I don't know how many of us observed that he speaks about Mies van der Rohe while sitting on a Barcelona chair-and also the look of the patio chairs echoing the Barcelona chair structure. Stewart Hicks is my favourite in architecture videos! Thank you Sir!
While I thoroughly enjoyed the Mies van der Rohe experience, what will stay with me longer is your brilliant delivery and skill of objectivity. Thank you for the lesson, lifelong will it last.
As part of the team that built this project it turned out to be one of my finest. The structural Steel as shown in the video was started in our shop and completed in the field on site to make it look the way it does. As with most all of Shelby Coatings, Inc. projects this is my "last" new construction project because after 48 years of doing special coatings I'm retiring. So it is fitting to see this project done and love the video, great job. Garrick B
I am not an architect but my work in a former career life required that I created the vision and thousands of hours conveying that vision and hammering out details. I considered the final products to have sprung from my own mind. Do you consider truly great structures to be conceived of consensus or born of an individual's vision and birthed by a team?
Thank you for this excellent video. You mentioned music existing at a remove from the creator, but there are many examples in the plastic arts as well. Bronze sculptures are executed by craftsmen, not by the artist, from castings or other intermediary processes apart from the original design. Rodin even authorized posthumous castings of his bronzes. Chihuli farms out all his pieces, and he has not personally blown a single piece of glass in decades, although he isn't the best example, given the recent controversies around his work. Warhol worked with a team to execute his pieces. Examples abound throughout the art world.
Interesting, I’ll have to check it out. This reminds me of the Pavilion for Japanese Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). Bruce Goff first designed it for a site in Bartlesville OK, then as an addition to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Then Goff died. His former apprentice Bart Prince took Goff’s design and adapted it for LA. Granted this opened to the public within 6 years of Goff’s passing. Prince is the architect of record, but everyone considers it a Goff design.
As a student at IU I can say I love walking past this building everyday and whenever I have a major project it's where I study. Glad to have found this video.
There is a building in Vancouver BC that could only be built from the top down. It has a central support with elevators and stairwells but the bottom floor would be the 3rd if the building came to the ground. It is literally hanging from the support pillar by steel bands. It was built as an office tower originally but has since been converted to condos, selling under the building name of: "The Cube".
Great Video! The question of authorship is an interesting one, obviously I would not discount in the least Mies' Drive, Talent, and vision, but I have similar feelings about authorship as I do the "great man" concept in history. Society, personal and professional relationships, timing, and serendipity do as much to contribute to the success of an author as other more internal loci of success. Obviously this building bears Mies' designs and sensibilities, but I agree that its form and function owe vast amounts to Mies' associates who also worked on the project, and the folks that worked on it from Thomas Phiffer and Associates, and the context and time that it was built in. Had the idea been surfaced earlier, would it even been considered? I couldn't imagine this being built in the 80's. Additionally, up until somewhat recently I believe that the modern adaptations made to make it possible would themselves have to to be very different.
Sydney Eskinazi is a major philanthropic figure in my area. The local community medical center across the street from my home was mostly funded by him and his wife and bears their name.
Yes. This is mies. I haven't seen much of his work but this certainly looks right. I'm a big Frank Lloyd Wright fan. I REALLY like this kind of modern art deco look. After looking at 100s of different structure styles for years in the modern day......personally I would build a kitchen at each end of the building instead of just having one at one end and none on the other end. Makes for a shorter walk to breakfast. Also, a few more bathrooms. Doing this though........would not be following the original drafts/blueprints and.......I'm glad that they didn't do that! The building looks absolutely stunning and cheers to you for showing it to us!
Great vid as always! Super minor petpeeve incomming: i wish the "Architecture with Stewart" in the endscreen would spin counterclockwise, so that you don't have to chase the letters as you read. one of those motion design pet peeves of mine hehe, doesn't really matter though!
Hey, just wanted to note another correction, Adam Thies' title at 2:50 is also for university of indiana instead of indiana university. not sure if you or anyone will see this, or even misunderstand what you meant in the first place, but just wanted to throw that out there! awesome videos, always a good watch:)
This is a Mies building start to end. I'm a musician and music and architecture have similarities. If I compose a song, the other musicians have something to work around and contribute to. They have an idea. Without my composition, they have nothing to work with, there is no reference point, the music is lost. This is Mies' composition, in exactly the same way as if he was playing music, you would know immediately you're listening to Mies Van Der Rohe.
In other news, Architect I.M. Pei is remembered in Atlanta for his first solo project, the 1950s-era former Gulf Oil Building - The City of Atlanta demolished it in 2013 because, well, we're in the south and the building had no connection to college sports.
Stale lifeless architecture is how I see Rohe's work although his open floor plan idea was novel. Most of this style looks like something made with toothpicks and popsicle sticks.
It goes without question that the... question of whether the work of the architect is finished once the drawings are... finished depends on how detailed the... details are, which the architect in... question drew.
As a design, the glass/steel box of the 2nd floor is quite beautiful but the ground floor is hideous... concrete slab with vertical I-beams, turned into a cave/basement parking garage by the 2nd floor. Nonetheless, a very impressive construction.
9:20 Like a movie too. Attributed to the director most often. But written by someone else (or mutlple people) acted by others, edited by another, and approved and financed by others. They say a movie is written three times, once by the writer, once by the director, and once by the editor. Not to mention the hundreds and sometimes thousands of other hands that contributed to making a movie.
If Mies designed this building long time ago but only got constructed recently, with all the problems, limitations and regulations, I think it is a valid example of his vision even though he is not around any more. I wonder how many more of his designs are waiting to be discovered
The Ex wife of the one of elite wealthy "Bass" family in fort worth texas has an all steel and glass home. All of the furniture and dinning tables etc are flush with floor on ground level. Wonder if it's the sam architect given that there're billionaires. It's been there since at least the early 80's. For many years they had a full time painter locating, sanding, then painting any rust spots found. Pretty amazing house tbh. But a maintenance nightmare I'm sure.
Depends. But in this case? Yes, yes a thousand times yes. I truly consider Mies the best architect of the last 100 years, period. Prove me wrong! Each and every building in a monument to a very specific design and thought philosophy that is both austere and beautiful and honest in a way that most construction isn't. It's so German, it hurts. ;-)
You ask if a building built 50 years after the architect's death can be an authentic building. But you didn't ask another question that may be as interesting. Is a building built by the architect during his lifetime still an authentic representation of his intent 50 years after his death? With all of the changes that will have had to be made to meet government building code changes, and differences in how users use buildings and expect them to work? If this building had been built in 1954 as a frat house, and at some point in 2010 or so had been converted to an office building, would it still be an authentic representation of the architects intent? Likely it would have been completely gutted, and all of the electrical, communications, and AC infrastructure completely rebuilt, not to mention insulation added everywhere, and all the glass replaced. Possibly even all the stairways would have to be replaced for access requirements changes, and maybe even every doorway in the building widened. That would certainly change the look of the building.
I found this discussion "questioning the role of authorship and originality in architecture" completely pointless. Of course it's a Mies van der Rohe design. Far more interesting is the explanation of the technical challenges of updating the design to modern standards.
Do we attribute buildings to early stage architects, instead of the delivery architect? The answer is yes, we do that all the time. How is this any different?
One thing I kept thinking of as I watched this: if Mies had still been around to oversee the construction of this building, he would have had to make many of the same concessions to his original plans that were made here. I wonder if he would have been as thoughtful about adapting it to his original vision, or, since he would have more of a sense of ownership over the design, if he would have made more drastic changes to accommodate modern standards and regulations.
I wondered the same while watching this. This design was cutting-edge when originally drawn, and not a lot was known about how this style of building would perform in the real world. Surely he would have developed it even further with access to current knowledge and materials.
And, if the building had been built in the 1950s as he intended it then, many of these changes would have been made as it was maintained through the years.
@@BrooksMoses That's an interesting point. If the owners had not been able/willing to keep it "as is" it's likely that post facto changes would have changed it much much more significantly from its original lines/volumes.
In the video it implies that later blue prints seemed to have included more modern changes like the kind of material that he might have ended up using for the casing on the windows. So, yes, he would have opted to use some of the latest materials and techniques of the day.
Well, to be specific, I'm guessing the stairway design needed to be wider in case of fire or other disaster, given that the design is simplicity and functionality that should not have been too much of a problem. Guessing most of those changes would be safety considerations which are neutral changes to the esthetic. (Frank Lloyd Wright no so much, they're still trying to fix his places)
Yep, one of them was in the soon be a named part of Madison, in the town of Middleton Wisconsin where Frank Lloyd Wright lived some of his last years. The Convention center that was to be built on the main lake.
@@caseysmith544 Manona Terrace, I may have misspelled that. It’s a beautiful structure that is exactly what Wright wanted. The lights were to be the zodiac signs with the middle globe to represent the sun.
