National Gallery East Wing crumbling from Pei's inflexibility

Greater Washington ^ | December 11, 2009 | Erik Bootsma

[Fred Hayek]

I get the impression that modern architects haven’t the slightest clue about structural loads. Really, an architecture curriculum should first cover civil or mechanical engineering. Something basic such as mechanics and strength of materials. The latter is covered in the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (Part I of the PE exam) for all engineering disciplines.

One of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings made it clear that he had no concept of floor loading.

[LibFreeOrDie]

I.M. Pei also designed the John Hancock Tower in Boston 30+ years ago.

Encased in glass, "entire 4' x 11', 500-lb (1.2 x 3.4 m, 227 kg) windowpanes detached from the building and crashed to the sidewalk hundreds of feet below." For a while, plywood replaced missing windows.

[Kickass Conservative]

Is there a money back guarantee?

[Lorianne]

Architects are required to take course in mechanical, structural, civil engineering plus properties of materials.

All that doesn’t trump ego and ideology.

[JRios1968]

My civil engineering instructors always told us “the architect makes it look pretty...the engineer makes sure it will work.”

Of course, we also joked that architects were those who weren’t manly enough to be civil engineers, nor gay enough to be interior decorators.

[NautiNurse]

It was an architectural design marvel, even though the building collapsed.

[Richard Kimball]

I’ve always thought Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the primary reasons for all the fugly buildings we see today.

[aruanan]

I’ve always thought Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the primary reasons for all the fugly buildings we see today.

I think that most of the FLW buildings I've seen are pretty nice. The problem was that he insisted on building his way and wouldn't listen to engineers and, so, the architect built nice-looking things that developed terrible structural problems over the years.

[Professional Engineer]

Of course, we also joked that architects were those who weren’t manly enough to be civil engineers, nor gay enough to be interior decorators.

ROFLMAO

[aruanan]

The cladding of the entire East Wing will now have to be removed and restored at the cost of $85 MILLION TO THE TAXPAYER.

Thank you, effing modernism.

[kalee]

ping

[Richard Kimball]

I didn't explain myself very well. Wright's buildings were aesthetically pleasing, but IMHO, tended to leave no place for a human being in them. The copy cats that followed Wright pushed the geometry and made some truly disgusting architecture.

I had heard that many of Wright's buildings have structural problems.

[tsomer]

Wright's buildings were aesthetically pleasing, but IMHO, tended to leave no place for a human being in them.

I think Wright will always be the greatest architect of the 20th century.

Not that he didn't make mistakes; his first actual real world project was for his sister. Whenever it rained the house leaked. Once, while distributing buckets during a rain storm his sister remarked: "This is what happens when you leave a work of art out in the rain."

[tsomer]

One last thought:

I.M.Pei belongs to the European minimalist tradition: internal load bearing piers supporting “curtain walls.”
The idea was that by freeing the exterior walls from any structural role, the designer had more freedom enclosing the space. Ironically, their strict, idealized adherence to geometry severely constrained the possibilities this offered.

Anybody interested in this stuff should read Tom Wolfe’s “From Our House to Bauhaus.”

[Domangart]

I guess that is a nice way to say they all leaked.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I’ve got an idea: Take it off and leave it off. Paint the substructure if you have to - for the lowest bid.

[Richard Kimball]

You may make me re-evaluate my thoughts on Wright. I haven't studied architecture much, mostly painting and sculpture. When I look at most of Wright's buildings, they're aesthetically nice, but I still think they are more concerned with looks than function, and IMHO, form follows function should be #1 in functional design.

Your posts to me on this have made me look back at the work, and I think you're right. The European minimalist school is what has produced most of the architecture I find objectionable from both an aesthetic and functional standpoint.

I wouldn't want the upkeep, and I think its a shame that you can't see the waterfall from the house, but Wright's Falling Waters house is still one of the most beautiful buildings around. I'd just rather look at it than live in it.

The two World Wars and the Spanish Revolution did something to Europe, and so much of what comes from there creatively is nihilistic now. I find it disturbing to get too involved with their design sensibilities.

[tsomer]

Hi Richard,

I’d really take another look at Wright from the standpoint of function. I think his interiors are exquisite—the use of horizontal lines that relate the interior to the exterior, the blending of materials to relate structure to natural surroundings and the relatively intimate scale of his domestic structures has become integral to building conventions.

“Form follows function” was—according to them—the first principal of the International (European) minimalist style. This is why the stripped their buildings of all decorative elements.

The problem is that people want more than mere function, they want room for their stuff, things to remind them of where they are and where they came from, afford privacy, make them feel safe, etc. They want symbols around them. They want to feel a part of a community, and at the same time keep a sense of individuality. The International style
ignored this.

I can’t recommend Tom Wolfe’s book on this highly enough. It’s a quick, entertaining survey of 20th century architecture.

[Richard Kimball]

On the form follows function, the minimalists may have talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. In the building that's being discussed, one of the problems is that the architect didn't have expansion joints. If form REALLY followed function, the expansion joints would have been there. In minimalist design, they HIDE the functional parts, rather than letting the function be revealed in the form. In true form follows function, there is nothing decorative, but the functional elements are exposed, and it's trusted that the functional aspect will be beautiful because it is purely functional.

In terms of form follows function, I think Amish furniture is an excellent example.

There are no purely decorative parts, but the necessary functional parts are clearly visible.