2Southern California Institute of Architecture960 East 3rd St. Los Angeles, CA 90013 SCI--

ARC

ISSUE

001

2 Trasnscription: Response to Patrik Schumacher Lecture, Parametricisim and the Autopoiesis of Architecture Eric Owen Moss

4 SCI-Arc Events

6 A Model Exhibition: New Investments in Matter Student Spring Show 2010 Andrew Zago

8 SCI-Arc/Caltech Solar Decathlon

10 Austria Under Construction: 2010 Venice Biennale

12 Brendan MacFarlane: After Georges Jason Payne

14 Ming Fung

15 In the Next Issue

16 Bill Gruen

17 Alumni Council

18 Alumni News

20 Own Your Revolution Joe Day 22 New Leadership

23 Publications

Cover photography by Nicolas Borel

Pat

rik S

chum

ache

r, pa

rtne

r at Z

aha

Had

id A

rchi

tect

s an

d co

-dire

ctor

of A

A D

esig

n R

esea

rch

Lab,

is p

ropo

sing

a n

ew,

gove

rnin

g st

yle

for c

onte

mpo

rary

arc

hite

ctur

e he

cal

ls P

aram

etric

s. T

his

fall

he p

rese

nted

his

theo

ry in

a le

ctur

e at

S

CI-A

rc a

nd a

noth

er a

t Col

umbi

a. In

The

Aut

opoi

esis

of A

rchi

tect

ure

(Joh

n W

iley

& S

ons,

201

0),

the

first

of t

wo

book

s du

e to

arr

ive

in D

ecem

ber,

he m

akes

his

cas

e, to

be

follo

wed

by

a P

aram

etric

s di

scus

sion

in L

ondo

n, M

ay 2

011.

M

oss

has

been

invi

ted

to p

artic

ipat

e in

that

dis

cuss

ion.

nce

-

its m

issio

n. C

ongr

atul

atio

ns o

n th

at.

- -

is a

cate

gory

.

--

para

met

ric f

orm

ulat

ions

…

Dec

line o

f the

Wes

t

-

- -

any

cont

rary

mov

emen

ts.

-

-

lang

uage

pre

scri

ptio

n.

-

- - -

very

unu

sual

.

TRANSCRIPTION: RESPONSE TO PATRIK SCHUMACHER LECTURE, PARAMETRICISM AND THE AUTOPOIESIS OF ARCHITECTURE ERIC OWEN MOSS

4 5SCI-ARC EVENTS

Over 1,500 guests attended the outdoor symposium sponsored in part by the SCI-Arc Alumni Association to witness a rare dialogue between architects featured in the book Architecture and Beauty: Conversations with Architects about a Troubled Relationship. Moderated by interviewer Yael Reisner, with Hernan Diaz Alonso, Sir Peter Cook, Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn, Thom Mayne, and Eric Owen Moss, the live format dissolved the pagination of chapters, exposing to the public and each other their positions on “whether they think beauty is integral or non-essential to architecture.”

RECENT

CommencementSIR PETER COOKLet’s Fly—It’s ArchitectureFounder of Archigram, Director of CRAB, Professor of Architecture at the Royal Academy of Arts, London

LecturePATRIK SCHUMACHERParametricism and the Autopoiesis of ArchitecturePartner, Zaha Hadid Architects; Founding Director, AADRL, London

SymposiumARCHITECTURE AND BEAUTY, A TROUBLED RELATIONSHIPModerated by Dr. Yael Reisner, with Hernan Diaz Alonso, Sir Peter Cook, Frank O. Gehry, Greg Lynn, Thom Mayne, and Eric Owen Moss

LectureBERNARD TSCHUMITotally GenericPrincipal, Bernard Tschumi Architects, New York/Paris; Professor, Columbia University

SCI-Arc Gallery ExhibitionCOY HOWARDPart I: From Hand to Mouse, From Furniture to Architecture

Symposium and Library Gallery ExhibitionLOS ANGELES CLEANTECH CORRIDOR COMPETITIONAnnouncement of winners, jury discussion, and exhibition reception

LectureGEOFF MANAUGHQuadraturin and Other Architectural Expansionary TalesBLDGBLOG, Los Angeles

LectureBRENDAN MACFARLANEWalkPrincipal, Jakob + MacFarlane, Paris

Library Gallery ExhibitionJAKOB + MACFARLANENovember 3 – December 12About

Yael Reisner, Hernan Diaz Alonso, Frank O. Gehry, Greg Lynn, Thom Mayne, Eric Owen Moss, Sir Peter CookPhotography by Rafael Sampaio Rocha

UPCOMING

CAArt: PublicWorks ExhibitionBRENDAN MACFARLANE, YAOHUA WANG, AND JOANNA-MARIA HELINURMNovember 5, 2010–January 28, 2011 For last year’s words belong to last year’s language, and next year’s words await ANOTHER VOICE. (with apologies to T S Eliot)CAArt: PublicWorks2000 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles CA 90067

LectureMARC FORNESNovember 10, 7pmGuerilla StyleTHEVERYMANY, New York W.M. Keck Lecture Hall

SCI-Arc Gallery Exhibition Discussion + ReceptionCOY HOWARDNovember 19, 2010–January 9, 2011Part II: Whispers and Echoes Coy Howard and Eric Owen Moss discuss the exhibitionNovember 19, 7pmSCI-Arc Gallery, reception to follow

LectureHANS HOLLEINDecember 1, 7pmAlles ist Architektur (Everything is Architecture)Architect, Vienna W.M. Keck Lecture Hall

LectureHILARY SAMPLEDecember 8, 7pmRecent WorkMOS Architects, New YorkW.M. Keck Lecture Hall

LectureJORGE FRANCISCO LIERNUR January 19, 7pmAustral Group: A CIAM Brigade in the Far South, 1937-1948Dean, School of Architecture and Urban Studies at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires W.M. Keck Lecture Hall

LectureHERNAN DIAZ ALONSOFebruary 2, 7pmThe Forms of Plenty

W.M. Keck Lecture Hall

SCI-Arc Gallery ExhibitionPATRICK TIGHEFebruary 4–March 13, 2011

Lecture PAOLO CASCONE February 16, 7pmEco_Logic Design: Towards High-Tech Design, Low-Tech-ConstructionPrincipal of COdesignLab; Director of Urban Ecologies program, ESA, ParisW.M. Keck Lecture Hall

Lecture MICHAEL ROTONDIMarch 23, 7pm From the CenterRoTo Architects; Distinguished Faculty Member, SCI-ArcW.M. Keck Lecture Hall

SCI-Arc Gallery ExhibitionBARBARA BESTORApril 1–May 15Silent DiscoBarbara Bestor and Eric Owen Moss discuss the exhibitionApril 8, 7pmSCI-Arc Gallery, reception to follow

Lecture FRANÇOIS ROCHEApril 6, 7pm R&Sie(n), Adjunct Assistant Professor, Advanced Research, Columbia UniversityW.M. Keck Lecture Hall

Additional spring dates will be announced soon.

Lectures and discussions are broadcast live online at sciarc.edu/live. No reservations are required. Admission and parking are free. The SCI-Arc Gallery is open daily from 10am-6pm.

SCI-Arc is located at 960 East 3rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. The building entrance and parking lot are located at 350 Merrick Street, between 4th Street and Traction Avenue.

SCI-Arc Public Programs are subject to change beyond our control. For the most current information, please visit sciarc.edu or call 213.613.2200.

To join SCI-Arc’s Public Programs email list, contact public_programs@sciarc.edu

6 7

1.Catherine CaldwellChristine ForsterRobert GilsonInstructor: Marcelo Spina with Matthew Melnyk, John Klein

2.Janica LeyAdvisor: Russell Thomsen

3.Jiahao LuThomas ChengInstructor: Elena Manferdini

4.John KleinAdvisor: Devyn WeiserErin BesslerInstructor: Elena ManferdiniJairo VivesAdvisor: Hernan Diaz AlonsoTiffany Shaw-CollingeInstructor: Ramiro Diaz-GranadosSarah BlahutInstructor: Florencia PitaMichael GrossDavid LiuVincent PocsikZachary SchochInstructor: Marcelo Spina with Matthew Melnyk, John KleinDave BantzInstructor: Tom WiscombeTristan BrasseurInstructor: Elena ManferdiniChristopher DayInstructor: Michele Saee

5.Jairo VivesAdvisor: Hernan Diaz Alonso

Andrew Zago Andrew Zago is principal of Zago Architecture. He was the founding di-rector of the Master of Architecture program at the City College of New York, and he has also taught at Cornell University, the University of Michigan, UCLA, and the Ohio State University. His work has been exhib-ited in Berlin, New York, Cornell University, Princeton and Los Angeles. He holds a BFA from the University of Michigan and an M.Arch from Harvard University. In 2005 SCI-Arc Press published a book on the firm’s work, Zago Architecture and Office dA: Two Installations. Zago currently teaches at SCI-Arc, where he is the coordinator of the Visual Studies program.

A MODEL EXHIBITION: NEW INVESTMENTS IN MATTER STUDENT SPRING SHOW 2010

“It’s SCI-Arc,” a colleague commented years ago when asked as to the quality of work at the thesis reviews he had recently attended. “The quality varies,” he continued, “but it’s still the only school where you’ll see 20-foot-long site models.” For over 30 years, SCI-Arc has emboldened its students to resist the quotidian habits and rote conventions associated with traditional architectural practice in order to, in the words of the school’s direc-tor Eric Owen Moss, make it new. In the past, this pursuit has re-sulted in staggering physical productions. At SCI-Arc, one saw the biggest site models, the most exotic material assemblies, the most labor-intensive handicraft, the most intricate drawings, and count-less other architectural superlatives.

SCI-Arc long has been associated with such exuberant, exces-sive production. Yet in recent years, this wholly unreasonable ex-penditure of effort and physical resources has, to a degree, been diverted into virtual productions. Many factors seem to have cata-lyzed this shift. A consuming fascination with digital novelties was certainly a factor, as were reactions against nostalgic conceptions of making. But whatever the cause, for a time, it seemed as though the school had developed one form of expertise at the expense of the other. Recent work at the school, however, indicates that making

manifestations. Importantly, these innovations suggest alternative agendas for a profession anxious for the architecture no longer of, but after

Spring Show Review

Last spring’s end-of-year show offered tantalizing glimpses of this shift. Here were to be found models, material experiments, and other constructions that were neither mere afterthoughts of virtual production, nor a return to pre-digital sensibilities. While there was plenty of work that indicated ongoing experimentation with famil-iar trends within the school, conspicuously new forms and tech-niques were also on display—projects that simultaneously looked unlike recent work yet distinctly felt to be possible only at SCI-Arc. At their best, they seemed to revive the school’s deep tradition of expertise in making even as they jettisoned the obvious tropes of craft and authenticity in innovative constructs as often digitally fabricated as hand-made, premeditated as accidental, representa-tional as abstract. This productive disregard for boundaries suggest-ed that the digital had gone from being an ideological imperative to

being one (important) expertise among others. In this new land-

as well, analog complexity and stubborn physical presence were cross-pollinated with digital mutability to engender new lines of design investigation.

