|
"There are no second acts in American Lives" F. Scott
Fitzgerald
We architects, I think, try to achieve some sort of
immortality through built-work since many of our projects will probably outlive
us. This may be a selfish aim, but if this vanity is performed for the good of
the client, then both the client and the architect are served well. Better yet,
if the building continues live as it was originally intended and its values
which manifest themselves architecturally are still appreciated, then architects
are satisfied. Nirvana is achieved if there is a rebirth or renaissance of
sorts; we architects are ecstatic beyond belief, especially if it is our work
that has been rediscovered. Sometimes, there ARE second acts.
All this has come to mind since a recent re-interest in
mid-century modern houses has emerged. These houses were designed between the
period roughly between 1945 and 1965 and typically are modern, or what was
considered modern back then. Some houses are well-known, such as Eichler homes,
but many of these houses were designed by less famous, yet very talented
architects in Northern California. In most cases, the architects were
well-known back then, but time and interests have moved on to newer names. Such
is the way of life, even for architects. “NorCalMod: Icons of Northern
California Modernism”, by Pierluigi Serraino, is an attractive and informative
collection about these architects and their buildings that offers a second act
for these architects. The author’s thesis is
that Northern California has its own share of modern design separate and very
distinct from that in Los Angeles and from that of the “Bay Area Region” Style,
championed by Bernard Maybeck, William Wurster, Joseph Esherick, and Charles
Moore. The bulk of the collection is residential with some commercial
structures to help illustrate certain points that the author makes, which are
many—almost too many.
Mr. Serraino is correct. The Bay Area cities, hills and
canyons are sprinkled with mid-century gems by various architects. Having lived
in Bay Area for 25 years now, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve stumbled
upon a mid-century modern house on some beautiful lot during a hike or a drive.
And Mr. Serraino is also correct in that these houses are slowly being
demolished. I personally have driven out of my way to visit a Henry Hill House
or a Wurster House, only to find a new Tuscan/Mediterranean house in its place. 3
years ago, Joseph Esherick’s 1950 Kentwoodlands house was put up for sale and I
had the good fortune to visit the house and take some pictures. 6 months after
it was sold, the house was tragically demolished.
What I enjoyed most about the book were the pictures of
various and assorted modern houses and buildings done by some very talented
architects who were highly esteemed, but are hardly remembered now. The
section about the architectural photographers was less interesting but still a
welcome part of the book. I also liked the interviews with some of these
architects of which I learn many things about them, their thinking, and their
influences. In particular, Donald E. Olsen FAIA has probably rubbed elbows of
those with architectural importance locally and nationally more than anyone in the Bay Area, so his interview was
interesting as well. Of course, I’m biased since I spent three months as a
pesky intern in Olsen’s office in 1984 where I learned so much about the
practice and about design.
The book could’ve also been titled “The Rise and Decline of
Modernism” in that the author records the beginning and end of modernism. Another name for the book could be “Turf Battle
between Bay Area Region Style and Modernism” since much of the book is about the
intellectual battle between Bay Region Style and Nor Cal Modernism architects, ultimately tipping in favor to Bay
Area Region Style (the author's conclusion), which leads me to point out the major weakness in the
book. Unbelievably, there is lots of writing about , but absolutely no pictures of projects by Wurster, Esherick,
and Moore (all AIA Gold Medalists, I hasten to add!!) in the entire book. If the author is making the case that there is a big
difference between NorCalMod Architecture and Bay Region Style Architecture, then
he should have at least some pictures of this style and not only of NorCal Mod. Words
aren't simply enough in a medium as highly visual as architecture.
The debate continues today mostly within the Bay Area
between the two camps. The
amusing part is that both camps seem to claim the same architects as their own.
The book " Bay Area Homes", edited by Sally Woodbridge, is on the Bay Region
Style bandwagon and discusses the work of Callister, Hill, and Henrick
Bull as good examples of Bay Region Style Architects. Yet, the
author believes that these same architects plus Harwell Harrison are in the NorCal Mod
camp. The debate exists in yet a larger forum: Kenneth Frampton, the
esteemed architectural critic, believes that Harwell Harrison is one of the
earliest architects which embraced critical regionalism in California. Who is correct? Can they all fall in both camps? Is
there a right answer?
My answers are “Nobody”; “Yes”-they can fall in both
camps” and “No, there is no right answer”. Wurster, Esherick and Moore were just as modern as those
in NorCalMod, but had a different point of view of modern architecture, just as Alvar Aalto had a different
point of view on Modernism than Gropius or Le Corbusier. These three are all considered Major Modern Architects and no one argues about
their differences they way locals quibble about Bay Region Style and NorCal
Modernism. So, why can’t we can’t we lump Wurster, Esherick, and Charles
Moore with Olsen, Knorr, and Mills and stop the discussion here and now?
So, things are not as simple as the author might lead one to believe.
I simply get the feeling the author loves his Modernism so much, that he can't
see the obvious-a mark of a true fanatic. I suspect that deep deep down, the author knows
that if the reader takes only one look at, say, Wurster's Pope House #2 with
corrugated metal walls and a flat roof, the author's premise will be
shattered beyond repair. But that's OK since the stakes aren't that much and we
need fanatics like Mr. Serriano to remind us of some terrific architecture, even
if his reasoning is flawed.
The important thing is that some terrific architects are getting their due....again.
This book is a terrific rebirth (or second
act) for all those extremely
talented architects that practiced architecture in the Bay Area during the
mid-century. Many thanks to Mr. Serriano--Their work and contributions should not
and will not be forgotten. These
architects were a lucky bunch, too, being able to practice architecture
when optimism reigned and the sky was the limit. These houses represent an
end of a very special era in American Architecture. Despite its weaknesses, I
am very happy that the book was published.
|
