Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Socialist Architecture

Rate this topic


Oakes

Recommended Posts

So it all started when I found out that my two favorite architects, Moshe Safdie and Paolo Soleri, also happen to be raving socialists. Indeed, Safdie's brilliant Habitat '67, a mountain of modular houses arranged to allow outdoor space never found in such apartment-building densities, was described on one website as "born of the socialist ideals of the 1960s"! And this work was why I liked him so much in the first place!

As for Soleri, this website really says it all:

Soleri is a harsh critic of capitalist society. Free enterprise, he believes, is what has made the cities of the United States "a monument to chaos, social savagery, and amorphism"

Soleri is responsible for the Arcosanti project, an experimental town in the middle of an Arizona desert full of structures taking advantage of the environment to increase their energy efficiency. I was fascinated by the variety of forms that the buildings took, and the exciting paths darting in a non-linear fashion to connect them. I thought from a capitalist standpoint that an architect could be quite successful if he mastered these techniques to create buildings that could start to pay for themselves in a few years due to energy savings (and look cool to boot- check out this design). What a refreshing vacation from today's near-omnipresent blocks with top-hats we like to call commercial buildings and suburban homes!

But no, the beauty of Arcosanti seems to be a side effect of it being mere experimental grounds. His real theory of architecture is contained within the concept of Arcology, proposing "a highly integrated and compact three-dimensional urban form that is the opposite of urban sprawl with its inherently wasteful consumption of land, energy and time, tending to isolate people from each other and the community. The complexification and miniaturization of the city enables radical conservation of land, energy and resources." (read more here)

His ideal, it seems, is a city under one roof. Those of you familiar with such beehives as Victory Cities are already aquainted with this concept. It suggests that today's cities are "two-dimensional" in that we have only the ground-level to traverse from one building to another, while three-dimensional city-structures allow you to travel vertically, horizontally, and even diagonally to get to the different locations within it. It is true enough that 3D cities could save us the energy of roads and cars, and much of the time spent going places. But at what cost? What of capitalism's over-arching need for flexibility that escapes any of these concrete structures? What of the budding entrepreneur's and homeowner's need for independence and visual variety?

To the urban planner, there are no such concerns. As one brilliantly written essay points out, the predominantly leftist urban planning mentality recoils from the individualism inherent in the ownership and operation of automobiles, in which people travel when and where they want. The urban planner desires to "build community" by making us ride together on trains from predetermined points of origin, along planned routes at designated times, to centrally-chosen destinations. The inherent "chaos' of automobile traffic is offensive to the planner: After all, he's a planner. You find this same mentality in the aforementioned architects of gigantism.

I love the ideas my two favorite architects have for individual buildings, and get pleasure from the idea that one day normal people will see their long-term monetary benefit and slowly transform the American landscape with a renaissance of public interest in newer and more interesting architectural forms that will make a mere drive through the city a stimulating experience. What I dread is the time when "enlightened" minds will shepherd us into once-size-fits-all termite mounds complete with conveyor belts to shuffle us around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at Habitat '67 and my first response was "Uuugh!!" It looks like a large cube that has been turned inside out by ripping out inner cubes and pasting them to the outside. I found it... pretty much disgusting. I tried to look at Arcosanti but the slide show isnt loading for me. From what I can see from the borders it looks pretty much like a hodgepodge of old designs. (An arch here, a square there.. ) nothing very original or awe-inspiring. The idea seems kinda neat, and if someone wants to build a structure like that, then that's fine, and if someone wants to live in that structure, thats fine too, but if someone forces everyone to live in structures like that, then that's not fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Arcosanti was nearing completion I was fully impressed with it's self-sufficiency and its design. I think Soleri's main beef is actually with the car rather than capitalism. I doubt his arcologies can be very economically successful though, since Arcosanti has only attracted architects, urban designers, and those with web-based jobs as residents. Arcosanti is (no doubt) an arcology.

Soleri worked with Frank Lloyd Wright you know...

You might be interested in this Oakes (not architecture):

http://www.carfree.com/

http://www.carfree.com/topology.html

http://www.carfree.com/district.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at Habitat '67 and my first response was "Uuugh!!"

:) It reminds me of the indian pueblos, and has been compared with Altelier 66. Check out the photos on this site for better angles. Also check it out in the four seasons. I like it with all the vegetation hanging off the outdoor spaces during the spring and summer.

I tried to look at Arcosanti but the slide show isnt loading for me. From what I can see from the borders it looks pretty much like a hodgepodge of old designs. (An arch here, a square there.. )

The arches take advantage of the Apse Effect to let in light during the winter months and provide shade during summer. If you'd look at the Basilicas design, which I linked to in my first post, you can see this used at a sophisticated level.

