UP UP AND AWAY WITH DAVID HERTZ

I AM A BIT LEERY ABOUT WRITING THIS BLOG, BECAUSE DAVID HERTZ FAIA ARCHITECT, IS A FRIENDLY NICE GUY. BUT THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE. FRIENDLY GUYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE DIFFERENCES.

DAVID WAS A STUDENT OF MINE AT SCI-ARC AND WENT WITH ME TO EUROPE IN THE SUMMER OF 1982 WITH A GROUP OF SCI-ARC STUDENTS THAT HAD A BASE IN A HILLSIDE FARMING TOWN OF VICO MORCOTE, SWITZERLAND OVERLOOKING LAKE LUGANO IN A SCI-ARC VILLA THAT WAS BEING REMODELED. IT WAS A WILD SUMMER, AND WE ALL HAD A LOT OF FUN. DAVID AND FELLOW STUDENTS TAKING TO WEARING A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF IN THEIR EARS TO SCARE OFF BANDITS. SINCE ONE STUDENT WAS CHALLENGED AT GUN POINT IN THE UNDERGROUND IN PARIS. ANOTHER TIME HAVING TO COME TO DAVID’S DEFENSE, BECAUSE HE AND OTHERS BROKE INTO A PRIVATE GIRLS SCHOOL AND THE HEAD MASTER TRACKED ME DOWN. THE FINALE BEING AN INTENSE SLIDE SHOW DAVID ORCHESTRATED AT SCI-ARC WITH THE THEME SONG BEING THE “WILD THING”. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY CLASSES DAVID HAD WITH ME, BUT HE DID NOT DISTINGUISH HIMSELF AS A SKILLED DESIGNER.

I TOOK THE CLASS TO JOHN LAUTNER’S OFFICE, AND DAVID ENDED UP WORKING FOR JOHN. DAVID IS A HANDSOME GUY AND HAS A WAY WITH PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WOMEN. THE BORN GIFTED SALESMAN THAT IS ENCHANTING. I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT WORDS JOHN LAUTNER USED WHEN TALKING ABOUT DAVID TO ME, BUT THEY WERE NEGATIVE, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR DAVID.

I HAVE WATCHED DAVID’S CAREER WITH INTEREST, BUT NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL APPLAUSE. YET HE BUILDS SPIFFY STUFF. HIS BIGGEST ASSETS BEING RELENTLESS DRIVE, DOING HIS BEST AND HUSTLING PROJECTS. SO WHEN HIS RECENT ADVENTURE OF TAKING A BOEING 747 APART AND BRINGING THE PARTS TO A REMOTE MALIBU SITE FOR A HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY MENTIONED, I WAS AGHAST. BUT I WAITED TILL RECENTLY, WHEN I SAW THE FINISHED RESULT, TO COMMENT.

THE PROJECT WON AN ARCHITECTURAL RECORD HOUSE AWARD FOR 2012. I HEARD THROUGH A MUTUAL FRIEND, THAT DAVID WAS ECSTATIC ABOUT GETTING THE AWARD. WHO WOULDN’T BE?

A FEW YEARS AGO I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID ABOUT THE ABSURDITY OF BRINGING LARGE PARTS OF A PLANE FROM A REMOTE CALIFORNIA DESERT TO MALIBU. DAVID WAS RELAXED ABOUT DEFENDING HIS POSITION AND QUITE CONFIDENT ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING. THAT ASSURANCE AMAZED ME, SINCE I THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS. WELL IT ALL PAID OFF FOR DAVID. AND WHO IS TO QUESTION A WINNER EXCEPT FOR GLEN?

FOR STARTERS, CUTTING APART A MACHINE THAT IS DESIGNED FOR A SPECIFIC FUNCTION, LEAVES FRAGMENTS WITHOUT FUNCTIONAL MEANING . I RECENTLY WENT THROUGH THE MUSEUM OF FLYING AT THE SANTA MONICA AIRPORT, THAT DISPLAYS THE WRIGHT BROTHERS PLANE TO MODERN JETS, ALL EXQUISITELY BEAUTIFUL FOR THE FUNCTION THEY PERFORMED. THE ONE FRAGMENTED PART WAS A NOSE CONE COCKPIT OF A 727 THAT YOU CAN WALK INTO TO EXPERIENCING THE FEELING OF THE PILOTS IMMERSED IN A COCOON OF FLYING INSTRUMENTS.