At some progressive schools, purely digital speculation re-mains the rule. At others, the translation of this speculation into building tectonics is the focus. While both of these tendencies have a strong presence at SCI-Arc, the school is unique in its pursuit of the reinvention of the techniques of design, and in its willingness to suspend (temporarily) certain pragmatic constraints and expecta-tions in order to encourage more aggressive formal and conceptual experimentation. Whether in the very long site model of a genera-tion ago or in the analog-digital hybrids currently being produced, such experimentation furthers the imagination of the form of archi-tecture before it informs the art of construction. In this sense, mak-ing at SCI-Arc is best understood not as mere willful exuberance but rather as a potent design technique with which to develop the necessary tools to re-imagine architecture for the

The closest analogy to these wide-ranging physical specula-tions is found in contemporary art practices. While artists such as Jeff Koons, Olafur Eliasson, and Anish Kapoor may use cutting-edge technology in their work, that technology is not viewed as something that makes the work more intrinsically advanced than say, the oil paintings of Luc Tuymans. Instead, contemporary work by these artists and others exploits the cornucopia of material pos-sibilities offered by a complex world rather than hewing to ideologi-

at SCI-Arc.

To cite a few examples from the exhibition:

a series of structured material studies. These studies were intended

-lously translating the studies into digital formats as staring points for their projects. Notable were Tiffany Shaw-Collinge’s knitted and resin-impregnated surface studies. They were investigations of complex material and geometry interaction while also – surprising-ly – evocative of domestic handicraft. An instance where the result of these studies was rigorously carried through the project was seen in the work of Erin Bessler. The uncanny forms created via the action of solvents on foam developed, in her project, into a series of complex and compelling drawings.

In the second year of the Master of Architecture 2 program, advanced digital techniques as opposed to material experimenta-tion instigated the design agendas. The projects for a fashion mu-seum in Tokyo began with automated software scripts of the stu-dents’ invention. These scripts are a type of algorithm that yield novel and unexpected forms – a digital tool to sidestep the some-times obvious results of contemporary design software. This work was followed up with large, complex sectional models – models that owed as much to the craft of their fabrication as to their digital

models of teams from Marcelo Spina’s Manifold Techonics studio taught with co-instructors Matthew Melnyk and John Klein.

The undergraduate thesis, coordinated by Devyn Weiser, had its most powerful showing in recent memory. Two different models

nylon pull ties by Janica Ley, transcends its constituent parts to create an undulating (and threatening) atmospheric cloud in a man-ner reminiscent of the work of the artist Tara Donovan. The second,

Surface Magazine: John Klein, Hyon Woo (Scott) Chung The 2009 undergraduate thesis proj-ects of SCI-Arc students John Klein (B.Arch) and Hyon-Woo (Scott) Chung (B.Arch) were featured in October in Surface magazine’s 13th Annual Avant Guardian Portfolio—a

“Guide To America’s Most Promising Graduates” from “the country’s top design universities.” SCI-Arc faculty member Devyn Weiser was the thesis advisor to both students.

LIFT.IN (Land Integrated Forming Technology) is a research project that utilizes India’s current contextual framework to explore advanced com-putational material system in parallel to exploring new models of construc-tion executed through robotics/large labor force integration.

(Manufacturing Manhattan) explores a single spectacular proposition: Can one building be made that could re-manufacture Manhattan’s fashion industry by integrating the various scales of industry under one roof? Through this integration, it is imagined that the convenience (and potentially sustainable advantages) of a vertical integration enterprise could override the benefits of outsourcing… attract the urban sensibilities of the fashion… (and) re-source the building as an urban center in place of outmoded 20th-century-style infrastructures.

LATENT CITY AT THE VENICE BIENNALE

Latent City, the undergraduate thesis of SCI-Arc student Yao-hua Wang (B.Arch ‘10), is presented in the exhibition “New Chi-nese Architecture” at the 2010 Venice Architecture Biennale. Wang is one of 11 Chinese architects and students selected out of 150 submissions from around the world for inclusion in the exhibition at the CA’ASI Art Gallery. Devyn Weiser was Wang’s thesis advisor.

has altogether transformed Chinese industry, as large-scale inland low-cost industries will be the next stage of China’s development. His initial search for architectural solutions to problems posed by industrial districting led to a conclusion that the systems ultimately led to inhuman-looking environments in the service of technology. Wang’s thesis asks how can we conceal and embed the humane dream of architects into an inhuman system?

The exhibition “New Chinese Architecture” aims to present not-so-well-known works of young Chinese architects to the West-ern world in response to the Biennale’s theme, “People Meet in Architecture.” It is organized by the CA’ASI Association, an orga-

-ture-Studio as a platform for exchange and dialogue between East-ern and Western architects.

by John Klein, is perhaps the most enigmatic and compelling single artifact of the exhibition. Here, a model for a stadium project was rendered as a black polished muscular mass of what appears to be stone turning into a snake.

Finally, the new spectrum of techniques readily can be ob-served in a quartet of visual studies seminars. This past spring, for

of Architecture 1 program was offered as a choice among four electives taught by senior design faculty. Ink and Cobalt, the semi-nar taught by outgoing undergraduate Director Chris Genik, togeth-er with Eric Kahn, harkened back to SCI-Arc’s tradition of making, but realized through the manipulation of contemporary printing and enlargement techniques. My own seminar, Accident, staged and documented semi-controlled catastrophes with large-format photography to study the intersection of top-down and bottom-up design approaches. In Florencia Pita’s Figure Figurine seminar, digitally modeled and printed characters and settings were animat-

-dini’s course, Synthetic, complex natural surfaces (feathers, hides, plant life) were captured digitally with SCI-Arc’s new scanning equipment and manipulated as building surface studies.

These works represent only the latest in a series of periodic shifts of approach and radical reconsiderations of technique that have punctuated the school’s history. Key to each of these shifts is a keen attention to the make of ‘Make it New.’ The resurgent atten-tion to making on display at last year’s exhibition speaks unequivo-cally to the school’s deep expertise in the means of creative produc-tion but evades a return to past ethics. In past work, many unfortunately took making as a shibboleth for an anti-intellectual phenomenology. Today, SCI-Arc students deploy making as a lever to nudge architecture past the purely digital toward some of the most promising areas of current architecture speculation.

“Make it New” avers a model of architecture as speculation; it galva-nizes a commitment to relentless interrogation and reformulation. Then as now, this mandate shapes the school’s pedagogy, giving its graduates the creative and critical tools to establish original voices in architecture. With it, SCI-Arc continues to stake out unique terri-tory in the spectrum of educational models in architecture and beyond to such an extent that “It’s SCI-Arc” offers more than some-thing to say when a critic is at a loss for words. It succinctly indi-cates work from a school that is synonymous with the leading edge of emerging developments in contemporary architecture.

4 5

8 9

8 9

about the Solar Decathlon. When the SCI-Arc graduate student returned to Los Angeles after a nine-month internship in the United Arab Emirates, he brought a sense of urgency about the unrealized potential of solar power there — and, especially, in the U.S.

He had seen a house from a Solar Decathlon once and was aware of the competition, and he knew SCI-Arc never entered. It turned out that no team from Southern California had competed since Solar Decathlon was founded nearly a decade ago.

Finlay found himself thinking of all the reasons it could work, then of all the reasons it wouldn’t. It would require support from the school’s leadership, students, and faculty and from those who could

house 2,672 miles.With fellow graduate student Elisabeth Neigert, he brought

the idea to SCI-Arc, then Graduate Programs Director Hsinming Fung. That was in August 2009. Enthusiasm quickly spread to COO Jamie Bennett, and by October, team co-leaders Finlay and Neigert, had the solid backing of Director Eric Owen Moss, faculty advisors, and students. A partnership was quickly formed when SCI-Arc students approached Caltech students who were also thinking about the competition. Caltech Physics professor Harry Atwater, a leading researcher in photovoltaics, took the advisory role

The team rushed to submit its application in mid-November. At SCI-Arc, a design studio led by faculty member Wes Jones and a companion seminar led by Dwayne Oyler developed concepts for the house. Six models were developed. CH:IP/Com-pact House: Increasing Possibility was selected for submission with the application.

In April the announcement was made: the SCI-Arc/Caltech

the judging categories. Teams will earn points for achieving a con-struction cost of $250,000 or less. The crux of the challenge is to

and livability.

The new affordability criteria, while certainly challenging, brings a greater degree of relevance to the project. The affordability factor levels the playing

greater design ingenuity. –Dwayne Oyler, SCI-Arc/Caltech Solar Decathlon Co-Advisor

Solar Decathlon participants must raise substantially more money than the actual cost of the house to pay supporting expenses and transportation costs for the house and team. So far, in addition to the initial Energy Department grant of $100,000, the SCI-Arc/Caltech team has raised $100,000 from an East Coast foundation committed to sustainable, affordable housing. Over the life of the project, the SCI-Arc/Caltech team will need to raise an additional $700,000 from individuals, corporations, and foundations to ensure the project’s goals are realized.

In addition to the faculty advisors from SCI-Arc (Jones and Oyler) and Caltech (Atwater) and lead project managers at SCI-Arc (Finlay and Neigert) and Caltech (Richard Wang and Fei Yang), many more people are involved from both schools. New ideas con-tinue to spring from the collaboration. And alternative concepts developed during the initial process continue to be explored as the

This fall, the team has been in the schematic design phase of the project. In the winter it will enter the construction documenta-tion and prototyping phase — where the structural process and details of the house will be assessed, testing and developing materi-als from photovoltaics to furnishings. During the construction phase in spring and summer, the community can watch the house take shape in an open area on the renowned SCI-Arc parking lot near the 4th Street Bridge before it is taken to D.C.

Finlay and Neigert credit much of the momentum of the proj-ect to date to the ready support of SCI-Arc. “The willingness of the

-ibility of SCI-Arc is what allows this to happen.”

—Joan Springhetti

Members of the SCI-Arc/Caltech team meet on the Caltech campus. Clockwise from left, Reed Finlay, Doug Caldwell (Caltech faculty), Elisabeth Neigert, Brian Zentmyer, Andrew Gong, Ben Kurtz, Scott Davis, Wes Jones (SCI-Arc faculty), Fei Yang, and Richard Wang.

Alumna Julee HerdtWhen a team from the University of Colorado built the winning home in the 2005 Solar Decathlon, its design integrated a new bio-based insulated panel: the BioSIP.