@@jatdesign4495 Yep was there for the Kite festival in 1999 and then in 2000 when a guy broke the world record for largest Kite that later Japan really took the record with a whole town. Also some people way out on the lake set the new ice skate kite skiing speed record as well as an ice skate wind surfing record. Odd sport where they take often older lightly messed up bottom wind surfing boards and attached 4 sets of the blades from hockey ice skates on them to ride.
You always let me think critically about buildings. There is no doubt that this is a Mies van der Rohe building even if it has been modernized to comply with present day regulations. Although architecture is an art form, it is the only art form that is subjected to change over time, depending on the initial value of the design. This is a prime example. It still has the character initially intended by Mies, but adapted to modern day use. Being an art form, I think it is important to credit the designer even if an entire team worked to realize the vision. Construction drawings are instructions to the builder and there should be little room for 'interpretation' by the contractor.
Apropos to your comment about architecture being subject to change over time, many buildings are remodeled/modified over time to adapt to the current needs of the occupants and to update them to current codes and standards. But I would suggest that (unless they are heavily modified/stripped of their original aesthetic) they are still in essence the building designed by the original architect.
@@mtgibbs Modeling and knowledge is more widespread and there are solutions that are not as invasive to the original design. Compared to when it was designed. Better Heating and cooling systems, better and lighter flat roofing, Glas that is way way better. Etc
@@darthandeddeu Absolutely, but there are times when the floor plan needs to change, such as for adaptive re-use or a different occupant needs more of one type of space and less of another. One nice feature of Mies' plans, for instance, is the standard grid size which gives the space flexibility.
It's the same with music or any other art form where you have a plan and the have others reproduce it. Music will have notations and sheet music, but every time it is played it is interpreted by the performers - either through the selection of the instruments, the dyamnics of the performance, the energy, or even just reinterpretation of certain parts or even entire songs to fit a new style. Back etc. aren't played the same they were the first time, likely they are played radically differently due to changes in even fundamentals such as instrument tuning.
I go to Indiana and this explains a lot about this new building on campus! Everyone thought it was a very odd design for a new building and a strange use of space when expansion always seams to be the case at IU. Very cool to learn more about the history!
Show me an architect who successfully designed an entire building in all its detail such that no engineer, builder, plumber etc had to make changes or design parts of it themselves. That's all they did here, change what needed to be changed to make the building work. The only difference is they didn't have to waste months sending emails back and forth to the architect because he wasn't still around.
I’m sure there are plenty of buildings like that but honestly as someone in architecture school right now I’d rather just let the engineers go at it then bother with things that are boring and that I know little about. I mean we LEARNED how to do SOME of that but I’d rather let the professionals handle it and tweak their finished work to be more “aesthetic” then to send electrical plans and HVAC plans back and forth even though I don’t think those plans are interesting at all
To most (myself included): it’s clearly a Mies Van Der Rohe. And to the those few that it’s not; I think it’s impossible to see it as anything less than a passionate and faithful love letter to one of the most important architects of a generation.
I’m not an architect, but this is one of my favorite channels to currently watch on youtube, because of the quality and how it’s just so well presented that it’s almost just as calming as it’s informational. It makes me appreciate my surroundings more than ever. If you ever ran out of ideas, I think a video about the urban planning in communist countries would be interesting for many who still live in those (me included). Or a video about Buckminster Fuller would be cool. I know there are some already, but none I’ve seen were as good as yours would be.
I remember seeing a couple of Buckminister Fuller’s ball houses in a vintage Omni mag I found as a kid, & a couple years later there was a Northern Exposure character that had one in a later season. I’d love to know more about those things.
Also I wish I could remember more than “Preston” “Minuteman” & “Sanctuary” about where your pfp comes from so I could make a rad in-joke about your inevitable construction stylings in the Wasteland...but alas I am too dumb. Oh no...now I probably have to go quest for a punchline...
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 I lived in a remote town in Alaska 40 years ago and someone had one of those in town. Its diameter, I would guess, was almost 30 feet. Most of the pictures I've seen of them were transparent, but this was not.
Well, that's another interesting video! I think the new building could be called a "Mies" building, because even though an architect doesn't actually build his or her project, neither does a clothing designer actually stitch the garment, but his or her name is on the label. In music, adjustments are called "arrangements" so a Mozart piece could be "arranged by" someone else, for instance for school orchestras. Perhaps with a major update such as the Eskenazi School of Architecture building, joint "authorship" might be appropriately assigned.
I have the opposite problem. I own/live in an early Eichler home which was built before Joseph Eichler teamed up with Anshen & Allen to create Eichler's iconic mid-century homes. It was designed after Eichler had become inspired by FLW and his vision for Usonian homes. The house itself is built with a raised foundation (vs. a slab) and has central HVAC (vs. radiant heating), doesn't have a central courtyard, but still has a flat roof, large plate glass windows, and a lot of the other features which Anshen & Allen went on to use in their designs. Is the house an Eichler? Maybe a Likeler by Eichler? My take on this is it honestly doesn't matter. I love the house and homes are meant to be lived in. I've also had to bring the house up to code (like adding insulation, redoing the plumbing, electrical, asbestos disposal, etc), and to add an addition to make it work for a family in the 21st century vs. mid-20th century. How much of the house is new vs. "original"?
I would be so interested in a video tour of your home. i can both visualize and not visualize it at the same time by your description. You make me so curious to see and learn more
Its a very "ship of Theseus" problem, and my answer as an engineer it that it doesn't matter. A design is only good if it serves the needs of the client (in this case, you as the home owner), and you have done remodeling (maybe contracted out to professional designers) to update the design to suit your new needs. (Meeting code, more space, ect) Some architects design monuments to themselves, good architects design for their client's needs. (including planning for future needs, an example of an EE doing this is oversizing a main service so that in 10yrs when the building expands they have capacity and don't need to spend a bunch of money upgrading the service)
I’d be interested in what you think of House of an Art Lover, a Mackintosh house built in the 90s, and the potential rebuild of the Glasgow Art School which burned down… twice…
I would definitely say that would be an authentic Mies van der Rohe design. Considering the provenance so design and the blessing by the family and the attention to detail! Hooray for the Indiana university Bloomington
This is not art, just construction skills, include the constructors in the design. Mart Stam just used the materials that were available back then. Mies used that design, enhanced it. Build that now? Art? We can do better designs now, we do have way better skills, able to use any materials! Keep building Barcelona buildings, keep using these chairs too ???
Yes, we should build the designs but there should be a law that such buildings include a plaque explaining that it's a posthumous build and including the names of any/all architects involved in design changes or additions.
If your going to do that then you better also include all the engineers who made the design functional. Not architect has the ability to make a design from start to finish so perfectly complete and detailed that all the structural, MEP, process, ect drawings needed 0 changes from the PEs who stamped them. (Because the training alone would take longer than med school, and the design process would take ages, tally up all the hours billed to a single project and its years) The entire design team, often distributed across multiple firms, rightfully feels a sense of ownership for a successful design. And most importantly, a design is only good iff it serves the client's needs.
I 'm sometimes puzzled why American like to call this architect just "Mies". First, it is awkward for a German because "mies" means "lousy". Secondly, in 1922 he created "Mies van der Rohe“ as his last name. So Mies is neither his first nor his last name by the time he work and lived in the US. Calling him just "Mies" feels the the same as if you would ignore the pseudonym Le Corbusier and calling this architect by his birthname Jeanneret instead all the time.
I am not a huge fan of Mies. The only building by him that I really love is the Barcelona Pavilion which, in its current form, is a reproduction itself, not the original structure. Despite that, I still think it's an authentic Mies building. By the same token I think that the Indiana University building can be considered an authentic Mies building, but only to a certain degree. One thing you don't highlight is the difference in function. The new building is an administrative center, not a frat house. This necessarily changes the interior. I think the building can be justly called "Miesian", but it isn't Mies. It does demonstrate, however, that Mies' buildings are "universal spaces" that can be adapted to many different uses. I think your point about the collaborative nature of architectural design is very well taken. Once the design of monumental buildings was separated from the actual building process during the Renaissance, this division has existed, although builders working on vernacular structures continued to be both designers and builders for many centuries to come. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that the Principals of an architectural firm oversaw and critiqued the work of their staff architects, but didn't do much in the way of actual designing themselves, although there were and are exceptions to this approach. For any large building it would now be impossible, but for smaller residential or commercial buildings individual architects can play a much larger role.
Love you comment, but I disagree just a little with you. If Mies was designing an administrative center the final project would be completely different from that. That is only a recreation based on Mies`s design, a token for Indiana University. And you highlighted the greatest point of this building and discussion, how "adaptable" Mies design is. At the same time what a waste of resources on an outdated design. Buildings are an image of its time, they reflect how people live, what materials they had, the technologies of their period etc. This building means nothing to our time, probably isnt energy efficient with all those glass façades. I studied in IIT and Rohe built a bunch of those buildings around the same principles and, while Crown Hall is quite nice, applying the same things to the gym is bs! During summer, the basketball courts with no ventilation and all that glass were hotter than an oven. That is not the "best design" (although that doenst exists) they could have for a recreation center. They wanted the Mies brand, but this building adds nothing to Mies legacy.
