UGLY AND ORDINARY

ARCHITECTURE j
OR
THE DECORATED SHED
1. Some definitions using the comparative method
BY ROBERT VENTURI AND DENISE SCOTT BROWN
These are excerpts from Learning
from Las Vegas by Robert Venturi,
Denise Scott Brown and Steven
Izenour, to be published shortly by
the MIT Press. An earlier portion, "A
Significance for A & P Parking Lots,
or Learning from Las Vegas," was
published in our March '68 issue. A
second excerpt will appear in the
December issue. Robert Venturi and
Denise Scott Brown are partners and
Steven Izenour is a member in the
firm Venturi and Rauch, architects
and planners of Philadelphia.
64
"Not innovating willfulness but
reverence for the archetype."
Herman Melville
"Incessant new beginnings lead
to sterility.'" Wallace Stevens
"I like boring things."
Andy Warhol
To make the case for a new
but old direction in architecture,
we shall use some perhaps indis-
creet comparisons to show what
we are for and what we are
against and ultimately to justify
our own architecture. When ar-
chitects talk or write, they philo-
sophize almost solely to justify
their own work, and this apolo-
gia will be no different. Our
argument depends on compari-
sons because it is a simple argu-
ment-simple to the point of
banality. It needs contrast to
point it up. We shall use, some-
what undiplomatically, some of
the works of leading architects
today as' contrast and context.
We shall emphasize image-
image over process or form-
in asserting that architecture de-
pends in its perception and crea-
tion on past experience and emo-
tional association, and that these
symbolic and representational
elements may often be contra-
dictory to the form, structure
and program with which they
combine in the same building.
We shall survey this contradic-
tion in its two main manifesta-
tions:
1. Where the architectural sys
terns of space, structure, and
program are submerged and dis-
torted by an overall symbolic
form: This kind of building-be-
coming - sculpture we call the
duck in honor of the duck-
shaped drive-in, "The Long Is-
land Duckling" illustrated in
God's Own Junkyard by Peter
Blake.
2. Where systems of space and
structure are directly at the
service of program, and orna-
ment is applied independently of
them: This we call the decorated
shed.
The duck is the special build-
ing that is a symbol, the decor-
ated shed is the conventional
shelter that applies symbols. We
maintain that both kinds of
architecture are valid-Chartres
is a duck (although it is a dec-
orated shed as well) and the
Palazzo Farnese is a decorated
shed - but we think that the
duck is seldom relevant today
although it pervades Modern
architecture.
We shall describe how we
come by the automobile-oriented
commercial architecture of urban
sprawl as our source for a civic
and residential architecture of
meaning, viable now, as the turn-
of-the-century industrial vocabu
lary was viable for a Modern
architecture of space and indus-
trial technology 40 years ago.
We shall show how the iconog-
raphy, rather than the space and
Crawford Manor Paul Rudolph, Architect
piazzas, of historical architec-
ture, form the background for
the study of association and
symbolism in commercial art and
strip architecture.
Finally we shall argue for the
symbolism of the ugly and or-
dinary in architecture and for
the particular significance of the
decorated shed with a rhetorical
front and conventional behind:
for architecture as shelter with
symbols on it.
The Duck & the Decorated Shed
Let us elaborate on the dec-
orated shed by comparing Paul
Rudolph's Crawford Manor with
our Guild House (in association
with Cope & Lippincott).
The s e buildings correspond
in use, size and date of construc-
tion: Both are highrise apart-
ments for the elderly of about
90 units, built in the mid-1960s.
Their settings vary: Guild House,
although freestanding, is a six-
story, imitation palazzo, analo-
gous in structure and materials
to the surrounding buildings, and
continuing through its position
and form the street line of the
Philadelphia gridiron plan it sits
in. Crawford Manor, on the
other hand, is unequivocally a
soaring tower, unique in its
Modern, Ville Radieuse world
along New Haven's limited-ac-
cess, Oak Street Connector.
But it is the contrast in the
images of these buildings in re-
lation to their systems of con-
FORUM-NOVEMBER-1971
struction that we want to em-
phasize. The system of construc-
tion and program of Guild House
is ordinary and conventional and
looks it; the system of construc-
tion and program of Crawford
Manor is ordinary and conven-
tional but doesn't look it.
Let us interject here that we
chose Crawford Manor for this
comparison not because of any
particular antagonism toward
that building-it is, in fact, a
skillful building by a skillful ar-
chitect, and we could easily have
chosen a much more extreme
version of what we are criti-
cizing - but in general be-
cause it can represent establish-
ment architecture now (that is,
it represents the great majority
of what you see today in any
architecture journal) and in
particular because it corresponds
in fundamental ways with Guild
House. On the other hand, choos-
ing Guild House for comparison
involves a disadvantage, because
that building is now five years
old and some of our later work
can more explicitly and vividly
convey our current ideas. Lastly,
please don't criticize us for pri-
marily analyzing image: we are
doing so simply because image
is pertinent to our argument,
not because we wish to deny an
interest in or the importance of
process, program and structure
or, indeed, social issues, in archi-
tecture or in these two buildings.
Along with most architects, we
probably spend 90 percent of our
design time on these other im-
portant subjects: The yare
merely not the direct subject of
this inquiry.
To continue our comparisons,
the construction of Guild House
is p04red-in-place concrete plate
with curtain walls pierced by
double-hung windows and en-
closing the interior space to make
rooms. The material is common
brick - darker than usual to
match the smog-smudged brick
of the neighborhood. The me-
chanical systems of Guild House
are nowhere manifest in the out-
side forms. The typical floor
plan contains a 1920s-apartment-
house variety of units to accom-
modate particular needs, views
and exposures; this distorts the
efficient grid of columns. The
structure of Crawford Manor,
which is poured - in - place con-
crete and concrete block faced
with a striated pattern, is likewise
a conventional frame supporting-
laid-up masonry walls. But it
doesn't look it. It looks more
advanced technologically and
more progressive spatially: it
looks as if its supports are
spatial, perhaps mechanical-har-
boring shafts made of a con-
tinuous, plastic material reminis-
cent of beton brut with the
striated marks of violently heroic
construction process embossed
in their form; they articulate
the flowing interior spa c e,
their structural purity never
punctured by holes for windows
or distorted by exceptions in
the plan. Interior light is "modu-
lated" by the voids between the
structure and the "floating" can-
tilevered balconies.
