Reading the dust jacket my dad was asking who was the (main) architect who designed the "White City," i.e. the Chicago's World Fair of 1893. Answer: Frederick Law Olmsted.
His question got me thinking. I haven't had a chance to read Rybczynski's work. But the dust jacket says ". . . the movements that defined the twentieth century, such as City Beautiful, the Garden City, and the seminal ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright and Jane Jacobs. If the twentieth century was the age of planning, we now find ourselves in the age of the market. . ."
Going back even farther in time, (which Rybczynski may do), I would argue that if the 21st century is the age of the market (or the developer) and the 20th century was the age of the planner, then the 19th century (going as far back as the Renaissance, and technically even farther) was the age of the architect.
I haven't taken any history of architecture classes so my timeframe is definitely up for revision or modification. It could have been shorter, or could it have been from the beginning. Afterall, some cave person or Druid had to conceptualize what Stonehenge would look like.
Watching Inception the concept of the power of the "architect"- in the literal sense of the word, not in Nolan's sense of the word, weighs heavily in my mind. Especially as in the movie the "architect" is given ultimate control over the design and execution of not only a building, but an entire world. (Maybe architect isn't the right word. Maybe urban planner is a better term ;) We are the ultimate latent control-freaks. But "architect" sounds sexier- images of schmancy eyewear, all-black clothes, and spiky, artsy, hyper-stylized hair. Or maybe I'm the only one who hears the word architect and thinks of Daniel Liebskind).
Planning school has broken down many of my pre-conceived notions, including the sovereign power of an architect.
I used to think that the architect had the same role as he (or now she) had centuries ago. He possessed a vision and the client paid. This was true well through Olmsted's time. But not anymore. Now I know it's no longer true. Architects are hemmed in by their clients' budgets, legal and construction restrictions, the laws of physics, developers, lawyers, and bureaucracy in 31 other flavors.
I don't know what the role was of different parties in, say, the Renaissance, other than the architect and the patron. There were obviously sub-contractors, such as the carpenters, the masons, the other craftsmen. In their time they would have been called gilds.
But who said how big one's mansion/villa could be? Obviously, property lines were determined by law. But setbacks? Roof lines? That may not have been legally mandated except by whoever was richest. Or if your second story impinged on your richer-than-tho neighbor. Maybe a cute architectural historian knows and would like to enlighten me. ;)
I'll let you know if I do determine an answer. Until then, power to the people! Er, the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment