I would like to challenge The New York Times’ architecture critic’s assertion in his article of August 24th, 2009 (“As Heroes Disappear, the City Needs More”) that Los Angeles has fostered two generations of architects “that has no real equivalent in New York.” While I agree with Nicolai Ouroussoff’s ultimate conclusion that “real change will first demand a radical shift in our cultural priorities”, it would behoove Mr. Ouroussoff, who waxes nostalgically about the 70s-era influence of the “New York Five,” to explore the halls of academia on the eastern seaboard and to grab a Metrocard and visit the architectural studios that are energetically creating new work in our diverse city.
If he does engage in this search, he will find that Gotham isn’t nearly as barren of the “heroes” he seeks. He would find practices and their principals exerting great influence over the current generation of architects and even more sway upon the students of the next generation.
He would meet Alexander Gorlin, whose Nehemiah Housing in East New York is responsible — in every sense of that word. He would find that the three partners of Lewis-Tsurumaki-Lewis are all deeply revered teachers (Paul Lewis is the Director of Graduate Studies at Princeton, Marc Tsurumaki teaches at Columbia, and David Lewis is the former Director of Parsons’ graduate program), respected theorists, and accomplished builders, whose reach extends far beyond just this city.
He would speak with David Leven and Stella Betts of Leven Betts Studio, who are also ensconced in the academy while running a much-honored practice (Leven has inherited the graduate program at Parsons from David Lewis). He would meet Adam Yarinsky and Stephen Cassell of Architecture Research Office who, besides regularly teaching and building prominent public work such as the Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square, have devoted office resources to complete essential work in collaboration with the brilliant structural engineer Guy Nordenson. Their vital research on how climate change may affect New York City was completed through a Latrobe Prize grant and must be taken seriously.
And Mr. Ouroussoff would find countless other studios and offices (nArchitects, SHoP, Lyn Rice Architects, WORKac, Leroy Street Studio/Hester Street Collaborative, and more than I can name here) run by architects, young (and in some cases significantly younger than the accomplished Angelenos he mentions) men and women, all of whom have had broad influence within and outside the profession. Most of these practices and the people who run them, including our own, have devoted themselves to a dual act of responsibly progressive design: teaching and building. They have already had (even though considered mere youngsters in a profession that rewards age and patience) an impact on local and more far-flung colleagues and students, on this generation and future generations of architects, and on New York City itself.
There can be no greater influence on the future of our city and on the built environment than to inspire others to make better and more responsible architecture. The work and teachings of many of my colleagues is mostly lacking in self-promotion but overflowing with substance. This is what makes them influential and, at times, heroic. But it is also, perhaps, what makes them far less visible to Mr. Ouroussoff. He should be looking more closely.
If he does engage in this search, he will find that Gotham isn’t nearly as barren of the “heroes” he seeks. He would find practices and their principals exerting great influence over the current generation of architects and even more sway upon the students of the next generation.
He would meet Alexander Gorlin, whose Nehemiah Housing in East New York is responsible — in every sense of that word. He would find that the three partners of Lewis-Tsurumaki-Lewis are all deeply revered teachers (Paul Lewis is the Director of Graduate Studies at Princeton, Marc Tsurumaki teaches at Columbia, and David Lewis is the former Director of Parsons’ graduate program), respected theorists, and accomplished builders, whose reach extends far beyond just this city.
He would speak with David Leven and Stella Betts of Leven Betts Studio, who are also ensconced in the academy while running a much-honored practice (Leven has inherited the graduate program at Parsons from David Lewis). He would meet Adam Yarinsky and Stephen Cassell of Architecture Research Office who, besides regularly teaching and building prominent public work such as the Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square, have devoted office resources to complete essential work in collaboration with the brilliant structural engineer Guy Nordenson. Their vital research on how climate change may affect New York City was completed through a Latrobe Prize grant and must be taken seriously.
And Mr. Ouroussoff would find countless other studios and offices (nArchitects, SHoP, Lyn Rice Architects, WORKac, Leroy Street Studio/Hester Street Collaborative, and more than I can name here) run by architects, young (and in some cases significantly younger than the accomplished Angelenos he mentions) men and women, all of whom have had broad influence within and outside the profession. Most of these practices and the people who run them, including our own, have devoted themselves to a dual act of responsibly progressive design: teaching and building. They have already had (even though considered mere youngsters in a profession that rewards age and patience) an impact on local and more far-flung colleagues and students, on this generation and future generations of architects, and on New York City itself.
There can be no greater influence on the future of our city and on the built environment than to inspire others to make better and more responsible architecture. The work and teachings of many of my colleagues is mostly lacking in self-promotion but overflowing with substance. This is what makes them influential and, at times, heroic. But it is also, perhaps, what makes them far less visible to Mr. Ouroussoff. He should be looking more closely.
Comments [26]
08.25.09
11:01
08.25.09
11:49
08.25.09
11:50
08.25.09
12:36
08.25.09
12:41
08.25.09
12:45
08.25.09
01:09
I for one am very excited about the younger architects in the field (some of them are a little older than I am (42) - it's true that architecture is a slow profession). I'm especially excited to see firms like SHoP and ARO take on the processes of construction in their work - adding a level of complexity and thus deeper understanding of the practice of architecture, in an area that many "heroes" seem to want to avoid.