The modular panel system–devel-oped from waste paper and soy and based on research by SCI-Arc alum-na Julee Herdt (M.Arch ’89)–is one of the competition’s legacies and a ma-jor focus of Herdt’s work.

Herdt’s career has been spent aligning architecture and sustainabil-ity. Her work with renewable energy design has won international and na-tional recognition, including a current state grant of $245,000 for “Diverting Solid Waste into High Performance, Environmental Building Products.”

Herdt’s graduate thesis—with Wolf Prix as her advisor—was selected as Best Graduate Thesis. “SCI-Arc was a turning point in my life,” she says.

“If you’re involved in what you’re doing, and follow your passion, then it should be that.” After working briefly for Coop Himmelb(l)au in Vienna, she took a teaching position at the University of Colorado in Boulder. As an architecture professor, Herdt served as faculty advisor to their team in its two solar decathlon champion-ships—CU also won in 2002, the first year of the competition.

Herdt founded BioSIPs, Inc. in 2008. Last summer, construction began on an experimental building us-ing the latest prototype of the panels. Neigert notes, “As architects, it’s up to us to understand the embodied en-ergy in our buildings.”

Visit the 2011 Solar Decathlon page at sciarc.edu

For sponsorship information, contact Elisabeth Neigert elisabeth_neigert@sciarc.edu For project information contact Reed Finlayreed_finlay@sciarc.edu

SCI-ARC/CALTECH SOLAR DECATHLON BUILDING A GREAT SOLAR HOUSE STARTS WITH A 12-MILE BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO CAMPUSES

SCI-Arc is known as a school that actually builds stuff. From the rhomboids at the

graduation canopies gracing the grounds downtown, the school has a tradition of making impressive things in parking lots. This spring SCI-Arc’s building activity took an ambitious step, initiating a two-year process to design and build an experimental energy-neutral house for a site in the most celebrated parking lot of all: the National Mall in Washington, D.C. – Wes Jones, SCI-Arc / Caltech Solar Decathlon Co-Advisor

Solar Decathlon Finalists 2011 Appalachian State UniversityFlorida International UniversityMiddlebury CollegeNew Zealand Victoria University of WellingtonOhio State UniversityParsons NS Stevens Purdue UniversitySCI-Arc/Caltech Team Belgium: Ghent UniversityTeam Canada: University of CalgaryTeam China: Tongji UniversityTeam Florida: The University of South Florida, Florida State University, The University of Central Florida, and The University of FloridaTeam Massachusetts: Massachusetts College of Art and Design and the University of Massachusetts at LowellTeam New Jersey: Rutgers–The State University of New Jersey and New Jersey Institute of TechnologyTeam New York: The City College of New YorkTidewater Virginia: Old Dominion University and Hampton UniversityUniversity of HawaiiUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of MarylandThe University of Tennessee

Solar Decathlon Team (as of Fall 2010)

SCI-ArcLiona Avery, Rachel Bitan, Catherine Caldwell, Robert Cardenas, Scott Davis, Reed Finlay, Valentin Florescu, Christine Forster, Andres Fuentes, Robby Gilson, Mishal Hashmi, Hyungbin Im, Chuy Le, Elisabeth Neigert, Joel Ochs, Rinaldo Perez, Brett Phillips, Carmen Sanchez, Jaine Sanchez, Lanna Semel, Brian Zentmyer

CaltechDavid Carrega, Emmet Cleary, Yuyang Fan, Hima Hassenruck-Gudipati, Valere Lambert, Brian Ma, Blaine Matulevich, Maura Mayock, Rae Millikan, Priya Naya, Brice Nzeukou, Cameron Sato, Rory Shevin, Richard Wang, Yi (Jenny) Wang, Alexander Wilson, Sara Ahmed, Linlin Cheng, Andrew Gong, Yunqing (Alex) Hu, Caroline Kim, Jeffrey Lin, Katya Luxem, Andrey Poletayev, Albert Tan, Filip Taneski, Rebecca Wernis, Wubing Ye, Caroline Yu, Sonal Gupta, Cole Hershkowitz, Victor Hsu, Yifei Huang, Samuel Jones, Ben Kurtz, Kevin Lo, Judy Xingyue Mou, Jeanne Peng, Julia Su, Ka-chuan Suen, Stephanie Tsuei, Shengkai Wu, Stephen Wu, Suiyi (Doris) Xin, Samuel Yang

It is bright outside and team members from SCI-Arc and Caltech are in the shade near a fountain on the school’s leafy Pasadena cam-pus. They began meeting every week earlier this year and are still taking measure of one another. The students and their faculty advi-sors are from different disciplines, educational aspirations, and from campuses as far apart in landscaping as they are in academic culture. They are negotiating how this is going to work.

How they are going to build a house that meets the promise of their combined strengths, and do it better than the other selected teams from around the world?

Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2011, a competition held every other year that comes with a $100,000 grant and a huge chal-lenge. Each team has until fall of next year to design and build the

house it can — and get it to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to be judged and on view from September 23 to October, 2, 2011.

Among issues being discussed by the SCI-Arc/Caltech team members this Saturday afternoon: How can they ensure that the best ideas get on the table and don’t fall off? It’s agreed that every-one must feel free to share ideas — even those outside their area of expertise. “Architects never hesitate to comment outside their area of expertise,” someone calls out.

Whatever their differences, they know they must collaborate seamlessly if they are going to build the best house on the Mall. This winter and spring, the team’s activity shifts to the SCI-Arc campus where the house will be constructed. In September 2011, it will be packed up and transported to D.C. for reassembly.

Among the enthusiasts of the SCI-Arc/Caltech team’s

Herdt was faculty advisor to the University of Colorado Solar

the competition.In the Solar Decathlon, houses are judged in 10 categories,

including architecture, engineering, energy balance, and market-ability. They must pass essential tests of living: activities like boil-ing water, washing and drying a load of towels, even hosting a din-ner for eight.

conditions. In 2009, it rained. The houses are all judged in the same climate — “apples to apples” as SCI-Arc/Caltech Student Project Manager Reed Finlay says. Just the same, sunny weather for the visiting crowds and media would be great.

Solar Decathlon Competition

CH:IP/Compact House: Increasing Possibility

10 11

Austrian Pavilion The existing pavilion, meticulously crafted by Josef Hoffmann in 1934, houses “Under Construction”.

Audience of Objects: Outside The design work of Austrian architects building outside of Austria is displayed on the scaffold outside the pavilion.

Audience of Objects: Inside The design work of international architects building in Austria is displayed on the scaffold inside the pavilion.

restriction: Always swimming in your own soup, as I agree with

up with a new and very interesting thrust: Architecture presentation from a foreign perspective. This could make the biennial exciting.STANDARD: A wish: What will people feel after they have “visited Austria under construction”? MOSS: My wish is that the public is aware of the unique role of Austria. Austrian architecture is a great export. The country has power! Hence the scaffolding. It is a symbol that something in construction is something that is constantly in process.

(Wojciech Czaja, ALBUM / DER STANDARD - Print Edition, 21-22. August 2010)

SEE VENICE AND DIE FOR JUNK SHOP ARCHITECTURE?Translation:Wolf D. Prix about the Venice Biennale 2010 and the Austrian Pavilion

The Architecture Biennale 2010 – motto: architecture as “food”– celebrates the parting from the star cult, and the Austrian Pavilion doesn’t join the party: an embarrassingly retrospective topic miss as Dietmar Steiner of the Architekturzentrum Wien wrote in Der Standard?

Wolf D. Prix counters:

The Austrian Pavilion suffocates in “Ego-Kitsch”: at least that is what the director of the Austrian Architecture Center Vienna says (Der Standard, 20. August). Eric Owen Moss, this year’s curator of the Austrian Pavilion, obviously made a mistake: he forgot to ask Dietmar Steiner where international architecture is at.

If we didn’t know that in word and deed the media always exaggerate, the 64 architects and teachers (from Austria, Germany, UK, USA, Argentina, Japan, France, Spain, Netherlands), whose works are exhibited in the Austrian Pavilion, and who, as imputed by Steiner, obstruct Austria’s future with yesterday’s architecture, should demand Steiner’s resignation as director of the Austrian Architecture Center Vienna. They won’t do it of course, and that is all right, because as a pronounced representative and theorist of Austrian architecture he is known far beyond our national borders.

First of all it has to be said that since its beginnings in 1980 -

retical discourse is concerned is diminishing more and more. Also,

Biennale, is very low. Actually, the Architecture Biennale is only organized to provide the opportunity for the In-Group of architects and their critics to express their envy, contempt and suspicions.

It may be that the layout, that is the design of the curated exhi--

tion of the theme – tell me a more banal title than: “People meet in Architecture” – appeals to the exhibition organizers, and allows the overextended critics to breathe again. Indeed, in contrast to earlier Biennales – which have degenerated more and more into trade fairs – the greater clarity facilitates a quick inventory of the content. But apparently the intake of breath has fogged the glasses

being replaced by ostensible non-stars it is easily overlooked that it should all be about the content of the objects and installations in the pavilions.

The world upside down: the media, who were the ones who invented the architecture star cult, now declare it ended. Kazuyo Sejima is celebrated as anti-star and the exhibited architecture is

called food. Apart from the fact that all this is expressed in a much more inspiring and precise way in the book “Architecture without Architects” by Bernard Rudofsky, Sejima’s buildings are just as spectacular icons. They just look different. Her museum in New York functions neither better nor worse, than Zaha’s museum in Rome. Only the spatial impression is more conservative.And talking about star cult: I haven’t seen a more embarrassing presentation of a star in quite a while than the movie about Sejima’s intelligent building, the Rolex Learning Center in Lausanne. The movie resembles a high mass where priestesses vested in kimo-nos emit awful banalities. – No spectacular buildings anymore. All right.

But also in the future there will be building tasks to be mas-tered, which can’t be solved with social and ecological food archi-

buildings, city districts. But they mustn’t be spectacular and memo-rable anymore.

In doing so we are inclined to overlook that today entirely different forces – namely investors, politics, and contractors – are essentially responsible for the spectacular costs for which the architects are blamed. And instead of asking for new planning methods and strategies for implementation and execution, we cheer

of functions.What an Architecture Biennale this would have been if in-

stead of a boring exhibition, forums had been established, topics had been launched which would have offered a view behind the scenes of decision-making to us all. For example, the dispute about the train station in Stuttgart. The back- and fore-ground of the cost explosion of Hamburg’s Elbphilharmonie. The political quarrel about the mosques and minarets, which are nothing but the situ-ationing of an idea. Why the housing market in the US has col-lapsed, and how in Israel settlement architecture fuels power poli-tics. And there would be 1000 other controversial problems worth discussing, because the argument between star and non-star is in fact a hidden ideological dispute between open and closed systems.

If you will, on this Biennale you can recognize the backlash of the 1970ies. Architecture remains architecture. Art is art. No experiments. All is well-behaved again. Equilibrium and balance are more important than dynamism. Even if you represent this equi-librium – as can be seen in one object in the exhibition – with hollow I-beams. Dynamic is out.

The slogan at the Japanese Pavilion carries it to the extremes; translated it means: “The public space is a means for authoritarian systems to suppress human beings.” No word of criticism could be heard or read about this statement. As if we had forgotten that de-mocracy had its origins in Greece in the public space. And, the enlightenment never took place. – The Austrian Pavilion was only

one-dimensional axis but a three-dimensional network. Even though one might criticize the representation, at least there are 64 Austrian and international architects gathered virtually.

The most intelligent contribution however was delivered by Rem Koolhaas. His discussion about preservation didn’t care about the topic itself, but functioned only as an argumentation for his project in Venice: to convert a palazzo into a shopping center for Benetton. For this too he received the Golden Lion. And as far as I know, it was still a lion and not a lioness as many friends, who saw the Architecture Biennale as female-designed, sought to make me believe.

(DER STANDARD - Print Edition, 4-5. September 2010)Wolf D. Prix is co-founder of Coop Himmelb(l)au and Vice President of the University for Applied Arts.

AUSTRIA UNDER CONSTRUCTION2010 VENICE BIENNALE

1 The Spiral Inside the Austrian PavilionPhotography by Piero Codato

2 Opening Panel Discussion Hernan Diaz Alonso, Peter Noever, Eric Owen Moss, Wolf. D. Prix, Thom MaynePhotography by Piero Codato Building–Austrian Architects Building Internationally Raimund Abraham, AllesWirdGut, B+U, C.P.P.N., Coop Himmelb(l)au, Dietmar Feichtinger Architects, driendl*architects, feld72, Anna Heringer Architecture, Atelier Hollein, the next ENTERprise, ratner pirker architeXture, Carl Pruscha, soma ZottlBuda

Building–International Architects Building in Austria Atelier Hitoshi Abe, Behnisch Architekten, CRAB Studio, Odile Decq Beonoit Cornette, Zaha Hadid Architects, Steven Holl Architects, M A C K ARCHITECT(S), Morphosis, NO.MAD, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, Terry Pawson Architects, Estudio Carme Pinós, Michael Sorkin Studio, Martha Swartz Partners, Matteo Thun & Partners, UNStudio, Lebbeus Woods, Xefirotarch

Education–Austrian Architects Teaching Internationally Raimund Abraham, Herwig Baumgartner, Mark Blaschitz, Gregor Eichinger, Dietmar Feichtinger, Ernst Fuchs, Bettina Gotz, Marie Therese Harnoncourt, Barbara Imhof, Rainer Pirker, Wolf Prix, Klaus Stattmann, Hannes Stiefel, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Susanne Zottl

Education–International Architects Teaching in Austria Hitoshi Abe, Marjan Colletti, Hernan Diaz Alonso, Zaha Hadid, Craig Hodgetts and Ming Fung, Hiromi Hosoya and Markus Schaefer, Tom Kovac, Greg Lynn, Elena Manferdidi, Thom Mayne, Alexis Rochas, Francois Roche, Patrik Schumacher, Marcelo Spina, Kjetil Thorsen, Lebbeus Woods

Commissioner: Eric Owen Moss

Venue: Pavilion at Giardini

Architecture is a kinetic process. It must evolve every minute, otherwise stop.While news items move to the pace of digital uploads, Austrian culture begins its morning in a café with a semmel, mélange and Der Standard: a traditional fresh baked roll, coffee with cream and Austria’s most respected and widest circulated national news publication, still read broadly in print. Der Standard, of course, has a powerful online presence as well.

Featuring an interview with Director Eric Owen Moss, -

tions as director to the Austrian Pavilion’s “Under Construction.”

ALLES BAUSTELLE (ALL SITE)Translation:Der Standard Interviews Eric Owen Moss

The Japanese architect and Pritzker Prize winner Kazuyo Sejima (54) has big plans. “It feels as if we were living in a post-ideological society,” she says. “In such a fast-paced world, there is the urgent question of whether it can succeed in the architecture, establish new values and possibly even a new lifestyle.”

-tecture Biennale, she infuses the human touch as never seen before: “People meet in architecture.” Sejima: “The idea is that one man helped to connect architecture, but also to establish a connection to each other.”

The Austrian response to the binding request was made across borders: Culture Minister Claudia Schmied peered across the At-

non-Austrian architect.The California architect and Commissioner Eric Owen Moss

took up the subject “Austria Under Construction” showing the Josef Hoffmann Pavilion wrapped in a scaffold. It presents 64 projects by Austrian architects abroad and foreign architects in Austria. Such an occasion gives rise to an interview.STANDARD: Jet lag? MOSS: Venice, Los Angeles, Venice, Los Angeles, Venice, Los Angeles. I am now so tired that I no longer know the difference between fatigue and insomnia.STANDARD: foreign architect. What is the advantage to the cause? Mobility’s simply impossible. MOSS:country is represented by a foreign architect at the biennale. That surprises me! In the art world, it is common that one draws on perspectives from the outside. In the world of architecture, however, people prefer to swim in their own soup and to make publicity for themselves. In my eyes that’s old-fashioned and chauvinistic. The view from the outside, however, is objective and detached. And risky. Claudia Schmied sets the bar very high. Such a decision requires courage.STANDARD: Why Eric Owen Moss? MOSS: That you must ask Claudia.STANDARD: I ask you! MOSS: I think I have a somewhat unorthodox view of things.STANDARD: What makes you so unorthodox? MOSS: I am an incorrigible optimist. The reason I do architecture, from my deepest conviction, is that I am able to change or improve

-nitely the wrong architect for you. No, it’s not all wrong, this is far

from true, but architecture can accelerate the process and that can initiate a debate. One has to believe just that.STANDARD: The architect as do-gooders? MOSS: Architecture is like candy. It is a small part of life, but if it is good, then life is just so much tastier and more beautiful! And most important: Architecture is a kinetic process. It must evolve every minute. Otherwise it must stop.STANDARD: How well do you know Austria? MOSS: I have been about 25 times in Austria. Maybe 20 times, maybe 30 times. No idea.STANDARD: You have decided to “show to Austria under con-struction.” Which means? MOSS: Austria, in regards to its size and population, is a very small country, but relatively speaking, it is huge! I wanted to repre-sent that fact. The abundance of good architecture is high and the jet power is comparable to the outside with almost any other country of this size. I would even go so far to say that Austria is one

does a lot, and much will also be built. Construction sites are good. This can also be seen as a metaphor.STANDARD: A total of 64 projects is shown. Did you have consultants on site or did you make choices alone? MOSS: I have good contacts in Vienna, partly because some of my friends live here. To say that I did nothing to help in the selec-tion would be a lie. What we have attached as particular impor-tance, however, was the behind the known and proven: we have 64 projects that we show in the exhibition, judged solely on quality - and not on the reputation of its author, so many young and un-known are included. The main thing is they are good! Of course, it may be that we have included some known cases next to it. And certainly we also chose one project over another. What the heck. An amalgam is never 100 percent perfect.STANDARD: The theme for this biennial is “People meet in architecture.” Without doubt one of the most important tasks of Kazuyo Sejima’s was the selection of the title. Architects are aware of this burden? MOSS: I do not know. In our exhibition we have done everything possible in order to create a meeting place. Of course, not without blinking an eye, we have built a kind of audience, but here we have replaced the people through objects. The communication is now through the work exhibited.STANDARD: Will it actually succeed, that the architecture bien-nale will be the meeting place of a larger audience? Or will we just meet architects, artists and culture junkies like every year? MOSS: -dresses only a small audience. It is like this and, for that, we need not to apologize. Even if you look into their head: This matter will not pull as much interest in politics, business, science, and research. But that does not bother me. If only three people read Kafka and if only four people look at a painting by Lucian Freud, these people do that with a serious interest and enjoyment, then a lot is achieved. It is something like this with architecture. But of course I have tried to stretch the bow of my concept of the exhibition as far as possible for maximum audience appeal. Whether this will succeed ... That is the job for you journalists!STANDARD: Is the model of the biennale, in principle, still relevant? MOSS: What’s wrong with the date? I think the discussion of whether something is contemporary or not, is totally exaggerated. In the U.S., you do something and people come to you and say: Oh, that’s so 80s! Or: Oh, that’s so 90s! Or: Oh, that’s so 1999! I think it’s terrible. Take a look at Venice! Is this city still relevant? No. And yet we love it and continue coming down again.STANDARD: My question relates not to the city, but the issue. MOSS: I’m happy with the format. Using a single

12

12 13

The importance of the Pompidou in this lineage lies not in the ex--

spicuous display” of such systems.4 Banham returns to this point throughout, expressing in a number of ways the difference between mere mechanical expression and overt, affected treatment, all the while pointing toward the inevitability that this new approach will have future consequences. Hence his warning to critics at the end of the passage above.

Which brings us to the work of J+M and, as will be argued below, the potential new territory for architectural tubularity emerging therein. Looking again at Georges, we are immediately

the Pompidou above and outside. These ducts are proper tubes–cy-lindrical, single-surfaced, and above all, mechanically functional. Changes in direction and diameter are managed in conventional fashion through standard radii and coupling segments, and even the apparent monumentality of scale can be explained by the large volumes of air transfer required of a building of this size. As we know, then, the only real break with previous convention lies in the sheer abundance of overt expression of the mechanics themselves and the ensuing cosmetic enhancement toward supergraphic mani-festation. In contrast, the four aluminum bodies within Georges are not ductwork in any conventional sense. They do not channel the

constructed of stock materials, are not understood as single surfaces (the same inside and out), and do not conform to standard cylindri-

-ity to the Pompidou’s ducting is unmistakable. The two sets of characters seem friendly and may even be cousins. Why is this, and what does it say about Banham’s concerns for the “unexpected possibilities” lying in wait within the Centre’s ductwork?

Georges, interior.© jakob + macfarlane

On the most general level, it seems easy enough to argue that

worries in which the tubes and ducts of mechanic-structural sys-

-tions contained therein. Shedding the constraints of mechanics altogether while maintaining certain essential morphological traits associated with ductwork allows Georges’ interior forms freedom to do things that proper ducts could never achieve: the production of space, for example, as well as its rich development through material

-taurant become the Pompidou’s ductile endgame, a move from a more phenomenal or imaginary occupation of the insides of the

spatial and material expression of real sensuality. Who knew the insides of ducts could be so fantastic?