The architectural elements for
supplying exterior light in Guild
House are frankly windows. We
relied on the conventional meth-
od of doing windows in a build-
ing; we by no means thought
through from the beginning the
subject of exterior light modula-
tion but started where someone
else had left off before us. The
windows look familiar; they look
like, as well as are, windows,
and in this respect their use is
explicitly symbolic. But like all
effective symbolic images, they
are intended to look familiar and
unfamiliar. They are the conven-
tional element used slightly un-
conventionally. Like the subject
matter of Pop Art, they are com-
monplace elements, made un-
common through distortion in
shape (slight), change in scale
(they are much bigger than nor-
mal double-hung windows) and
change in context (double-hung
windows in a perhaps high-fash-
ion building).
Decoration on the Shed
Guild House has ornament on
it; Crawford Manor doesn't. The
ornament on Guild House is ex-
plicit. It both reinforces and
contradicts the form of the
building it adorns. And it is to
65
Crawford Manor Guild House
some extent symbolic. The con-
tinuous stripe of white-glazed
brick high on the facade, in com-
bination with the plane of white-
glazed brick below, divides the
building into three uneven stor-
ies: basement, principal story,
and attic. It contradicts the
scale of the six real and equal
floors on which it is imposed and
SUggests the proportions of a
Renaissance palace. The central
white panel also enhances the
focus and scale of the entrance.
It extends the ground floor to
the top of the balcony of the
second floor, in the way, and for
the same reasons, that the in-
creased elaboration and scale
around the door of a Renais-
sance palace or Gothic portal
does. The exceptional and fat
column in an otherwise flat
wall-surface increases the focus
of the entrance, and the luxuri-
ous granite and glazed brick
enhance the amenity there, as
does the veined marble that de-
velopers apply at street level to
make their apartment entrances
more classy and rentable. At the
same time the column's being in
the middle of the entrance dim-
inishes its importance.
The arched window in Guild
House is not structural. Unlike
the more purely ornamental ele-
ments in this building, it reflects
an interior function of the shed,
that is, the common activities at
the top. But the big common
room itself is an exception to
66
the system inside. On the front
elevation, an arch sits above a
central vertical stripe of balcony
voids, whose base is the orna-
mental entrance. Arch, balconies
and base together unify the
facade and, like a giant order
(or classic jukebox front), un-
dermine the six stories to in-
crease the scale and monumen-
tality of the front. In turn, the
giant order is topped by a flour-
ish, an unconnected, symmetrical
television antenna in gold ano-
dized aluminum, which is both an
imitation of an abstract Lippold
sculpture and a symbol for the
elderly. An open-armed, poly-
chromatic, p I as t e r madonna
would have been more imageful
but unsuitable for a Quaker in-
stitution that eschews all out-
ward symbols-as does Crawford
Manor and most orthodox Mod-
ern architecture, which rejects
ornament and association in the
perception of forms.
Explicit and Implicit Associations
Adornments of representa-
tional sculpture on the roof, or
a prettily shaped window, or
wittiness or rhetoric of any kind
are unthinkable for Crawford
Manor. Appliques of expensive
material on a column or white
stripes and wainscoatings copied
from Renaissance compositions
also it doesn't sport. Crawford
Manor's cantilevered balconies,
for instance, are "structurally
integrated"; they are parapet-
ted with the overall structural
material and devoid of orna-
ment. Whereas, balconies at
Guild House are not structural
exercises, and the railings are
adornments 'as well as recollec-
tions at a bigger'scale of conven-
tional patterns in stamped metal.
Guild House symbolism in-
volves ornament and is more 'or
less dependent on explicit as-
sociations; it looks like what it
is, not only because of what it is
but also because of what it re-
minds you of. But the architec-
tural elements of Crawford Man-
or abound in associations of an-
other, less explicit, kind. Implicit
in the pure architectural forms
of Crawford Manor is a symbol-
ism different from the applique
ornament of Guild House with its
explicit, almost heraldic, associa-
tions. We read the implicit
symbolism of Crawford Manor
into the undecorated physiog-
nomy of the building through as-
sociations' and past experience;
it provides layers of meaning be-
yond the "abstract expression-
ist" messages derived from the
inherent physiognomic character-
istics of the forms, their size,
texture, color, and so forth.
These meanings come from our
knowledge of technology, from
the work and writings of the
Modern form-givers, from the
voca bulary of industrial archi-
tecture and other sources. For
instance, the vertical shafts of
Crawford Manor connote struc-
tural piers (they are not struc-
tural), made of rusticated "rein-
forced concrete" (with mortar
joints), harboring servant spaces
and mechanical systems (actual-
ly kitchens), terminating in the
silhouettes of exhaust systems
(suitable to industrial labora-
tories), articulating light modu-
lating voids (instead of framing
windows), articulating flowing
space ( confined to efficiency
apartments but augumented by
very ubiquitous balconies that
themselves suggest apartment
dwelling), and articulating pro-
gram functions that protrude
sensitively (or expressionistical
Iy) from the edges of the plan.
Heroic and Original
or Ugly and Ordinary
The content of Crawford Man-
or's implicit symbolism is what
we call "heroic and original."
Although the substance is con-
ventional and ordinary, the
image is heroic and original. The
content of the explicit symbolism
of Guild Mouse is what we shall
call "ugJy and ordinary." The
technoiogically una d van c ed
brick, the old-fashioned, double-
hung windows, the pretty mate-
rials around the entrance, and
the ugly antenna not hidden be-
hind the parapet in the accepted
fashion, all are distinctly con-
ventional in image as well as
substance or, rather, ugly and
ordinary. (The inevitable plastic
flowers at home in these win-
dows are, rather, pretty and or-
dinary; they don't make this
architecture look silly as they
would, we think, the heroic and
original windows of Crawford
Manor.)