@@joaoerlacher An interesting and well-argued perspective. I'm an architectural ignoramus, but I actually don't think it's necessary to "know" architecture to have an intelligent opinion on a question like this which is, at its core, philosophical rather than architectural. And the way I feel is . . . . *appreciative* ! This has been a fascinating discussion, and I'm not sure how I feel, but João, you've added much to what I've already taken in on this discussion. Thank you for helping me continue thinking.
@@BS-vx8dg And you are absolutely right, you dont need to "know" architecture to have opinion about it, I mean you live in buildings so you have firsthand experiences about them, us architects only have more time and experience to think a bit more and deeply about it. But that is a beautiful thing about architecture EVERYONE knows a little about it, and that is why Stewart has the best architecture and urban design channel on UA-cam because he brings all those discussions both for architects and non-architects. Have a good one BMJS!
@@joaoerlacher You make valid points but I would disagree that the project is a “waste of resources” as you put it. haha. Obviously Mies’s work carries weight so of course if given the opportunity, a university is going to build one of his designs on their campus. I think it’s an interesting project as it reminds us that Architects make instructions for buildings, not the buildings themselves… so just because a project is carried out after the architect’s death doesn’t mean it is not valid or legitimate. The point of the video is authorship in architecture, not so much “is this design worth constructing 50 years later”. One could argue that many famous architects barely contribute to projects that go through their office even while alive. So many people work on an architectural design far more than partners (generally speaking). One of the greatest faults in the practice of architecture is the frequent overemphasis on the individual star designer.. telling is that frequently firms with great design work usually have people leave who go on to become successful designers at their own firms… look at FLW at Louis Sullivan’s practice. Anyway, by today’s standards yes, this project would have been built completely differently and be much more efficient… but then again it also would have probably been much larger maxing out the site… and potentially just as “wasteful” of not more. This brings us to the discussion of whether or not architects are designers in the sense that are we supposed to just resolve multiple requirements and build things as maximally and efficiently (money and energy) as possible or to actually evoke something by pushing a coherent design language and then doing the aforementioned resolving? Architecture is balance. I think that this project is cool because it shows how much more efficient a Mies project could be made with today’s technology and materials. It brings up interesting pondering about how much differently Mies’s entire design language may have been if he were to design today.
i am absolutely stunned by Mies' work. i don't know how he makes these rectangular boxes interesting and makes them stand out. this seems like an amazing space to be in and i think this old project got taken care of really well
This design is fascinating because it has so much potential. It could be left flat on the ground to make it a residence. The high-rise stilts offer protection from floods and it would look "at home" on the beaches of Miami or in the metro areas of Las Vegas or modern Dallas. He was far ahead of his time.
Classicist proportion. All the early modernists were scholars of Palladio, it is clearly evident in the way they handle harmony and proportion. There's a simple elegance to their work that makes them timeless beauties.
As an architect, I know nothing I design is solely mine! The contractor, engineer, building department, fire department, code inspector and carpenter all make changes to your design base on their job requirements. They're not always good changes or desired changes, but they will happen. It's a Mies van der Rohe building.
If those people make changes to your design that means your design was wrong to start with. I know it is harsh but when you start the design you have parameters: Code, budget, technical feasibility. And you need to design within those parameters. Now if contractors do not respect your design, it is your job to crack the whip and make them do what they contracted to do.
@@thornil2231 the design process is highly iterative, unexpected problems crop up all the time. Ideally an architect would know everything all the different trades need and would get everything right the first time, i would bet a trillion dollars this never happens in all of history. (Even if the architect was qualified to make every single drawing and design decision, they would still encounter problems forcing design changes that conflict with the original vision) The difference between a good and bad architect is if they intend to make something to best suit the client's needs vs just make a monument to themselves. (Not that most of the buildings i work on as an electrical engineer are particularly monument worthy, being industrial facilities or labs) At the end of the day all the design disciples will grumble about eachother as they make requests to change something or another, and architects are the ones most responsible for aesthetics and engineers are tasked with function. (Not that us engineers are intentionally trying to make ugly buildings, its just normally last on the list of things to solve)
@@jasonreed7522 An architect is someone who knows a little about a lot. An engineer is someone who knows a lot about a little. A good architect is a multi faceted individual. You have to be a psychologist (sometime a psychiatrist) to deal with clients, an economist, an engineer, an artist, a construction manager, a drafter, a manager of the design team, and to know building trades. And yes you have good ones. The bad ones only do one thing: Be a drafter for the client, regardless of the stupidity of the design. Of course the design process is iterative, but a good architect is able to do a preliminary design that will be very close to the final. You take the example of electrical, a good architect is able to anticipate the chases in relation to the structural elements, and tell the structural engineer, "you can't have a beam there..." I like to put architect in the unenviable set of jobs anybody think they can do like restaurant/bar owner, contractors... Yes you can design it yourself... and it will look like you designed it yourself...
@@thornil2231 definitely agree, architects are normally the primary on a job which means they have to do all the administrative "cat herding", and even if they aren't primary they still are the center of coordination of the trades since they are in charge of "artistic vision" and their job comes first as they make the building itself in the model/plans so everyone needs to coordinate with them. Not an enviable task to have. I also think it does everyone good to have a little "Renaissance Man" in them for knowing what the other trades need. It may be mandatory for architects since their design for the building must accomodate all the utilities and suport that goes inside it, but engineers can make eachothers lives way easier by taking a small step out of their way because they know what a different discipline needs. (To me one of the most obvious place for this is in fieldwork, take legible and clear photos of things outside of just what you need and you will save someone without even knowing it. Nothing is worse than needing to read a label but the only image of it is blurry.) A good example of design synergy would be if you have a cathedral ceiling, it needs lights, HVAC, structural, fire suppression, and obviously aesthetics, you could run all the conduit and pipes separately, or you could run everything up the top surface of the beams and cover them in a beautiful facade. A little coordination goes a long way.
A bit off topic, but I'd love to see a video on Richardsonian Romanesque. Being as you're based in Chicago, an examination of the John J. Glessner House would be very interesting.
Growing up in Chicago I was deep influenced to become an architect, first because of Frank Lloyd Wright and the by Miles van der Rohe, and their modern looks. Hopefully today more students of architecture will pay more attention to the power of various schools of design to understand how these older architects got a lot of design ideas correct.
I am so happy that I found your channel. Your videos are so well done and so interesting. Thanks for cresting them! I'm surprised this one is only 13 minutes and there's so much there to think about.
Fascinated to discover how exciting architecture has captured my imagination late in life. There is time to appreciate it, and I am. Thank you for this and it’s wonderful presentation.
There is an interesting point not addressed in this otherwise excellent presentation. (If there was a way to give it 3 likes I would done so.) What if the building had been constructed in 1952 after all? Just a hypothetical : today it would be 70 years old and given the evolving needs of students, academia and the inevitable wear and tear on the structure, Mies's original would likely have required extensive renovation over the decades and possibly, re-purposing. What would a detailed renovation / restoration finally look like? Is it out of the realm of possibilities, for example,that because of both deterioration of the original [exterior] limestone walls to acid rain and the present environmental demands for energy savings that the resulting restoration incorporate today's "sandwiched" panels? JAT Design (and possibly others before him) have noted that architects have passed away with varying numbers of unbuilt designs. The number of Frank Lloyd Wright's works, if I recall correctly from a reading of one of his monographs, exceeded 700 (if someone is aware of the accurate number, I would happily stand corrected. 🙂 ) I have been lucky enough to tour all three of his homes and took an "urban hike" of sorts to the surrounding neighborhood of Oak Park, where many of his first commissions were built; including the Unitarian church. I reserved my pilgrimage to Taliesin West for last, only to be taken aback by the superblock housing encroaching his final, out of this world like third and final home. This was in the autumn of 1990 and I had expected to find it to be surrounded by the pristine arid desert he had chosen for his final years of practice. Have not been back to Phoenix since, but I sadly imagine what was once an ethereal isolated compound is now engulfed by not just the ugly gated residences that extend outwardly from wherever Phoenix's center lies, but the usual kitsch WTFery of exurban fast food chains and probably a mall; that they choke the vistas he and his merry band of acolytes once took pleasure from is horrifying to contemplate. My apologies, I digress. As it happened at that very time of my visit to Taliesin West the ineffable administrators of New York's Guggenheim Museum were in the process of building an addition to the East elevation of the structure. FLW had anticipated an expansion (or the first brief had requested one) in his initial plans for that very site. Indeed, the follow-on practice still had them in their possession! During our tour the docent mentioned that a catalog of his unbuilt works were infrequently built by interested parties, thus prompting me to query why Guggenheim had turned to a firm (Gwathmey-Siegal) best known for late Modernist Long Island beach homes and metro New York suburban commercial office buildings and further, if the administrators had not consulted with them about the addition. To my surprise, she said that Talien Associates did not even learn of the letting of a non-competitive contract for the expansion until it made to the media. She added that the practice was stunned and that many cross country calls were made, but an executive decision had been reached and apparently the Museum's board were not interested in his plans. The tragedy was that G-S's design violated the structural integrity of the museum, i.e., cut into it to accommodate whatever had been on the Guggenheim's brief. I had been to the GM before and after its expansion and though neither a critic nor scholar by calling, just possessing a passionately avid avocational interest in architecture and the built environment, I can attest the addition would be worthy of being termed an example of "late modern fiasco" style in any text book history of art and architecture. Really. that. horrid. Well, I'd like to summarize my feelings about this subject, but I just noticed the time.