MY TAKE IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO RECYCLE A PLANE, PUT IT IN A PLAYGROUND AND LET KIDS EXPLORE IT. PUT IT IN A MUSEUM. KEEP SOME AROUND TO ACTUALLY FLY, WITH BACK UP PARTS FROM NUMEROUS SCRAPPED PLANES. OR HANG IT ON A BUILDING, LIKE GEHRY DID IN LOS ANGELES. PUT A BAR OR RESTAURANT IN ONE. USE IT FOR MOVIE SETS ETC., BUT KEEP THE ORIGINAL SHAPE INTACT OR USED IN A MATTER THAT RESPECTS THE ORIGINAL FUNCTION. IF NOT, JUST SCRAP IT AND RECYLE THE MATERIAL.

BUT DO NOT BUILD A HOUSE IN REMOTE MALIBU SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS WITH CUT UP PARTS, THAT TAKES GOBS OF MONEY, INTENSE MOTIVATION, SKILL, MATERIALS, LABOR, PUBLIC TIME AND EXPENSE, AND PROCLAIM THE FORCED MONUMENTAL ACHIEVEMENT GREEN AND COST-EFFECTIVE FOR BEING RECYCLED.

DAVID MAKING AN ANALOGY OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS USING ALL PARTS OF THE BUFFALO. IF YOU WANT TO USE EVERY PART OF A PLANE TO RECYCLE IT IS NOT JUST THE OBVIOUS SKIN . IT IS ALL THE STORAGE BINS, SEATS, AIR SYSTEMS, PRESSURIZED SYSTEMS, INFINITE INSTRUMENT PANELS, BATHROOMS, JET MOTORS, GAS TANKS, LANDING GEARS, ROTATING FLAPS, GAS LINES, TIRES, ETC THE CUT AWAY PHOTOS SHOW ENDLESS STUFF . THAT IS WHY PLANES ARE SO EXPENSIVE, THERE IS SO MUCH SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT TO MAKE THEM OPERABLE. THE SKIN IS JUST THE ENCLOSURE. TO USE ALL THIS IN A CREATIVE DESIGN FOR A RESIDENCE WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE, BECAUSE THESE SYSTEMS WERE MEANT FOR AN AIRPLANE.

FOR STARTERS THE REMOTE 55 ACRE SITE, CONSUMED BY BRUSH FIRES ON A REGULAR BASIS, FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF EXTREME HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT, LIKE A FLOOD ZONE. TOM HAYDEN, FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATOR OF THE AREA CALLING IT A DISASTER AREA THAT SUFFERS FROM PERIODIC FIRE, MUDSLIDES, AND EARTHQUAKES. THE ROAD LEADING TO THE SITE IS LONG AND TORTURED. THE TAX PAYER HAVING TO PAY THE BILL FOR THE RICH AND FAMOUS TO LIVE THERE WITH PUBLIC DISASTER MONEY TO COPE WITH LOSS OF LIFE OF HUMANS, ANIMALS, AND PROPERTY. SOME PLACES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE LIVED IN. THE MALIBU MOUNTAINS HAVE PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN ON A REGULAR TEN YEAR CYCLE OF FIRES AND MUDSLIDES TO BE THE TRAGIC STORY OF THE HOT SANTA ANA WINDS BLOWING HUGE FIRE WALLS OF FLAMES THAT DESTROY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF VALUABLE PROPERTY. MAKING GLOBAL EVENING NEWS WITH DARING EXPLOITS AND TRAGEDIES OF FIREFIGHTERS AND RESIDENTS. FOLLOWED IN THE WINTER WITH TORRENTIAL RAINS WITH NO MOISTURE RETENTION VEGETATION, THUS CREATING MUD SLIDES THAT CLOSE ROADS AND SEND HOUSES SLIDING DOWN HILLS AND CLIFFS.

THE ATTRACTION BEING OF HAVING A PERSONAL PRIVATE REMOTE RANCH NEXT TO LOS ANGELES WITH LOTS OF ANIMALS AND BUILDINGS COMPLETE WITH MEDITATION CENTER AND FANTASTIC VIEWS.