Georges, interior.© jakob + macfarlane

This move from a celebration of ductile symbolism to that of its -

-cal ingenuities. Even more, it appears fearless and perhaps even

-ings about sad endings. The original ductile section, for example, so perfect in its circularity and singular in its material depth, now sags,

-dence its counterparts outside only wish they had. And never mind the occasional bit of weight gain through the midsection...just a

changed. No longer beholden to static angles of functional repose, a neck now cranes upward and sideways at whatever angle is most comfortable...a back arches, hips sway. The indeterminacy of loung-ing governs a more relaxed formal composition.

This last point brings us around to a provisional conclusion on the relation between the two Georges, senior and junior: the latter

relaxation. Banham did, after all, promote Archigram above all others as the most prescient advocates for the aesthetic life of me-chanical systems, pipes in particular. His argument on this essen-

“comfortable technological stance,” a refusal to be anxious about exposed services. 5non-mechanical ductile space with actual HVAC ductwork in so linear a fashion, what else, really, did he expect? Banham may not have meant literal formal relaxation when he spoke of the relaxed attitude toward the mechanical realm, but that’s what he got. Given the Pompidou’s shockingly comprehensive realization of the fantas-tical mechanical aesthetics of Archigram, anything less would be a disappointment. After all, there is only so much that can be done with colored paint. At some point the impulse to make space of ductility had to happen.

Jason Payne (M.Arch ’94)Jason Payne is the principal of Hirsuta. He is recognized as a leading influence in pushing digital design and fabrication toward the integration of product, experience, affect, and atmosphere. Payne was a project designer for Reiser + Umemoto/RUR Architects and Daniel Libeskind Studio and co-partnered the award-winning office Gnuform. He holds degrees from SCI-Arc and Columbia University and is currently on faculty at UCLA.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

1Reyner Banham, The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 264.2 Ibid., 266.3 Ibid., 266.4 Ibid., 264. He expresses this critical difference most clearly in his comparative analysis of Queen Elizabeth Hall (London, 1967) and the Centre Pompidou.5 Ibid., 256.

Dominique Jakob + Brendan MacFarlane© jakob + macfarlane

Brendan MacFarlane graduated from SCI-Arc with a Bachelor of Architecture in 1984 and from Harvard GSD with a Master of Architecture in 1990. In partnership with Dominique Jakob, his

-clivities increases with each effort.

use of novel fabrication methods, a tendency toward the topological, development of double-skin strategies, and the expert incorporation of emerging digital techniques–the overarching impulse has to do with what MacFarlane calls “an architecture of mediation.” Refer-ring to the cultivation of a conscious relationship between building and occupant as a primary motive for design, this concept plays out more and less literally from project to project. Sometimes it is quite literal, as in the Atoll Seating design for Orange Box (Lyon, 2010) and the interactive envelopes of House H (Corsica, 2002) and “Breathing Wall” (SCI-Arc Gallery, 2007). In the latter two espe-cially (Breathing Wall was developed as a partial installation of the unbuilt House H). a physical envelope responds directly to the movement of nearby occupants through a series of embedded mo-tion sensors to create an animated relationship between subject and object. Less obvious but no less powerful are projects such as the FRAC Centre (Orleans, 2011), 100 Social Apartments (Paris, 2003-08), and the City of Design and Fashion (Paris, 2007; completion, 2010), in which overt kinetic response gives way to a more nuanced depiction of motion. Relying on static formal articulation of surfac-

lively interaction with environments both physical and social mani-fests as a dynamic expression of underlying compositional gestures. These projects may not actually move but appear to be in motion, and thus provoke the occupant’s imagination toward notions of movement that are larger, more complex, and ultimately more indi-vidual to the viewer than those based on real kinetics.

Whatever each project’s case for architectural movement may be–literal or phenomenal–MacFarlane clearly stakes a comprehen-sive claim for the power of this idea and its various manifestations as mediated relationships between buildings and people. Ultimately,

that engage the larger context, especially the urban context, as it is

mediations that the occupants of buildings are drawn.

BRENDAN MACFARLANE

AFTER GEORGES

My father was frightened of his mother; I was frightened of my father, and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me.

–King George V

Brendan MacFarlane began his 2006 lecture at the Southern Cali-fornia Institute of Architecture with the observation that the work

periods: “before Georges and after Georges.” He refers here to their project for the restaurant Georges, located within the Centre Pom-pidou, 2000. Considering the trajectory of their work since, how-ever, it would seem the “Georges” in question may as well be that of the Pompidou itself. For it appears that the Pompidou’s exposed

front”

the subsequent work produced by J+M.1 This observation–that the

projects–is just a guess and may or may not actually be true. Re-gardless, it does make for a surprisingly coherent manifestation of a singular “stream of unexpected possibilit[y]” originating in the Pompidou as predicted by Reyner Banham in 1984.2 A rough sketch of this “stream” is presented below, and I do hope the archi-tects whose work is the subject of this analysis like it. Even more, though, I wonder what Banham would think...

To begin, some context surrounding Banham’s depiction of the Pompidou’s mechanical expressionism is in order. Careful read-ing reveals little in the way of his true feelings about the building’s character itself. He clearly appreciates it for its role in the historical sense–for its canonical position in the development of a more thoughtful discourse on architectural mechanics–but whether he actually likes it on its own terms remains relatively obscure. Quite clear, however, is he on the dubious capacity for architecture’s critical establishment to begin to make useful sense of the project, and on this his words and tone express skeptical disappointment:

In the end it must seem that the true cause is a pure idle-minded lack of curiosity, a lack of the will or interest to relate, say, one’s sensations and experience in any part of the Centre Pompidou to the relevant duct-work inside and out. In the absence of such fundamental human enquiries, the body critical has already mislaid the early phases of this revolution, failed to give direction to its subsequent development, and will probably be caught out by the actions to come, for the stream of unexpected possibilities continues.3

This observation in the form of a prediction of things to come, however unknown and undirected by scholarly curation they may be, concludes his larger arc through the development of me-chanical systems theory. Moving from “concealed power” to “ex-posed power,” Banham describes the evolution of the technologies available to architects and engineers as well as changing attitudes and approaches to the expression of the mechanisms required for

a peculiar (and, according to him, under-examined) crisis located somewhere between the vent stacks of Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation (Marseilles, 1952), Kahn’s Richards Memorial Labo-ratories (Philadelphia, 1961) and Piano/Rogers/Franchini’s Centre

of foul air, the second reverses course by expressing mechanical’s servitude, while the third complicates things further through cos-metic celebration of monumental ductility. This line through HVAC theory is, therefore, not linear but instead some form of loop in which the visual acceptability of technology seems to meander.

1Bar/Restaurant Georges, Centre Georges Pompidou, 2000Exterior and interiorPhotography by Nicolas Borel

2Breathing Wall, SCI-Arc Gallery, Los Angeles, 2007Photography by Joshua White

3Orange Box, Lyon, 2010Photography by Nicolas Borel

4City of Design and Fashion, Paris, 2010Photography by Nicholas Borel

5FRAC Centre, Orléans, 2011

14 15

18 19

14 15In the next Issue

1Graduate thesisThesis Weekend

2Cleantech Corridor CompetitionCompetition leaders Peter Zellner and David Bergman with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

sCI-Arc 001 investigates and highlights the role of SCI-Arc and its alumni, faculty, and students, in contemporary architecture and culture. Dedicated to educating archi-tects who will imagine and shape the future, SCI-Arc is a center of innova-tion and one of the world’s few independent architecture schools, offering undergraduate and graduate programs in architecture, urban design, and new media.

editor in ChiefHsinming Fung

sCI-Arc LeadershipEric Owen MossDirector

Hsinming FungDirector of Academic Affairs

Hernan Diaz AlonsoGraduate Programs Chair

John EnrightUndergraduate Program Chair

Jamie BennettChief Operating Officer

Contributing WritersJason Payne Andrew Zago

Office of Development and Alumni AffairsBill Kramer Chief Development Officer

Dawn MoriAssociate Director of Corporate, Foundation and Government Relations

Aimee Richer Associate Director of Annual Giving and Alumni Affairs Rebecca Silva Development and Alumni Affairs Associate sCI-Arc Publications Director of Publications and Creative ServicesLisa Wiscombe

Dana HuttEditor

Georgiana CeausuMedia

special thanksTodd GannonJoan Springhetti

Designed by SCI-Arc Publications

© 2010 SCI-Arc Publications

GrADuAte thesIs Graduate students present their final projects on Thesis Weekend, culminating in the SCI-Arc Gallery Selected Thesis exhibition.

CLeAnteCh COrrIDOr: An OPen IDeAs COmPetItIOnThe competition asked architects, landscape architects, designers, engineers, urban planners, students, and environmental profession-als to create an innovative urban vision for the Cleantech Corridor, a 2,000–acre development zone on the eastern edge of downtown Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa opened the winners’ announcement and panel discussion.

neW mAsters PrOGrAm jOIns Future InItIAtIves AnD meDIAsCAPesA new Masters Program in Design Research is being launched, combining some of the most exciting developments by SCI-Arc faculty.

sCI-ArC reAChes Out tO hIGh sChOOL stuDents Dedicated to exposing young students to architecture through SCI-Arc faculty lectures and a series of field trips, a new, month-long summer program is in progress. Half of these students will receive full scholarships to participate.

BuILDInG uPDAteChanges big and small on the SCI-Arc campus.

Ming Fung recently test drove the new Nissan hybrid: “I really think it is about time we all drive something that is responsible, that doesn’t emit all this carbon dioxide, that doesn’t make us dependant on oil—all those things—except…I can’t help wanting to have a more appropriate design,” she laughs, “so I’ve been holding back. I don’t understand why they would design something like that and make it so undistinguished on the inside. Everything is, quote–un-quote, ecologically friendly, but the interior offers only one very generic fabric and one color: a non-descript beige-gray. It doesn’t give you a choice.” While the test drive was actually “really awe-some,” putting words around environmental features is a strain: “They are terribly misused words. Every single one of those words is such a cliché at this time that you almost feel like using them as slang.” The topic turns personal and towards architecture, “What disturbs me is the notion that architects haven’t thought about those things and that we are all just waking up, which is not true because we always consider them. We always do.”

Like today’s Nissan hybrid interior, the biggest challenge for architecture is the clumsy integration of disciplines, “Engineering, architecture, and design don’t seem to mix together. Architecture is always straddling these two disciplines, engineering and design.” The expectation has been that beauty is expensive, functional is boring, and engineered forms are ugly. “The new architecture is characterized by being intelligent about the way you design. One part is a pure sense of aesthetics, the other part is looking at fabri-cating buildings in a more economical way, in a more intelligent way, and making them beautiful at the same time.”