But in Guild House the sym-
bolism of the ordinary goes
further than this. The preten-
sions of the "giant order" on
the front, the symmetrical, palaz-
zo-like composition with its three
monumental stories (as' well as
its six real stories), topped by a
piece of sculpture - or almost
sculpture-suggest something of
the heroic and original. It is
true that in this case the heroic
and original is somewhat iron-
ical, but it is this juxtaposition
of contrasting symbols-the ap-
plique of one order of symbols
on another-that consitutes for
us the decorated shed. This is
what makes Guild House an ar-
chitect's decorated shed-not ar-
chitecture without architects.
The purest decorated shed
would be some form of conven-
tional systems - building shelter
that corresponds closely to the
space, structure and program re-
Quirements of the architecture,
and upon which is laid a con-
trasting-and if in the nature
of the circumstances, contradic-
tory-decoration. In Guild House
the ornamental - symbolic ele
ments are more or less literally
applique: The planes and stripes
of white brick are applique; the
street facade through its dis-
fORUM-NOVEMBER-1971
engagement at the top corners
implies its separation from the
bulk of the shed at the front.
(This quality also implies con-
tinuity, and therefore unity, with
the street line of facades of the
o the r older, nonfreestanding
buildings ori. each side.) The
symbolism of the hap-
pens to be ugly and ordinary
with a dash of ironic heroic and
original, and the shed is straight
ugly and ordinary, though in its
brick and windows it is symbolic
too. Although there is ample
historical precedent for the dec-
orated shed, present day road-
side commercial architecture-
the $10,000 stand with the $100,-
000 sign - was the immediate
prototype of our decorated shed.
And it is in the sign of Guild
House that the purest manifesta-
tion of the decorated shed and
the most vivid contrast with
Crawford Manor lies.
Ornament: Signs and
Symbols, Denotation
and Connotation,
Heraldry and Physiognomy.
Meaning and Expression
A sign on a building carries
a denotative meaning in the ex-
plicit message of its letters and
words. It contrasts with the
connotative expression of the
other, more architectural, ele-
ments of the building. A big
sign, like that over the entrance
of Guild House, is particularly
ugly and ordinary in its ex-
plici t commercial associations. It
is significant that the sign for
Crawford Manor is modest, taste-
ful and not commercial. It is
too small to be seen from fast-
moving cars on the Oak Street
Connector. But signs as explicit
symbols, especially big, com-
mercial-looking signs, are anath-
ema in architecture such as
Crawford Manor. Its identifica-
tion dees not come through ex-
plicit, denotative communication,
through literally spelling out "I
am Guild House" but through
the connotation implicit in the
physiognomy of its pure archi-
tectural form, which is intended
to express in some way housing
for the elderly.
Is Boring Architecture
Interesting?
For all its commonness, is
Guild House boring? For all its
dramatic balconies, is Crawford
Manor interesting? Is it not the
other way around? Our criticism
of Crawford Manor and the
buildings it stands for is not
moralistie, nor is in concerned
with so-called honesty in archi-
tecture or a lack of correspon-
dence between substance and
image per se-i.e., that Craw-
ford Manor is ugly and ordinary
while looking heroic and original.
We criticize Crawford Manor not
for "dishonesty" but for irrele-
vance today. We shall try to
show how, in both the method
and the content of its images,
Crawford Manor (and the ar-
chitecture it represents) has
impoverished itself by rejecting
denotative ornament and the rich
tradition of iconography in his-
torical architecture and by ignor-
ing-or rather using unawares-
the connotative expression it
substituted for decoration. When
it cast out eclecticism, Modern
architecture submerged symbol-
ism. Instead it promoted expres-
sionism, concentrating on the
expression of architectural ele-
ments themselves: on the expres-
sion of structure and function.
It suggested, through the image
of the building, the reformist-
progressive social and industrial
aims that it could seldom achieve
in reality. By limiting itself to
strident articulations of the pure
architectural elements of space,
structure and program, Modern
architecture's expression has be-
come a dry expressionism, empty
and boring. And in the end,
irresponsible: i ron i c a I I y the
Modern architecture of Crawford
Manor, while rejecting explicit
symbolism and frivolous applique
ornament, has distorted the
whole building into one big orna-
ment. In substituting "articula-
tion" for decoration, it has be-
come a duck.
PHOTOGRAPHS: page 64, Peter Blake.
Page 65 (top, middle), page 66 (right),
page 67, Wm. Watkins. Page 65 (right),
page 66 (left), Robert Perron.
67
UGLY AND ORDINARY
ARCHITECTURE
OR
THE DECORATED SHED
2
Theory of ugly and ordinary
and related and contrary concepts
BY ROBERT VENTURI AND DENISE SCOTT BROWN
48
y
Let us describe our own expe-
rience as architects to explain
how we came to ugly and or-
dinary architecture. After the
appearance of Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture, we
began to realize that few of our
firm's buildings were complex
and contradictory, at least not in
their purely architectural qual-
ities of space and structure as
opposed to their symbolic con-
tent.
Most of the complexities and
contradictions we relished think-
ing about we didn't use because
we didn't have the opportunity.
Venturi and Rauch didn't get big
commissions who s e programs
and settings' justified complex
and contradictory forms, and as
artists we could not impose on
our work inapplicable ideas that
we liked as critics. A building
should not be a vehicle for an
architect's ideas, etc. Also our
budgets were low, and we didn't
want to design a building twice
-once to fit some heroic idea of
its importance to society and the
world of art, and after the bids
come in, a second time, to reflect
the client's and society's re-
stricted idea of our architecture's
value. Whether society was right
or wrong was not for us at that
moment to argue. Therefore our
Brighton Beach Housing entry
did not turn out a megastructure
for living in, nor our Fire Sta-
tion in Columbus, Indiana, a per-
sonalized essay in civic monu-
mentality for a pedestrian piazza
by the side of the highway. They
turned out "ugly and ordinary,"
as two such divergent critics as
Philip Johnson and Gordon Bun-
shaft have described our work.
"Ugly" or "beautiful" is perhaps
a question of semantics in this
context, but these two architects
did catch the spirit, in a way.
Architecture may be ordinary
- or rather, conventional- in
two ways: in how it is construct-
ed or in how it is seen, that is,
in its process or in its symbolism.
