You might even like being together, and if you don't, it won't be forever

So as the course of true-love never did run smooth: the position I'm in now is a contract, and as with all contracts, eventually it has to end. Will this mean I return to the world of architectural theory full time, or stick with my 50/50 relationship with a continuation? Only time will tell. However, I feel like I should take this time to bring up two completely unrelated things that have been swirling around in my brain as of late.

#1) The reason why I think Architectural Theory is important:

For years I've been told "Architectural Theory isn't real architecture". Which, I understand as a statement, but don't really get. Like, alright, Theory has nothing to do with line weights (unless you are writing the most esoteric thesis ever) or construction schedules (unless you count Violet Le-Duc). But what it does, what is really does is allow people to have a conversation about design which doesn't put the past on a pedestal. It takes architecture out of the feeling one might have towards a museum piece: to be viewed with appreciation and nothing else. Theory allows for educated, legitimate rejection of selfish work. A conversation.

Dadaism's form of modernism has made it so "ugly" isn't a credible argument against architecture. What Theory does is create a language which can allow for a nuanced understanding of:

A) What architecture is

B) What architects do

Sometimes I think my personal interest in this field comes from the sake of always hating Frank Lloyd Wright's kitchens. I've ranted about his kitchens before, but I'll do so again because it illustrates my point. FLW was a genius, but he was also a dude who never cooked a day in his life. From childhood on, he either had a woman or a professional chef cooking for him. He had no clue whatsoever how much space is needed to cook a turkey and it shows. But the mythos of Wright is so strong the assumption that everything he did was flawless is almost cannon. What flaws he has are boiled down to his personal life, which, to me, is just a variation on a theme. He was bullying to women who bored him, so he made spaces that just reinforce the idea that "cool women" are only cool because they act like men.  He wanted a Jeffersonian utopia but only one where everything looked like an etch-a-sketch print-out and everyone was square-jawed with middle-class aspirations. Before theory, I don't think I would have had the chops, or the cojones to come out and say the most scandalous statement I can imagine for architects : Frank Lloyd Wright is ok.

Be rebellious. Hate something dexterously. Read Theory.

#2) The Secret Legacy of C.B.J. Snyder 

Speaking of old white dudes, C.B.J Snyder is highly underrated. He oversaw the construction of over 400 schools in New York City with most of his buildings still standing, many now classified as NYC landmarks. He made revolutionary strides in children's welfare in school space, HVAC and promoting public education. Charismatic and likable, he was elected to the school board by an almost unanimous vote. 

There's a care to his buildings, a uniformity which was clearly created with the best of intentions. High ceilings, classrooms that are usually 28' by 22', clerestory windows into the hallways and lovely entrances. Further, he arranged that the air conditioning would be adjacent, if not directly through the closets, which meant by the time the children had to go home, their (often) wool coats would be dry. 

There are some things that are bizarre in his work though. For instance, in some of the high-schools there are "boy's gyms" and "girl's gyms", but only locker rooms/showers for the boys. Presumably this is because girls weren't going to get physical enough to work up a sweat? Or some belief that women are shocked by nakedness, even among each other? Or maybe there was something there about clothing for women being more difficult to take off. Who knows, could be any or all of those reasons.

In either case, check out his work. As it stands, I may write a blog post soon about the history of public school buildings. There's an interesting history there, one that is influenced deeply by politics, even today.  

That's it from New York - over to you Pennsylvania!

It's Beginning to look a lot like...something

"You're going to love New York at Christmas!"

This was the refrain I heard over and over again in taking the contract I have now. And for a long time I was kind of 'meh' on that aspect. The city looked nice enough, sure, but nothing spectacular. 

That is until today when I went to the Frick Reference Library for research and then walked down Lexington Ave to exchange a sweater. (Side note: Banana Republic, your stuff this season boxy and huge. I'm not an XS in this or any other universe).

As I meandered down the street, new purchase in hand, the snow was falling, the still-up holidays lights were twinkling, and the displays were both elaborate and delicate. Capitalism was on its best behavior AND IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. 

Department store displays are a thing this time of the year. Here and everywhere. Though this kind of tradition seems to fit well with New York Architecture. The clean lines and almost endlessness of, especially Mid-town, brings the eye naturally to this level. (Because god-forbid you make eye contact with someone on the street). Eitherway, it seems plate glass essentially invented window shopping, and by the 1860s New York had caught the fever. 

By 1900, window displays were the most beautiful bare-knuckle boxing match you could get walking down the street. Each one had to outdo the other. The best part, from a design point of view, is that there is absolutely no pressure to be timeless. They can be saccharine or gimmicky, abstract or obscure. Indeed the ones I saw barely had any merchandise on display at all. It's an event, a public one, one that brings people to the store which is 90% of the work. 

One could follow the tradition globally, from Selfridges, to the affect of display on Bon Marche to what it looks like in places like India or China. In either case, holiday window displays are a crafted, paper-leather art that is, if nothing else, attractive. Even if it promotes, not really avarice, but a light kind of wanting.

Walking around today also reminded me that New York, as a city, is changing rapidly. 

I was recently heartbroken over the loss of the Five Pointz street art in Queens. It was an exterior gallery the likes of which had never been before. But it's been torn down in favor of two milquetoast condo towers. It would seem this is the kind of display which does not last. One that doesn't own anything. Buying property in New York is "a good investment" again. Which means the dirtier, grittier, and frankly more interesting places are going the way of the pee-soaked dodo. 

Right now I'm living on the Lower East Side, which encourages me to have a complicated relationship with gentrification. I can deride it's social impacts, selfish neo-liberal agenda, and subsequent racial homogeneity all day long, don't get me started. However there's that a part of me that also really likes fancy donut shops, artisanal cocktails, nice woodwork at a brunch table and antropologie. It's a conundrum. 

So really it boils down to this: at some point New York had to make a choice. Was it going to be the city of Storefronts or Display Windows? 

One option offers the blaring neon that shoots out into the dark street like a prayer to an unfeeling god. The hymn humming "Sadie's Discount Liquors". The other is bright, confident and staged. Heralding the kind of place that would never accept someone like Sadie or her wholesale booze. 

I like Sadie. But more and more it seems the moneyed of New York don't. It's not unreasonable, it's just disappointing.