THIS TOOK A HEAP OF MONEY THAT FRANCIS REHWALD, THE CLIENT, WAS ALL TOO WILLING TO DUMP INTO THIS EXTRAVAGANZA , HER DISCLOSURE ON TV ABOUT HOW LITTLE MONEY IT TOOK, JUST USING HER CREDIT CARDS TO BUY THE PLANE, REVEALS A WOMAN OUT OF TOUCH AND LOVING THE PUBLICITY . THE ORIGINAL SCRAP COST $35,000 FOR PLANE AND WHEN PREPPED WITH CUTS, CLEANSING, ETC COMING TO $200,000. FROM THERE IT TOOK MONEY TO TRANSPORT WITH TRUCKS, AND $18,000 AN HOUR HELICOPTERS DROPS . AND ONCE ON SITE OF SPLICING TOGETHER THE HUGE WINGS AND RETROFITTING WITH EXPANSION DETAILING, ETC TO BECOME A ROOF INDEPENDENT OF THE STRUCTURE BELOW FOR THERMAL MOVEMENT. THE ENCLOSED SPACE BELOW THE WINGS DEMANDING ALL THE PARTS OF A HIGH END SLICK FIRST CLASS RESIDENCE BUILT INTO THE HILL, REQUIRING MAJOR GRADING, RETAINING WALLS AND FOUNDATIONS. THE ROOF BEING THE ONE EXCEPTION , BUT WITH THE ADAPTATION DETAILS OF ALL THE WING COSTS, NEGATING ANY SAVINGS COMPARED TO BUILDING FROM SCRATCH . OTHER PARTS OF THE PLANE TO BE SPREAD AROUND THE SITE. THE BELLY USED AS A BARN AND NOSE CONE AS A MEDITATION CENTER.

THE HYPE GOES ON WITH SAYING THE SHAPES ARE SO SPECIAL. THE FINAL PEDESTRIAN DESIGN PROMPTED ME TO IMMEDIATELY WRITE THIS BLOG. A COUPLE OF GIGANTIC WINGS THAT WERE USED AS FLAT ROOFS, PROCLAIMED BY DAVID TO BRING FEMININE CURVED SHAPES THAT THE CLIENT SOUGHT. THAT IS SO MUCH PROSAIC JARGON. ANY SKILLED ARCHITECT CAN MANIPULATE CURVED SHAPES WITH MORE DRAMA AND INTEREST THAN A COUPLE AIRPLANE WINGS LAID FLAT, AT A FRACTION OF THE COST. THE OVERHANGING WING TIPS FREE SPAN CANTILEVERS BEING THE ONLY RECALL OF WHAT A WING DOES.

CURVES ARE NOT USED BY MOST ARCHITECTS. AND WHEN USED, ARE USUALLY ARCHES, OR FRAGMENTS OF ARCH SHAPES. REVIEWING DAVID’S BUILT DESIGNS SHOWS PREDOMINANTLY BOXES. DAVID CLAIMING THESE SHAPES MASCULINE. SO IF A CLIENT ASKS FOR A SENSUOUS CURVED BUILDING, AS FRANCIS DID, DAVID RESORTED TO THE GIMMICK OF CUTTING UP A PLANE AND CALLING THE SHAPES FEMININE.

GIMMICK GREEN ARCHITECTURE HAS BEEN AROUND REPEATEDLY, AND THE MASSES LOVE IT. HAY BALES, CARGO CONTAINERS, COMPACTED EARTH, CAR TIRES, ARE ATTRACTIVE FOR THE ORIGINAL LOW COST, BUT WHEN BROUGHT UP TO THE STANDARD BUILDING CODES TO LIVE IN, BECOME EXPENSIVE AND RESTRAINING. THE RESULT BEING THAT STANDARD CONSTRUCTION IS LESS MONEY AND MORE FLEXIBLE. THE QUOTE “ALTERNATIVE GREEN BUILDINGS” ARE LABOR INTENSIVE AND NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION. THE PUBLIC IS SO DESPERATE TO BUILD GREEN, AND ARE LURED IN BY ORIGINAL LOW COSTS AND SIMPLICITY.

BUT TO BE TRUTHFUL, MY DISPLEASURE WAS TRIGGERED BY A BORING HYPED DESIGN. IF THE RESULT HAD BEEN SOMETHING CREATIVE AND DRAMATIC. I MIGHT HAVE STAYED QUIET. I AM A SUCKER FOR GOOD LOOKS.

THE OTHER ASPECT BEING THE HYPE. DAVID HURTZ AND CLIENT CLAIM GREEN RECYCLED. WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THEIR SINCERE PITCH, YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND BUY A PLANE OR ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO, THAT IS WHAT I FIND FRIGHTENING AND MISLEADING.

IT IS FITTING THE HOUSE GOT THE ARCHITECTURAL RECORD AWARD. HOW TO SERVE THE RICH, LOVE THE PLANET AND APPLAUD A GIMMICK, THE CLIENT ECSTATIC.

IT ALL SEEMS SO HARMLESS, BUT ATTRACTING OTHERS TO FOLLOW SUIT WILL PROVE A MISGUIDED MIRAGE.