To construet conventionally is
to' use ordinary materials and
These are excerpts from Learning
from Las Vegas by Robert Venturi,
Denise Scott Brown and Steven
Izenour, to be published shortly by
the MIT Press. An earlier portion, "A
Significance for A & P Parking Lots,
or Learning from Las Vegas," was
published in our March '68 issue. The
first excerpt appeared in the Novem-
ber issue. Robert Venturi and Denise
Scott Brown are partners and Steven
Izenour is a member in the firm
Venturi and Rauch, architects and
planners of Philadelphia.
engineering, accepting the pres-
ent and usual organization of the
building industry and financial
structure and hoping to insure
fast, sound and economical con-
struction. This is good in the
short run, and the short run is
what our clients have largely re-
tained us architects for. Archi-
tectural theories of the short
run tend toward the idealization
and generalization of expediency.
Architecture for the long run re-
quires creation, rather t han
adaptation, and response to ad-
vanced technology and sophis-
ticated organization. It depends
on sound research that may per-
haps be promoted in the archi-
tect's office but should be fi-
nanced outside of it because the
client's fee is not adequate for
and not included for that pur-
pose. Although architects have
not wished to recognize it, most
architectural problems are of the
expedient type, and the more
architects become involved in
social problems the more this is
true. In general the world can't
wai t for the architect to build
his utopia and in the main, the
architect's concern ought not to
be with what ought to be, but
with what is-and with how to
help improve it now. This is
a . humbler role for architects
than the Modern movement has
wanted to accept; however it is
artistically a more promising one,
Ugly and Ordinary
Artistically, the use of conven-
tional elements in ordinary archi-
tecture - be they dumb door
knobs or the familiar forms of
existing construction systems-
evokes associations from past
experience. Such elements may
be carefully chosen or thought-
fully adapted from existing vo-
cabularies or standard catalogs
rather than uniquely created via
original data and artistic intui-
tion. To design a window, for
instance, you start not only with
the abstract function of modulat-
ing diurnal light rays to serve
interior space, but with the
image of window-of all the
windows you know about plus
others you find out about. This
approach is symboli'cally and
functionally conventional, but it
promot e s an architecture of
meaning, broader and richer if
less dramatic than the architec-
ture of expression.
We have shown how heroic
and original (H&O) archi-
tecture derives dramatic expres-
sion from the connotative mean-
---
heroic communication through
pure architecture. Each medium
has its day, and the rhetorical
environmental statements of our
time-civic, commercial or resi-
dential-will come from media
more purely symbolic, perhaps
less static and more adaptable
to the scale of our environ-
ment. The iconography and
mixed media of roadside com-
mercial architecture will point
the way.
Symbolism and Association
Basic to the argument for the
decorated shed is the assump-
tion that symbolism is essential
in architecture and that the
model from a previous time or
from the existing city is part of
the source materials, and the rep-
lication of elements is part of
the design method of this archi-
tecture: that is, architecture that
depends on association in the
perception of it depends on as-
sociation in the creation of it.
We have approached the justi-
fication of symbolism in archi-
tecture pragmatically using con-
crete examples, rather than ab-
stractly through the science of
semiology or through a priori
theorizing. However, other ap-
proaches have rendered similar
results. Alan Colquhoun has
written of architecture as part of
a "system of communications
within society" and describes
the anthropological and psycho-
logical basis for the use of a
typology of forms in design, sug-
gesting that not only are we not
"free from the forms of the past,
and from the availability of these
forms as typological models, but
that, if we assume we are free,
we have lost control over a very
active sector of our imagination
and of our power to communi-
cate with others."
Colquhoun argues against the
proposition of Modern architec-
ture that form should be the re-
sult of the application of physi-
calor mathematical laws rather
than of previous associations or
esthetic ideologies. Not only are
these laws themselves human
constructs but in the real world
or even the world of advanced
technology, they are not totally
determining; there are areas of
free choice.
The viewing of physical laws
and empirical facts as the funda-
mental source of form in Modern
architectural theory, Colquhoun
calls "bio-technical determinism."
The limitations inherent in this
approach even for technical en-
ings of its "original" elements:
it gives off abstract meanings-
or rather, expressions-recogniz-
able in the physiognomic charac-
ter of the architectural elements.
Ugly and ordinary architecture
(U&O), on the other hand, in-
cludes denotative meanings as
well, derived from its familiar
elements; that is, it suggests
more or less concrete meanings
via association and past expe-
rience. The "brutalism" of an
H&O fire station 1. comes from
its rough texture; its eivic monu-
mentality comes from its big
scale; the expression of structure
and program and "truth to ma-
terials" come from the particular
articulations of its forms. Its
total image derives from these
pur ely architectural qualities
transmitted t h r 0 ugh abstract
forms, textures and colors, care-
fully composed. The total image
of our U&O fire house 2.-an 1.
image implying civic character as
well as specific use-comes from
the conventions of roadside UUlI;
architecture that it follows; from
the decorated false facade, from .1
the banality through familiarity :: -'-:;'-
of the standard aluminum sash
and roll-up doors, and from the
Ilag pole in front-not to men-
tion the conspicuous sign that
identifies it through speIling, the
m0 s t denotative of symbols:
FIRE STATION NO.4. These
elements act as symbols as well
as expressive architectural ab-
stractions. They are not merely
ordinary but represent ordinari-
ness symbolically and stylistical-
ly; they are enriching as well be-
Muse they add a layer of literary
meaning.
Richness can come from con-
ventional architecture. For 300
years European architecture was 2.
variations on a Classical norm:
a rich conformity. But it can
also come through an adjusting
of the scale or context of fa-
and conventional elements
to produce unusual meanings.
Pop artists used unusual juxta-
Xlsitions of everyday objects in
and vivid plays between
and new associations to flout
me everyday interdependence of
wntext and meaning, giving us
I new interpretation of 20th cen-
tury cultural artifacts. The fa-
which is a little off has a
;trange and revealing power.
