Skip to main content

"YES IS MORE": Kind of a BIG Deal

I finally finished reading YES IS MORE: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution (2009), which is the monograph by BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) in Denmark (company website).  My overall feeling from reading the book, which is in comic-book format, complete with endless images of Bjarke Ingels himself speaking in speech bubbles, is that it's like watching a train wreck: terrifying and somewhat sickening but you can't look away.  It's organized into a series of apparently chronological chapters, each of which covers one design.  I understand that this book is directed to a general public, not to architects, which accounts for some of the vast oversimplification that occurs in its descriptions of the architectural design process; and that it's a manifesto of sorts, which explains its overly enthusiastic tone and sweeping generalizations.  And yet, there were many points at which I didn't want to continue reading any further, didn't want to look at any more of the endless number of Lego-brick swoopy skyscraper models.  The triumphalism in the description of each design, and seemingly inevitable failure of each project (the book claims that BIG has designed hundreds of buildings but only built a handful), left me feeling unsatisfied at the end of every chapter.  Every design is only schematic - there are few stories in here with any real conclusions, few buildings that actually survived the challenging process of accommodation to the real world that BIG claims to embrace.  The manifesto of "YES IS MORE" is that accepting the design constraints of the real world, like sustainability, zoning, politics, money, and marketing, can enhance rather than detract from one's design.  This is only a revelation if you are an architect who thinks the form is the (only) thing; this is common sense for everyone else.  The fake radicalism of this embrace of what everyone does anyway (ie, work within real-world constraints) continued to wear on me as I waded through all 400 pages of the book.  The (possibly cynical) disguisal of pure form-making with a veneer of accommodation to things like climate, regulation, and programmatic needs (the most annoying of which was the constant refrain of "housing needs sun!  offices don't like sun!") was most obvious in the cases where a really conscientious approach might have been to turn down the project to begin with, or to try to influence the program or approach of the client.  Far too many of the projects were designed for virgin sites, known as greenfields, which is the antithesis of sustainable design.  I suspect that the "yes is more" manifesto may be a way to avoid taking responsibility for one's design; for example, the projects presented on virgin desert sites in Dubai never questioned the need for these buildings built in the middle of nowhere - they only asked how best to mitigate severe climate concerns using formal devices (overhanging shading, etc).

I don't mind formalism per se, and some of BIG's designs in the book are quite compelling; the Maritime Youth House and Danish Maritime Museum come to mind, the latter built creatively into the footprint of a dry dock.  BIG has a distinct formal style that comes through in all of their projects.  What bothers me is the attempt in this book to conceal the formalism with a "radical" manifesto that says, in effect, "we do typical corporate architecture" while pretending that this is an amazing innovation.  Perhaps the clearest indication of this stance is the slogan of "revolution or evolution!" that gets thrown around quite often in the text.  The famous "Architecture or Revolution?" rhetorical question posed by Le Corbusier in Towards an Architecture is meant to show that architecture - by placating the unruly masses - can help us avoid revolution and maintain the conservative order.  "Revolution or Evolution?" seems to me to be the same kind of rhetorical question - it points not to a (radical) revolution but to a (conservative) evolution, that is, to formalism as a solution to all our problems.

I suppose I should be thankful to read something that prompts me to such a passionate response, but I can't say I recommend this book as general reading.  Proceed at your own risk.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vertical Bike Rack

The work of our hands!


A little backstory:  We bought two bikes as soon as we could after moving here, so we could both bike to work.  After a few uneventful months of chaining up our bikes next to our car in the carport of our apartment building, Justin's bike was stolen.  (Mine was mysteriously left behind, together with Justin's pannier, which the thieves helpfully folded up and placed on top of my bike.  My only guess is that the chain holding my bike was harder to cut than the chain on Justin's.)  Since then, we've kept our bikes inside, hauling them up and down two flights of stairs to our third-floor apartment every time we take them out, which is usually a few times a week.  Ugh.  Better than buying a new bike every few months, though.

We needed a rack that would keep the bikes off the floor, off the walls, and in as small a footprint as possible, without requiring us to drill into or otherwise damage the walls (or floor or ceiling).  This proved a challenge t…

Book Review: "Theory and Design in the First Machine Age"

Reyner Banham's Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (1960) is an engaging overview of the important theoretical developments of the early 20th century leading up to the "International Style" of the 1930s-40s.  Banham does a fairly good job, in my opinion, of avoiding excessive editorializing, although he has a clear viewpoint on the Modern Movement and finishes with a strong conclusion.  In opposition to his teacher, Nikolaus Pevsner, whose own history of modernism came out in 1936, Banham dismantled the "form follows function" credo that became the stereotype of modernism, arguing instead that formalism (a preoccupation with style and aesthetics) was an important, if not overriding, concern of Modern architects.  Two sections of the book struck me in particular: his analysis of Le Corbusier's famous book Vers une architecture (Toward a [new] architecture) from 1923, and his Conclusion (chapter 22), where he breaks the link between functionalism and …

LEED Green Associate

Today I am pleased to report that I have passed the LEED® Green Associate exam, so I am now officially a LEED-accredited professional.  I have a few thoughts on this process that might be helpful for others looking into getting their own LEED Green Associate credential.  While I'm certainly in support of sustainable building practices, which is why I went to the trouble to get the credential in the first place, I don't think it's inappropriate to take a critical stance toward the whole enterprise in order to challenge the profession (and the industry) to be more self-aware.

The preparation: I passed the exam by using only resources that were freely available to me through my school library, including an e-book version of the LEED Green Associate study guide by Michelle Cottrell and the USGBC LEED Core Concepts Guide.  (Although I asked the library to obtain a new copy of the official USGBC LEED Green Associate Study Guide since the one they had was lost, they still haven&…