Mid-Century Moderism at Cranbrook - June 13 to 16

[Jason]

southen:

No, they were just normal architects of the time. It's people today who are in the echo chamber, telling each other how great and important some of those architects are, and then repeating it to themselves over and over.

Every architect on the planet should know who Eero Saarinen is. Every furniture designer on the planet should know who the Eames are.

Are the buildings you listed bad buildings? Not really. I have a beef with the Fisher Building because its confusion of watered down styles tell me that they were directionlessly pandering to the public's tastes, but that's a different story. Out of the buildings you listed, the Guardian Building is a noteworthy enough example that it's usually included in books about art deco architecture. The GM Building is noteworth for its size but is otherwise run of the mill standard neoclassical. imo the Penobscot is a good and early example of art deco from 1928 [[looks like it could have been built in '29 or '30) but there are so many great examples of art deco across the country that it wouldn't be near the top of many lists.

So you're from Detroit and you can tell me who Albert Kahn and Wirt Rowland are. Albert Kahn was the founder and one of the designers of Albert Kahn and Associates and Wirt Rowland was the lead designer of what is now called SmithGroup. At the time they were the city's two biggest corporate design firms and did a huge amount of work throughout the city.

Every city has a few bigger firms who did a lot of work in that city. What were the two biggest architecture firms in Philadelphia in the 1920s? Or Los Angeles? Or San Fransisco? Or Boston? Or any other major city? Do you know? I sure don't! There's a Wirt Rowland for every one of those cities. All of those cities have buildings and architects of comparable quality.

You live in a building designed by Mies, and I've seen from some of your pics on flickr that you have furniture be Le Corbusier and the Eames. These are people that literally changed the course of history. Every designer around the world knows those names and for good reasons.

The people covered by the conference are important to varying degrees, and are the best Michigan has to offer. Louis Kampfer is by no stretch of the imagination a significant architect but it seems like the local architecture/preservation/hobbyist people know more about him than the various designers who passed through cranbrook.

p69rrh51:

Dow is getting a session dedicated to him and I'm sure he'll be brought up in some of the general panel discussions. One of his buildings is also included in the WSU walking tour.

The conference is being put on in part by the State Historic Preservation Office, and they really do know their stuff and they also care about "the little guy". They're doing a "Michigan Modern" project to promote our modern architecture heritage, and their blog is linked to in the first post, and they've posted plenty of gems by lesser-known architects. They also have a flickr account. They've posted buildings that I didn't know about, and they've posted buildings that I did know about but after giving them a second look, appreciated more. I'm sure there's a good book's worth of lesser known buildings, but it's hard to find fault in them choosing Eero Saarinen over Donald Paul Young for example.

canuck: Hawkins Ferry was a tremendus patron of the arts who we should all be thankful for. He also had the good fortune of attending cranbrook and then harvard and being taught by some of the greatest architects of the time. And he also had enough money and connections to get stuff built if he wanted... But I have to say he wasn't very good at it!! Honestly if I saw that house I'd assume it was the work of an over ambitious contractor.

[canuck]

southen:


canuck: Hawkins Ferry was a tremendus patron of the arts who we should all be thankful for. He also had the good fortune of attending cranbrook and then harvard and being taught by some of the greatest architects of the time. And he also had enough money and connections to get stuff built if he wanted... But I have to say he wasn't very good at it!! Honestly if I saw that house I'd assume it was the work of an over ambitious contractor.

Yes, that is the feeling I got from seeing this. Some contractor drew this on a napkin and got it stamped by an architect.

I find the houses by Dow and Brigham interesting precursors of the "Look-at-my-garage-it's-now-what-a-house-is-all-about" category of suburban housing.
The Brigham is hodge-podgey in the extreme.

I find the Girard and Young houses pleasant enough. It is hard to tell from one picture but the Girard one does a good job of landscape integration.

[p69rrh51]

Yes, that is the feeling I got from seeing this. Some contractor drew this on a napkin and got it stamped by an architect.

I find the houses by Dow and Brigham interesting precursors of the "Look-at-my-garage-it's-now-what-a-house-is-all-about" category of suburban housing.
The Brigham is hodge-podgey in the extreme.

I find the Girard and Young houses pleasant enough. It is hard to tell from one picture but the Girard one does a good job of landscape integration.

Canuck not all Dow is garage first oriented.



1000 Berkshire built in 1932 Ann Arbor, MI.

[southen]

southen:

No, they were just normal architects of the time. It's people today who are in the echo chamber, telling each other how great and important some of those architects are, and then repeating it to themselves over and over.

Every architect on the planet should know who Eero Saarinen is. Every furniture designer on the planet should know who the Eames are.

Are the buildings you listed bad buildings? Not really. I have a beef with the Fisher Building because its confusion of watered down styles tell me that they were directionlessly pandering to the public's tastes, but that's a different story. Out of the buildings you listed, the Guardian Building is a noteworthy enough example that it's usually included in books about art deco architecture. The GM Building is noteworth for its size but is otherwise run of the mill standard neoclassical. imo the Penobscot is a good and early example of art deco from 1928 [[looks like it could have been built in '29 or '30) but there are so many great examples of art deco across the country that it wouldn't be near the top of many lists.

So you're from Detroit and you can tell me who Albert Kahn and Wirt Rowland are. Albert Kahn was the founder and one of the designers of Albert Kahn and Associates and Wirt Rowland was the lead designer of what is now called SmithGroup. At the time they were the city's two biggest corporate design firms and did a huge amount of work throughout the city.

Every city has a few bigger firms who did a lot of work in that city. What were the two biggest architecture firms in Philadelphia in the 1920s? Or Los Angeles? Or San Fransisco? Or Boston? Or any other major city? Do you know? I sure don't! There's a Wirt Rowland for every one of those cities. All of those cities have buildings and architects of comparable quality.

You live in a building designed by Mies, and I've seen from some of your pics on flickr that you have furniture be Le Corbusier and the Eames. These are people that literally changed the course of history. Every designer around the world knows those names and for good reasons.

The people covered by the conference are important to varying degrees, and are the best Michigan has to offer. Louis Kampfer is by no stretch of the imagination a significant architect but it seems like the local architecture/preservation/hobbyist people know more about him than the various designers who passed through cranbrook.

detroit is known throughout the country as having great examples of pre-depression architecture and pre-depression skyscrapers. just because of the examples ive listed YOU personally only care for the guardian doesnt make any less important or well designed in the eyes of many others.

i think you made my point when you said how many other cities had guys like rowland + kahn. well based on the quality of structures, not many, but how many architects outside of of new york and chicago were known to anyone? you are examining a field that produces very few stars, especially at the time these buildings were being constructed and you seem to be placing the importance of the architect based on how they changed history. i just find the criteria to be a bit unfair and if all architects were judged on that criteria there were would be few at the top of that mountain.