We uphold the symbolism of
me ordinary via the decorated
Ihed over the symbolism of the
eroic via the sculptural duck,
this is not the time and
JUrs is not the environment for
FDRUM-DECEMBER-1971
49
gineering problems w ere ac-
knowledged-obliquely-in Mod-
dern theory, but they were to be
overcome through the integrat-
ing magic of intuition and with-
out reference to historical mod-
dels. That form results from in-
tention as well as deterministic
process was acknowledged in the
writings of Le Corbusier, Laszlo
Moholy-Nagy and other leaders
of the Modern movement in their
descriptions of the "intuition,"
"imagination," "inventiveness,"
and "free and innumerable plas-
tic events" that regulate archi-
tectural design. What resulted
was, Colquhoun says, a "tension
of two apparently contradictory
ideas-biological determinism on
one hand, and free expression on
the other," within the doctrine of
the Modern movement. Through
excluding a body of traditional
p. r act ice for the sake of
"science," a vacuum was left
that was filled ironically by a
form of permissive expression-
ism: "What appears on the sur-
face as a hard, rational discipline
of design, turns out rather para-
doxicalIy to be a mystical belief
in the intuitive process."
Firmness +Commodity = Delight
Vitruvius wrote (via Sir Henry
Wootton) that architecture was
Firmness and Commodity and
Delight. Gropius (via the bio-
technical determinism just de-
scribed) implied that Firmness
and Commodity equal Delight:
that structure plus program rath-
er simply result in form, that
beauty is a by-product, that-
to tamper with the equation in
another way - the process of
making architecture becomes the
image of architecture. Louis
K;lhn in the 1950's said that the
architect should be surprised by
the appearance of his design.
Presumed in these equations
is that process and image are
never contradictory and that De-
light is a resultant which comes
from the clarity and harmony of
these simple relationships, un-
tinged, of course, by the beauty
of symbolism and ornament or
by the associations of precon-
ceived for m: Architecture is
frozen process.
The historians of the Modern
movement concentrate on the
innovative engineering structures
of the 19th and early 20th cen-
turies as prototypes for Modern
architecture, but it is significant
that the bridges of Maillart are
not architecture and the hangars
of Freyssinnet are hardly archi-
50
tecture. As engineering solu-
tions, their programs are simple
and without the inherent contra-
dictions of architectural pro-
grams: To traverse a ravine di-
rectly, safely and cheaply or to
protect a big space from the
rain without intervening supports
is alI that is required of these
structures. The unavoidable sym-
bolic content of even such sim-
ple, utilitarian constructions, and
the unavoidable use of what Col-
quhoun calls typologies was ig-
nored by the theorists of the
Modern movement, although the
ornamentation of utilitarian sup-
erstructures is typical of all
times.
Industrial Iconography
More important than forget-
ting the decoration was copying
the shed, that is, deriving as-
sociations from the body of the
building rather than from its
facade. The architecture of the
Modern movement, during its
early decades and through a
number of its masters, developed
a vocabulary of forms based
on a variety of industrial models
whose conventions and propor-
tions were no less explicit than
the Classical orders of the Ren-
aissance. What Mies did with
linear industrial buildings in the
1940's, Le Corbusier had done
with plastic grain elevators in
the 1920's, and Gropius had done
with the Bauhaus in the 1930's
imitating his own earlier factory,
the Faguswerk, of 1911. Their
factory-like buildings were more
than "influenced" by the indus-
trial vernacular structures of the
then recent past, in the sense
that historians have described
influences among artists and
movements. They were explicitly
adapted from these sources, and
largely for their symbolic con-
tent, because industrial struc-
tures represented, for European
architects, the brave new world
of science and technology. The
architects of the early Modern
movement, in discarding the ad-
mittedly obsolete symbolism of
historical eclecticism, substituted
that of the industrial vernacular.
They employed a design method
based on typological models,
and developed an architectural
iconography based on their inter-
pretation of the progressive tech-
nology of the industrial revolu-
tion.
Symbolism Unadmitted
A contradiction between what
was said and what was done was
typical of early times in Modern
architecture: Walter Gropius de-
cried the term "International
Style" but created an architec-
tural style and spread a vocabu-
lary of industrial forms that were
quite removed from industrial
processes. Adolf Loos condemned
ornament yet applied beau-
tiful patterns in his own designs,
. and would have erected the most
magnificent, if ironic, symbol in
the history of skyscrapers if he
had won the Chicago Tribune
Competition. The later work of
Le Corbusier started a continu-
ing tradition of unacknowledged
symbolism, whose indigenous-
vernacular for m s, in varying
manifestations, are still with us:
from La Tourette 3. to Boston,
4. New Haven 5. and Houston's
Westheimer Strip. 6.
But it is the contradiction-or
at least the lack of correspond-
ence-between image and sub-
stance, that confirms the role of
symbolism and association in
orthodox Modern architecture.
As we have said, the symbolism
of Modern architecture is usually
technological - functional, but
when these functional elements
work symbolically they usually
don't work functionally, for ex-
ample Mies' symbolically ex-
posed but substantively encased
steel frame, and Rudolph's beton
brut in concrete block or his
"mechanical" shafts used for an
apartment house rather than a
research lab. Some latter-day
Modern architectural contradic-
tions are the use of flowing
space for private functions, glass
walls for western exposures, in-
dustrial clerestories for suburban
hi g h schools, exposed ducts
which collect dust and conduct
sound, mass produced systems
fo r underdeveloped countries,
and the impressions of wooden
formwork in the concrete of
high-labor-cost economies.
We catalog here the failures
of these functional elements to
function as structure, program,
mechanical equipment, lighting
or industrial process, not to
criticize them (although on func-
tional grounds they should be
criticized), but to demonstrate
their symbolism. Nor are we in-
terested in criticizing the func-
tional - technological content 0
early Modern architectural sym-:
bolism. What we criticize is the I
symbolic con ten t of current!
Modern architecture and the
architects' refusal to acknowl-
edge symbolism.
Modern architects have sub-
FORUM-DECEMBER-1971
stituted one set of symbols
(Cubist - industrial - process) for
another (Romantic-historical-ecl-
ecticism) but without being a-
ware of it. This has made for
confusion and ironic contradic-
tions that are still with us.
Slavish Formalism and
Articulated Expressionism
Substituting non - functioning
imitations of a deterministic
process for preconceived form
has resulted not orily in confu-
sion and irony but in a formal-
ism that is the more slavish for
being unadmitted. Those archi-
tects who decry formalism in
architecture are frequently rigid
and arbitrary when the time
comes for committing their proj-
ects to form. They adopt the
fashionable shapes of the archi-
tectural leader who is fancied
at the time, whether or not this
leader's formal vocabulary would
be more relevant to the problem
than some other formal vocabu-
lary.
