Monday, July 05, 2010

Happy Birfday TOIstudio Blog. Four Years, 800+ Posts, Lots of Inanity.

It has been four years since this experiment in attempting to complete a long cohesive thought, based primarily on design, Cleveland-centric and environmentally mindful being at the forefront. I admit I am still attempting to parse out the metric of success.

At the formation there were to be some strict guidelines. This was not my dayplanner (although I like posting on happenings that I think I will enjoy and then as an afterthought perhaps put up some thoughts and photos of said event), I will attempt to refrain from posting snarky only commentary (that didn't last long), and I will attempt to concentrate on Cleveland. There are some things I have learnt from the past four years.

1. I do not in any way envy Steven Litt. Writing on Cleveland based architecture and design, playing to politics and being mindful of the minefield that is "popular opinion" would most likely make me homicidal. Litt strikes the fine balance of playing nice and playing often in such a way as to not offend. Of course a side product is that nothing useful is typically said, however some gems pop through unexpectedly (specifically lately) although one (perhaps anyone paying attention) would argue not enough.

2. The environmental movement in Cleveland is strong and progressive. There are strong portents of a good future everywhere, however once an organization is formed that one can get involved with the bureaucracy gelds it. Luckily there is enough "little" things going on where one won't become completely bitter.

3. There is a commission for that. For everything. The bureaucracy that I lament as hindering progress is strong. Everyone wants to feel important instead of just doing things. It would be rather humorous if it didn't slow down progress to the point of entropy. See the Group Plan Commission for more recent specifics. The nice thing is that if plans are happening in the city that one doesn't care for one only has to wait for it to implode under the weight of the involved egos. Eventually a new government moves in and new commissions are formed and everything goes back to start.

4. Cleveland needs stronger design presence downtown. Design doesn't need Cleveland. CWRU losing it's architecture program was a great loss to the city of Cleveland. CIA is underutilized as an idea incubator. CSU and CWRU have great potential for new small business in Cleveland, the sort that could make the city great again. KSU CAED needs a stronger presence in either Akron or Cleveland (I hope they grow the one in Cleveland). Great design requires non-insulated fresh, young minds coupled with those with experience. Design solves problems, great design can solve problems greatly.

5. Cleveland's greatest hinderer is it's potential. It is unlimited. Coupled with the bureaucracy and fear of things relatively new and shiny it can be an unfortunate bear trap. If one were to add in the nepotism and croynism that even dogs on the street recognize one is surprised that there are any businesses in town not owned by a member of the government's family.

6. Cleveland is an amazing city. Despite for the most part being a boring design city, with slow implementation of new ideas and a propensity for self destructive tendencies it is a relatively cheap place to live (if you can find a job), has some interesting amenities (public transit, the Lake, easy access to almost everything, decent colleges, parks, etc.) that can keep one pretty busy and happy. There is an enormous amount of people "trapped" here by the potential and the surge that has been brewing for the past 20 years is bound to break eventually. Or is that more of the trap?

So in what new direction will the new year point this blog? I have a couple ideas. I miss the snarky. Playing nice is boring. Also, I plan to get less involved overall and more involved specifically. Confusing? Probably. As a third I think there needs to be a consistent push to concentrate on the specific issues noted above. I don't know what self indulgent power makes me believe I would have any input on those topics, but one more mind into the fray, cannon fodder at least, probably isn't a bad thing.

We will have to see how long those resolutions last.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Conditions Mag: The Future of Competitions - Tell Them What They Need

Architectural Competitions are usually seen as a technique for unknowns to make a name for themselves, for clients to collect solutions to specific problems or to stave off the boredom of the 9-5 (I loathe Construction Administration work). Lately, while open competitions have arguably been thought a fine way to discover the best starting solution for a client's particular need, the economic downturn has made competition extremely fierce (which is fine) yet also meant that the overtly pragmatic cadence has increased, that is the proffered solutions are more intent on merely complying to the competition brief (with an eye solely on winning) in lieu of experimentation and risk which furthers the profession as a whole.

Conditions magazine is asking for solutions to re-examining architecture competitions in order to alleviate the strain of merely winning the competition.

Ironically this request is held in competition format.

Proposals can be submitted in practically any available format (unavailable formats, ie. from the future or prehistory, may not apply). It should result in a good romp of ideas and I look forward to pondering my own submission (with the proper libation of course) that will save the noble open competition.

Historically the architectural competition has been a testing ground for new ideas. It was understood as a space in which research and development, as well as the creation of critical architectural proposals, were possible. Today, competition architecture has increasingly become a service provision for the jury and a fulfillment of the technical requirements of the brief – in other words, simply what is needed to win the competition. Needs are generating ideas whereas ideas should be generating needs. The outcome is often predictable and conventional, stripping competitions of their significance as a critical tool.

Stimulus
- What needs to be changed, and how, in order to make competitions once again a tool for generating new ideas?
- What can be changed to improve the interaction between commissioner, client and end-user in the competition process?
- How do the mechanisms of competitions affect the built environment?
- What is the potential of architecture competitions?

THIS TIME YOU ASK THE QUESTIONS AND YOU GIVE THE ANSWERS

This competition attempts to instigate change by challenging the established in a critical but constructive manner. Join us by contributing the questions not yet asked!There are no fixed requirements regarding submitted material. Entries could be in the form of a text, manifesto, collage, illustration, SMS, image, fax, diagram, installation, paper architecture, runners up, brief, historical material, etc. The essential idea is to explore the potential of the architectural competition – it is up to you how to communicate it. Please address the principle question of how to return to a condition where competitions generate ideas rather than simply deliver solutions. The format and material should be in relation to the concept of your submission.

We challenge experienced architects to take part and share their perspective on the matter.

The jury

- Boris Brorman Jensen (DK), architect, associate professor Ã…rhus, Ph.D, Harvard fellow.
- Gary Bates (NO / USA), architect, teacher and curator, founding partner of Spacegroup
- Markus Miessen (GE / GBR), professor, architect, writer, curator, founding partner of nOffice and Studio Miessen.

The entries will be judged anonymously.

Submitted material should reach us by the 1st of November 2010

submission@conditionsmagazine.com
CONDITIONS ANS, Fjordveien 3, 0139 Oslo, Norway
T: +47 97183747

Questions: info@conditionsmagazine.com
(answers to questions will be posted on this website)

1st prize: 2.500 euro
Winner & Runner-ups will:
- be published in a special competition issue of CONDITIONS
- take part in a Scandinavian exhibition
- take part in a dialogue how to implement your ideas


Resources:

Conditions Competition Website

Competition Flyer (.pdf)

Why Open Architecture Competitions are good for Architects (a counter argument)

Why Open Architecture Competitions Are Bad for Architects