I don't know the size of Mies's architectural firm, but from my experience as a project architect in a signature design firm for over two decades, it is the PA not the famous architect that receives and answers all the day to day questions that come up during construction of the project. To say that Mies was not around to answer the day to day questions seems like a bit of a red herring to me. Is there any evidence to suggest that he did that on all his projects, or perhaps did he more commonly do what we see today, designers just popping by once a month to see how things are going?
As someone that loves architecture, yet is not one, I feel that if an architect (or his/her team) design a building (and he/she signs off on it), then it is the work of that architect. As far as i'm concerned, architecture isn't just designing and drawing plans. It is about the location, the situation, the environment, in which those plans will be built. Therefore, you can take the plans of an architect, and build to those plans elsewhere, but if they were not drawn for that piece of land, then it's not of that architect. You could call it 'initially designed by...' or something, but I don't know if I could call it fully by said architect. But that's just me, idk...
My Pa was a construction engineer who dabbled in architecture. He dismantled a log house and rebuilt it at a new site. He has been dead six years now, and we as a family keep the build going, trying to stick to his vision while accommodating needs that he hadn’t thought of. A building is never quite finished, or it’s dead.
Great questions! For me the critical question is did the architect design it for the site it is built on. Issues around site are one of the main thing that distinguishes architecture from art or music. If an architect designs a building for one site but after his death it’s built on another site, this changes the original intent of the building enough to not be the original work. We might think of mies’s work as “universal” but careful consideration of his work shows he was a master of site (as are any architects worthy of the name).
Agree, I was about to say the same thing about the 9:20 bit "It could be copied at another site and still technically be authentic to the architect's intentions" No it couldn't, because any good architect designs with the environment and context of the building in mind : not only orientation, climate and weather pattens, but also the landscape, neighbouring buildings, the visual impact the building will have, and so on.
Just found your channel and love it...!!!...I don't agree with some premises but that is fine since the world of "art" is not always about liking everything...but you present wonderful content and discussion about this topic dear to my heart... Should We Build Designs From Dead Architects?...YES...!!!...when it is well done...sustainable and proven to work well within the context of means, modality, and material application...Most "modern designs" like Mies van der Rohe...SHOULD NOT...be ever copied...but his work should be preserved and appreciated for the art it is... It does not reflect "good architecture" in the context of sustainability...serviceability...and even aesthetics to the mean average of observers...some will like, some will even love it...yet many will find no interest or value in it...and for me personally I find most (not all) platform "cubist style" architecture kind of like Andy Warhol's work..."fake it to make it"...as it really isn't that creative per se and more about "look at me"...but that is a perspective of the artistic side of the work... Thanks again for sharing this and the question...
I love hearing engineers say they love the unique, hard solutions, and design intent - so refreshing, I’ve worked with many engineers who are really against anything but W-flanges and 90 degree boxes
Really not a bad design i love it. Soo much space light places for a garden and trees mmmm love it. It does need the middle to be open like a yard mybe a small salt pool in the middle next to some kind of garden.
It's so austere! Give me Frank Lloyd Wright any day. Oh yeah, that's right, I built an almost-copy of Jacobs No.1 - his first Usonian home, in 2008. :)
These architects are being too hard on themselves!!! Hell, the building “design” outlasted the technology, not the reverse. The technology changed. The design didn’t. I guess since human nature NEVER changes, do the people have the same feelings now they did back then? They are really the ones that gotta live in it.
As an industrial architect/designer, where I specialize in multi-story clean room projects, I assure you that on our side of the profession we often build top-down with complex infrastructure requiring interior box within a box design & construction. BTW, fab der Rohe was a inspiration to me and my homage to him is a multipurpose visitor/meeting center on an industrial campus that put a small postage stamp of human scale on a site where 6m floors in concrete dominate the landscape.
As an IU alum I loved hearing about the new development around campus. As a Midwest native, I was initially confused about where this building was located - with Illinois and Indiana both having a town named Bloomington, and the naming differences of the schools (Universty of Illinois vs Indiana University). I watched this on my TV but came to my computer to see if any other viewers noticed this. I appreciate your due diligence of adding the correction to the description! Overall great content.
I remember going to Taliesin West for a school field trip in elementary school (this was a while ago so I could be misremembering details and intentions as well) and the tour guide told us how Frank Lloyd Wright would sometimes give his apprentices a small sum of money to build the desert dwellings that (I hope) are still on the property. It wasn't even enough money to buy materials so this would encourage apprentices to collaborate on the design, look for financial support from outside benefactors and compromise to cut costs all with the intention of simulating what it would be like to work in the real world. Work changing hands, compromising, cutting designs that don't fit the budget or needs all for the sake of making a building that the architect and the client could be happy with. You said "Is this a faithful and untainted reproduction of Mies's vision?" And I think that no building is 100% untainted, there's always things cut for costs, or changes made for the client or by the contractors. Calling this building a product of Mies's vision is enough I believe.
This video brought me so much joy today! Thank You! It’s fascinating how this building came to be born so long after it was planned. Honestly i can’t image it as a Frat House.
Paintings & Architecture: Jesus walks into a Restaurant and says to the Maître’d, “I’d like a table for 26 please.” Maître’d looks at his group and says, “But you’re only a group of 13.” Jesus says, “Yeah, but we all want to sit on one side.”
Lots of fun. While the American building codes seem more rigid, did you know the Canadian building code allows Architects to interpret and diverge from established rules as long as they can defend their designs. This applies mainly to egress and envelope design but other rigid aspects of building can be creatively interpreted.
Thanks for this video, it's really good. Is there any footage of the construction available elsewhere? Would be really cool if someone had made a documentary about the whole process
I don't know how many of us observed that he speaks about Mies van der Rohe while sitting on a Barcelona chair-and also the look of the patio chairs echoing the Barcelona chair structure.
Stewart Hicks is my favourite in architecture videos! Thank you Sir!
I love how you've asked questions about provenance and yet it still reads like a love letter to van der Rowe. Great take.
Thanks!
While I thoroughly enjoyed the Mies van der Rohe experience, what will stay with me longer is your brilliant delivery and skill of objectivity. Thank you for the lesson, lifelong will it last.
As part of the team that built this project it turned out to be one of my finest. The structural Steel as shown in the video was started in our shop and completed in the field on site to make it look the way it does. As with most all of Shelby Coatings, Inc. projects this is my "last" new construction project because after 48 years of doing special coatings I'm retiring. So it is fitting to see this project done and love the video, great job.
Garrick B
I would humbly suggest that you make one last project, a country house replica of this, on a hill top somewhere. All that light!
A fantastic legacy you leave as your last project! Its beautiful, congrats.
Very cool. Did you get to sign your name anywhere on that steel?
u have done a great job garrick
I am not an architect but my work in a former career life required that I created the vision and thousands of hours conveying that vision and hammering out details. I considered the final products to have sprung from my own mind. Do you consider truly great structures to be conceived of consensus or born of an individual's vision and birthed by a team?
I was not expecting to see a video today about a building I've had classes in
Thank you for this excellent video. You mentioned music existing at a remove from the creator, but there are many examples in the plastic arts as well. Bronze sculptures are executed by craftsmen, not by the artist, from castings or other intermediary processes apart from the original design. Rodin even authorized posthumous castings of his bronzes. Chihuli farms out all his pieces, and he has not personally blown a single piece of glass in decades, although he isn't the best example, given the recent controversies around his work. Warhol worked with a team to execute his pieces. Examples abound throughout the art world.
Great examples.
Interesting, I’ll have to check it out.
This reminds me of the Pavilion for Japanese Art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA).
Bruce Goff first designed it for a site in Bartlesville OK, then as an addition to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Then Goff died.
His former apprentice Bart Prince took Goff’s design and adapted it for LA. Granted this opened to the public within 6 years of Goff’s passing. Prince is the architect of record, but everyone considers it a Goff design.
