You know what I realized? There's nothing worse than seeing what you once coveted - but knew could never have - in someone else's hands. That happened to me today. The red Ford Flex I rented for a week back in March while my car was in the shop - that exact identical car (I could tell) - was being rented by some other lucky chap, and I saw it. It hurt - that car was almost a purchase after that week. Sigh. What? You didn't think I was talking about a woman? You did? HA! You should know me better than that! Check yourself. The last search party they sent off to find any trace of an emotion from me didn't make it through the ice and stone. In any case, let's start off with some
NFL Quick Hits from
Week 4!
- The Saints have to be taken seriously now. The Jets had their offense pretty much under wraps for the entire game, but the defense came up big, led by new acquisition Darren Sharper. Don't you feel as if he's been returning picks for touchdowns for decades? He's ageless. Hall-bound, like Rod Woodson. Mark Sanchez finally looked vulnerable. Maybe now the all-NY Super Bowl talk can relax - glad to see Shonn Greene finally get some carries, Thomas Jones has been ineffective all season so far.
- Ohhh, is Jim Zorn breathing a sigh of relief. If Tampa Bay had beaten him, that wouldve been two winless teams who got their first wins facing the Redskins. Jason Campbell will be seeing Aqib Talib in his nightmares tonight! But one wonders how long the Redskins can keep this up. And yes, that was a Clinton Portis AND an Antonio Bryant sighting! This was one the Bucs could've almost had.
- A friend of mine has been ranting about the Ravens defense, and how it seems to have fallen apart lately - that all the attention has been on their newfound offense. Well, now it all became obvious against the Patriots. It appears their demise has been greatly exaggerated. Or maybe this was Joe Flacco's first real test. They're still one of the best teams in the league - and the Patriots seem to have taken all that "dynasty over" talk after the Jets game to heart and have beaten up on two of last year's surprise playoff squads in a row. Randy Moss 6th all time in TDs? He's a monster. Joe Flacco needs another receiver bad.
- That Eli Manning injury didn't look too serious, right? So much for needing a primary receiver. Steve Smith looks to be the real deal. And did anyone else see that move that Hakeem Nicks put on his touchdown? I felt embarrassed. How did that KC defender feel?! This game could've gone worse for the Chiefs. Larry Johnson - well, this could be a long season for them.
- Tennessee?! Hello? Anyone home? The Titans made David Garrard and Mike Sims-Walker look like heroes. Somethings wrong with that pass defense. Is it Albert Haynesworth or Jim Schwartz they miss? 0-4 is too big of a whole, I feel. Especially winnable games against the Titans and Jaguars - Looking up at Indy at 4-0 in the division. Might not make the playoffs this year.
- Peyton is just Peyton. Seattle is by far way too injured to take on the Colts right now. Seneca Wallace is a gadget QB, and clearly not a game-winning backup. Especially without a Seahawks running game to take the pressure off him. They couldn't protect him either. Rob Mathis has 3 sacks on you? Looks like San Fran might run away with the division this year. Wait, and just who are these Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie receivers?!
- JaMarcus Russell, the reaper cometh. I think the Klobb from Goldeneye 64 has more accuracy than you do. The Texans were the defense to get you out of your funk, and alas! You can't even complete 50% of your passes. If Cash for Clunkers was still going on, the government would be giving you millions for each of those passes of yours. Meanwhile, it's good to see Steve Slaton finally get on track. Most importantly though, the HOU defense needed this game to prove to themselves that they can stop someone.
- Cincinnati CLEARLY looked past Cleveland. The overtime period took ALL 15 minutes to resolve the game. Cleveland got touchdowns too! Looks like Jerome Harrison has taken the starting job from slow Jamal Lewis. Carson Palmer again came through in the clutch, but this is a game that should never have gone to overtime. Cleveland! I can't think of anything from Cleveland outside of Drew Carey. Eric Mangini might be losing his squad.