There was also an interesting usage of tubes. Here in the Crafts III building you can see one thumbnail showing a heat tube bringing hot air down to the cafe. In the Soleri Office Drafting Unit building, you can see one thumbnail showing a "light well" bringing lumens down into into the space below.

And how about that multi-usage? Crafts III is actually a Visitor's center providing housing, a cafe, a bakery, and a gallery. In the Drafting Unit, there is also a library and a greenhouse to heat the building during the cold months. The Foundry, where Arcosanti's signature bronze windbells are made, also has housing areas that benefit from its heating. Its apse also takes advantage of the Aspe Effect.

Lastly, I just generally like the variation in shapes, the circular windows, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Soleri's main beef is actually with the car rather than capitalism.

I'm going to go to bed but I'll check out that website tomorrow. In the mean time you should read that brilliantly written essay I quoted from (unless it is down, which I think it is so you may need to try later).

EDIT: Nevermind, maybe it's up and I was only dreaming. Anyway, goodnight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would like to see RATIONAL social engineering in architecture, take a look at Eichler Homes. These post-WWII tract homes were built by iconoclastic real estate developer Joseph Eichler who believed that uncompromisingly fine modern architecture could be made affordable to average Americans. He hired first-rate modern architects to design his mass produced high-quality, private, single family homes.

He was also open and "in your face" about his social liberalism. At a time when covenants were usually written into deeds forbidding home sales to blacks, Joe Eichler not only sold them houses, but scandalized everyone by prominently featuring black families in his ads.

Joe Eichler's homes are just plain wonderful to live in, and I should know. Stephen and I have owned our Eichler for more than eight years now. Come see at http://www.speicher.com/house.htm. (Must update those pictures!)

Also see:

Eichler Archives: http://www.eichlerarchives.com/

Eichler Network: http://www.eichlernetwork.com

Eichler Homes of Southern California: http://www.eichlersocal.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would like to see RATIONAL social engineering in architecture, take a look at Eichler Homes. These post-WWII tract homes were built by iconoclastic real estate developer Joseph Eichler who believed that uncompromisingly fine modern architecture could be made affordable to average Americans. He hired first-rate modern architects to design his mass produced high-quality, private, single family homes.

Seems like they've got an entire fan club down there in southern california. This is what I mean by flexibility. Rather than stringently hold to the urban planner's desire for a carless city, people will decide where roads are best placed (like in low-density suburban environments). I like the big glass walls BTW.

ex_banana-eater,

I looked over the CarFree website. The most striking part was his idea for a city (which already turns me off because only government planners can have "ideas" for a city). It includes loops of much-loved metro lines passing through circle after circle of car-free districts. He's even got a yardstick of requirements for each district, such as population, diameter, area, and number of stories (!).

There is no doubt that I favor twisting streets to the boring grid-pattern we find in today's cities, but the solution to the partially-planned cities of today is not completely-planned cities. Which brings to mind another question: Does anyone know the extent at which today's cities were planned? I'd love to hear from someone who has experience in urban planning.

Ideally, people would have the freedom to hire a road-builder to weave through areas that need access to cars and will promise a profit, and build pedestrian streets when that is the better way to go. The landscape of our cities will be determined by each individual person who owns a piece of it. Will the maze of streets and seemingly random patches of pedestrian areas be more of a problem than a delight? I don't know, but my instincts tell me that freedom is always the best answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the ideas my two favorite architects have for individual buildings, and get pleasure from the idea that one day normal people will see their long-term monetary benefit and slowly transform the American landscape with a renaissance of public interest in newer and more interesting architectural forms that will make a mere drive through the city a stimulating experience. What I dread is the time when "enlightened" minds will shepherd us into once-size-fits-all termite mounds complete with conveyor belts to shuffle us around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your two favorite architects do not design freestanding individual buildings within an urban context but rather seek to create self-contained cities differing only in scale, so I fail to see how they can make your wish come true.

I visited Habitat while in school. At the time, I appreciated the originality of the construction system for what it was known for, but today it does not contribute to my vision of what a proper architecture should be which is to celebrate Function: for both the Mind and for the Body.

As it happened, the original goal of providing housing for the low income was never achieved because it was actually too expensive to construct and operate without government subsidies. Today, it is known as one of the most expensive housing complexes in Montreal, well sought after because of its fame.

As for Soleri, I consider him a hippie-far-out architect who was an admirer and student of Wright. His utopian vision of a city is subjective tugging at the emotions but no substantial lessons that can be applied in practice. He has not revolutionized architecture or the thinking of architects in a way that Wright's Broadacre is being refered to in text books. That such open-ended project in the desert is being financed by his followers selling wind chimes and clay bells should speak for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Eichler's homes are just plain wonderful to live in, and I should know.  Stephen and I have owned our Eichler for more than eight years now. 