Was just looking at this building last week. Did not know this. Thank you!
That umbrella form is just perfection to me. ❤
As a student at IU I can say I love walking past this building everyday and whenever I have a major project it's where I study. Glad to have found this video.
Not sure how UA-cam decided your video should so as a suggestion, but glad it did. This is a very interesting video and I'm glad I watched. Thanks.
Hello from Bloomington! It's beautiful to explore here; come to visit.
There is a building in Vancouver BC that could only be built from the top down. It has a central support with elevators and stairwells but the bottom floor would be the 3rd if the building came to the ground. It is literally hanging from the support pillar by steel bands.
It was built as an office tower originally but has since been converted to condos, selling under the building name of: "The Cube".
His work is some of the best in history.
Yay! My campus is being represented! I get to pass by this building on my way to classes every day!
Great Video! The question of authorship is an interesting one, obviously I would not discount in the least Mies' Drive, Talent, and vision, but I have similar feelings about authorship as I do the "great man" concept in history. Society, personal and professional relationships, timing, and serendipity do as much to contribute to the success of an author as other more internal loci of success. Obviously this building bears Mies' designs and sensibilities, but I agree that its form and function owe vast amounts to Mies' associates who also worked on the project, and the folks that worked on it from Thomas Phiffer and Associates, and the context and time that it was built in. Had the idea been surfaced earlier, would it even been considered? I couldn't imagine this being built in the 80's. Additionally, up until somewhat recently I believe that the modern adaptations made to make it possible would themselves have to to be very different.
Sydney Eskinazi is a major philanthropic figure in my area. The local community medical center across the street from my home was mostly funded by him and his wife and bears their name.
It looks very Mies and very Farns-worthy. Love it
OH MY GOD I HAD NO IDEA!!!! I Pass that building every day!!!
Yes. This is mies. I haven't seen much of his work but this certainly looks right. I'm a big Frank Lloyd Wright fan. I REALLY like this kind of modern art deco look. After looking at 100s of different structure styles for years in the modern day......personally I would build a kitchen at each end of the building instead of just having one at one end and none on the other end. Makes for a shorter walk to breakfast. Also, a few more bathrooms. Doing this though........would not be following the original drafts/blueprints and.......I'm glad that they didn't do that! The building looks absolutely stunning and cheers to you for showing it to us!
It’s a office now not a student residence
Wish I'd known you were close. I'd have invited you to lunch to talk arch. I always love your videos.
I see a frat party pulling a truck around back and hitting those pillars knocking the house down
Great vid as always! Super minor petpeeve incomming: i wish the "Architecture with Stewart" in the endscreen would spin counterclockwise, so that you don't have to chase the letters as you read. one of those motion design pet peeves of mine hehe, doesn't really matter though!
Good call.
Oh wow this is in Bloomington? I live like an hour away from there. I’ll be sure to give it a look soon, thank you!
Beautiful
Hey, just wanted to note another correction, Adam Thies' title at 2:50 is also for university of indiana instead of indiana university. not sure if you or anyone will see this, or even misunderstand what you meant in the first place, but just wanted to throw that out there! awesome videos, always a good watch:)
This is a Mies building start to end. I'm a musician and music and architecture have similarities. If I compose a song, the other musicians have something to work around and contribute to. They have an idea. Without my composition, they have nothing to work with, there is no reference point, the music is lost. This is Mies' composition, in exactly the same way as if he was playing music, you would know immediately you're listening to Mies Van Der Rohe.
In other news, Architect I.M. Pei is remembered in Atlanta for his first solo project, the 1950s-era former Gulf Oil Building - The City of Atlanta demolished it in 2013 because, well, we're in the south and the building had no connection to college sports.
I wish we made more iconic buildings like this nowadays. Everything is just a single family house :(
Stale lifeless architecture is how I see Rohe's work although his open floor plan idea was novel.
Most of this style looks like something made with toothpicks and popsicle sticks.
It goes without question that the... question of whether the work of the architect is finished once the drawings are... finished depends on how detailed the... details are, which the architect in... question drew.
Depends on the Architect.
As a design, the glass/steel box of the 2nd floor is quite beautiful but the ground floor is hideous... concrete slab with vertical I-beams, turned into a cave/basement parking garage by the 2nd floor. Nonetheless, a very impressive construction.
9:20 Like a movie too. Attributed to the director most often. But written by someone else (or mutlple people) acted by others, edited by another, and approved and financed by others. They say a movie is written three times, once by the writer, once by the director, and once by the editor. Not to mention the hundreds and sometimes thousands of other hands that contributed to making a movie.
If Mies designed this building long time ago but only got constructed recently, with all the problems, limitations and regulations, I think it is a valid example of his vision even though he is not around any more. I wonder how many more of his designs are waiting to be discovered
Somehow I cannot picture a wild frat party in a Mies building....
The Ex wife of the one of elite wealthy "Bass" family in fort worth texas has an all steel and glass home. All of the furniture and dinning tables etc are flush with floor on ground level. Wonder if it's the sam architect given that there're billionaires.
It's been there since at least the early 80's. For many years they had a full time painter locating, sanding, then painting any rust spots found. Pretty amazing house tbh. But a maintenance nightmare I'm sure.
I will. I always wanna live in that iconic Farnworth house.
That house looks like it won't stand up to an earthquake
Depends. But in this case? Yes, yes a thousand times yes. I truly consider Mies the best architect of the last 100 years, period. Prove me wrong! Each and every building in a monument to a very specific design and thought philosophy that is both austere and beautiful and honest in a way that most construction isn't. It's so German, it hurts. ;-)
You ask if a building built 50 years after the architect's death can be an authentic building. But you didn't ask another question that may be as interesting. Is a building built by the architect during his lifetime still an authentic representation of his intent 50 years after his death? With all of the changes that will have had to be made to meet government building code changes, and differences in how users use buildings and expect them to work?
If this building had been built in 1954 as a frat house, and at some point in 2010 or so had been converted to an office building, would it still be an authentic representation of the architects intent? Likely it would have been completely gutted, and all of the electrical, communications, and AC infrastructure completely rebuilt, not to mention insulation added everywhere, and all the glass replaced. Possibly even all the stairways would have to be replaced for access requirements changes, and maybe even every doorway in the building widened. That would certainly change the look of the building.
Tint the windows.. geez! Poor guys in there taking a dump on camera..
I found this discussion "questioning the role of authorship and originality in architecture" completely pointless. Of course it's a Mies van der Rohe design. Far more interesting is the explanation of the technical challenges of updating the design to modern standards.
Do we attribute buildings to early stage architects, instead of the delivery architect? The answer is yes, we do that all the time. How is this any different?
Dude! You got a NICE toosh! 🤪😍Woof!
This give me very Niemeyer's Brasilia feelings
It definitely is one of his designs. It was just updated for todays standards.
as long as you like a concrete box with lots of windows...
It looks like the old Phillis Wheatley elementary school in New Orleans.
*looks at cathedral that took 300 years to build*
Yeah, I'm gonna say it's ok.
what a pity it didn't remained lost...
One thing I kept thinking of as I watched this: if Mies had still been around to oversee the construction of this building, he would have had to make many of the same concessions to his original plans that were made here. I wonder if he would have been as thoughtful about adapting it to his original vision, or, since he would have more of a sense of ownership over the design, if he would have made more drastic changes to accommodate modern standards and regulations.
I wondered the same while watching this. This design was cutting-edge when originally drawn, and not a lot was known about how this style of building would perform in the real world. Surely he would have developed it even further with access to current knowledge and materials.
And, if the building had been built in the 1950s as he intended it then, many of these changes would have been made as it was maintained through the years.
@@BrooksMoses That's an interesting point. If the owners had not been able/willing to keep it "as is" it's likely that post facto changes would have changed it much much more significantly from its original lines/volumes.
In the video it implies that later blue prints seemed to have included more modern changes like the kind of material that he might have ended up using for the casing on the windows. So, yes, he would have opted to use some of the latest materials and techniques of the day.
Well, to be specific, I'm guessing the stairway design needed to be wider in case of fire or other disaster, given that the design is simplicity and functionality that should not have been too much of a problem. Guessing most of those changes would be safety considerations which are neutral changes to the esthetic. (Frank Lloyd Wright no so much, they're still trying to fix his places)
Kind of like the Taliesin Associated Architects who would build some Wright’s unbuilt works but modify them to the client needs, site, and codes.
Yep, one of them was in the soon be a named part of Madison, in the town of Middleton Wisconsin where Frank Lloyd Wright lived some of his last years. The Convention center that was to be built on the main lake.
@@caseysmith544 Manona Terrace, I may have misspelled that.
It’s a beautiful structure that is exactly what Wright wanted. The lights were to be the zodiac signs with the middle globe to represent the sun.
