Plays! Books! Movies! Videos!

OK, let's just get it out of the way first...

Charles and Ray Eames are now hip enough that Ice Cube has made a video about his interest in them, their work, and the legacy they left for Los Angeles. It's a long way from Cop Killer...

By this point you may be aware that architects seem to be back in fashion as the object of desire in the media.

The American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco is about to present a play, "Higher", about two architects competing against one another to win a competition for a memorial in Israel:



And, I am sure many of you have read the recently-published book about the architect who wins a blind competition to design a 9 / 11 memorial in Lower Manhattan, only to be revealed to be Muslim after the competition results are announced. Amy Waldman's book, "The Submission", has had every glowing adjective possible attached to it.



Which then brings us to the current spate of films about architects and architecture! The three films currently out are spread across the spectrum : a PR event for an architect, a most decidedly non-PR piece for architecture, and a third somewhere in between.

The first, Norman Foster's "How Much Does Your Building Weigh, Mr. Foster" seems to be a visual version of a vanity press book. If you don't know his work, or don't know much about Sir Norman, this will will visually fill you in.

The second, "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth", centers around the failure of the public housing project in St. Louis, and is summarized in the quote from its designer, Minoru Yamasaki, "Social ills can't be cured by nice buildings.'' Definitely not a PR piece for architecture.

And, finally, "Eames, The Architect and the Painter", an archival research piece into the world of Charles and Ray Eames.

Among the many fascinating pieces of the-world-according-to-Charles-and-Ray this film explores, three stick out:

1. Eames' explanation of what the architect, or designer has to offer a potential client at the start of a project: "You sell your expertise, you have a limited repertoire. You sell your ignorance, it's an unlimited repertoire." Not too far from what we have been telling clients (who generally don't want to hear this, or don't understand this) for years : "MH/A begins each project with the understanding that the questions which should be asked are more important than knowing the presumed final answers."

2. Eames' explanation of the issue of constraints, and how they are manipulated in the design process (as summarized in this excerpt from the book " Eames design, The Work of the Office of Charles and Ray Eames"):

Does the creation of design admit constraint?
Design depends largely on constraints.

What constraints?
The sum of all constraints. Here is one of the few effective keys to the design problem—the ability of the designer to recognize as many of the constraints as possible—his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints—the constraints of price, of size, of strength, balance, of surface, of time, etc.; each problem has its own peculiar list.

Does design obey laws?
Aren’t constraints enough?

Have you been forced to accept compromises?
I have never been forced to accept compromises but I have willingly accepted constraints.

Which also pre-echos something else I have been telling clients for years: "The assumption on the part of MH/A is that the world is not an "either-or" universe, but rather a "both-and", and that one of the tasks of the architect is to discover the point in space where disparate arcs of issues actually coincide."



3. And, finally, Kevin Roche, expressing how "fucked up" (his words) he thought the Eames were when he went to their house for dinner, and they served a "visual" dessert, of beautiful flowers in a vase, at the end of dinner. He left and immediately drove to Dairy Queen.



You can watch the film, in its entirety, here.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

OK, I am really starting to get confused...

First, Newt Gingrich announced he was not a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, but then Mitt Romney accused him of, in fact, being a duck (no relation to Robert Venturi's pet).



Then, the Supreme Court proclaimed that police could put two officers in a cruiser to follow someone around day and night, but definitely not just check a person's cell phone whereabouts instead without an actual search warrant, as a much easier and less expensive way of tracking possible criminals.



And, now ING Direct, the bank, has opened a café - not a bank! - in San Francisco.



Here are some of the things I am confused about...

1. What's a bank?

2. Is this good or bad for urbanism?

3. Who actually cares about this?

Having designed a few banks, I thought I understood what a bank is. You know, it's the place where people can go and get cash...



The cash is inside the large vaults...




And banks are physical anchors of small towns and large cities across the country...



But, now you can deposit a check without leaving your living room...



So, who is to care whether ING's introduction to San Francisco is a bank or a café? Well... Mayor Lee seems to care:

“I got excited that they are coming to San Francisco. I started reading about the cafes. Before I was even introduced to them they were already doing San Francisco things. Their concept is using technology – online baking – and offering a place where people can get face-to-face financial advice.”



Good or bad? Who should care?... Well, I suppose people who are concerned about what the social contract between banks and the communities they serve is, or should be, should care. And, in a place like San Francisco, that usually means the people who are not depositing checks via a cell phone. Some consumer advocates are pointing to requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act that require banks to lend money to low- and moderate-income individuals in areas where they have branches that accept deposits. Since, in one interpretation of the definition, ING only accepts deposits at its Delaware office (you can't actually make a deposit in the San Francisco "café" - someone will hand you an envelope to mail a physical check to Delaware!, and the ATM in the corner disperses cash but does not take deposits), this requirement does not apply to San Francisco and ING feels no obligation to comply with CRA. The numbers prove this out : According to data provided under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, ING Direct originated 705 loans in the Bay Area in 2010, but provided only three to African-American borrowers and six to Hispanics. Huh? In a state where Hispanics and African-Americans make up almost 44% of the total population, this seems suspect at best.

As Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Greenlining Institute, a Berkeley-based advocacy group, was recently quoted : "It’s great that they sell lattes to people doing Internet banking on their iPods, but they should not be able to avoid obligations to the communities they serve.”

So, what does this have to do with architecture?

Well, not much, and a lot.

If the objective is to make banking less inhibiting to the consumer, architects can address that in our designs. Our office recently completed a design for One PacificCoast Bank, a community-based bank established to provide banking for underserved populations, primarily ethnic minorities and small businesses in Oakland and the East Bay (the exact population ING Direct doesn’t seem to be lending to). One of the primary design goals, set forth by the client, was to make the final space inviting and less intimidating for a potential customer base that generally feels uncomfortable walking into a bank. We think we did that - coming at it from a very different direction than ING Direct.



And, is IND Direct's new bank good for the urban fabric? On the one hand, yes of course! It doesn't take a genius to notice service providers - from bookstores to shoe repair shops - disappearing from the fabric of city centers. And, given the ability for on-line banking, I suppose banks aren’t far behind in the exodus. But, conversely, are we robbing Peter to pay Paul by allowing a bank to sidestep its communal obligations, for the sake of a hip coffee shop? While I might have enjoyed the coffee, I am going to say that ING Direct's new "product" is bad for cities.

As architects we may not be able to shape the business plans of our potential clients, but we can address elements of the built world that may, downstream, shape the way they do business. Banks can be friendly places for all and an oasis in the urban fabric; they just don't need to do this as a result of skirting banking laws. Everyone should care about this; architects, citizens, politicians - we all have something to gain from vibrant cities, and a lot to lose when the requirements needed to make our cities vibrant are sidestepped.

And, besides, if banks disappear, where are we going to channel our inner-Willie Sutton?