glenn murcutt

An architect that I greatly admire is Australian Glenn Murcutt. Known for his sustainable and site sensitive designs, he creates architecture that works together with its surroundings and forces interaction with it. His designs utilize nature to passively heat, cool, daylight and water. His work isn't influenced by trends, but draws from local vernacular architecture, the site and a sound knowledge of materials to inform the design. Murcutt uses materials that are local, sustainable and sometimes even recycled from an existing structure to create buildings that are rich in character and in his words, "touch the earth lightly".

Read an article on Murcutt from the New York Times.

I recommend these books for more info and great pictures of his work.

Understanding Obama

I really didn't want to write more on this guy, but he is always being talked about on the news and radio, and I can't help myself. So I will write some thoughts on things I've been hearing as we learn more about the man behind the myth. I really think Obama would mean a change for America, but a kind of change, I'm beginning to think, that is different from that found in his soaring speech. The change is one that is actually craved for by a some in this country and would mean a radical departure from much of our current ways.

I again think of Rev. Wright. I know, Obama lovers are sick of hearing it, sick of guilt by association, etc. Tonight the Rev. can be seen in an interview on PBS with Bill Moyers for his first big public appearance since his infamy began. Moyers, probably just as in love with Obama as the standard media personality, doesn't challenge the Rev. at all, but sits through Wright's soft spoken explanations like Oprah listening to some poor woman's story. I had to keep looking down at the bottom of the screen to see if they were holding hands. They seemed to thoroughly enjoy each other's company, it was tender. One small thing that the Rev. said was interesting to me, regarding everything that's been going on with Obama: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor..." What do we typically mean when we think, 'it's politics' or 'I can't stand politicians'?? Is it that politicians are usually associated with honesty and trustworthiness? or are these common phrases instead coming from the idea that politicians tend to say what is safest, what the people want to hear and not necessarily the truth and facts? Obama has tried to say things to keep himself safe, first it was that he didn't think his church was particularly controversial, then it was that he never heard such things in the pews, then finally he had to come out and say he completely disavowed himself from the pastors comments. I think Rev. Wright has it right. Obama is doing what politicians do.

What does he really believe about things? It's very hard to tell and that has worked well for him thus far. Obama seems to be struggling to keep it that way, since he isn't a fan of debates or interviews or questions about these things anymore. Recently, when Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground came up, you could tell Obama was quite annoyed that he had another problem to deal with. What happened to the good ole days of everyone throwing themselves at his feet and cheering when he so much as sneezed? But Ayres is another interesting insight into Obama's world and into the group of people that have been around him while Obama was being reared and groomed to be an instrument for 'change'.

Ayre and his wife and their radical group in the 60s-70s bombed various sites in the U.S., including the pentagon, the capital and other government buildings. They were and probably still are anti-capitalist and more for a communist or socialist form of government. On September 11, 2001, Ayres said he wished they had done more back in the day against the government. He never apologized for any of these domestic attacks and now has joined many other radical left academics as a professor, teaching at a university in Chicago. A recent audio clip of him showed Ayres continues to harbor hatred for America, saying that 'we're in the belly of the beast' and 'in the heart of the monster' here in this country. People like him see America as basically evil and in need of drastic change. The left's utter hatred of Bush has created a climate where radicals like Ayres are not criminals, but patriots, and the things Ayres did and stood for and now glossed over. And Obama knows Ayres well enough to know he still hold radical views and distaste for our country, but as his weak response in the debate showed, he doesn't want to deal with it, but wants you to think it is trivial and should be ignored.

Lately, when we get to dig at who he is and ask about things he says or people he hangs with, things don't go too well for Barack. Prepared speeches where his eloquence and inspiration can shine are much safer. So he tries to deflect all the questions and concerns we have about his character with irritated answers like, 'this happened 40 years ago when I was 8' and other things to make it seem unreasonable to look at who he associates as an indicator of his own character. But Ayers has never admitted guilt or shame about what they did as domestic terrorists, and continues to say he wishes they did more and hasn't left his anti-american thought in the past. So if Obama has a relationship with him, does that mean anything or not? When there isn't much to gather as far as an understanding of who Obama, I will stash this little nugget into my satchel.