@@jatdesign4495 Yep was there for the Kite festival in 1999 and then in 2000 when a guy broke the world record for largest Kite that later Japan really took the record with a whole town. Also some people way out on the lake set the new ice skate kite skiing speed record as well as an ice skate wind surfing record. Odd sport where they take often older lightly messed up bottom wind surfing boards and attached 4 sets of the blades from hockey ice skates on them to ride.
I worked in one of their buildings, Ruth Eckerd Hall, and it was a delight to behold.
Such as The Usonian House at Florida Southern College in Lakeland, Florida.
You always let me think critically about buildings. There is no doubt that this is a Mies van der Rohe building even if it has been modernized to comply with present day regulations. Although architecture is an art form, it is the only art form that is subjected to change over time, depending on the initial value of the design. This is a prime example. It still has the character initially intended by Mies, but adapted to modern day use. Being an art form, I think it is important to credit the designer even if an entire team worked to realize the vision. Construction drawings are instructions to the builder and there should be little room for 'interpretation' by the contractor.
Apropos to your comment about architecture being subject to change over time, many buildings are remodeled/modified over time to adapt to the current needs of the occupants and to update them to current codes and standards. But I would suggest that (unless they are heavily modified/stripped of their original aesthetic) they are still in essence the building designed by the original architect.
@@mtgibbs
Modeling and knowledge is more widespread and there are solutions that are not as invasive to the original design. Compared to when it was designed.
Better Heating and cooling systems, better and lighter flat roofing, Glas that is way way better. Etc
@@darthandeddeu Absolutely, but there are times when the floor plan needs to change, such as for adaptive re-use or a different occupant needs more of one type of space and less of another. One nice feature of Mies' plans, for instance, is the standard grid size which gives the space flexibility.
It's the same with music or any other art form where you have a plan and the have others reproduce it. Music will have notations and sheet music, but every time it is played it is interpreted by the performers - either through the selection of the instruments, the dyamnics of the performance, the energy, or even just reinterpretation of certain parts or even entire songs to fit a new style.
Back etc. aren't played the same they were the first time, likely they are played radically differently due to changes in even fundamentals such as instrument tuning.
Arent most/all art forms are subjected to change over time?
I go to Indiana and this explains a lot about this new building on campus! Everyone thought it was a very odd design for a new building and a strange use of space when expansion always seams to be the case at IU. Very cool to learn more about the history!
Odd design? It's beautiful!
Show me an architect who successfully designed an entire building in all its detail such that no engineer, builder, plumber etc had to make changes or design parts of it themselves. That's all they did here, change what needed to be changed to make the building work. The only difference is they didn't have to waste months sending emails back and forth to the architect because he wasn't still around.
Mart Stam!
Mies just copied that style!
Show me an engineer who has designed something that isn't a pain in the ass to repair 😑
I’m sure there are plenty of buildings like that but honestly as someone in architecture school right now I’d rather just let the engineers go at it then bother with things that are boring and that I know little about. I mean we LEARNED how to do SOME of that but I’d rather let the professionals handle it and tweak their finished work to be more “aesthetic” then to send electrical plans and HVAC plans back and forth even though I don’t think those plans are interesting at all
Handymen think architecture is easy
Not soo….
I did that.
So kidding, I did data center architecture (which in no way means i designed data centers 😂🤣😂🤣🤣)
To most (myself included): it’s clearly a Mies Van Der Rohe. And to the those few that it’s not; I think it’s impossible to see it as anything less than a passionate and faithful love letter to one of the most important architects of a generation.
I thought it was a Wright building at first
I identified it as a Mies van der Rohe from the thumbnail alone even before I knew what the video was all about.
I lived a stones throw away from this building last year and got to see most of the process of it being built and it was super cool
I see what you did there.😁
Thank you for all your uploads Stewart. It's a fascinating insight into the architecture world.
I’m not an architect, but this is one of my favorite channels to currently watch on youtube, because of the quality and how it’s just so well presented that it’s almost just as calming as it’s informational. It makes me appreciate my surroundings more than ever.
If you ever ran out of ideas, I think a video about the urban planning in communist countries would be interesting for many who still live in those (me included). Or a video about Buckminster Fuller would be cool. I know there are some already, but none I’ve seen were as good as yours would be.
I think Stewart could talk about anything from almonds to zebras and I'd enjoy listening to him talk.
I remember seeing a couple of Buckminister Fuller’s ball houses in a vintage Omni mag I found as a kid, & a couple years later there was a Northern Exposure character that had one in a later season. I’d love to know more about those things.
Also I wish I could remember more than “Preston” “Minuteman” & “Sanctuary” about where your pfp comes from so I could make a rad in-joke about your inevitable construction stylings in the Wasteland...but alas I am too dumb. Oh no...now I probably have to go quest for a punchline...
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 I lived in a remote town in Alaska 40 years ago and someone had one of those in town. Its diameter, I would guess, was almost 30 feet. Most of the pictures I've seen of them were transparent, but this was not.
I was Pilam in college. They can't have nice things so this makes sense haha
Well, that's another interesting video! I think the new building could be called a "Mies" building, because even though an architect doesn't actually build his or her project, neither does a clothing designer actually stitch the garment, but his or her name is on the label. In music, adjustments are called "arrangements" so a Mozart piece could be "arranged by" someone else, for instance for school orchestras. Perhaps with a major update such as the Eskenazi School of Architecture building, joint "authorship" might be appropriately assigned.
I have the opposite problem. I own/live in an early Eichler home which was built before Joseph Eichler teamed up with Anshen & Allen to create Eichler's iconic mid-century homes. It was designed after Eichler had become inspired by FLW and his vision for Usonian homes. The house itself is built with a raised foundation (vs. a slab) and has central HVAC (vs. radiant heating), doesn't have a central courtyard, but still has a flat roof, large plate glass windows, and a lot of the other features which Anshen & Allen went on to use in their designs. Is the house an Eichler? Maybe a Likeler by Eichler?
My take on this is it honestly doesn't matter. I love the house and homes are meant to be lived in. I've also had to bring the house up to code (like adding insulation, redoing the plumbing, electrical, asbestos disposal, etc), and to add an addition to make it work for a family in the 21st century vs. mid-20th century. How much of the house is new vs. "original"?
I would be so interested in a video tour of your home. i can both visualize and not visualize it at the same time by your description. You make me so curious to see and learn more
Its a very "ship of Theseus" problem, and my answer as an engineer it that it doesn't matter. A design is only good if it serves the needs of the client (in this case, you as the home owner), and you have done remodeling (maybe contracted out to professional designers) to update the design to suit your new needs. (Meeting code, more space, ect)
Some architects design monuments to themselves, good architects design for their client's needs. (including planning for future needs, an example of an EE doing this is oversizing a main service so that in 10yrs when the building expands they have capacity and don't need to spend a bunch of money upgrading the service)
I’d be interested in what you think of House of an Art Lover, a Mackintosh house built in the 90s, and the potential rebuild of the Glasgow Art School which burned down… twice…
I would definitely say that would be an authentic Mies van der Rohe design. Considering the provenance so design and the blessing by the family and the attention to detail! Hooray for the Indiana university Bloomington
This is not art, just construction skills, include the constructors in the design.
Mart Stam just used the materials that were available back then. Mies used that design, enhanced it.
Build that now? Art?
We can do better designs now, we do have way better skills, able to use any materials!
Keep building Barcelona buildings, keep using these chairs too ???
Yes, we should build the designs but there should be a law that such buildings include a plaque explaining that it's a posthumous build and including the names of any/all architects involved in design changes or additions.
If your going to do that then you better also include all the engineers who made the design functional. Not architect has the ability to make a design from start to finish so perfectly complete and detailed that all the structural, MEP, process, ect drawings needed 0 changes from the PEs who stamped them. (Because the training alone would take longer than med school, and the design process would take ages, tally up all the hours billed to a single project and its years) The entire design team, often distributed across multiple firms, rightfully feels a sense of ownership for a successful design.
And most importantly, a design is only good iff it serves the client's needs.
I 'm sometimes puzzled why American like to call this architect just "Mies". First, it is awkward for a German because "mies" means "lousy". Secondly, in 1922 he created "Mies van der Rohe“ as his last name. So Mies is neither his first nor his last name by the time he work and lived in the US. Calling him just "Mies" feels the the same as if you would ignore the pseudonym Le Corbusier and calling this architect by his birthname Jeanneret instead all the time.
I am not a huge fan of Mies. The only building by him that I really love is the Barcelona Pavilion which, in its current form, is a reproduction itself, not the original structure. Despite that, I still think it's an authentic Mies building. By the same token I think that the Indiana University building can be considered an authentic Mies building, but only to a certain degree. One thing you don't highlight is the difference in function. The new building is an administrative center, not a frat house. This necessarily changes the interior. I think the building can be justly called "Miesian", but it isn't Mies. It does demonstrate, however, that Mies' buildings are "universal spaces" that can be adapted to many different uses.
