I chose an an essay about the different architectural styles of Frank Gehry and Stewart Brand for an example of communication because throughout design and society we have been assigned many logs and other writing assignments which has given us much experience in writing; this one being the final, and best essay. Not only have we improved them by writing but we have also learned to use many different technologies such as programs like Google Sketch-up. An example of a house I designed using Google Sketch-up is attached.
The Thoughts of Brand vs. Gehry
In the films Sketches of Frank Gehry , I discovered so much about modern architecture that I could relate to in the readings of Stewart Brand. I could see relationships in the two dealing with things like high road, low road, magazine architecture, and satisficing; which are all terms from Stewart Brand’s book, How Buildings Learn. Brand and Gehry argue on the controversial thought of architecture. Both come from a very different thought of architecture and yet are both very successful. Throughout this paper I will be discussing a series of arguments comparing the architectural styles of Brand against Gehry.
In the film we were able to understand the mind and workings of Gehry. He is known for dramatic, influential designs which achieve great fame and respect through their spectacular effects. All of Gehry’s buildings fit into the definition of high road buildings. According to Brand a high road building is a building that is a “durable, independent, building that steadily accumulates experience and becomes in time a wiser and more respected than their inhabitants” (23). All of Gehry’s buildings are examples of a high road building. They are all unique in their own way. Many companies, museums, and cities seek his work as a sign of distinction and modernism. A perfect example of one of Gehry’s high road buildings is the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain. The building is highly noticeable within the city, standing out like a sore thumb. The style of the building is unlike any other building surrounding it. Unique curves, siding, and materials give this building high style. The cost of the Guggenheim is also probably astronomical.
None of Gehry’s buildings fit into the society that they are placed in because they’re so different from any other architects work. Gehry thinks that buildings should be extravagant and different from any other. This gives his buildings a very modern, crazy look to them which is also very costly. Gehry is not always good at staying within the budget of his clients. Building a building that is so extravagant and different demands a high cost which many people and companies cannot afford.
The definition of a low road building does not fit Gehry’s architectural style. A low road building is one that is unrespectable, having a swift responsiveness to the occupants, is street smart, mercurial, and cheap to build. All of Gehry’s buildings are highly respectable mostly because they are so unique and modern looking. Yet Gehry’s work has its detractors. Some people believe that “The buildings are a waste of structural resources by creating functionless forms, they are apparently designed without researching the local climate, the spectacle of the buildings often overwhelm its intended use (especially in the case of museums and arenas), and the buildings do not seem to belong in their surroundings” (Wikipedia). Gehry’s buildings have been said to be poorly built. Some of the criticisms he has faced over the years are that his buildings aren’t designed with the local climate in mind and that his buildings don’t belong in their surroundings. Also, since there are so many angles bombarding interiors of Gehry’s buildings, placing furniture is a hard task. Simply placing a couch or chair in a room against a wall could be impossible which is a waste of space in the long run.
In Brands perspective, he believes that buildings should conform and compliment each other. All of Gehry’s buildings stick out and are unique which, these days is a commodity people are looking for. In the case of street smarts, Gehry’s buildings, without doubt are built for style first, then purpose which also doesn’t always make them easy accessible to the occupants.
Gehry is much of a magazine architect which is neither low road nor high road virtues. Brand describes this kind of building by stating that “instead they strenuously avoid any relationship whatever with time and what is considered its depredation. Again, he looks for style first, then purpose which is the exact opposite of Brand looking for function before looks.”The outward form of the modern house becomes the outgrowth of a plan built around the interests, routine activities, and aspirations of the client and his family expressed in terms of materials employed”(157) is a quote Brand mentions about adaptation of housing. Instead of people forming to Gehry’s buildings, Gehry’s buildings form to the people and the communities they are in. He also says, “They’re designed not to adapt; also budgeted and financed not to, administered not to, maintained not to, regulated and taxed not to, even remodeled not to. But all buildings adapt anyways, however poorly, because the usages in and around them are changing constantly” (2), which is a strong point in this argument. Since looks are first considered this causes much of the space to end up being unused and wasted. Gehry’s designs come before function which therefore, makes space very hard to adapt to. The reason for Gehry’s fame is because of the uniqueness of his work not how well it functions; which is the definition of magazine architecture.
In decision making, satisficing explains “selecting the first option that meets a need or option that seems to address most needs rather than the “optimal” solution.” (23) Satisficing is very similar to magazine architecture. Satisficing is in a way, giving the building just “good enough” features. Gehry is not about “just good enough”. This man is very picky about what his buildings are to look like. When designing a building Gehry is constantly changing his mind. He doesn’t focus on the optimal use for the building as much as he does with the appearance. This is what I believe is Gehry’s only downfall in his building and designs.
Gehry and Brand have many different views on many different aspects of architecture. While Gehry is an architect and Brand is a writer they are both coming from way different aspects of architecture which I believe is a large part of their differences. The fact that Brand is not an architect and has had no experience in architecture is a huge downfall in his arguments. Yet, he makes excellent points in the designing of function and then aesthetics. Gehry on the other hand is a brilliant architect yet he still has a few negative things about his architectural style. Considering looks, everybody admires the work of Gehry’s buildings. No building is going to be perfect they are all going to have their faults. To please everyone’s views of architecture would be impossible. However, the uniqueness of aesthetics of Gehry’s architectural style is closest to perfection than any other architect
Resources
· Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
· "Frank Gehry." Wikipedia. 1071-1972. 18 Feb 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gehry>.
Google Sketchup-Hailey's house design
