I am not an architect, I have never been to architectural school (not yet at least), nor have I written about architecture in an official manner, until now. Today, I begin my column in Arcade on architectural commentary. So what are my qualifications, if any? I have developed a passion for understanding the world of architecture, having read upwards of fifty books on architectural history and theory - and I have a growing library of books I have not yet read, with a specific emphasis on Seattle architects. Included, I will be recommending some books for the professional and laymen alike. I must have perused hundreds of design proposals for new buildings in my 11 years of living in Seattle while watching the city grow. My familiarity with Seattle’s built environment also extends to the intimate level, as I have walked every street within Seattle’s boundaries over the course of several years. I strive to be as objective as possible when discussing architectural issues, but some of my opinions will inevitably creep in - there is no helping it.
Here are some of my core beliefs, which hopefully should not be too controversial: I tend to be more of a maximalist than a minimalist. I favor people over automobiles. I believe that both modernism and classicism/historicism have a place in contemporary architecture. I am equally a preservationist and proponent for building more housing – it should be possible for us to have our cake and eat it too. While I fancy myself an amateur design critic, I am an amateur architectural historian at heart, so I find myself constantly confronting contemporary architecture with a mindset that places everything in an appropriate historical context and speculating how the architecture of today will be seen in history books years from now. I like to sprinkle historical fun facts in my discussions that provide insightful context, resulting in a learning experience for audiences along all spectrums. Hopefully, I will rejuvenate an interest in past architectural styles and movements as well stimulate a critical discourse on the problems that confront us today.
Here, I will be discussing architecture on the macroscale (big ideas, trends, and theories) for a broad audience. I will attempt to bridge the gap between the pedestrian and pedantic, explaining concepts that hopefully everyone can understand, then building in complexity that will also be intellectually stimulating for the professional design community. When tapping into the arcane vocabulary of architectural terms, I will strive to explain everything in a way that is accessible to most audiences. I prefer to ask thought-provoking questions rather than providing all the answers; because in the world of design, there is so much subjectivity that there is seldom a right answer.
Why does it feel that architecture is only for architects? Do we not all experience the built environment, have opinions about the built environment, and yearn to have an intelligent conversation about the built environment? Certainly, it is the architects who practice architecture and design this built environment, however this should not mean that discussing the details of what gets built must remain only a dialogue between architects, their clients, and our city planners. Has this segmentation of dialogue always been this way, or is it a more recent development? In the age of social media, there are more opportunities than ever before to democratize architectural discourses, but the opposite seems to be occurring with the fragmentation of perspectives into siloed echo chambers. Perhaps this disconnect can be attributed to the fact there is no common language between the professionals and the populace. Architectural verbiage can be alienating to those of us outside of the professional or academic architectural/design community. Such dialogues may consist of any combination of platitudes, rhetoric, or abstractions without really saying anything truly accessible. Granted, there is an intimidatingly expansive vocabulary of architectural terms, many of which are Greek and Latin, and while most of this arcane terminology is essential to accurately and eloquently expound on architecture, this preexisting language barrier should not justify the gatekeeping of such discourses to a select few.
In addition to how architecture is discussed, the matter of what is and is not discussed may contribute to the disconnect. In my experience, style is one of the more engaging and approachable architectural subjects for non-architects. Unfortunately, I get the impression that contemporary architects are averse to talking about style, as if it is something base, vulgar, or low-brow. However, from the dawn of the Renaissance all the way up through the nineteenth century, architects could not shut up about “style” in their writings. By style, I mean anything as broad as medieval architecture, or as granular as Late English Perpendicular Gothic. I could theorize that the institutionalization of International Modernism at the start of the 20th century has led to the irrelevance of style in architecture, but that overlooks the reality that there are now arguably over 100 styles falling under the Modernist umbrella from over the past 100 years. For some reason, I am not seeing this discussed enough in today’s architectural circles; we should explore this.
Another player in the architecture of our city is the press, who have the opportunity to bridge the gap between architects and the curious masses, but are not, in my humble opinion, adequately filling this role. When I say “press,” I am referring to architectural journals like ArchDaily and local news outlets that regularly discuss architecture like Daily Journal of Commerce and Puget Sound Business Journal - even Arcade falls into this category. The irony as I am right now writing for the “architecture press” is not lost on me, and this is arguably why I am here.