The substitution of expression
for representation through dis-
dain for symbolism and orna-
ment has resulted in an archi-
tecture where expression has be-
come expressionism. Owing per-
haps to the meager meanings
available from abstract forms
and unadorned functional ele-
ments, tlie characteristic forms
of late Modern architecture are
oft e n overstated. Conversely,
they are often understated in
this context, as with La Tourette
or the Westheimer Strip. Louis
Kahn once called exaggeration
the architect's tool to create or-
nament. But exaggeration of
structure and program (and, in
the 1950's and 1960's, mechani-
cal equipment, i.e., ducts equals
decoration) has become a sub-
stitute for ornament.
Articulation as Ornament
To replace ornament and ex-
plicit symbolism, Modern archi-
tects indulge in distortion and
overarticulation.
On the one hand, consider
those residential, civic and in-
stitutional buildings whose thin
complexities (stepped terraces;
accordion sections, or plans or
elevations; cantilevered clerestor-
ies; diagonal zoots; textured stri-
ations and flying bridges or but-
tresses) almost parallel the stri-
dent distortions of a McDonald
Hamburger stand but lack the
commercial program and dis-
tracting setting that justify the
stridency of Strip architecture.
On the other hand, consider
sensitively articulated structural
frames and cantilevered bays
that modulate a facade, define
interior spaces, or reflect varia-
tions in the program. These
busy bumps and subtle dents are
put there for scale and rhythm
and richness too, but they are
as irrelevant and meaningless as
the pilaster bas-relief on a Rena-
issance palace (which they re-
semble) because they are most-
ly seen in big spaces (often
parking lots) and at high speeds.
Space as God
Perhaps the most tyrannical
element in our architecture now
is space. Space has been con-
trived by architects and deified
by critics, filling the vacuum
created by fugitive symbolism.
If articulation has taken over
from ornament in the architec-
ture of abstract expressionism,
space is what displaced symbol-
ism: space dramatized by an
acrobatic use of light. Our heroic
and original symbols, from car-
ceri to Cape Kennedy, feed our
late Romantic egos and satisfy
our need for spectacular, expres-
sionistic space for a new age in
architecture. To day, however,
most buildings need reasonably
low ceilings and windows rather
than glass walls for light, to
contain the air conditioning
and meet the budget. Therefore
our esthetic impact should come
from sources other than light
and space, more symbolic and
less spatial sources.
Megastructures and
Design Control
R e c e n t Modern architecture
has achieved formalism while
rejecting form, promoted expres-
sionism while ignoring ornament,
and deified space while reject-
ing symbols. Confusions and
ironies result from this un-
pleasantly complex and contra-
dictory situation. Ironically we
glorify originality through repli-
cation of the forms of Modern
masters. There is little harm in
this symbolic individualism ex-
cept for its effect on the budget,
but there is harm in imposing
on the whole landscape heroic
representations of the Modem
masters' unique creations. Such
symbolic heroism is the source
for the megastructure and for
"Total Design." Architects who
demand evidence of process in
the forms of individual buildings
reject it in the form of the city
where it is arguably more defen-
sible. Total design is the op-
posite of the incremental city
that gro'ws through the decisions
of many; total design promotes
the messianic role for the archi-
tect as corrector of the mess of
urban sprawl, that is, for the
city dominated by pure architec-
ture and maintained through "de-
sign review": that is for the
architecture of Urban Renewal
and of the fine arts commissions.
The Boston City Hall and its
urban complex are the archetype
of enlightened Urban Renewal.
Its profusion of symbolic forms
that recall the extravagances of
the General Grant period and the
revival of the Medieval piazza
and its palazzo publico is, in the
end, a bore. It is too architec-
tural. A conventional loft would
accommodate a bureaucracy bet-
ter perhaps with a blinking sign
on top saying "I AM A MONU-
MENT." 7.
However, no architecture is
not the answer to too much
architecture. The reaction of the
antiarchitects 8. of Architectural
Design is perhaps as futile as
the endless fondling of irrelevant
subtleties at the other extreme
in the other magazines, though
it is possibly less harmful be-
cause it seldom get s built,
plugged in or inflated. The world
science futurist metaphysic, the
megastructuralist mystique, and
the look-Ma-no-buildings envir-
onmental suits and pods are a
repetition of the mistakes of an-
51
other generation. Their overde-
pendence on a space age, futurist
or science fiction technology par-
allels the machine estheticism
of the 1920's and approaches its
ultimate Mannerism. They are,
however, unlike the architecture
of the 1920's, artistically a dead
end and socially a cop-out.
Meanwhile, every community
and state is appointing its design
review board to promote the
architectural revolution of the
last generation and corrupt its
members through rule-by-man
rather than rule-by-law proce-
dures. "Total Design" comes to
mean "total control" as confi-
dent art commissioners, who
have learned what is right, pro-
mote a deadening mediocrity by
rejecting the "good" and the
"bad" and the new they don't
recognize, all of which, in com-
bination and in the end, make
the city.
Misplaced Technological Zeal
Part of being "heroic and orig-
inal" is being advanced tech-
nologically. The discrepancies
between substance and image in
Modern architecture's technologi-
cal machismo and the costliness
of its frequently empty gestures
emerged earlier than architects
would admit. Methods of indus-
trial production turned out to be
largely inapplicable to the con-
struction of buildings. Many
e leg ant structural systems-
space frames, for instance-al-
though they were highly efficient
in relating stress to material and
economical for spanning large
industrial structures, failed de-
cisively to work within the pro-
gram, space and budget of the
more prosaic and usual archi-
tectural commissions. As Philip
Johnson said, you can't put a
door in a geodesic dome.
Furthermore, architects who
concentrated on eng i nee r-
ing forms, tended to ignore those
aspects of the building industry
that involve financing, distribu-
tion, existing trades and conven-
tional materials and methods;
these are aspects that, as the
developers have known, are high-
ly subject to the improving ef-
fects of technology, including
managerial technology, and af-
fect the final form and cost of
architecture substantially more
than does innovative construc-
tional tee h n 0 log y. Archi-
tects have contributed little to
the crucial building needs of this
country-especially in housing-
partly because their predilections
52
for advanced technology of the
symbolic and visionary kind
have impeded their effectiveness
within the going systems of con-
struction.