THE RICH HAVE BEEN MAKING EXTRAVAGANT PALACES FOREVER, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO, MAYBE FOR LAVISH PARTIES, WHICH I AM ALWAYS UP FOR, OR IS THE MOTIVE THE GOLD CHAIN AROUND THEIR NECKS SHOWING OFF THEIR WEALTH? FRANCIS HAS DEEP POCKETS THAT PROCLAIM THE COST TO BE $2,000,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS HIGHLY SUSPECT, AND NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYWAY.

DAVID WANTED TO CUT A PLANE UP AND MAKE A HIGH END RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX WITH THE PARTS, FINE THE RESULT FULFILLED THE FANTASY DREAM. BUT DO NOT RATIONALIZE IT AS ECONOMICAL NOR GREEN. IT IS SERVING THE RICH WITH AN EXPENSIVE GIMMICK APPROACH.

SALVAGE IS A HUGE PART OF OUR SOCIETY FROM TVS, OIL DRUMS, CARS, SHIPS, TRUCKS, TRAINS, FARM EQUIPMENT, FACTORIES, HIGH RISES AND NUCLEAR WASTE. THE BONE YARDS OF PLANES SHOULD BE MINED TO RECYCLE THE MATERIALS. THEIR ERA IS OVER. I RECENTLY WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTION OF A SIZABLE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE FOUNDATIONS PULVERIZED TO ROCK, THE STEEL AND WOOD BEAMS REMOVED, IT WAS A TIDY RECYCLE JOB, A PASSING OF AN ERA.

A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO I WAS IN THE LOCAL WRECKING YARD SCROUNGING HUB CAPS. THE RECYCLE PROCESS WAS IN FULL MOTION WITH THE COMPACTING OF CARS. TO ME IT WAS A NIGHTMARE SCENE, BECAUSE I PUT SO MUCH VALUE ON BUILT OBJECTS, CARS WITH DENTED BODIES ARE SMASHED, INCLUDING MOTORS, TRANSMISSIONS, WINDOWS , SEATS, DASH BOARDS, RADIOS, SPEAKERS, , WIRING ETC. IN NICARAGUA, WHERE REPAIR IS THE NAME OF THE GAME, THIS AMERICAN WASTE WOULD BE A TREASURE CHEST TO KEEP CARS RUNNING. WHICH IS REALLY RECYCLING COMPARED TO BUILDING ANEW. THE NIGHTMARE TO THE CAR INDUSTRY, IN THE USA, IS TO SEE CARS OLDER THAN 12 YEARS ON THE ROAD, SMASHING CARS IS CREATING A MARKET FOR NEW CONSUMERISM.

WHAT CONSTITUTES JUNKING A PLANE IS PRESSURIZATION CYCLES, 75,000 OR ABOUT 20 YEARS. THE REPEATED PRESSURING WEAKENS THE MATERIALS. LONGER FLIGHT USAGE HAVE LESS CYCLES, SO SOME PLANES LAST 30 YEARS OR MORE. THERE IS A WHOLE PROCESS OF RECYCLING PLANES, IT LOOKS LIKE DEATH, BUT THEY ARE RECYCLED. PLUS THEY HAVE HAD A GOOD LIFE. THE ORIGINAL PRICE BEING $200 MILLION FOR THE 747. IT WOULD SEEM THE OBVIOUS RECYCLE WOULD BE TO KEEP THEM IN SERVICE AS LONG AS POSSIBLE FOR THE JOB THEY WERE MEANT TO DO.

THE TESTING DEVICES FOR PLANE STRENGTH ARE BEING UPGRADED TO ALLOW FOR INSPECTION WITHOUT REMOVAL OF PARTS TO GET AN ACCURATE READING. LIKE IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, SAFETY IS THE FOREMOST CONCERN AND THE PRACTICE OF SCRAPING PREMATURE A PLANE OR BUILDING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IS STANDARD, OR DOES IT MAKE CORPORATE ECONOMIC SENSE TO DO SO? WHO KNOWS WHAT IS THE MOTIVE IN THIS THROW AWAY SOCIETY.

ANOTHER APPROACH, MIGHT BE IS TO SET UP A FACTORY (ALL GREEN FOR SURE) NEXT TO THE PLANE GRAVE YARD AND FIGURE OUT FAST GREEN ECONOMICAL WAYS TO USE THE PLANES. I AM SURE I, DAVID, CARLOS , MICHAEL, TIM, ROD, MARCELLA, ERIC, AHDE, MIC, STEWART, FRANCIS, GREG, RALPH, PAT, AND PROFESSIONAL, TALENTED, SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS SOULS COULD MAKE A BUNCH OF FANTASTIC FUNCTIONAL DRAMATIC DESIGNS WITH THE PARTS FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE. THE ULTIMATE FUN RIDE THROWN IN AS AN EXTRA. WHO KNOWS, OTHERS MIGHT HAVE TRIED AND GONE BROKE?