- When I saw 21-21 on the DET/CHI game, I had hope for the Lions. Alas! It was to prove short lived. Matt Forte also found his groove, but most worrying is Matt Stafford's injury. I want to see Devin Hester and Johnny Knox have a footrace.
- That Buffalo O-line has holes big enough for buffaloes to run right through. They made the Chad Henne-led Dolphins look like contenders again. Although, I will give credit - that touchdown pass from Henne to Hartline was brilliantly thrown. It seems as though the Wildcat STILL seems to work for them, fad or not. As far as the Bills are concerned though, not all the blame can be placed on Trent Edwards' shoulders. That line resembles a set of turnstiles. Marshawn Lynch's much-ballyhooed return merited only 4 yards on the ground.
- No wonder the Rams are for sale. That was an embarrasing showing. The Niners scored on ALL facets of the game - offense, defense, and special teams. Steven Jackson's talents are wasted here - and Kyle no longer BOLLS outrageous. As if he ever did since coming out of Cal, anyway. Patrick Willis is a monster and superstar. Remember his name if you don't know it already!
- Wade Philips joins Jim Zorn on the NFC East hot seat. Are these Broncos for real? Did Brandon Marshall make a statement TD? Are the Broncos really 4-0?! Up is down! Black is white! The millennium approaches! Another powerful defensive showing by the Broncos, on the #1 running team in the league, is going to mean that pundits will now take this team seriously. Romo has an up game, then a down game - and so do the Cowboys. So much for starting strong. Josh McDaniels must've made a heck of a sacrifice to the football gods for this.
- ...I'm not even going to talk about Brett Favre.
==================================
On some days this week, I'm going to make some of my more intensive opinions on some present-day issues known - especially the ones I feel strongest about - i.e., Architecture, Environmental Conservation, and the Economy...and Space Ghost. I feel that, given some recent thoughts I've had, I felt I should start out with my major. It's gonna get long (which is what she wanted anyway...ba-zing), so get a drink. Or just close the page, this is probably more for architects.
“Any hack can build a dumb box.” Peter Eisenman provided me with this quote – which questions from the outset what qualifies as architecture versus what qualifies as Architecture – with a capital A. In a world where the majority of the populace is subjected to buildings throughout their entire day, one often forgets the fact that only 20% of all built structures were under the direction and criticism of architects – the rest are merely the products of builders and developers (who architects really don't like!). What these latter two build, however, is not considered architecture by the profession – since for the most part there is also a resounding belief that architecture is an art, ‘with high moral purpose in the formation and transmission of culture.’ Architecture isn’t just a way to convey contemporary culture – some architects view it is the way to convey contemporary culture. Thus, a few architects believe that they can effectively deal with present day socio-economical issues through their mastery of ‘formal manipulation’ – and I also believe that architects also possess the mindset that their own design is far more important than the social issues that surround them.
Despite the socioeconomic issues in our society - that are applicable in ANY project, what happens is that some architects seem to concern themselves moreso with the aesthetics of their designs – with what I call a binocular view of their project. As in, here is your site, put a building on it (what a friend of mine calls blob architecture) – the circumstances around the site are meaningless, often ending up ignored. I recently read about a good example – the renovation of Rome’s Olympic Stadium to house the 1990 World Cup. Debates in the late 1980s were raised over the expansion designs – which was necessary due to accommodate the expected larger crowds and increased circulation. Most of the criticism, however, was aimed primarily at the appearance of such an expansion – directed at how it would change the appearance of the sixty-year old stadium that had become a landmark. Only a single architect, Franco Purini, mentioned something different - that such a renovation and expansion would completely wreck the already congested urban fabric of Rome. How would it deal with traffic? Noise and air pollution? The construction process? It was mentioned that Rome; the so-called ‘Capital of architecture,’ had become solely important as a matter of looks – never mind the overcrowded conditions that Rome was facing in the modern-era. Architects are increasingly disregarding the context of their building – not taking into account their site’s surroundings, or even the people meant to inhabit them. These architects are seemingly content with form and beauty – believing that only they are blessed with some type of ‘special contact’ with ‘transcendental essence’ (I'm quoting the books I read later) – and considering that the public also holds on to this belief, that only architects have this ‘power.’ Yet I have never heard of ‘transcendental essence’ resolving, say, availability of affordable housing. It sure as hell hasn't resolved my inability to find someone who can beat me in Goldeneye or Mario Kart. Another example that was recently brought to my attention in class was Giuseppe Terragni's design for the Palazzo Littorio in Rome during the Mussolini era - that in the plans for the design, ruins from Ancient Rome are also shown - all historical buildings existent or not were shown. What they did, however, was take a ruin that was elsewhere in Rome, slap it near their site in drawing, and have an element in their project relate to it. To a building that isn't even there. Nobody questioned it. How many of you know the figure ground of Rome by heart? I dont.