You both are one of those great clients that make a great architect possible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your two favorite architects do not design freestanding individual buildings within an urban context but rather seek to create self-contained cities differing only in scale, so I fail to see how they can make your wish come true.

I never said they can "make my wish come true". I only said that I liked their designs for freestanding, individual buildings in spite of what their ultimate intentions are.

As an amateur, I haven't put any of their designs through rigorous analysis, but I still think people could benefit from architects putting to use some of the ideas conveyed by architecture like Safdie's Habitat and San Francisco State College Union, and Soleri's various buildings in Arcosanti.

I visited Habitat while in school. At the time, I appreciated the originality of the construction system for what it was known for, but today it does not contribute to my vision of what a proper architecture should be which is to celebrate Function: for both the Mind and for the Body.

Safdie's vision was layed out quite nicely in his book, Beyond Habitat:

It was what I always imagined living in a house could be, and yet it wasn't a house as we know it. There were many things happening around us all the time. We lived in a way we could have lived only in a big house in a fancy suburb; and yet we did things we could have done only in an apartment on, say, Sherbrooke Street in downtown Montreal, or Fifth Avenue in New York. We had both.

. . .

That mixture of being the busiest, most crowded urban meeting place and, at the same time, a hundred feet away, going through a door and being alone in your house, was an incredible experience. This sense of seclusion was achieved by the fact that the houses were free in space: they all opened in three or four directions. From some windows you saw the city, from others the river or Expo. You had morning sun in some rooms, sun in the evening in other rooms, and you felt the sun going round you all day.

As it happened, the original goal of providing housing for the low income was never achieved because it was actually too expensive to construct and operate without government subsidies. Today, it is known as one of the most expensive housing complexes in Montreal, well sought after because of its fame.

Safdie explained his monetary problems at great length in the aforementioned book. He spoke of the pressuring deadline to get it done for the Expo, and the laws and regulations that pulled up costs. There seemed to be a lot of problems, some of them inherent in the design, some of them easily fixed today, nearly forty years later.

As for Soleri, I consider him a hippie-far-out architect who was an admirer and student of Wright. His utopian vision of a city is subjective tugging at the emotions but no substantial lessons that can be applied in practice. He has not revolutionized architecture or the thinking of architects in a way that Wright's Broadacre is being refered to in text books. That such open-ended project in the desert is being financed by his followers selling wind chimes and clay bells should speak for itself.

As you may be able to tell from my posts, I'm with you. I don't consider planned cities to be anything close to an ideal. I do, however, like some of the individual buildings within Arcosanti, if only because they are some of the first real examples of passive solar architecture that I have been exposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the ideas my two favorite architects have for individual buildings, and get pleasure from the idea that one day normal people will see their long-term monetary benefit and slowly transform the American landscape with a renaissance of public interest in newer and more interesting architectural forms that will make a mere drive through the city a stimulating experience. What I dread is the time when "enlightened" minds will shepherd us into once-size-fits-all termite mounds complete with conveyor belts to shuffle us around.

Socliast manifestoes will never, ever result in provocative architecture of any sort.

The best thing about Safdie's habitat is that it had less to do with socialism than the zeal to quickly fabricate and erect affordable housing.

I visited Arcosanti a little while ago. The project never came to fruition. It is a mere trace of itself, far from the goal of building the megastructure that soleri envisioned. I think trying to persuade humans into sharing property values is alien to the concept of individual rights.

My favorite architects remain Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. I also like Cesar Pelli, Le Corbusier, Antonio Gaudi, and Eero Saarinen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite architects remain Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright.  I also like Cesar Pelli, Le Corbusier, Antonio Gaudi, and Eero Saarinen.

FLW is my second favorite architect.

My very favorite is Wright's best student, JOHN LAUTNER.

Malin3c.jpg

photo.jpg

livingshulman.jpg

Sheats2.jpg

For my tribute to John Lautner see http://www.speicher.com/lautnerb.htm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading Soleri and hearing him say something along the lines of, "The single idea that must be wiped out from the human mind is the single-family suburban home." He said that if it wasn't, civilization was doomed.

That man HATES individualism, freedom, and capitalism. He wants to squish people into each other and FORCE them to live communally. I can't get any more specific, but having read an interview with him, I am sure his motives are not efficiency, but Communism.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Cars are freedom. You find me a man who hates cars and the privacy of the suburbs, and I'll find you a man who hates freedom, individualism, and capitalism. Whatever vices the suburbs may have, Soleri doesn't attack them for their vices: he attacks them for their virtues: freedom and private property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty, it would be safe for me to assume that car usage would go down in a capitalist country, considering multi-billion dollar highways wouldn't be subsidized through the taxation of our rich corporations.