The projects of Hodgetts+Fung, the architectural firm she co-founded with her husband, Craig Hodgetts, are characterized by the fusion of many disciplines into the design. The “Wild Beast Music Pavilion,” is partly about a cantilevered shell structure. “The idea is that the sail-like shape of the shell forms a self-supporting structure. The cantilever allowed us to make it very light so we didn’t have to support it with columns in a conventional way.” The other part introduces invisible criteria: shape-making through acoustical engineering. “It was about how to approach the architec-ture more like one might approach the design of a musical instru-ment. It’s not a visually complicated building, but it is complicated. How do you distribute the sound? How do you absorb the sound? How do you bounce the sound?” The direction and surface area of the convex forms follow the prescriptions of the acoustical engineer and are highly complex. “What you do is take these criteria, and design and develop a certain aesthetic out of it. It’s like scripting. If you have a set of patterns and criteria, how many ways can you come up with a different look? It had to be designed like that, other-wise it would look like simply another engineering project.”

SCI-Arc Gallery exhibition kē-är’ō-skŏŏr’ō, exchanges shape defined through the unseen criteria of acoustical engineering for an experience defined through manipulating visual perception. “You walk into a familiar place, then suddenly it’s something else. That project, for me, was a very important one because it is a little bit like conceptual art when you alter somebody’s perception.” A half-tone pattern generated by a photographic detail of Nina Simone’s face was installed as floating, elliptical disks backlit by LED lights, revealing the hidden surfaces and reflecting light onto exposed surfaces. The relationship to void, figure, and ground shifts accord-ing to the viewer’s position in the space. “We lit up the entire space using only one car battery, but it wasn’t intended as a demonstration of green technology. We’ve always done something interesting to bring light into a space and come up with a solution that nobody knows about because nobody sees it. Smoke and mirrors. I like to do things like that.”

mInG FunG

kē-är’ō-skŏŏr’ō, SCI-Arc Gallery, Los Angeles, 2007Photography by Joshua White

Daughter of a film exhibitor, Hsinming Fung grew up surrounded by artistry crafted for the screen. Early cinematic influences pro-vide a revealing context to her practice of architecture and contin-ues to bring shape to Fung herself as a designer, an academic, and as a person. She first studied art, theater, lighting, and production design. Architecture came later, but naturally. “At the time I was studying art, I was drawn towards making sculpture instead of do-ing watercolor. I would make whatever I could out of aluminum… all of these gigantic cast aluminum pieces… so I was very drawn towards making objects, and I was very drawn to theater.”

“SCI-Arc is so saturated with architecture,” says Fung of her eight-year relationship with the school as the Graduate Programs Director and now Director of Academic Affairs. “When you are there you can not help but be completely engaged and passionate about it. It is not a neutral place. It challenges you because it is pre-dictably unpredictable.” Speaking to the generations of students who have passed through, she admires the character of the students, “They come here for a particular educational experience that they believe SCI-Arc can offer. They are less afraid.”

Also less afraid is Casa Pulpa, capturing the vision of a recy-cling, even an upcycling future machine that converts waste into habitable housing components. The research-based project debuted this year at the Austrian Pavilion in response to the Venice Bien-nale’s theme “People Meet in Architecture.” “It is nice to be part of something that allows every architect to make their own statement as a forum,” Fung says. Then offering a deeper critique, she contin-ues. “But this year was a little bit underwhelming. It is interesting to see other architects’ concerns, but all the countries dealt with city and social issues. Maybe it was because of the theme, but nearly every one presented an urban cityscape that had a due-diligence social agenda. It is almost as if everybody is drinking Starbucks. It’s the same message. When you really see this globalization of ideas, you no longer have an individual idea.”

Returning to the topic of her position as Director of Academic Affairs, Fung emphasizes that SCI-Arc continues to be a place that is unlike any other school. “With the individuality expressed by faculty, we would hope that SCI-Arc has a strong individuality as a school among other schools. If everybody is doing something simi-lar, there is no author. I think to a certain extent SCI-Arc needs to think about itself as we think about ourselves as architects.” Fung considers her own process as both consistent and inconsistent: “I am always going back and forth between one and the other. Being consistent means that you believe in something and you will accom-plish it. Being inconsistent means you are willing to try something and be open-minded enough to take a risk, to break that consisten-cy. Getting that balance is very important.”

–Lisa Wiscombe

Wild Beast music PavilionCalifornia Institute of the Arts, Valencia, CA, 2009When I was given the opportunity to name a proposed building at CalArts, there were already a few givens: roughly where it would be placed; that it would be dual-purpose, provid-ing a small recital hall for the music department, and then opening up to become an outdoor pavilion seating a thousand; and that Hodgetts+Fung were to be the architects. I knew their work, had met them both, and I looked forward to the opportunity of working with them. The term “Wild Beast” came from a Morton Feldman essay about art and music and meaning, and when I chose it, it never occurred to me it might influence the building’s design. But the more the project took shape, the more beastlike it became, so that now it could be thought the name had been chosen to describe the building. It’s much used and much appreciated by CalArts, and by stu-dents who can be overheard familiarly referring to their upcoming recitals in

“The Beast.” From what I’ve heard, it was a project with many technical de-mands and a difficult site. As with all great architects, Craig and Ming used these demands and limitations to ad-vantage with a little help from an extra-architectural concept.

–Abby Sher, lead donor to the Wild Beast Music Pavilion

recognitionThe work of Hodgetts+Fung has been recognized with the Fellowship Architecture Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Chrysler Award for Innovation and Design, the Gold Medal from the AIA/Los Angeles, the AIA California Council Firm of the Year Award, and the GSA Design Excellence Award.

Ming Fung has received the Rome Prize Advanced Fellowship; served as Presidential Appointee to the National Endowment for the Arts Council; and taught at Yale University as the Eero Saarinen Professor, at Ohio State University as Herbert Baumer Professor, and at California State University, Pomona. She recently took the appointment as president of AIA/Los Angeles, “It’s like anything that is a part of me: if I do something I want to make a difference and that is me. I can disagree with a lot of things—AIA, SCI-Arc, the profession of architec-ture—but deep down, I either get in-volved or I don’t, and if I do, I want to make a change.”

22

16 17Letter FrOm the ALumnI COunCIL

Dear SCI-Arc Alumni, As both the Alumni Representative on the SCI-Arc Board of Trustees and one of the founding members of the new SCI-Arc Alumni Council, I am thrilled to report that alumni affairs at SCI-Arc is moving in a very positive and productive direction. Building on our past successes, we are working hard to better align the goals of SCI-Arc alumni with the services and programs offered by SCI-Arc to the alumni community. This includes transitioning away from a dues-based Alumni Association and creating an alumni advisory group that better represents the make-up of our alumni (the Alumni Council) and enhances alumni communications and events. More information follows on these initiatives…

To better promote alumni engagement with the school, we have dissolved the dues-based structure where alumni paid the school, which then supported the alumni services and events. Instead, the school has built funds into the operating budget designed to support alumni engagement activities and events, as well as enhance alumni communications.

Concurrently, the Alumni Council is promoting a message of philanthropy and giving back to the school. Philanthropic support from our alumni is critical to maintaining and supporting SCI-Arc’s academic integrity, cutting-edge curriculum, and diverse and talented student body. Alumni contributions help to support needed scholarships for deserving students, SCI-Arc’s world-class faculty, and vital resources like the Kappe Library and the fabrication shop. Alumni support also helps to fund programs and initiatives to assist our alumni, including career services, networking and social events, and ongoing communications. Alumni–giving inspires non-alumni to give as well. I hope you will join me in supporting the school.

While the Alumni Association has been phased out, a new alumni advisory group—the Alumni Council—has been formed to help guide and steer alumni engagement and fundraising activities. The Council is a diverse group of alumni from a variety of years, degrees, locations, and professions who work with the faculty and administration of SCI-Arc to strengthen the connection between alumni and SCI-Arc and to create a sense of community within the alumni. We are always looking for new members, so please feel free to contact Aimee Richer, SCI-Arc’s Associate Director, Annual Giving & Alumni Affairs, at aimee_richer@sciarc.edu for more information. Also, please feel free to reach out to Aimee if you have any newsworthy items on projects, promotions, competitions, and other professional items of interest. We will feature these in this magazine and on the alumni page of the SCI-Arc website.

Moving forward, we will be working to create a more robust continuing education program for alumni, as well as providing enhanced career services and placement. Stay tuned for more information on these and other alumni affairs items of note in the coming months…

Warm Regards, Paras nanavati (B.Arch ’05)Alumni Council Founding memberAlumni representative, sCI-Arc Board of trustees

Board of trusteesSCI-Arc’s Board of Trustees is charged with the governance, ac-countability, and sustainability of the school. The board also works to ensure SCI-Arc upholds the mis-sion it set out to accomplish 30 years ago: To test the limits of ar-chitecture in order to transform exist-ing conditions into the designs of the future.

ChairmanJerry Neuman

vice ChairJoe Day

sCI-Arc DirectorEric Owen Moss

treasurerDan Swartz

secretaryTom Gilmore

Faculty representativeDwayne Oyler

Alumni representativeParas Nanavati

student representativeBrian Zentmyer

Board members at LargeWilliam FainAnthony FergusonFrank O. GehryJohn R. GeresiElyse Grinstein (honorary)William GruenScott HughesRay Kappe (honorary)Sam NazarianMerry NorrisGreg OttoMichael PorisKevin RatnerIan Robertson (honorary)Michael RotondiHoward SadowskyNick Seierup

BILL Gruen

SCI-Arc has received a $300,000 pledge from Trustee Bill Gruen to establish an endowed fund that will provide scholarships for SCI-Arc students. “Establishing the [Bill Gruen Endowed] Fund was a given for me,” Gruen said. “I knew I needed to do something to make sure students were able to enroll and stay enrolled in SCI-Arc. They are our future and the future of the architecture profession.”

Gruen, the cousin of renowned Austrian architect Victor Gruen and founder of Gruen Lighting, first came to SCI-Arc at the invita-tion of SCI-Arc Founder Ray Kappe, a long-time friend and client with whom he collaborated in his lighting business. He joined the SCI-Arc Board of Trustees in 2002. “From day one I have loved my time on the SCI-Arc Board of Trustees,” Gruen says. “To be a part of an educational institution that is constantly redefining what architec-ture means and how it’s practiced is thrilling to me—and it’s an education. My favorite thing about working with SCI-Arc, however, is the students. Whenever I walk the halls of the building, I am so very impressed with the quality and vision of their work. When I speak to the students, I try to impart to them some of my business acumen; it’s something I think every students needs.”

He wanted to create the Bill Gruen Endowed Fund to help students meet today’s challenges. “Students have told me how hard it is to secure funding for their schooling these days. I had the G.I. Bill, which put me through college—I know how important funding for school and supplies is to a student.”