In any case, each architect has their own ideas, I believe – a few share some basic opinions, yet they will all have their own individual twist and personal preference - I know I do. My personal interest in architecture has always dealt with social housing and urban development (and by always I mean in the past two years or so) – how the two interact in dealing with today’s socioeconomic issues. I also recently read of Ricardo Bofill, a Spanish architect who, in the 1970s and 1980s, was entrusted by the French government to develop a series of social housing projects for ‘villes nouvelles’ – new towns, as part of a continuing restructuring of the country a few decades after World War 2. Bofill had his own precocious ideals about the state of housing in America and Europe – he decried suburbia as an urban cancer that afflicted and destroyed neighborhood life. In France, he questioned why, in major cities, street views always terminated in some sort of reminder of the state. ‘As if the French state still had to reaffirm itself publicly to its citizens – as if it were unsure of itself.’ Bofill goes on to proclaim that simple residential housing was not architecture – merely man’s attempt to provide shelter. On a superfluous level, this is reiterating that most housing is, after all, not designed by architects. Yet Bofill, at this point, takes matters on a completely original (albeit controversial) tangent – he decides to place every-day, ordinary activities into his own crazy extraordinary settings. His social housing projects are on an enormous scale – palaces for 600 people instead of for an aristocrat. Multiple-story columns, grand courtyards, central monuments, vague classical detailing – all in an attempt to recall, in Bofill’s words, Versailles, or even the glory of Ancient Rome. The prospective residents of his housing projects are the impoverished lower-class – perhaps, in his view point, providing the low-income citizens with a grand structure is his own way of lifting up their morale and prospects, especially when considering that the comparable housing projects within the cities had all completely dissolved into near-slum conditions. His Abraxas complex at Marne-le-Vallee was his testament to his belief that architecture implied monumentality, that it was art intended to last 500 years – however, only 25 years after its construction, finds itself almost completely ignored by its tenants, a glorified apartment structure. Apartment buildings and grand complexes like these are not the way to resolve housing issues. How many times do I have to bring up the St. Louis Pruitt housing as an example of what NOT to do? Simply throwing in some high-density buildings in a low-class area is not going to resolve neighborhood issues. Sure, you have places to put people. But they do nothing but breed crime and isolation. Look at the projects in the Northeast.
A personal opinion is that Bofill is not alone in his desire to impart his own views on architecture and social issues upon the populace. I solemnly believe that there are designers out to make their mark in the world, make their name known and recorded in the history books – more so than to preoccupy themselves with the issues that permeate our society. Designers have steadily moved away from engagement from any social issues, even those that fall within their realm of common-sense professional competence - say, homelessness, the growing crisis in affordable and appropriate housing, the loss of environmental quality, and the challenge posed by congested urban areas. Although lately, the green movement has proliferated the design ranks and assured that sustainability remains a prime selling point; the other issues have fallen behind, lost in this desire to succeed. Besides - one thing that recently has started to drive me crazy is when architects brag about sustainability. As in, "Yes, my design features several sustainable aspects, that is why it is great." Bitch, get the hell out of here! At this point in time, EVERYTHING that is designed should be sustainable! You know what, out of spite, my next design is having a coal-burning room - and a chloroflourocarbon emitter in another. Maybe a baby-seal punting closet down the hall. For the record, I don't mean that you should be spending thousands of $ in new technology for sustainability, though. There are so many affordable steps you can take that don't break the bank. Get it together.