While focusing on their favor-
ite form of technological voodoo-
ism over the last 40 years, that
is, res ear chi n g industrial-
ized methods of prefabrication,
architects have discovered the
mobile home industry. This in-
dustry, without the architects'
help and using a traditional tech-
n 0 log y, essentially carpentry
which is then related to innova-
tive methods of distribution, is
now producing one-fifth of the
annual output of housing in this
country. Architects should for-
get about being great technical
innovators in housing construc-
tion and concentrate on adapting
this new and useful technology
to more broadly defined needs
than it serves today and on de-
veloping a vivid mobile home
symbolism for mass markets.
Which Technological Revolution?
The relevant revolution today
is the current electronic one. Ar-
chitecturally the symbol systems
that electronics purvey so well
are more important than their
engineering content. The most
u r g e n t technological problem
facing us is the humane mesh-
ing of advanced scientific and
technical systems with our im-
perfect and exploited human sys-
tems, a problem worthy of the
best attention of architecture's
scientific idealogues and vision-
aries. For us the most boring
pavilions at Expo '67 were those
thot corresponded to the progres-
sive structures of 19th century
World's Fairs celebrated by Sig-
fried Giedion; while the Czech
Pavilion - an architectural and
structural nonentity, but tattooed
with symbols and moving pic-
tures-was by far the most in-
teresting. It also had the long-
est lines of spectators: The
show, not the building, drew the
crowd. The Czech Pavilion was
almost a decorated shed.
From LaTourette to Levittown
What architects now call a-
nonymous architecture com e s
close to what we are calling
ordinary architecture, but it is
not the same because it eschews
symbolism and style. W h i I e
architects have adapted the sim-
ple forms of vernacular archi-
tecture, they have largely ig-
nored the complex symbolism
behind them. They themselves
have used the vernacular vocab-
ularies symbolically, to suggest
association with the past and
simple, deterministic virtue, that
is, as early examples of a cor-
respondence between structural
methods, social organization and
environmental influences, paral-
leling at a primitive level the
benign processes that shape the
industrial vernacular. Yet ironi-
cally architects have-except for
Aldo van Eyck in Africa and
Gunther Nitschke in Japan-dis-
counted the symbolic values that
shape these forms and dominate,
so anthropologists tell us, the
artifactual environment of primi-
tive cultures, often contradict-
ing function and structure in
their influence on form.
It is a further irony that Mod-
dern architects, who can em-
brace vernacular architecture re-
mote in place or time, can con-
temptuously reject the current
vernacular of the United States,
that is, the merchant builders'
vernacular of Levittown and the
commercial vernacular of Route
66. This aversion to the conven-
tional building around us could
be an exotic survival of 19th cen-
tury Romanticism, but we think
it is merely that architects are
able to discern the symbolism
in the forms of their own verna-
cular; they are unable to discern,
either through ignorance or de-
tachment, the symbolism of My-
konos or the Dogon. They un-
derstand the symbolism of Levit-
town and don't like it, and they
are not prepared to suspend
judgment on it in order to learn
and to make subsequent judg-
ment more sensitive. The con-
tent of commercial hucksterism
and middle-middle class social
aspiration is so distasteful to
them that they are unable either
to investigate openmindedly the
basis for the symbolism or anal-
yze the forms for their functional
value; indeed they find it diffi-
cult to concede that any "liber-
al" architect could do so.
Architects who find middle-
middle - class social aspirations
distasteful and like uncluttered
architectural form see only too
well the symbolism in the sub-
urban residential landscape; for
instance, in its stylish "bi-Ievels"
in the Regency, Williamsburg,
New Orleans, French Provincial
or Prairie-organic modes, and its
ornamented ranchers with carri-
age lanterns, Mansards and an-
tiqued brick. They recognize the
symbolism, but they don't accept
it. To them the symbolic decora-
tion of the split-level suburban
sheds represents the debased,
materialistic values of a con-
sumer economy where people are
brainwashed by mass marketing
and have no choice but to move
into the ticky - tacky, with its
vulgar violations of the nature
of materials and its visual pollu-
tion of architectural sensibilities,
and, therefore, the ecology.
This viewpoint throws out the
variety with the vulgarity. In
suburbia, the eclectic ornament
on and around the relatively
small houses reaches out to you
visually across the relatively big
lawns and makes an impact that
pur e architectural articulation
could never make, at least in
time, before you have passed on
to the next house. The lawn
sculpture part way between the
house and the curving curb acts
as a visual booster within this
space, linking the sYmbolic archi-
tecture to the moving vehicle.
So sculptural jockeys, carriage
lamps, wag 0 n wheels, fancy
house numbers, fragments of
split rail fences and mail boxes
on erect chains, all have a spatial
as well as a symbolic role: Their
forms identify vast space as do
the urns in Le Notre's parterres,
the ruined temples in English
parks, and the sign in the A&P
parking lot.
But the symbolic meanings of
the forms in builders' vernacular
also serve to identify and sup-
port the individualism of the
owner. For the middle class sub-
urbanite living, not in a medieval
street, a Regency terrace or even
an antebellum mansion but in a
smaller version lost in a large
space, ide n tit y must come
through symbolic treatment of
the form of the house, either
through styling provided by the
developer (for instance, split-
level Colonial), or through a
variety of symbolic ornaments
applied thereafter by the owner
(the Rococo lamp in the pic-
ture window or the wagon wheel
out front).