My man John Gibson, dealing with Obama supporters calling and complaining that too much focus is put on Obama's associates and not on the issues, put it like this: We've had plenty of debates and time to know all of their policies, we already know what he and Hillary say they will do. They are basically the same or similar on most every issue. What we want to know is about Obama's character and what he will do when he is in office. We know Hillary, not much more dirt can be brought out on her, we know it all. We do not know Obama.

I think there are two main groups of people who pretty much blindly follow Obama (it must be blindly, because no one can profess to know much about him, really).
- One is comprised of many left leaning and most far-left leaning people. Many of this group are educated (by people like Noam Chomsky), and believe the country is flawed. And not just from Bush doing a bad job- this has sure fueled their fire- but more than that. They call for a complete changing of our country, where income is re-distributed, our borders are torn down, our military is eliminated, and basically all laws are done away with because of the belief that laws discriminate, infringe, offend or something like that. They often think people that disagree are uneducated or less then they are. I thought Obama speaking to a group of wealthy liberals in San Francisco was quite telling, if for no other reason, because it sounded so different from his prepared inspirational speeches he knows will be made public. I thought his commentary on working class whites in rural America illustrated well the snobbish attitudes people in this liberal group hold. They dream of (and hold as an actually reachable goal) an earth where everyone around the world holds hands, all religions other than Christianity thrive and the temperature ceases to rise, where cars no longer exist, but people ride around on magic unicorns.

- The other group are those poor people who don't know and don't want to know who Obama is, or how liberal he really is. They see a man who is young and exciting. They love his being different from the norm in his racial makeup and background. They like that he says he's going to make their life great and give them lots of stuff. They like that he says 'hope' alot and makes them feel good inside when he speaks. For these reasons they will vote for him. When asked what they like about him, they will probably answer because he is young and different, that he is inspirational, or even that he is black. They like the idea of change, but don't care to know exactly what type of change it will be.

- There is probably a third group, with people who have bits of themselves described in the above two groups.

Thinking about it all makes me worried. I'm scared by the thinking of both groups.
An argument often made by Obama supporters regarding his ability to change America is that he a diplomat, that he will talk and work with other people to get things done. But this is not based on the reality of his past. Looking at those that have helped him get to where he is now is a who's who list of radical thinking people in this country. They are people that seem to foster hatred of others and hold quite extreme views that do not lend themselves to negotiation or reaching across party lines. He speaks of unifying America, of overcoming all differences, but the groups he has associated with for his adult life represent division and outright enmity toward others. Obama is the most liberal senator we have right now. And as far as reaching across the isle and working together to pass laws, McCain and Hillary have him beat. However, a group we can count on him working with for sure is Hamas, who has already given Obama their endorsement.

What I can gather as I try to understand Obama is that he associates with people of extreme views and positions. His character is pretty much unknown still, so I will look at the character of those he hangs out with. It has become clear that he is a politician, saying things that sound good but isn't necessarily truth. I think it will be difficult for him to become president as moderately thinking people look past his inspirational speeches and realize who he is.

Things that make bad architecture

As a result of my distaste for much of the built world being produced nowadays, I thought I would offer some critiques for everyone inhabiting it with me to consider. Looking at the architecture in the U.S., much of it, in many ways, is lagging if not void of any architectural validity. Quality design is no longer a priority, but quantity and efficiency. I've made a quick list of ways buildings fail, reasons they frustrate me and do not provide their inhabitants with the many benefits good architecture should. My interest is in designing homes and so my most critical eye is upon this building type.

1- Ornamental excess/ trend reflection: Too many buildings lack good design where it matters, and become mere displays of the latest trends in architectural style and materiality. For example, the 'Tuscan' obsession right now in the western U.S. Trends come and go- if you look at subdivisions in Southern California you can tell which decade they were built by the style they are reflecting. There, entire shopping centers and areas of town can become run down and abandoned when the style they represented has run its course. I have witnessed the strange phenomenon of a strip mall getting a make over- application of the trendy stone cladding, correct beige tone stucco and the obligatory arch here and there- and all of a sudden it is a thriving oasis once again.

This seems odd and also wasteful when so much material and money is spent on superficialities with such short life spans. I realize buildings require maintenance and the occasional renovation. But good architecture and design is timeless. It should reflect the culture, character and climate of the area it is in and not fleeting trends. In places where culture and character is becoming increasingly lacking, this wasteful cycle is thrown into hyper drive. Good design has never been so needed and so disregarded.