Technically also part of the press, there are the architecture and design critics who write for local newspapers like Seattle Times, the Seattle PI, and The Stranger. But where have all the architecture critics gone? I recall having read some well-written critiques pulled from the archives of the Times and the PI from over 10 years ago that were filled with thoughtful discussions, critical assessments, and plenty of wit or sass. Perhaps the decline of print journalism over the past decade and the ever-slimming of journalistic staff, especially since Covid, has inevitably resulted in the collapse of architectural criticism as a profession. This is an unfortunate casualty, as the critics played a significant role in filling the architectural dialogue gap that I am now criticizing and simultaneously hoping to help fill.
Here, I will be tackling various architectural topics that I find both important and intellectually stimulating, while defining complex terms and concepts every step of the way so that hopefully everyone can effectively participate. My hope is that with a more universally understood vocabulary, the nebulous but no less important opinions of the populace can be more eloquently expressed in the future.
For example, and to start: when the public tries to engage in an architectural conversation without an architectural language, such comments may be perceived as superficial and dismissed as “just not getting it”. You may have come across some such comments at a design review meeting or in the comments section on an article of a newly proposed building.
“All new buildings look the same”.
“I don’t like the color”.
“Why don’t they make buildings look like they used to?”
“The materials look cheap.”
Off-topic comments like “Too much / Not enough parking.”
Or just simply “It’s ugly.”
Most of these comments are valid (I personally agree that cheap cladding materials are a scourge of contemporary architecture), but linguistic disconnects may prevent the concerns of laypersons from resonating with the design community, just as the arcane discourse of the architects is often lost on everyone else. As an “enlightened outsider” I share many of the concerns I sense in the populace, and my goal is to express them in an architectural language that is rigorous, while maintaining accessibility.
As promised, here are some book recommendations to help bridge the gap between appreciating and understanding architecture for non-architects. Some of these books may even be beneficial to professional architects who understandably miss the forest for the trees when focused on the minutiae of complex design projects.
Why not start from the very beginning? This ancient Roman text is the oldest surviving architectural book and most of it is surprisingly relevant today. After immensely influencing the Renaissance, the Vitruvian teachings subsequently found their way all the way to Seattle in early 20th century Neoclassical edifices. This is where you get not only the names to the 3 Classical Orders (Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian), but also their ideal proportions down to the minutest detail. Impress your friends with an esoteric vocabulary of Greek and Latin terms!
This is where I started 11 years ago, with an old intimidating tome I found at a Goodwill. There may very well be similarly comprehensive but better books on architectural history, but I found this volume to have a good balance of depth and breadth and I still thirsted for more. You'd be surprised by how much of the 2500 years of Western architectural history is packed into the mere 140 years of Seattle’s existing built environment.
Critics of the architecture community hated it, but the fact that Tom Wolfe was an outsider (like myself) should not invalidate his polarizing opinions. This book is both a brief history and opinionated critique of Modern architecture from its beginnings, right up to the start of Postmodernism (published the very same year as Arcade’s very first issue!) I like to imagine that I am carrying the torch in critiquing the architecture of the years that followed up to the present.
What is more accessible than a comic book? This very readable manifesto contains plenty of popping renderings and photos, but it also describes a tantalizingly attainable pragmatic utopian architecture. Its pages show that rational functional design does not need to be boring, nor does more adventurous architecture have to be incomprehensible. For some reason many in the architectural community have shown disdain for Bjarke Ingels, but I find his team’s buildings to be quite thrilling and I am not about gatekeeping in the world of architectural taste.
If you want a softer Seattle-centric overview of architecture, this guidebook from the Seattle Architecture Foundation should meet your needs and whet your appetite to learn more. This book includes a brief blurb of just about every significant building in the greater downtown area (at least up to 2008) with all the basic facts plus some historical context. I found this framework to be very helpful, but my yearning for a more nuanced and rigorous understanding of our built environment led to my @Buildings_of_Seattle project on Instagram.