The critics of suburban iconog-
raphy attribute its infinite com-
binations of standard ornamental
elements to clutter rather than
variety. This can be dismissed
by suburbia's connoisseurs as the
insensitivity of the uninitiate. To
call these artifacts of our cul-
ture crude is to be mistaken
concerning scale: it is like con-
demning theater sets for being
crude at five feet, or condemning
plaster putti, made to be seen
high above a Baroque cornice,
architect from his status in high iconography of Modern archi-
culture. But it may alter high tecture and manifest through a
culture to make it more sym- language-several languages-of
pathetic to current needs and form, and that formal languages
issues. Helping this to happen and associational systems are in-
is a not reprehensible part of evitable and good, becoming tyr-
the role of the high-design archi- annies only we are u
tect. '----__----tocoonjiS;scCllitioruurss="=o-ofthem. Our 0 er
Irony may be the tool with point is that the content of the
which to confront and combine unacknowledged symbolism of
values in architecture for a plur- current Mod ern architecture
alist society and to accommodate is silly. We have been designing
the differences in values that dead ducks.
arise between the architect and We don't know if the time will
his clients. Social classes rare- come for serious architectural
Iy come together, but if they oceanographic-urbanism, for ex-
can make temporary alliances in ample, as opposed to the present
the designing and building of symbolic offshore posturing of
multi-valued community archi- the world futurist architectural
tecture, a sense of paradox and visionaries. We suspect that one
some irony and wit will be day it may, though hardly in the
needed on all sides. forms now envisioned. As prac-
Understanding the content of ticing architects in the here and
pop's messages and the way that now, we don't have much inter-
it is projected does not mean est in such predictions. We do
that one need agree with, ap- know, however, that the chief
prove of, or reproduce that con- resources of our society go in-
tent. If the commercial persua- to things with little architectural
sions that flash on the strip are potential: war, electronic com-
materialistic manipulation and munication, outer space and, to
vapid sub-communication, which a much lesser extent, social serv-
cleverly appeal to our deeper ices. As we have said, this is
drives but send them only super- not the time and ours is not
ficial messages, it does not fol- the environment for heroic com-
low that the architect who learns munication via pure architecture.
from their techniques must re- When Modern architects right-
produce the content or the su- eously abandoned ornament on
perficiality of their messages. buildings, they unconsciously de-
(But he is indebted to them for signed buildings that were orna-
helping him recognize that Mo- ment. In promoting Space and
dern architecture too has a con- Articulation over symbolism and
tent and a vapid one at that.) ornament the y distorted the
On the other hand, the interpre- whole building into aduck. They
tation and evaluation of symbolic substituted for the innocent and
content in architecture are an am- inexpensive practice of applied
biguous process: the didactic decoration on a conventional
symbolism of Chartres may rep- shed the rather cynical and ex-
resent to some the subtleties of pensive distortion of program
medieval theology and to others, and structure to promote a duck:
the depths of medieval supersti- mini-megastructures are mostly
tion or manipulation. Manipula- ducks. It is now time to re-
tion is not the monoply of crass evaluate the once - horrifying
commercialism. And manipula- statement of John Ruskin that
tion works both ways: it serves architecture is the decoration of
commercial interests and the bill- construction; but we should ap-
board lobby, but also, through pend the warning of Pugin, it
the intimidating prestige of cul- is all right to decorate construc-
tural lobbies and design review tion but never construct decor-
boards, it promotes anti - sign ation.
legislation and beautification.
The progressive, technological
vernacular, process - oriented,
superficially socially concerned,
heroic and original content of
Modern architecture has been
discussed before by critics and
historians. Our point is that
these qualities are not abstract
manifestations or vague analo-
gies imputed after the fact to the
intentions of architects; rather
they are explicitly there in the
High Design Architecture
Finally, learning from popular
culture does not remove the
10.
outside a formal language and
find formal languages suited to
our times. The s e languages
should incorporate symbolism
and rhetorical applique. Revolu-
tionary eras are' given to didactic
symbolism and to the propagan-
distic use of architecture to pro-
mote revolutionary aims. This is
as true for the African symbol-
ism of the militants and for the
ultra-middle-class symbolism of
the non-militants in rebuilding
the ghetto as it was for the
Romantic Rom a n republican
s y m b 0 lis m of revolutionary
France. Ledoux was a propagan-
dist and symbolist before he was
a formalist. He saw, as we must
see, architecture as symbol in
space before form in space. To
find our symbolism we must go
to the suburban edges of the
existing city that are symboli-
cally rather than formalistically
attractive and represent the as-
pirations of almost all, including
most ghetto dwellers and most
of the silent white majority.
Then the archetypal Los Angeles
will be our Rome and Las Vegas
our Florence; and, like the arche-
typal grain elevator 9. some
generations ago, the Flamingo
sign will be the cylindrical model
to shock our sensibilities towards
a new architecture. 10.
Social Architecture
and Symbolism
We architects who hope for
a reallocation of national re-
sources toward social purposes
must take care to lay the em-
phasis on the purposes and their
promotion rather than on the
architecture that shelters them.
This reorientation will call for
ordinary architecture, not ducks.
Meeting the architectural im-
plications and the critical social
issues of our era will require
that we drop our involuted archi-
tectural expressionism and our
mistaken claim to be building
for lacking the refinements of a
Mino da Faesole bas-relief on a
Renaissance tomb. Also, the
boldness of the suburban doo-
dads distracts the eye from the
telephone poles that even the
silent majority doesn't like.
Many people like suburbia.
This is the compelling reason
for learning from Levittown. The
ultimate irony is that although
Modern architecture from the
start has claimed a strong social
basis for its philosophy, Modern
architects have worked to keep
formal and social concerns sep-
arate rather than together. In
dismissing Levittown, Mod ern
architects, who have characteris-
tically promoted the role of the
social sciences in architecture,
reject whole sets of dominant
social patterns because the y
don't like the architectural con-
sequences of these patterns. Con-
versely, by defining Levittown
as "silent-white-majority" archi-
tecture, they reject it again, be-
cause they don't like what they
believe to be the silent white
maiority's political views. These
architects reject the very heter-
ogeneity of our society that
makes the social sciences rele-
vant to architecture in the first
place.
If analyzing suburbia's archi-
tecture implies that one has let
the Nixon regime "penetrate
even the field of architectural
criticism" then the field of urban
planning has been infiltrated by
Nixonites for more than 10 years
-such as Abrams, Gans, Web-
ber, Dyckman, Davidoff. For our
critique is nothing new; the social
planners have been making it for
more than a decade. But in this
Nixon - silent - majority critique,
especially in its architectural, as
opposed to its racial and military
dimensions, there is a fine line
between liberalism and old-fash-
ioned class snobbery.
fORUM-DECEMBER-1971 53