2- Faux cladding: I see this often as a way to disguise an otherwise ugly and poorly designed building. Cladding does have its place- perhaps on a high rise where the true material is too large, heavy or expensive to use, but if it is simply for the purpose of a trend like that mentioned above, please spare me. Let something a little less costly and permanent like your car tell the world you seek its approval and inclusion.

3- Stucco: Just a nasty looking exterior material. Affordabilty makes it attractive, so I suppose it has its place. But it looks and acts cheap as well! Concrete block is infinitely cooler in my book, and am still partial to wood and other materials displaying a more natural beauty. In general, I like the idea of using materials that don't need to painted and disguised, but can be celebrated for their unique properties just as it is.

4- Fabric Awnings: I think of a sculptor finishing a masterpiece in stone, celebrating the human body- Then ruining it by dressing it up in a cheesy outfit. If it is a true masterpiece, then the outfit is unneeded and detracts from the finished work. If it is good architecture I feel like it should have more of a sense of permanence and purity. If shade or shelter is required, a material which doesn't require regular bathing and maintenance would, to me, be more successful. The idea of materials that age well is something I am also a fan of. Too often, fabric awnings look like an old band aid or cheap remedy for a design that missed something somewhere during the process.

5- The 'Grand Entry': I am not impressed by these, am I completely insane? I feel like these have become increasingly important in the world of those seeking their neighbors praise, or those building a home as a temple unto themselves. An article I once read discussed this design element, along with a couple others, as an extremely effective selling tool. The person mentioned that such a feature ups the 'wow' factor for someone viewing the house quickly and superficially. Once they move in they find the grand entry to be less impressive, but more a waste of space, decreasing privacy throughout the house and increasing the noise level unnecessarily. I suppose that is one of the main differences in buying a developer designed home and one designed by an architect. Wow factor, trendy materials and gimmicks to make a quick profit vs. quality design tailored to the needs of the occupant. But people continue to eat it up. It is a waste of space! It serves no function but to impress the person as they enter! If that is a main requirement in your home's design, please don't seek out my input. I think of some of my favorite architects and their designs, even when a home is large, the entry is often quite humble. For me, a home with a connection with nature is important, not one that is meant to outdo it through the use of high ceilings and spiraling staircases. Spaces with a sense of openness or of intimacy should be strategically designed and located to fit the users needs, lifestyle and the overall site.

6- Site unspecific design: Too many buildings look like they were designed without any particular site in mind. This leads to generic, predictable, out-of-place, or at the least, inefficient design. Quality architecture should respond to the site and client and user needs. Although the idea of green building is being touted as the latest fashion, many of the concepts regarding sustainable design have been there since the beginning. Orienting the building to maximize/minimize daylight and heat gain, use of local and sustainable materials, etc are simple strategies of good design that until modern times have simply been logical and necessary decisions. One of the main things that bothers me with tract and 'cookie cutter' homes is their uniformity despite their location and orientation. Many buildings today look as though they were designed without any visit to a site or research into the surroundings of where the project is to be. But most don't care about such things when they wish only for maximum square footage and four car garage. Impact on the site, energy efficiency, conscientious use of materials are all things for others to worry about- but as the built world increasingly taxes the natural world and we find our quality of life being compromised, a return to such basic principles is important.

7- Disconnect from nature: This issue blends together with the previous- In our complete ignoring of the world outside our own built universe, we not only are wasteful, but harmful to the environment. A connection with nature is not only beneficial for daylighting, heating, cooling and ventilation, but also healthy for people themselves. There is a tradition now of dominating, neglecting and abusing the natural environment which must be reversed before it is too late. A balanced relationship should be the goal.

8- Reliance on unnatural systems: Last idea and one that has been talked about already is the overuse of a/c and ventilation systems, electric lighting, and other inorganic systems. While their use is sometimes unavoidable, simple design solutions and the right materials can usually greatly reduce the need for these energy consuming and pollution causing systems. Corbusier called the house 'a machine for living'- and I love the imagery it brings to mind. A place adaptable to fit the changes in living and usage by its occupants as well as to accommodate the changing environment outside. To paraphrase architect Glenn Murcutt, a home should be a living and breathing thing, one that closes up when it's cold and rainy and opens up and can breathe when it is hot and sunny. Bad architecture relies on unnatural systems- these systems allow for sloppiness as they can make up for the design's incompetencies.