GLEN

Share this Post:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Print
  • Yahoo! Buzz

23 comments

  1. Glen,

    This work by David would be categorized as an architectural folly; extravagant, odd, one-of-a-kind, fantastic.

    If you think twice it makes no sense. If you take this seriously, it’s kitsch. The airplane disembowelment and reassembly of scattered parts reminds me of a Hans Bellmer doll. Or something more macabre. I like the twisted result. The ecological reasoning is all bravado. The final result has a strange attraction. Which is why I like it; for it unreasonableness., because it it strange . Because….

    Thank you David

    eric chavkin

    • eric,

      to each his own;
      your attraction to the twisted shape is yours.

      as i mentioned in the blog, the simple result triggered my outrage. so boring a solution for all the outrageous fraudulent hype.

      the only way to explain my pain is to show what could have been, which is after the fact. the built takes the curtain call.

      glen

  2. Recycling aircraft parts for pre-fab building. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIOVES

    Glen, This is the Aircraft Graveyard scene from the 1940′s film BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.late Dana Andrews ends up getting a job in construction

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU0d3DVcKoY

    The part that would interst this discussion starts about 5.00 into the clip. Poignant image

    .eric chavkin

    • ERIC,

      THANKS FOR THE CLIP. A RATHER COMMON STORY OF MODERN TIMES THAT SHAKES ONE UP. I REMEMBER AT THE END OF THE VIETNAM WAR, HELICOPTERS BEING PUSHED OFF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, BECAUSE THEY WERE OF NO USE.

      IS THAT WHAT OUR SOCIETY HAS CREATED? USLESS STUFF AND HUMANS?

      GLEN

  3. Glen
    I get your anger about the architecture, this kind of dialogue is healthy…..but why bash David’s personal integrity? He’s a talented architect……is your ego so all consuming that when your students become more successful you need to pull them down?………do you feel free now?

    I stand with Eric…….and like the project, except for the misleading “green” b.s. and the way wing ends are terminated so abrubtly with goofy vent holes.

    Love and respect,
    R

    • OH RALPH,

      I AM HAPPY WHEN STUDENTS MAKE IT BIG, BUT MAKING IT BIG WITH THIS PROJECT IS NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL SUCCESSFUL. MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXAMINE WHAT YOU THINK IS SUCCESSFUL.

      OVER TIME AN ARCHITECT DOES A NUMBER OF PROJECTS, AND THE PROJECTS ALL HAVE A BAR GRAPH OF SUCCESS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWERS.

      PERSONAL INTEGRITY IS IMBEDDED IN WHAT AN ARCHITECT DOES. EVERY ARCHITECT HAS TO DEAL WITH THAT. AS I POINTED OUT YEARS AGO, ARCHITECTS HAVE CHOICES, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISIONS THEY MAKE. DAVID IS A BIG BOY, HE IS CAPABLE OF DEFENDING HIS PROJECT AND DOES SO ELOQUENTLY, BUT DOES THAT HIM ABOVE CRITICISM?

      AS FAR AS LOOKS GO, WE HAVE DIFFERENCES ON THAT. I FIND IT BORING AND SIMPLE, YOU LIKE IT. AS I SAID, DO YOU WANT ME TO GRAB THE PENCIL AND SHOW YOU WHAT I MEAN? THAT IS NOT ETHICAL. YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW, THAT IF I SAY I CAN, I CAN.

      YOU QUESTION MY INTEGRITY, WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT.

      GLEN

  4. Glen,
    Saddened to read another negative personal blog – this time about one of your students.
    Loved the project. Great job David. Proud that you are from SCI-Arc.
    Glen, I do agree, that you would have probably done a better design, but in life we need to applaud what is, and not what could have been.

    • MITM

      ONCE AGAIN WE SQUARE OFF ABOUT CRITICISM BEING A POSITIVE FORCE. IT JUST BAFFLES ME THAT YOU ARE FULL OF YES ON THIS ONE. ALL THE LOGIC BEHIND THE CRITICISM. THERE IS A MISSING ASPECT ABOUT YOU THAT CAN NOT FATHOM THIS FOLLY.

      I HAVE HAD A LOT OF STUDENTS THAT HAVE CHOSEN MANY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS TO FOLLOW. MY INFLUENCE IS JUST FOR A BRIEF TIME.

      THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE ARCHITECTURE. DAVID AS I POINTED OUT, IS A NICE GUY, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HIM ABOVE CRITICISM. IF HE GOT HIS VALUES TOGETHER FOR A HIGHER CALLING HE COULD DO A LOT OF GREAT THINGS. HE HAS THAT SUPER SALESMAN SIDE THAT GETS CLIENTS TO DO WHAT HE WANTS.

      MAYBE MY QUESTIONING WILL INFLUENCE HIM TO DO SOMETHING THAT I WILL WRITE POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT. I HOPE SO.

      WISHING DAVID THE BEST IN THE FUTURE.

      GLEN

  5. Glen,
    I have no issues about your critism about architecture, after all you were a teacher and that was your job, and one can learn and grow from critism if you choose too.

    My critism of you is, when you get personal about someone you say is a “nice guy”. By making the following public, I feel you have not been fair with John L too, who I assume made his comment privately to you.
    “I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT WORDS JOHN LAUTNER USED WHEN TALKING ABOUT DAVID TO ME, BUT THEY WERE NEGATIVE, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR DAVID.”

    Not sure what purpose this statement serves? – other than it reflects poorly on you and John L, rather than David.
    I hope you are able to see my point of view.

    • MIITM

      I MADE THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE THE PUBLICITY OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH DAVID ON A REGULAR BASIS MAKES A CONNECTION TO JOHN LAUTNER.

      I FIND THIS RELATIONSHIP PERPLEXING, BECAUSE OF JOHN LAUTNER’S STATEMENT TO ME. I AM NOT SURE JOHN WOULD BE ALL THAT PLEASED ABOUT BEING ASSOCIATED WITH DAVID. JOHN WAS A STRAIGHT SHOOTER . I WAS VAGUE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY I REMEMBERED IT. RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT ALL SMILES AND POSITIVE STROKES, ONE LEARNS BIG TIME FROM THE CONTRADICTIONS OF LIFE.

      WHAT I ENJOYED WITH JOHN LAUTNER WAS HIS OUTSPOKEN BITTERNESS ABOUT ALL THE INJUSTICES IN ARCHITECTURE AND THE SOCIETY. HE HAD A REPUTATION OF CALLING IT LIKE HE SAW IT. WE RELATED WELL. MANY PEOPLE SHUNNED HIM FOR THIS BEHAVIOR.
      IF THAT MAKES JOHN LAUTNER AND I BAD GUYS, AND DAVID A SAINT, SO BE IT.

      AS FAR AS PRIVACY GOES , THIS BLOG IS NOT MEANT TO CENSOR. I WANT TO DISCUSS IN AN OPEN MANNER. ARCHITECTURE IS PERSONAL, AND THE WHOLE STORY MAKES IT REAL.

      GLEN

  6. Glen– I just enjoyed reading your blog You know me as a friend-not an architect- and this is just an observation. I relate to the above comments about your personal criticisms made above..A young child can dump a bag of flour in the living room and we can be furious with the action but will always love the person. As he moves into his teens the line dims but we still love and support him. Learning to be a mature adult in life and especially business is to be able to separate and respect the individuals in our lives from their actions. In knowing you, I watched over and over again(as reflected in your daughter’s movie) whether it was dissing Gehry and the other future renowned architects on the dais in their presence . Or when we lived on the Oregon Coast, You have continued to shoot yourself in the foot in personal and business relationships by not recognizing this distinction. The last time I saw you, I was passing through Seal Rock and I said to my friend–” Let’s stop here, I know Glen and want to see how he is doing and see his house” You greeted us, enjoyed a glass of wine and watched your daughter’s movie. As we left, you said “oh, you just dropped by to show off your pretty girlfriend and your convertible” which was not true at all. Glen As I drove away, my friend said ” I like how he designed his house but Is he really your friend?” I said “yes he is but that behavior doesn’t resonate with me so I don’t like to hang around it much. Glen, I think you have been a great teacher and architect but to me that doesn’t give a pass on behavior and respect You may think it takes a big ego to be a visionary, but it takes humility to be respected as human being
    Your friend,
    John

    • DEAR JOHN,

      YOU SEEM SO SUPERIOR ON HOW THE WORLD WORKS. HUMILITY. WHEN I WAS IN JAPAN AND MY HOST WOULD BOW AND BE VERY COURTEOUS WHEN EVER WE WOULD MEET PEOPLE. I ASKED HIM, ” DO YOU REALLY FEEL THIS WAY” HE SAID NO, AND EXPRESSED REAL DISGUST FOR MANY HE TREATED THIS WAY.