For SCI-Arc Director Eric Owen Moss, Gruen’s gift is just the latest act in a long history of his giving back to the school. “Bill Gruen is a folksy guy, or is he? Underneath that casual surface de-meanor, the analytical, electrical engineering mind continues to operate. And operate frequently in the service of SCI-Arc. Since I took the directorship eight years ago, Bill has been a frequent lunch companion and a high-energy supporter—inquisitive, attentive, and, now, one of SCI-Arc’s largest donors to date. When the scene was difficult for SCI-Arc, Bill was there to share it. When the scene was complex for SCI-Arc, Bill was there to add a voice. And when things went SCI-Arc’s way (which they inevitably do), Bill was always there to raise a glass. So, in turn, the entire community lifts a collective glass to Bill Gruen’s unique bond with SCI-Arc—major supporter, major donor, enduring friend. Skol!”

Gruen spent his career working closely with architects and designers. After studying electrical engineering at New York Uni-versity, he got his start at General Lighting Company in New York, where he worked with designers including Louis Danziger and Ladislav Sutnar. He was charged with overseeing the design of new architectural lighting fixtures. His cousin Victor Gruen—widely recognized as the inventor of the modern shopping mall—inspired him to move west in 1941, with the plan to expand his practice and engage with the growing modern design community of Southern California. In 1946, he and his wife Elaine founded Gruen Lighting in Encino, which became a trusted resource for modern lighting. By offering customized commercial and residential fixtures and effects, Gruen met and worked with a number of noted architects, electrical engineers, and interior designers in the greater Los Ange-les area. And now at SCI-Arc, he is making education possible for the next generation of architects in the region and beyond.

Drive to enhance scholarship supportAs the recent economic downturn has made it more difficult for students and their families to pay for the costs of higher education, the total amount of financial aid requested by SCI-Arc students has increased substantially. To address this trend, SCI-Arc is launching a drive to increase the amount of scholarship support offered to our students from $600,000 to $2 million annually. By enhancing scholarship support, we will be able to attract and retain top students from around the world, diversify our student population, and decrease the debt load of our graduating students. To make this plan a reality, we need the help of our closest friends and supporters. Donors can provide schol-arship support in many ways, includ-ing establishing a permanent en-dowed scholarship fund, making a planned gift through a will or living trust, or providing gifts of scholarship support that can be used immediately. These current-use scholarships have a great impact in the near-term, and provide immediate financial aid to stu-dents— sometimes even covering the full cost of annual tuition and fees. All scholarship support will fill a press-ing student need and will directly con-tribute to SCI-Arc’s high standard of academic excellence. Please con-tact me at bill_kramer@sciarc.edu or 213-356-5319 if you have questions or are ready to help us fulfill this goal. All my best, Bill KramerSCI-Arc Chief Development Officer

24

20 21

cartography. I map and diagram everything I come across–ideas, people, spaces, structures and texts. I’ve got a table relating 100 LA practices, a target for art I like, even a chart of thesis outcomes. (My wife Nina said last night that this sounds “a little Rain Man…”) I started a clothing line based on a grid of my wardrobe, called “day-ware,” and our installation in the SCI-Arc Gallery last fall, “blow x blow,” was really a built diagram, or complex of interlock-ing diagrams. It took me a decade or two, but I know my compul-sions–now I try to ride them further and faster.

Which leads me to this modest directive for all of you:

5. OWn YOur OWn revOLutIOn.SCI-Arc and its graduates have always punched above their weight. I sometimes worry, though, that we are too much like that promis-ing boxer who hasn’t yet made the ring his own. To compound a bad metaphor, but perhaps get closer my point, SCI-Arc has produced too many lieutenants–many good lieutenants, certainly a few Bad Lieutenants–but not enough generals. My generation aspired to become the peers of our teachers here; I’m hoping yours will eclipse us.

There’s a complacency too common among my fellow SCI-Arc alumni that I really want to discourage in all of you. Having been a part of something profoundly counter-cultural here, too many alums–some of them close friends–took that as license to lead well-cu-rated, ‘contemporary’ lives of foreseeable ambitions. SCI-Arc incul-cates a sense of possibility, but also of self-satisfaction–it was intense, but I survived it; it was outlandish, and now so am I…

I’ve noticed that, by contrast, a lot of students leave major Eastern schools angry–inspired by their teachers, perhaps, but frus-trated with the limitations and expectations and the crappy weather that bounded their education. And, as the Clash reminds us, “Anger can be power if you know that you can use it.” Don’t let the relief of finishing here to translate into diminished expectations for what you make of the rest of your careers–savor this milestone intensely, but briefly, then set new coordinates and new goals.

I hope I’m addressing a next Zaha today, but that will only be the case if one of you has both the foresight and the fortitude– and the fury–to pose a truly original proposition for the future of architecture and champion that vision through decades of experi-mentation, doubt, resolution, and realization. Find a Patrik Schum-acher along the way and you might start a movement, not just a globally celebrated studio. But find a way to claim the future, not just reinforce it.

You’re better positioned than I to call that Future, but extrapo-lation is a map-maker’s game. At first blush, the kids that came of age in the years Al Gore was inventing the Internet look categori-cally more fortunate than the ones that reached maturity in the decade that he didn’t invent Global Warming. But pretty much everybody that followed my time in school–both the pre- and the post-millennials–seem free of a central misconception that haunts my peers. I graduated in the last of the Analog dark ages, but also–and I think this is only partly explained by the Digital turn–the last of Minimalist and post-Minimalist limits in architectural thinking. I see objects in space. Objects that signify and multiply, vary and iterate, push and pull, layer and explode, but objects still.

A millennial worldview is defined first by an intuition that Space is the Object. That’s the hypothesis of “The Matrix,” and the presumption of “Inception”: world and mind are coincident; digital dreamscapes and dystopian daydreams are no longer escapes from reality, but simply the everyday tableau vivant of digital immersion. As the discussions of this weekend reaffirm, so many of architec-ture’s “objects”–the representational artifacts of our craft that used to point towards other “greater” scales of realization–are

anachronistic to the point of caricature for recent grads. Yours seems a less charmed, but more wily and more thoughtful cohort–it might be for you to prove that challenging times make for better art.

But who knows? The present may already be past. Graduating in 1994, following not just the recession of the late ’80s but also a couple studies showing a general public indifference to, if not hostility, toward our field, we thought that architecture was over; we’d never build and be lucky to survive by teaching. At least 12 of the last 15 years made happy fools of us, and if patterns hold, the next decade will surprise again.

Which brings me to my final point–and if you’ve been count-ing, this is a bonus one:

6. sustAIn, DOn’t just suPPOrt, sCI-ArC.Of course, all the excellent work you’ve done here, and all that you do in the future, will add to SCI-Arc’s legacy as well as your own. That is the Main Thing.

But many of you will eventually be able to give in what Development officers like to call a “meaningful” way to SCI-Arc, and you should.

I know quite a few of you feel like you’ll be “giving back” to SCI-Arc for quite a while just paying off your time here, so I won’t try to shame you into support. But when you can, give out of self-interest: the value of the diplomas you will soon hold in your hands depends more on the state of the school in 5 or 15 years than its strength today. You’ve gambled on this tribal casino, and won, but you’ll need it to stay open a while to collect on all those chips.

And they should appreciate. L.A. really does need a better airport, but it’s easily the most attractive city for creative talent in the U.S. When one of you gives this talk in 10-15 years, it’s as likely as not that you will be addressing the dominant architecture school in the country. This shouldn’t sound like wishful thinking or hyperbole, given both our trajectory of the last decades, and, as importantly, the structural and fiscal challenges that confront major schools that are part of larger universities. We will no longer be itinerant, but we will remain nimble enough for reinvention.

Finally, give because you may, in fact, already believe more completely in Architecture than in God or politics. At least, archi-tecture will now be the lens through which life’s questions, large and small, come into focus for you.

And if you still want religion, Architecture’s a good one. Not too many creeds promise an afterlife anywhere near as fine as Archigram’s Walking City, or many of the utopian prospects that our field has launched since then. This “visionary” side of advanced architecture is anything but its irrational excess–it’s an almost utili-tarian calling card in contemporary cultural production.

Our discipline’s focus on expanded environmental possibility has renewed our centrality both in scientific and cultural terms. We’ll all drive smarter cars soon, but the built environment is the central culprit in climate change, and will only be reformed by a vast reimagining of our cities. Ours is the only training that pro-vides both the tools and the conceptual framework for thinking in spaces and atmospheres, as well as form and structure.

As a bumper sticker reminded me recently, we in architecture believe in Life before Death… SCI-Arc lives and dies by your faith in architecture’s potential to not only improve lives but to transform the terms by which we live them.

KnOCK’em DeAD.

company, innumerable web and graphic design enterprises, a half dozen teaching careers, a deanship in Toronto and a position, for one of us, master-planning bio-tech lab space for Genentech. Hap-pily, his shares in Genentech could now underwrite all the rest of our misadventures.

These days, I collaborate in my studio with three SCI-Arc grads, 7, 5 and 2 years out of school. Though I loved working with friends in HEDGE, I also recommend this more stacked than horizontal approach to choosing your co-conspirators, for reasons I’ll get to soon.

This next tip has been the toughest for me to follow myself:

4. FOCus.Decide, sooner rather than later, whether your future lies in the profession or the discipline of architecture. Neither is of course an option–SCI-Arc could certainly use some alumni at Pixar–and so is both, but know that blending design and discourse is no longer an innocent or easy path. In both practice and academia, most of the best work of the last decade has been highly specialized. Consider a life in Theory–SCI-Arc will need one or two of you to explain what the rest of you decide to do.

Joe Day with Commencement Speaker, Sir Peter CookPhotography by Karim Attoui

This may not be the most inspiring thought, nor the most typical of SCI-Arc–but my most successful classmates have been the most ruthlessly focused. They took on specific, bounded challenges in design–how to build with shipping containers, how to make tenure at an Ivy League architecture school, how to make furry barns or petaled canopies–and they threw years of their lives at that goal. Probably the three best practices from my time at SCI-Arc are run by women–women who measured the odds against their gender as independent practitioners, then beat them through tactical savvy and incredibly hard work.

I am bi-focal, at best. I design and write, and can’t really see abandoning either–though I am mulling Jeff Kipnis’ sage advice to the contrary. My resolution to these split ambitions has been

OWn YOur revOLutIOnALumnI ADDress, sCI-ArC GrADuAtIOn 2010

Joe Day

Thanks, Eric. I’m honored to address all of you today–graduates, faculty, family and friends. I am especially pleased to share the afternoon with Sir Peter Cook–a hero of mine and, for as long as SCI-Arc has been in business, the world’s leading impresario for experimental architecture. Thank you–I spent the summer looking forward to opening for the Rolling stones; now I confront the reality of following Mick Jagger…

I want to single out the families of graduates in particular–SCI-Arc is an exhausting education, and one that takes a leap of faith for many parents. My father still pronounces it, Sigh… Arts. Thank you for your patience and support, and may it someday all seem worth it.