Now here's a person I feel strongly about. Frank Gehry’s designs are of the utmost beauty in form - I will say that - and his mind can clearly come up with some of the most revolutionary concepts in form – but sometimes he does forget about the effects of his buildings on his users. The Disney Concert Hall, for example, had some of its exterior surfaces of polished steel that not only reflected the sun, but also acted as a magnifying glass for it, causing incredible glare on some surrounding apartment complexes; and boosting up temperatures to the unbearable triple-digit range. While they were resolved eventually, again, issues propped up in his Stata Center for MIT – a wide array of structural concerns and maintenance problems that resulted in a lawsuit. Yet the media CONSTANTLY hypes up every design of his as if it were the most revolutionary thing since Blu-ray. Wait, no, since sliced bread. The Stata center was dubbed some of the hottest campus architecture in the country. Yes, and the Yugo was an affordable car for every American. Yet I don't think it's a present day phenomenon. I remember reading that architects, wanting to distance themselves from contractors and builders during the first few decades of the 20th century, defined themselves as an ‘elite caste of builders,' and were not interested in designing for the new middle class, preferring to link their professional identity to large-scale monumental commissions requiring wealthy patrons. Hence, architecture became a luxury rather than a service - and the prestige and social standing that came from being an architect meant distancing oneself from others, further removing an architect from most new construction, and leading up to that 20% statistic I mentioned earlier. Another thing I've constantly noticed, is that architects tend to get incredibly caught up in describing their own projects in the most exalting of ways, frequently even using language that does nothing but confuse the subject at hand. This, again, is an effort to distance the architectural ‘aristocracy’ from the common person, since obviously people are not meant to understand the complex logic that goes into a design. For example, Bofill himself does a
wonderful job of explaining his own design for the Belvedere St. Christophe complex: ‘The elements are geometrically assembled with a classical theatrical opulence that evokes the magical sacralization of a democratic urban space’ – the type of architectural language that, in my opinion, marks a man more interested in the impression that his structures will leave on others rather than the effects of the very people who will live in it. Look at most architect's websites or any of their self-published works. You'll find such an overabundance of designers just...waxing poetic over their constructs - every project they've EVER done has (let's take some words here) 'brilliant conceptual clarity,' 'incredibly organized aesthetic,' etc. I could describe a simple plastic chair in such a manner to make it seem like a gilded throne – but it remains a plastic chair. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but I also want to get it straight that I'm not attempting to bash their designs. Not at all. Merely the way they describe them - in language only a designer could understand. Even then, barely!
This type of disregard for the common person is the topic that really interests me. My entire
modus operandi has always been about achieving some sort of change, or making a difference, minor as it may be. Maybe it's too idealistic. There’s no need to separate classes or problems. However unsuccessfully an attempt at changing the profession’s stance as a whole might go, it should still be attempted on the grounds that the issues of millions far supersede the whimsical ambitions of any one designer. An architect simply cannot impose his/her own concepts on a population because he/she believes they are the way to resolve an issue. Architects should not distance themselves from the issues, or believe they are above such concerns – for they have placed their profession on an incredible pedestal, and one that might be too difficult to descend.
Heck, I recently found myself struggling to find my identity as an architect. I feel as if I might end up a builder instead of an architect. It's my long-standing fight against 'cutesy' architecture - design done for the sake of design - just to prove a point and say, "Look what I can do!" like the character from MadTV. Not as if I'm strictly function over form, I don't want to get too carried away and be labeled a minimalist. Resolve the issues at hand, and then focus on aesthetics. I bet you didn't know I was such a theorist.
In any case, I've blabbed for way too long on this. Good thing I have no homework - shoot, I should end on some sort of lighter note, since this probably has you all saying, "...Why...so...serious?"
(felt this was appropriate, since every accident I see in Miami during a rainy day seems to be a woman's fault...)