      OUR SOCIETY DOES THAT AS WELL WITH “HOW ARE YOU ? GREETING” ETC.
      I SOMETIMES REPLY WITH, GOT AN HOUR OR TWO FOR ME TO EXPLAIN. THEY PANIC AT THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE PROGRAMMED TO NOT INTERACT, BUT CHIT CHAT .

      YOU KNOW THE GAME WELL, AND PEOPLE FEEL AT EASE AROUND YOU. YOU HAVE BEEN INTO SOME TYPE OF SOUL SEARCH FOREVER, BUT AS YOU RECENTLY MENTIONED YOU ARE DESTINE TO BE ALONE.
      HOW MANY DREAMS HAVE YOU BROKEN BY BEING THE PERFECT SOUL?

      YES I FEEL SUPERIOR ABOUT ARCHITECTURE. I THINK I MIGHT BE REMEMBERED AS THE ONE THAT REALLY POINTED TO SOLUTIONS, BUT I WAS DIFFICULT, BECAUSE I DID NOT TOE THE LINE, SO WE IGNORED HIM. TOO BAD FOR YOU, ME, AND THE PLANET.

      I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE, I THINK BEING DIRECT IS THE WAY PEOPLE SHOULD BEHAVE. LOOK AT MY WORK. THE PROJECTS SHOW THE WAY, I AM PLEASED YOU ARE SO ENLIGHTENED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

      I REFLECT ON MY LIFE AND I FEEL PROUD OF THE WORK . YOU THINK I AM DEAD WITH BULLETS IN MY FEET YOU DON’T GET THE TRUTH.

      SORRY I HURT YOUR FEELING ABOUT COMMENTING ON THE BEAUTIFUL GIRL AND CAR. NO HARM WAS INTENDED.

      THIS IS ALL SO PERSONAL, AND YOU CHOOSE THIS AS THE WAY TO COMMUNICATE?

      BUDDY,

      GLEN

      • Glen,
        I’m confused. On the one hand you say to me – AS FAR AS PRIVACY GOES , THIS BLOG IS NOT MEANT TO CENSOR. I WANT TO DISCUSS IN AN OPEN MANNER. ARCHITECTURE IS PERSONAL, AND THE WHOLE STORY MAKES IT REAL.

        On the other hand you say to John – THIS IS ALL SO PERSONAL, AND YOU CHOOSE THIS AS THE WAY TO COMMUNICATE?

        Does this mean John’s comments are too personal as far as YOU are concerned and should not be discussed on your blog, but as far as OTHERS are concerned, it is okay for you to personally attack them ?

        • MITM

          JOHN IS A NON ARCHITECTURAL FRIEND, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS STRANGE THAT HE CHOOSE THIS FORUMN OF MY ARCHITECTURAL BLOG TO DISCUSS. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, LET IT ALL HANG OUT. THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

          THERE IS A DOWNSIDE OF OPENING UP THE DISCUSSION TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE PROFESSION,

          THAT IS WHAT LUCIA MY DAUGHTER DID. AS SHE SAID ” NOBODY CARES ABOUT ARCHITECTURE, BUT EVERYBODY CARES ABOUT DIVORCE.”

          THEN YOU HAVE THOSE THAT RESPOND TO THOSE WITH FAME AS TRUTH. AND THOSE WITHOUT LOSERS.

          WHERE DOES THIS ALL LEAD? ARCHITECTS HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER AND SHARING THE LEARNED KNOWLEDGE THEY PRATICE, LET ALONE HAVING EVERYBODY CHIMING IN WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES.

          FOR A PEACE GUY YOU ATTACK.

          AFTER SEEING YOUR BEAUTIFUL EVOLO SUBMISSION YOU DO HAVE A SENSE FOR BEAUTY, CONCENTRATE ON THAT. I AM REALLY GIVING ADVISE TO MYSELF. CONCENTRATE ON DESIGNING BEAUTIFUL THINGS GLEN,

          THAT IS ENOUGH TO HANDLE. WHEN I STRAY FROM THAT I REALIZE HOW MUCH JUNK HAPPENS AND HOW ABSURD

          GLEN

          • Well said. You should make this your daily prayer before you go to sleep.
            CONCENTRATE ON DESIGNING BEAUTIFUL THINGS GLEN,THAT IS ENOUGH TO HANDLE.

  7. Criticism. OK Glen lets talk about that.

    The architectural criticism you make is based on the INTENTION of the designer’s claims that the built work was, to keep this short, ‘green’, and your arguments point out the fallacy of the intention.