In case you thought your sacrifices ended today, however, I have a five-point plan for your daughters and sons that begins with this simple advice:

1. Burn DOWn YOur PArents’ hOmes. tOmOrrOW.

It’s a quick way to burnish those radical credentials, and if you’re discreet, AIG will pay off your loans and fund your first project! (Make sure you look into that policy first, though, and I’ll check to see if I owe Wolf Prix a royalty on the advice.)

Actually, this second point I wish someone had made to me 15 years ago when I graduated from SCI-Arc:

2. LeAve tOWn.Leave now. Go away. Go to other cities, countries, continents. Go away from the easy routines and familiar faces. Go away, perhaps, from architecture.

L.A. was once indisputably the city of the future–Reyner Ban-ham made that clear and I named a son for him–but we’re fighting to stay in contention now. And we will only compete again with many more cosmopolitan young people. So go see how far Moder-nity has gone in the hands of people that didn’t view it as reverently as we have, or that have mulled it for far longer. If Hitoshi Abe and Brendan MacFarlane are any indication, your SCI-Arc degree will only get more valuable the further you take it from LA.

Boycott this city until they build a better airport to welcome you back.

So that’s two pieces of advice: burn down the house and leave. I suggest if you take the first, certainly follow the second as well. I will offer five pieces in total–like Corb’s 5 Points, or Lars von Trier’s 5 Obstructions (a good movie to see after you’ve slept off this weekend). My remaining three are a bit more subtle.

3. LOOK Out FOr eACh Other.I didn’t leave. When I finished as a student at SCI-Arc, I felt I had only just begun to grasp the possibilities of the place, its utopian dimensions. I finagled a way to teach here–and at Otis and at UCLA, and then back here. Perhaps even more retrograde, I worked with a bunch of my friends from here in a collective called HEDGE.

I’d like to think this is why I was asked to speak with Sir Cook–our shared history of early collaborative practice…

HEDGE was a distant and rather prosaic echo of Archigram that a dozen of us, all recent grads, started in 1995. Like Graft and Servo, a couple of other amalgamations founded soon after ours, HEDGE was a response to uncertain times and prospects, not so unlike your own today. Looking out for each other seemed like a fun, cheap way to get rolling as designers, and a prudent hedge against reality. We entered competitions together, threw parties, taught each other Type V detailing, hooked up and broke up with each other in partnerships of various kinds. Over a decade, HEDGE launched five architecture practices, a clothing and a floral design

joe Day Joe Day is a designer and architectur-al theorist in Los Angeles, where he leads Deegan-Day Design and serves on the design and history/theory fac-ulty at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc), as well as its Board of Trustees. In addition to publication of his design work, Day’s critical writing has been featured in journals including Architecture maga-zine and Deutsche Bauzeitung, and in the collections Sessions (SCI-Arc, 2005) and Evil Paradises (New Press, 2007). Day recently contributed a foreword to the new edition of Reyner Banham’s seminal study, Los Angeles: Architecture of the Four Ecologies (University of California Press, 2009).

22 23

Oyler Wu Collaborative and todd Gannon, Pendulum Plane (L.A. Forum for Architecture and urban Design, 2009)The recent release in the Forum Pamphlets Series records the design, fabrication, and installation of Oyler Wu Collaborative’s Pendulum Plane, their award-winning intervention at the L.A. Forum for Architecture and Urban Design’s gallery in Hollywood.

tom Wiscombe, Emergent: Structural Ecologies (AADCu, 2009)Emergent’s variable structures, enve-lopes, and forms offer a genuine alter-native from the shimmering imagery of the computer screen and point to-wards an authoritative demonstration of an architecture grounded in new building techniques, according to Peter Zellner in his introduction. This monograph surveys 21 works and projects, reproduced in full color, ac-companied by plans, details, comput-er models, and texts.

PuBLICAtIOns

COmInG sOOn

SCI-Arc Gallery 2002-10 (AADCu, forthcoming)This 670-page book documents 35 unique site-specific installations in the SCI-Arc Gallery from Office dA’s Zero Tolerances in 2002 to Alexis Rochas’s Still Robot in 2010. Under the direc-tion of Eric Owen Moss, the SCI-Arc Gallery commissions emerging and established architects to test their ideas and research in exhibition form. SCI-Arc students then collaborate in the fabrication of the installations dur-ing architect-led workshops. SCI-Arc Gallery 2002-10 highlights process with copious illustrations and photo-graphs and includes discussions with exhibitors since 2007.

In PrInt

reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, second edition, introduction by joe Day (university of California Press, 2009)In a new foreword to this classic text, architect and scholar Joe Day explores how the structure of Los Angeles, the concept of “ecology,” and the rele-vance of Banham’s ideas have changed over the past 35 years.

hernan Diaz Alonso, Xefirotarch (AADCu, 2008)Documents the key projects of SCI-Arc’s distinguished faculty member, who has “stolen the imagination” of a younger generation of architects around the world. The monograph features full-color computer models, sections and details, and several exploratory essays.

Wes jones, todd Gannon, and nickolas urano, Meet The Nelsons (L.A. Forum for Architecture and urban Design, 2010)The sixth volume of the Forum Pamphlet Series compiles Wes Jones’s notorious comic strip that ap-peared in ANY magazine from 1994 to 2001. Both critical send-up of architectural discourse and homage to the traditions of comic-book art, “The Nelsons” addresses timely architectural themes, with insider knowledge, skepticism, and wit. The book includes texts by Jones, ANY editor Cynthia Davidson and LA Forum president Mohamed Sharif.

Log 17, guest edited by mark Foster Gage and Florencia Pita (Fall 2009)The Fall 2009 issue of Log focuses on relationships between new media and materiality in architecture with an em-phasis on sensation and affect. Sir Peter Cook, Joe Day, David Erdman, Jeffrey Kipnis, and Sylvia Lavin con-tribute. Thom Mayne and Hernan Diaz Alonso converse on drawing; Peter Zellner and colleagues discuss the pretensions of form; and Todd Gannon interviews Georgina Huljich and Marcelo Spina.

eric Owen moss, Eric Owen Moss Construction Manual, 1988-2008 (AADCu, 2009)Features 40 projects from Eric Owen Moss Architects, the Culver City-based firm Moss founded in 1973. The nearly 1,600-page manual in-cludes first sketches, models, prelimi-nary drawings, fabrications, and con-struction photos. Twenty-one of the featured projects have been built and several more are in the pipeline.

A New Infrastructure: Innovative Transit Solutions for Los Angeles (sCI-Arc Press, 2009), edited by Peter ZellnerIf you could remake the transit infra-structure in Los Angeles, how would you go about it? The Future Initiatives program at SCI-Arc posed this ques-tion as a competition. Inspired by LA County Measure R—a half cent sales tax that promises up to $40 billion in future transit funding—the competition drew 75 proposals from architecture firms and students throughout the U.S. and from four other countries. The 156-page book, published with the support of the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Cultural Affairs, documents the competition’s results, ranging from regional high-speed rail to innovative vehicle redesign.

Onramp, no. 2 (sCI-Arc, 2009), edited by Florencia PitaA publication of selected work by SCI-Arc graduate and undergraduate students, the second edition of Onramp features diverse, compelling and unorthodox projects from the 2007-2009 academic years. Featured are plans for a “Library for the 21st Century” and a vision for “Family Dwelling after the Zombie Wars.” Works from studios at every level reveal nascent prospects in the next wave of architects.

sCI-ArC APPOInts ACADemIC AFFAIrs DIreCtOr, neW ChAIrsA new leadership team was announced at SCI-Arc this fall. Moss —who is credited with overseeing the ongoing institutional rise of SCI-Arc, building the school’s international reach, elevating faculty and student excellence to new levels, and managing the school’s efforts to establish a permanent campus in downtown Los Angeles—will continue to lead the school until 2015.

After directing the school’s graduate programs for eight years, Hsinming Fung has a new role of Director of Academic Affairs, overseeing the schools’ entire academic program. In addition, two new chair positions were created to address the expansion of SCI-Arc’s B.Arch, M.Arch, and Masters of Design Research programs. Hernan Diaz Alonso, who has been coordinating the school’s graduate thesis for several years, was named Graduate Programs Chair, and John Enright, who previously taught and exhibited at SCI-Arc, assumed the Undergraduate Program Chair.

“SCI-Arc’s confidence in itself includes the mandate to re-evaluate our leadership and our aspirations, and to continue to re-imagine the architecture discourse,” said Moss in making his announcement. “Ming, Hernan, and John join SCI-Arc’s enduring race to a moving finish line.”

Outgoing director Christopher Genik of Daly Genik Architects, who has been the undergraduate program director as well as a faculty member at SCI-Arc for the past eight years, will assume the role of Dean of the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego.

neW LeADershIP

jerrY neumAn Is neW ChAIr OF sCI-ArC BOArD OF trusteesJerold B. Neuman, a real estate attorney who has served on the SCI-Arc Board of Trustees since 2006, is the board’s new chairman.

“Jerry Neuman brings a new and timely voice to the SCI-Arc leadership,” said SCI-Arc Director Eric Owen Moss. “His experi-ence will be especially helpful at the intersection of politics, project funding, and architecture both at SCI-Arc and around the city.”

Neuman is a Real Estate and Land Use partner in Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and has been the lead negotiator and project coordinator for many of Southern California’s large real estate, green energy and infrastructure projects. This September, Neuman succeeded John Geresi, a managing director at JPMorgan Chase, who served as chairman since 2007. “Neuman has a long-term commitment to education in general, and to education in plan-ning and architecture, in particular,” said Moss. “He is respectful of SCI-Arc’s pedigree, but is not reluctant to suggest an evolving future for the school. He’s deeply involved with a wide range of current conceptual planning and architecture proposals that will change Los Angeles.”

Neuman said he looks forward to working with Moss and others at SCI-Arc to extend and increase the school’s reach and influence with the various constituencies it serves. “The ability to work with such a distinguished and talented group of people is an exceptional opportunity, and to do it in the service of an institution like SCI-Arc makes that opportunity extraordinary.”

Projects in which Neuman has taken a lead role include the Millennium Partners’ proposed 1.2 million-square-foot Capitol Records development, the multi-module retail/entertainment center at Hollywood and Highland, the Walt Disney Company’s Grand Central Terminal Corporate Campus, the 110-acre Burbank Empire Center, the Airbus A380 airport readiness program, Element Power’s renewable energy placement efforts, and the multi-modal transit facility at Del Mar Station in Pasadena.

He is a founding director of Mission Valley Bank and the co-chair of Los Angeles Business Leaders Task Force on Homeless-ness. He also serves on the State of California’s Economic Strategy Panel, the City of Los Angeles’s Mixed-Income Housing Technical Advisory Committee and on the boards of a number of civic and charitable organizations. Neuman received his law degree from Columbia University School of Law in 1987; his undergraduate studies were at the University of Arizona.