Nostalgia was once considered a medical condition that required treatment. As a society—and a profession—we may want to revisit that mindset.
I am constantly criticizing architects for practicing like it is 19[fill in the blank]. Curtesy of The Architect’s Newspaper comes one of the most egregious examples of Back-to-the-Past-ism, the “new” architecture building at Indiana University, resurrected by Thomas Phifer and Partners from Truman-era documents created by uber-Starchitect Mies van der Rohe.
Why concern ourselves with dreary news (the American West is on fire, Greece is on fire, Germany has been hit with unprecedented flooding, etc.) when we bask in the warm embrace of a Master and and turn back the clock to an idyllic 1952? The new (old?) building is visually stunning, which will impress students (males only, one supposes) when they arrive in their Nash Rambler Country Clubs, wearing their crisp, starched, white shirts with slide rules in the front pockets. (Don’t fear, the IBM 726 magnetic tape drive is only a year away!)
Lest anyone fear the architects did not make concessions to those pesky 21st century concerns, we are reassured that is not the case:
“The International Style, with its prolific use of single-pane glass, is not well regarded for energy performance.” So understated!
“To this end, the design team adapted the design’s steel bar-stock window detailing for the 1-inch-thick and 10-square-foot insulated glass panels through a slight increase in the mullion stop size…. Insulation was added to the 15-inch spandrel channel at the soffit and roof to further boost enclosure performance.” Boost performance to what? What are the EUI numbers?
“The incorporation of thermal breaks was initially considered for the window wall system, but energy modeling by MEP engineering firm Cosentini Associates demonstrated that the unbroken window system complied with Indiana State energy codes.” Because meeting the “Indiana State energy codes” is clearly the goal, these days!
In the context of climate change, this exercise is egregious, but for a building that houses an architecture program? What kind of message does this project send? For me, it clearly says this: living in the 21st century sucks, so let’s pretend to be everyone’s grandpa.
The author concludes with this statement: “It may be 70 years late, but hey, it’s a lot of work translating the will of an epoch into built space.” Perhaps 70 years too late would be more accurate. Likewise, all of that work “translating the will of an epoch” could and should have been avoided—for the sake of humanity, stop practicing architecture like it’s 1952!
The article from The Architect’s Newspaper.