I think your point about the collaborative nature of architectural design is very well taken. Once the design of monumental buildings was separated from the actual building process during the Renaissance, this division has existed, although builders working on vernacular structures continued to be both designers and builders for many centuries to come. It wasn't until the end of the 19th century that the Principals of an architectural firm oversaw and critiqued the work of their staff architects, but didn't do much in the way of actual designing themselves, although there were and are exceptions to this approach. For any large building it would now be impossible, but for smaller residential or commercial buildings individual architects can play a much larger role.
Thank you, Christopher; your comment added much value to an already interesting video.
Love you comment, but I disagree just a little with you. If Mies was designing an administrative center the final project would be completely different from that. That is only a recreation based on Mies`s design, a token for Indiana University. And you highlighted the greatest point of this building and discussion, how "adaptable" Mies design is.
At the same time what a waste of resources on an outdated design. Buildings are an image of its time, they reflect how people live, what materials they had, the technologies of their period etc. This building means nothing to our time, probably isnt energy efficient with all those glass façades. I studied in IIT and Rohe built a bunch of those buildings around the same principles and, while Crown Hall is quite nice, applying the same things to the gym is bs! During summer, the basketball courts with no ventilation and all that glass were hotter than an oven.
That is not the "best design" (although that doenst exists) they could have for a recreation center. They wanted the Mies brand, but this building adds nothing to Mies legacy.
@@joaoerlacher An interesting and well-argued perspective. I'm an architectural ignoramus, but I actually don't think it's necessary to "know" architecture to have an intelligent opinion on a question like this which is, at its core, philosophical rather than architectural. And the way I feel is . . . . *appreciative* ! This has been a fascinating discussion, and I'm not sure how I feel, but João, you've added much to what I've already taken in on this discussion. Thank you for helping me continue thinking.
@@BS-vx8dg And you are absolutely right, you dont need to "know" architecture to have opinion about it, I mean you live in buildings so you have firsthand experiences about them, us architects only have more time and experience to think a bit more and deeply about it. But that is a beautiful thing about architecture EVERYONE knows a little about it, and that is why Stewart has the best architecture and urban design channel on UA-cam because he brings all those discussions both for architects and non-architects.
Have a good one BMJS!
@@joaoerlacher You make valid points but I would disagree that the project is a “waste of resources” as you put it. haha. Obviously Mies’s work carries weight so of course if given the opportunity, a university is going to build one of his designs on their campus. I think it’s an interesting project as it reminds us that Architects make instructions for buildings, not the buildings themselves… so just because a project is carried out after the architect’s death doesn’t mean it is not valid or legitimate. The point of the video is authorship in architecture, not so much “is this design worth constructing 50 years later”. One could argue that many famous architects barely contribute to projects that go through their office even while alive. So many people work on an architectural design far more than partners (generally speaking). One of the greatest faults in the practice of architecture is the frequent overemphasis on the individual star designer.. telling is that frequently firms with great design work usually have people leave who go on to become successful designers at their own firms… look at FLW at Louis Sullivan’s practice. Anyway, by today’s standards yes, this project would have been built completely differently and be much more efficient… but then again it also would have probably been much larger maxing out the site… and potentially just as “wasteful” of not more. This brings us to the discussion of whether or not architects are designers in the sense that are we supposed to just resolve multiple requirements and build things as maximally and efficiently (money and energy) as possible or to actually evoke something by pushing a coherent design language and then doing the aforementioned resolving? Architecture is balance. I think that this project is cool because it shows how much more efficient a Mies project could be made with today’s technology and materials. It brings up interesting pondering about how much differently Mies’s entire design language may have been if he were to design today.
i am absolutely stunned by Mies' work. i don't know how he makes these rectangular boxes interesting and makes them stand out. this seems like an amazing space to be in and i think this old project got taken care of really well
This design is fascinating because it has so much potential. It could be left flat on the ground to make it a residence. The high-rise stilts offer protection from floods and it would look "at home" on the beaches of Miami or in the metro areas of Las Vegas or modern Dallas. He was far ahead of his time.
Classicist proportion. All the early modernists were scholars of Palladio, it is clearly evident in the way they handle harmony and proportion. There's a simple elegance to their work that makes them timeless beauties.
As an architect, I know nothing I design is solely mine! The contractor, engineer, building department, fire department, code inspector and carpenter all make changes to your design base on their job requirements. They're not always good changes or desired changes, but they will happen.
It's a Mies van der Rohe building.
If those people make changes to your design that means your design was wrong to start with. I know it is harsh but when you start the design you have parameters: Code, budget, technical feasibility. And you need to design within those parameters. Now if contractors do not respect your design, it is your job to crack the whip and make them do what they contracted to do.
@@thornil2231 the design process is highly iterative, unexpected problems crop up all the time. Ideally an architect would know everything all the different trades need and would get everything right the first time, i would bet a trillion dollars this never happens in all of history. (Even if the architect was qualified to make every single drawing and design decision, they would still encounter problems forcing design changes that conflict with the original vision)
The difference between a good and bad architect is if they intend to make something to best suit the client's needs vs just make a monument to themselves. (Not that most of the buildings i work on as an electrical engineer are particularly monument worthy, being industrial facilities or labs)
At the end of the day all the design disciples will grumble about eachother as they make requests to change something or another, and architects are the ones most responsible for aesthetics and engineers are tasked with function. (Not that us engineers are intentionally trying to make ugly buildings, its just normally last on the list of things to solve)
@@jasonreed7522 An architect is someone who knows a little about a lot. An engineer is someone who knows a lot about a little.
A good architect is a multi faceted individual. You have to be a psychologist (sometime a psychiatrist) to deal with clients, an economist, an engineer, an artist, a construction manager, a drafter, a manager of the design team, and to know building trades. And yes you have good ones. The bad ones only do one thing: Be a drafter for the client, regardless of the stupidity of the design.
Of course the design process is iterative, but a good architect is able to do a preliminary design that will be very close to the final. You take the example of electrical, a good architect is able to anticipate the chases in relation to the structural elements, and tell the structural engineer, "you can't have a beam there..."
I like to put architect in the unenviable set of jobs anybody think they can do like restaurant/bar owner, contractors... Yes you can design it yourself... and it will look like you designed it yourself...
@@thornil2231 definitely agree, architects are normally the primary on a job which means they have to do all the administrative "cat herding", and even if they aren't primary they still are the center of coordination of the trades since they are in charge of "artistic vision" and their job comes first as they make the building itself in the model/plans so everyone needs to coordinate with them. Not an enviable task to have.
I also think it does everyone good to have a little "Renaissance Man" in them for knowing what the other trades need. It may be mandatory for architects since their design for the building must accomodate all the utilities and suport that goes inside it, but engineers can make eachothers lives way easier by taking a small step out of their way because they know what a different discipline needs. (To me one of the most obvious place for this is in fieldwork, take legible and clear photos of things outside of just what you need and you will save someone without even knowing it. Nothing is worse than needing to read a label but the only image of it is blurry.)
A good example of design synergy would be if you have a cathedral ceiling, it needs lights, HVAC, structural, fire suppression, and obviously aesthetics, you could run all the conduit and pipes separately, or you could run everything up the top surface of the beams and cover them in a beautiful facade. A little coordination goes a long way.
A bit off topic, but I'd love to see a video on Richardsonian Romanesque. Being as you're based in Chicago, an examination of the John J. Glessner House would be very interesting.
Growing up in Chicago I was deep influenced to become an architect, first because of Frank Lloyd Wright and the by Miles van der Rohe, and their modern looks. Hopefully today more students of architecture will pay more attention to the power of various schools of design to understand how these older architects got a lot of design ideas correct.
Can you make a series about different famous architects, their work, design philosophy, and impact to contemporary architecture.
Love your videos btw
I'd love to! Sounds a little costly though...
What for, there’s HUNDREDS of videos like it already
I am so happy that I found your channel. Your videos are so well done and so interesting. Thanks for cresting them! I'm surprised this one is only 13 minutes and there's so much there to think about.
Thank you for the kind words!
Fascinated to discover how exciting architecture has captured my imagination late in life. There is time to appreciate it, and I am. Thank you for this and it’s wonderful presentation.
There is an interesting point not addressed in this otherwise excellent presentation. (If there was a way to give it 3 likes I would done so.) What if the building had been constructed in 1952 after all? Just a hypothetical : today it would be 70 years old and given the evolving needs of students, academia and the inevitable wear and tear on the structure, Mies's original would likely have required extensive renovation over the decades and possibly, re-purposing. What would a detailed renovation / restoration finally look like? Is it out of the realm of possibilities, for example,that because of both deterioration of the original [exterior] limestone walls to acid rain and the present environmental demands for energy savings that the resulting restoration incorporate today's "sandwiched" panels?