08.25.09
02:22
08.25.09
04:01
08.25.09
07:15
08.25.09
10:00
Beyond all the salient points addressed above, I found the conclusion especially irritating. "Real change will first demand a radical shift in our cultural priorities. Politicians will have to embrace the cosmopolitanism that was once the city’s core identity." This city is a pretty cosmopolitan place, from the top down, right now. Let me suggest that it's the critic who needs a radical change in priorities.
08.25.09
10:59
Too bad. Density in human settlements is really the only hope this globes' exploding population has, and NYC's daily churning of its physical plant at the hands of all it's design professionals, in service of one of the densest and most polyglot populations on the planet, blows away in every true architectural sense the porn-home collection of saggy tanned-boomer bmw convertible wealth that is LA.
Sounds like Nick should move to Laurel Canyon, get a prius and a tear down, and commence the consumptive life of psychotic exceptionalism that is Southern California - he can f*ck all the stars he wants and continue to phone in his work. SD
08.25.09
11:35
New York City is dead architecturally. All the top New York City firms do design good buildings, but are they actually BUILT in New York? No. They are built in more innovative areas of the country not a backwards ass city like New York where all we get are lame ugly cheap boxes.
And yes, California is one of the many places where innovative and beautiful buildings have been churned out by talented New York architecture.
New York City is living in the past. Nothing in the city can be tall, nothing can be innovative, everything has to be "in context" or it's not welcome. Look at nice buildings like the Cooper Union that has you guys up in arms.
NYC is dead.
08.26.09
12:41
All the amazing buildings coming out of Asia put new New York City "architecture" to shame.
08.26.09
12:43
08.26.09
01:48
I wrote this piece in response to Mr. Ouroussoff's charges towards the architectural community of NYC. There is no judgment by exclusion, and it is true that the firms that he mentions are, without a doubt, doing exemplary work that I admire greatly. There are also countless other firms doing brilliant things in the south, midwest, pacific northwest, northern California, etc., but that was not the focus of his column in the Times nor my response.
More importantly and regionally appropriate, how does Mr. Ouroussoff pen that column and not acknowledge the influences of Diller, Scofidio, and Renfro, Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, or Steven Holl, to name but a few?
08.26.09
03:41
08.26.09
04:07
This knee-jerk hero worship showed a lack of understanding then, as it does now. The real heroes are those that continue to work, support and inspire during the hard times - in addition to those mentioned by Mr. Bernheimer, think established mentors like Jim Polshek.
We don't need no NY5! It has taken nearly three decades to get past these guys. Like the comment above, I'm also thinking in particular of the glass tower at Cooper Square. Unforgiveable! Unheroic!
08.27.09
11:10
And of course they can't be tall anymore: sure, you have thousands of people living within a few blocks of the BofA tower, one of the tallest in the world, actually conducting their lives without concern about this tower and without CARS, but nevermind that - apparently, when its common-place to build 50-story buildings (as this city does on a regular basis) you "can't build tall anymore". Puh-lese.
Look, its simple: in strictly architectural terms, as a created and continuously re-created environment for dense human habitation, there are few places in the world that compare to NYC. As other have noted, there is great work being designed here, and contrary to some suggestions, there is great work being built here - to not see that is to be blind and unimaginative.
It was Michael Grave's utter sh*t architecture, foisted stucco turds surrounded by parking, dropped like some faux-gay roman joke amid the inferiority-complexed exurbs of the USA (not unlike much of the NY5 spew) got me interested in the practice: he must, like Kenny G, be stopped.
The firms in LA are unquestionably doing some interesting work, as are many firms in NYC (and elsewhere in the country) but to deny NYC's pre-eminance as an architetural environment, as place where the scale of the human squarely meets the scale of heroic everywhere, all the time, and without effort, well thats just stoopid.
Fortunately, there's help: go downtown; have a couple beers at the Blarney Stone on Trinity Place; and walk it off as far north as your feet can go, dropping into places as needed for fortification.
If being able to walk 200 blocks while keeping a nice buzz, surrounded by millions of people, and knowing there's places all over to duck into if you need cool air, something to eat, or a train ride isn't the best architectural environment that's ever been created, well, its time to get out of Gotham so you can focus on designing those McMansion/Modern/Shingle Style dream homes your wealthy clients have always dreamed of.
08.27.09
09:34
08.27.09
11:10
08.28.09
01:55
08.28.09
11:06
Morphosis' building at Cooper in nothing more than a developer building hidden behind punched metal screens with a twisting atrium that would make a SciArc second year student project complete.
Hedjuk would cry if he had lived see the damage done to Cooper Square and his beloved school.
08.28.09
06:26
10.18.09
01:19
I sat here and tried to think of the first bit of interesting architecture in NYC that has been done of late. The first thing I thought of was the clock at Union Square. And then I thought of Richard Meier's apartment building on the west side. I don't particularly care for Gehry's new building . . . .
While I appreciate Mr. Bernheimer's passion and cited references (which I will look up) -- shouldn't the work speak for itself?
Lest we all forget - the last 8 or so years were boom town years for building and look what went up. I think it would be unintelligent to ignore Nicolai's article in whole.
02.14.10
10:58