I am sure his motives are not efficiency, but Communism.
You're "sure" on this, are you?

he attacks them for their virtues: freedom and private property

I suppose you're also "sure" of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am. I read his words and in my judgement, those are his motives.

In my prediction, car use would go up because people value their privacy and their ownership of automobiles. They don't like being squished in with "the community."

Of course, in a purely Capitalist society, maybe everyone wouldn't be a bunch of jerks, so maybe that would be less of a factor. But people love owning their own cars, and most of them who object to cars do so on the grounds that congestion has been created by anti-car commies who deliberately block the construction of roads because public transit is "more social."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, ex_banana-eater, I recall our conversation on the Capmag forum. I do not advocate subsidies for cars or roads. But trains and busses are HEAVILY subsidized.

Further, public transit only makes sense in specialized conditions, as for those who live AND work only a few blocks from the train station. Even then, those people would still want to own cars for all their other needs.

Cars are tools of convieniance, privacy, and being in control of your own destiny. I would rather pay double to drive than to ride: between the privacy, the ownership, the ability to choose my own schedule and destination... it's no contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever visited Thailand, or other places where roads are rarely built by government? In general most places are close together, and jutneys, tuk-tuks, motorcycle-cabs, and busses dominate the streets (without subsidy). This could be a cultural nature, but even then it wouldn't describe the dominance. I assume the main reason is that it is many many times cheaper to use those methods of transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question jumps to mind: Do you know, was he familiar with Rand and her writings?  I searched his foundation site, and could find no mention of her.

I asked him once and he said he thought he may have met her (presumably when she lived in California) but he never read any of her books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector & others,

What do you think about the RUMBA proposal? It is supposed to combine the privacy, convenience, and ability to go on your own schedule that cars provide with the speed, safety, and efficiency of railways.

It calls for the construction of a vast network of underground tubes through which indiviudal passenger capsules go at a rate of 300 km/h (187.5 mph) in complete automation (using a computer algorithm to judge the most efficient route). The underground tubes can be released of oxygen on longer trips so as to decrease air resistance and go even faster. By being underground, they leave all the space aboveground for other uses (like roads), and don't have to weave around buildings.

There are capsules for 2, 4, or 6 persons so you can pick the best fit each time for the group (if any) that you are traveling with. The website even suggests that companies can compete with their own capsule designs, which you can rent for one ride or buy and have stored underground until you call it up. By going in individual capsules instead of large lines like in trains, it has the individual feel of a car and can get you to a station more specific to your destination.

Here's a directory of proposals for tube-based transportation systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever visited Thailand, or other places where roads are rarely built by government? In general most places are close together, and jutneys, tuk-tuks, motorcycle-cabs, and busses dominate the streets (without subsidy). This could be a cultural nature, but even then it wouldn't describe the dominance. I assume the main reason is that it is many many times cheaper to use those methods of transportation.

Yes, I would guess that the economies of scale apply there and that given their level of development, that is the best solution. Naturally, it would be as it sounds like the result of a free market! :pimp:

I can only wonder at what we would have here in America with a free market. Best guess: EVERYTHING would be better, faster, cheaper, and less congested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Moller's SkyCar will come before a tube network (and will be cheaper and readily available once mass produced):

http://www.moller.com/skycar/

Yay Skycar!!! Everything good I said about the car goes TRIPLE for the skycar!

Note that with a car, you are still bound to the property of others by the road. The skycar overcomes this quite nicely.

RUMBA looks cool and scary at the same time. It would need some crazy failsafes. If there were skycars, I could see a need for short-range transport along those lines.

Electric bikes are a neat solution to short-range travel, but the problem with anything that light is: how do you prevent thieves from walking off with it? You might ride one to work, but not to a museam, unless they had a "coat-check" for them...

I would wonder what kind of developments we might find if the achology people emphasized privacy and individualism instead of "community."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this on TV before, but don't remember what my reaction was. It seems like a cool technology, tho rumba has the advantage of safety, speed, and no need for a driver.

Actually, I saw this on TV before too (on the Discovery Channel). On the program Muller's plan adresses safety and driving issues. They showed graphics of Skycars with radar and other mechanisms like GPS which guide them through the air between buildings, with layers of cars above and below them. There would be "virtual highways" which would be invisible data sent in lines that simulate roads, which SkyCars would weave through without needing a driver (and preventing collision). The rate of collision compared to automobiles might certainly go down, although mechanical failure high above the ground is still a very dangerous problem.

A company like this might piggyback off of the innovation and technology created by Muller: http://www.geocities.com/alliedaerobiker/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...