Fail by Design

The idiom “go fly a kite” certainly fits well with the current state of most architect’s careers. Fly NY, a kite design competition, just happened at the perfect moment. I’m proud to announce that the Haptic Lab’s tetrahedral kite won 2nd place, besting the Buckminster Fuller Institute’s giant tetrahedral (who were awarded ‘biggest kite tease’ at the event).  More TBA…

With the building industry going belly-up these days, more architects (the under-employed and un-employed) are turning to competitions for a little validation. The lure of $150,000 also helps. And a flashy website lends a little credibility to the proposal…

But The Bering Competition, a grandiose call to:

“eliminate all of the barriers like spatial disconnection of national borders and chronological disconnection of today and tomorrow, and thus, stepping forward to peace and prosperity for all earth and mankind”

-is just plain silly. I love that the islands of the Straight take their names from Greek mythology, for surely only architects of the most tragic hubris are going to enter this…

Dan Stewart has this one in the bag!

AND the winner is...

I just don’t get it… Especially after seeing Carmody Groake’s 2nd place entry. True: digital complexity, genetic algorithms, and biomorphic forms are exciting inclusions into the field of architecture. Also true: elegant, straightforward forms that clearly relate to the scale of both city and its population are not to be tragically dismissed.

Czech National Library: Carmody Groarke

Red Hook is a constant source of fascination for NYC designers.  Decrepit industrial sites full of exciting potential for reuse; the remoteness from the rest of the city, a quaint and sleepy harbor town beyond the fortress of the BQE; sunsets over the shipping cranes of Elizabeth NJ, like sleepy brontosauruses at the water’s edge.  And the history of Red Hook, populated by Brando-styled longshoremen, the bygone time when coffee was still “coffey”.

Let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment: Red Hook might be a bit like Brigadoon, but it’s also a limepit of failed and atrophied urban experiments. Having worked briefly in Red Hook (in the days before Ikea), I can say it has a certain charm. But you have to accept the itchy addicts that ride the B61 to the methadone clinic every morning, and the hookers that work the streets near “the Back” PJs. Oh, and the mangy pack of wild dogs that roam the Paul Revere Sugar Refinery will chase and probably kill you.

It’s a tough place, but even the softer, cuddlier things in Red Hook (papusas served out the back of someone’s van near the ball fields) will probably fall victim to our enterprising need for decency.  Sadly, Red Hook stands to become the suburban playground of the patrician middleclass of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens who want to trade pigeons for seagulls for a day.

As an architect, I’d like to see everyone leave Red Hook alone, or at least exhibit some sensitivity to its industrial bruises. You have to really understand this misty island world before you can suggest improvements.

Several design competitions have been launched in recent months that concern Red Hook: The Forum for Urban Design’s Bicycle Design Competition and Architecture for Humanity’s Marketplace for the Red Hook Vendors. Fail By Design will be discussing the entries and their implications for the Red Hook community.

Besides proposing a design concept that is sure to boggle the minds of a design jury, architects can enter competitions that have nothing to do with architecture- achieving a fully maximized degree of fail.

Take the William James Foundation, for example. With a vague competition brief posted on idealist.org, the following entry found it’s way into the mix of legitimately “sustainable” projects. (A word to competition organizers: sustainability is a topic that encompasses a wide spectrum of social, economic, and environmental topics.  Specify the one you’re interested in.)

Look! It’s construction scaffolding covered in power-generating turbines! And no, this doesn’t come with a business plan. However, the William James Foundation is full of loving, supportive reviewers who spend more time reviewing a Photoshop rendering than an entrant took time to make it. Here’s some feedback:

Great concept– which needs to be made concrete. The low score reflects the lack of specificity. Engineering feasibility, market, financial feasibility and timeline should be addressed. I’d recommend that they start to network with utility executives, architects and entrepreneurs who might be helpful; [the applicant] needs to develop a team to work with.

Our own mothers wouldn’t care so much. WJF cares, and so will make the world a better place.

Let’s start out with some history.

In 1922, the Chicago Tribune staged a competition for the “most beautiful office building in the world.” Unfortunately for them (and despite a field of novel entries from fledgling modernists such as Gropius and Mies) the jury selected a travesty of a building. The exquisite Neo-Gothic corpse proposed by Raymond Hood is kinda like Chartres Cathedral and kinda like a whole lotta bad. Even Louis Sullivan, who was batshit crazy by 1922, decried the winning selection as something that would set the practice of architecture behind by 50 years.

Though Eliel Saarinen’s 2nd place entry is widely understood to be game-changer in terms of design influence in the skyscraper boom of the 1920s, you have to give some props to Adolf Loos: it kind of rhymes with “lose”. Want to get some attention with your design proposal? How about a giant f*ing Doric column? Interestingly enough, the young Adolf (remember: author of “Ornament and Crime”) worked in Sullivan’s Chicago office in the 1890s.