    What you also did was try to add to your argument the designers motivation, attacking his talent (or lack of), indirectly his personality and his resume. Lets not discuss his clients motivation. This is where you went wrong. Your argument about intention got muddled with claims of motivation. These are called cheap shots and they are cheap because they imply a way too broad of an explanation (is all of David’s career just a ‘green’ hustle?) . It is also a cheap because it re-focused the argument away from the work to David’s personality which only he can answer too.

    It’s like saying Frank Gehry only designs for the money, or thom mayne just want the spotlight, or eric moss is a bully because of a childhood trauma; all unfair, all not about the work, all a bad argument.

    David’s architectural work, from what I have seen, is inventive, and he tries new things. He takes chances. I would call he and his approach maverick. I think the hustle is a means to an end. Good for him. I want my friends to succeed.

    You too Glen. I want you to succeed too.

    eric

    • ERIC,

      EXAMINE YOUR YOUR COMMENTS.

      WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU LIKE DAVID AND HIS WORK. YOU THINK BOTH ARE IMPORTANT. FINE, OK YOUR OPINION.

      I DO NO LIKE DAVID’S 747 PROJECT SPELLED OUT IN A LENGTHLY BLOG WITH MANY OBJECTIONS WHY. I DID NOT COMMENT ON HIS OTHER PROJECTS OTHER THAN REFERRING TO THEM AS BOXES, ( MEANING RECTANGULAR SCHEMES)

      I DID NOT DO A CHARACTER THUMPING. IN FACT, I SAID DAVID IS A NICE GUY. AND IN A COMMENT ENCOURAGING HIM TO DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE WITH HIS SKILLS.

      THE SIMPLE FACT IS I HAVE AN OPINION THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.

      WHAT IS GREAT ABOUT YOU IS THAT YOU SPEAK YOUR MIND. REFERRING TO YOURSELF AS FEARLESS. I RESPECT THAT.

      GLEN

  8. Hey Glenn its been a while since I have posted hereand I just read all the comments.

    What I think is great about this blog is Glenn tells details the “professional” and “academic” publications remove when they write history about architecture.

    What the internet has accomplished with regard to critisim – is it has managed to add the ability to talk (show video) about the more important social layers to how jobs become job and more importanlt just because you are famous and powerful the oppurtnity to re-write history in a monograph doesn’t exist anymore.

    The stuff they don’t teach you in school…for example:

    If the architect had to pay off a DOB inspector to get a detail done know one else has accomplished or if the architect had to invent a position at MOMA to then endow same position because they were wealthy heirs and wanted to make themselves seem organically emerging as important to architecture.

    A more real life middle class example: If you don’t need to pay bills and have money to begin with, acquiring that design star noteriety is a lot easier when you can do competitions all day.

    Lastly, I think if David had stuck with marketing the project as it really is, a damn good folly and greaty piece of architecture with regard to coneptually recycling a plane, I don’t glen would of laid into him, especially with regard to the social layer. Which as Glenn presents it, Davids quite the hustler…so he called the hustler out.

    • CHRIS,

      WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? THE FRIENDLY PUPS SURROUNDED ME AND STARTED YAPPING.

      YOU ARE RIGHT, IF DAVID HAD COME CLEAN, MY CRIT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.

      BUT DAVID THOUGHT HE NEEDED ALL THAT FLUFF TO MARCH FOWARD.

      I HAVE COUNTERED WITH MY NEXT BLOG – LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME

      THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS,

      GLEN

  9. look forward to the next post.

    sorry for the bad spelling and grammer (wrote that on my blackberry).

    I wanted to add another point as well, one important parto the process of education with regard to learning architecture, which you would know about and address above…

    if the only available information out there about this project says it really was green, some young architect student doing an essay or report might site this project as a good example of green design and frankly get the wrong idea about green design. thanks to this blog, Glen’s ciriticism puts it into perspective and would further require the young architect student doing the essay to think ‘critically’ about David’s claims. What is the embodied energy for this project?

  10. CHRIS,

    YOU HIT THE MAJOR EMPHASIS ON THIS BLOG, EXPOSURE.
    AS I STATED, I LIKE DAVID.

    I AM NOT THAT ALL WELL READ , BUT THE ISSUES I BROUGHT UP ARE NOT IN THE POPULAR MEDIA THAT I AM AWARE OF, EVEN FELLOW ARCHITECTS STAY QUIET, SO MAYBE THAT IS MY ROLL. RAISE ISSUES AND QUESTION THE MOTIVATION AND PERSONALITY BEHIND ISSUES. SO OTHERS MIGHT NOT BE LURED INTO THINKING THIS PROJECT TO BE GREEN ETC. AND FOLLOW IN DAVID’S FOOTSTEPS.

    THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT,

    GLEN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)