JAT Design (and possibly others before him) have noted that architects have passed away with varying numbers of unbuilt designs. The number of Frank Lloyd Wright's works, if I recall correctly from a reading of one of his monographs, exceeded 700 (if someone is aware of the accurate number, I would happily stand corrected. 🙂 )
I have been lucky enough to tour all three of his homes and took an "urban hike" of sorts to the surrounding neighborhood of Oak Park, where many of his first commissions were built; including the Unitarian church.
I reserved my pilgrimage to Taliesin West for last, only to be taken aback by the superblock housing encroaching his final, out of this world like third and final home. This was in the autumn of 1990 and I had expected to find it to be surrounded by the pristine arid desert he had chosen for his final years of practice. Have not been back to Phoenix since, but I sadly imagine what was once an ethereal isolated compound is now engulfed by not just the ugly gated residences that extend outwardly from wherever Phoenix's center lies, but the usual kitsch WTFery of exurban fast food chains and probably a mall; that they choke the vistas he and his merry band of acolytes once took pleasure from is horrifying to contemplate.
My apologies, I digress. As it happened at that very time of my visit to Taliesin West the ineffable administrators of New York's Guggenheim Museum were in the process of building an addition to the East elevation of the structure. FLW had anticipated an expansion (or the first brief had requested one) in his initial plans for that very site. Indeed, the follow-on practice still had them in their possession!
During our tour the docent mentioned that a catalog of his unbuilt works were infrequently built by interested parties, thus prompting me to query why Guggenheim had turned to a firm (Gwathmey-Siegal) best known for late Modernist Long Island beach homes and metro New York suburban commercial office buildings and further, if the administrators had not consulted with them about the addition. To my surprise, she said that Talien Associates did not even learn of the letting of a non-competitive contract for the expansion until it made to the media. She added that the practice was stunned and that many cross country calls were made, but an executive decision had been reached and apparently the Museum's board were not interested in his plans. The tragedy was that G-S's design violated the structural integrity of the museum, i.e., cut into it to accommodate whatever had been on the Guggenheim's brief. I had been to the GM before and after its expansion and though neither a critic nor scholar by calling, just possessing a passionately avid avocational interest in architecture and the built environment, I can attest the addition would be worthy of being termed an example of "late modern fiasco" style in any text book history of art and architecture. Really. that. horrid. Well, I'd like to summarize my feelings about this subject, but I just noticed the time.
I don't know the size of Mies's architectural firm, but from my experience as a project architect in a signature design firm for over two decades, it is the PA not the famous architect that receives and answers all the day to day questions that come up during construction of the project. To say that Mies was not around to answer the day to day questions seems like a bit of a red herring to me. Is there any evidence to suggest that he did that on all his projects, or perhaps did he more commonly do what we see today, designers just popping by once a month to see how things are going?
Wow less than a foot for all the mechanicals. Must be using hydronics or ductless heads. Ventilation seems impossible with that space.
Your videos provide interesting insights into architecture that I had never considered, thanks!
Orchestras continue to re-record Mozart, Beethoven, etc., so why wouldn’t we do something similar with famous Architects. I say build them!
As someone that loves architecture, yet is not one, I feel that if an architect (or his/her team) design a building (and he/she signs off on it), then it is the work of that architect. As far as i'm concerned, architecture isn't just designing and drawing plans. It is about the location, the situation, the environment, in which those plans will be built. Therefore, you can take the plans of an architect, and build to those plans elsewhere, but if they were not drawn for that piece of land, then it's not of that architect. You could call it 'initially designed by...' or something, but I don't know if I could call it fully by said architect.
But that's just me, idk...
My Pa was a construction engineer who dabbled in architecture. He dismantled a log house and rebuilt it at a new site. He has been dead six years now, and we as a family keep the build going, trying to stick to his vision while accommodating needs that he hadn’t thought of. A building is never quite finished, or it’s dead.
Very interesting though I have trouble visualizing Animal House filmed there😊
Would have been easier to place all the cameras. . .
Great questions! For me the critical question is did the architect design it for the site it is built on. Issues around site are one of the main thing that distinguishes architecture from art or music. If an architect designs a building for one site but after his death it’s built on another site, this changes the original intent of the building enough to not be the original work. We might think of mies’s work as “universal” but careful consideration of his work shows he was a master of site (as are any architects worthy of the name).
Agree, I was about to say the same thing about the 9:20 bit "It could be copied at another site and still technically be authentic to the architect's intentions" No it couldn't, because any good architect designs with the environment and context of the building in mind : not only orientation, climate and weather pattens, but also the landscape, neighbouring buildings, the visual impact the building will have, and so on.
thank you thank you thank you.
Just found your channel and love it...!!!...I don't agree with some premises but that is fine since the world of "art" is not always about liking everything...but you present wonderful content and discussion about this topic dear to my heart...
Should We Build Designs From Dead Architects?...YES...!!!...when it is well done...sustainable and proven to work well within the context of means, modality, and material application...Most "modern designs" like Mies van der Rohe...SHOULD NOT...be ever copied...but his work should be preserved and appreciated for the art it is...
It does not reflect "good architecture" in the context of sustainability...serviceability...and even aesthetics to the mean average of observers...some will like, some will even love it...yet many will find no interest or value in it...and for me personally I find most (not all) platform "cubist style" architecture kind of like Andy Warhol's work..."fake it to make it"...as it really isn't that creative per se and more about "look at me"...but that is a perspective of the artistic side of the work...
Thanks again for sharing this and the question...
I have always been curious about licensing designs that have been made before. Why can't I license and make myself say a Robie house
These videos are absolutely incredible! I have no idea how you come up with all these unique ideas
Fantastic video. As a structural engineer I love the floor hanger system. Thomas’ team did an exquisite job with the original design.
I love hearing engineers say they love the unique, hard solutions, and design intent - so refreshing, I’ve worked with many engineers who are really against anything but W-flanges and 90 degree boxes
Really not a bad design i love it.
Soo much space light places for a garden and trees mmmm love it.
It does need the middle to be open like a yard mybe a small salt pool in the middle next to some kind of garden.
You’re what I wish my professors were
It's so austere!
Give me Frank Lloyd Wright any day. Oh yeah, that's right, I built an almost-copy of Jacobs No.1 - his first Usonian home, in 2008. :)
These architects are being too hard on themselves!!! Hell, the building “design” outlasted the technology, not the reverse. The technology changed. The design didn’t. I guess since human nature NEVER changes, do the people have the same feelings now they did back then? They are really the ones that gotta live in it.
As an industrial architect/designer, where I specialize in multi-story clean room projects, I assure you that on our side of the profession we often build top-down with complex infrastructure requiring interior box within a box design & construction. BTW, fab der Rohe was a inspiration to me and my homage to him is a multipurpose visitor/meeting center on an industrial campus that put a small postage stamp of human scale on a site where 6m floors in concrete dominate the landscape.
As an IU alum I loved hearing about the new development around campus. As a Midwest native, I was initially confused about where this building was located - with Illinois and Indiana both having a town named Bloomington, and the naming differences of the schools (Universty of Illinois vs Indiana University). I watched this on my TV but came to my computer to see if any other viewers noticed this. I appreciate your due diligence of adding the correction to the description! Overall great content.
I remember going to Taliesin West for a school field trip in elementary school (this was a while ago so I could be misremembering details and intentions as well) and the tour guide told us how Frank Lloyd Wright would sometimes give his apprentices a small sum of money to build the desert dwellings that (I hope) are still on the property.
It wasn't even enough money to buy materials so this would encourage apprentices to collaborate on the design, look for financial support from outside benefactors and compromise to cut costs all with the intention of simulating what it would be like to work in the real world. Work changing hands, compromising, cutting designs that don't fit the budget or needs all for the sake of making a building that the architect and the client could be happy with. You said "Is this a faithful and untainted reproduction of Mies's vision?" And I think that no building is 100% untainted, there's always things cut for costs, or changes made for the client or by the contractors. Calling this building a product of Mies's vision is enough I believe.
This video brought me so much joy today! Thank You! It’s fascinating how this building came to be born so long after it was planned. Honestly i can’t image it as a Frat House.
There's more than a couple of fraternities that might not have gotten in the trouble they encountered if they lived in a Glass Frat House.
OnlyFans certainly comes to mind.
Paintings & Architecture: Jesus walks into a Restaurant and says to the Maître’d, “I’d like a table for 26 please.” Maître’d looks at his group and says, “But you’re only a group of 13.” Jesus says, “Yeah, but we all want to sit on one side.”
Go Hoosiers
Lots of fun. While the American building codes seem more rigid, did you know the Canadian building code allows Architects to interpret and diverge from established rules as long as they can defend their designs. This applies mainly to egress and envelope design but other rigid aspects of building can be creatively interpreted.
Thanks for this video, it's really good. Is there any footage of the construction available elsewhere? Would be really cool if someone had made a documentary about the whole process