to decide, they are cemented by their criticism. Le Corbusier writes as a Modernist, authoritative in intent and language. Rowe writes as a quasi-post-modern/quasi-phenomenological critic, ambiguous in his prose. The earlier writer was still witnessing the aftermath of World War I, coming out of the tradition of Architectural eclecticism while maintaining a growing interest in abstraction and Freudian psychology. The later was writing from the perspective of a post-war, post-pop, post-rationalist scholar knowing from historical precedent that manifestos are inherently flawed.  Le Corbusier had learned from movements like the Italian Futurists that plan-based, decoration-less construction would not be marketable ideas without a dynastic lineage. He could not sever his work from the past such as Antonio Sant’Elia had done, but neither could he afford to alienate potential clients with a sense of haughty supremacy, like Adolf Loos. Rowe had a distinct advantage to his analysis, as he knew what Le Corbusier would eventually become, that he would shed the white machine aesthetic in favor of rough textures and bright colors later in his career; that the early Modern worldview was overly idealistic. The Architect/Engineer is looking to sell his goods and the Bricoleur is someone living in the aftermath. Neither of the world-views is completely incorrect because both authors have determined what being “correct” means.

  

Then there is a conclusion. Ooooohhh graaaddd schooool seeeecreeeeetttsssss.