Tradition and Architecture
by Michael S. Ellars
Copyright Fall 1997
All Rights Reserved

	Like few other professions, architecture has a rich tradition
stretching back to the beginning of recorded history.  This has mainly
been a tradition dominated by aristocratic males (usually white) who have
overseen the so-called evolution of architectur e.  What this traditional
view fails to account for - and that which several authors of late have
addressed - is the challenge presented by more enlightened views of
ecology, gender, and race, as well as new political and economic
relationships between ar chitecture and society. 
	In his essay "Second Nature: On the Social Bond of Ecology and
Architecture," Richard Ingersoll examines the extraordinary relationship
between ecology and architecture.  Realizing that "every act of building
is inherently antiecological to the degree it induces a displacement of
'natural' relationships," Ingersoll promotes the common-sense approach "to
lower entropy and encourage a 'sustainable' environment" (Ingersoll 1996,
119).  Entropy cannot be reduced - so say the physical laws of the
universe - but it can be slowed, and this is what Ingersoll proposes, 
through the use of traditional passive techniques (such as long roof
overhangs) to modern technologies (such as photovoltaics).
	Sherry Ahrentzen's attack on the male-dominated profession, in her
essay "The F Word in Architecture:  Feminist Analyses in/of/for
Architecture," comes off as less refined than Ingersoll's approach. 
Although her detailed explanation regarding the differ ences between
gender and sex is indeed enlightening, and despite strong evidence in some
areas to support her claims that women are adversely discriminated against
in the architectural world, some of her supposed scenarios border on the
absurd.  Specifica lly, her attacks on the Mormon Church (which seem
beyond justification or proof) and her claims to rampant sexual harassment
in scholastic studios (which in two and a half years I have never even
heard about) make the rest of her arguments fade into the s ame skeptical
light.  Struggling through her error-riddled rhetoric, Ahrentzen calls for
an end to the male-dominated aspects of architectural education and
professionalism, specifically the masculine modes of thinking and
education.  Since males are cond itioned to work independently and value
competition, this creates a hostile atmosphere for females, who are
conditioned to work collaboratively and with little competition.  This
atmosphere of adversity also squashes personal initiative and creativity,
ef fectively disabling new graduates from their ability to survive in "the
commercial realm" (Ahrentzen 1996, 102). 
	In "Accommodation and Resistance:  The Built Environment and the
African American Experience," Bradford C. Grant's view of the African
American architectural plight seems, at first, to suffer from the same
rhetorical errors as Ahrentzen's essay.  But the n a difference emerges: 
rather than dwell on the horrible things done to the African American
community over the history of architecture, Grant describes how that
community has struggled to overcome those adversities.  Grant identifies
three historical s tages of African American architecture:  Slavery, when
African Americans actually wielded significant influence over American
architecture, albeit in a subtle manner; the Jim Crow Era, when African
American architects suddenly found their services not onl y excluded from
the "mainstream" but actively discriminated against, forcing the creation
of schools specifically for - and specifically catering to - African
American architects; and Civil Rights, when African Americans found
themselves on the forefront of the profession, both as clients and
designers.  Today, Grant explains, African American architects are often
"invisible": despite being nearly as tall as Mies van der Rohe's Lake
Shore Towers, African American architect John Moutusseme's North Pier Tow
ers go virtually unknown (Grant 1996, 213).  As Grant sees it, there are
three ways to deal with this problem:  to create a "mainstream identity,"
to survive through "group insularity," or to go it alone as an independent
architect. 
	Marshall Berman addresses yet another challenge to architecture in
his book, All That Is Solid Melts Into Air:  this time, it is the
relentless pursuit of "Modernity" and the terrible - and, tragically,
necessary - destruction it brings.  From his discus sions on Goethe's
Faust and Marx, through Baudelaire and Robert Moses, Berman paints a
disturbing picture of Modern society:  a culture bent on producing the
latest and greatest thing, be it a physical product or just an idea, at
the cost of everything th at came before it.  This is "the real tragedy,"
as Berman sees it:  the necessary destruction "of everything most vital
and beautiful in the modern world itself" (Berman 1988, 295).  And just
who is to blame for this wanton destruction?  Here Berman point s to Marx,
who identifies the bourgeois as the catalyst.  The capitalist society
created by the bourgeois is chaotic at best, and it is this chaos which
consumes everything before it. 
	Last in this line of authors, though by no means the least, is
Hassan Fathy.  Fathy's book, Architecture for the Poor, is a detailed
examination of his (mostly) failed efforts to create New Gourna.  "Old
Gourna" is a small village in Egypt whose main sou rce of income is from
the tradition of grave robbing the ancient Egyptian tombs nearby.  The new
village was an attempt by the government to quell this theft; yet in the
end, it was the government's own bureaucratic interference and inactivity
that led to the project's failure.  Despite his pilot project's doom,
Fathy nonetheless was able to develop several important techniques - most
notable the formless vault - which he as continued to advocate as 
architecture for the poor of the world.  Fathy's sad tale reveals a key 
problem with how the government views housing for the poor:  rather than
examining traditional, sustainable solutions to housing and employment
problems, governments tend to be more content to rush the latest (and
therefore untested) solutions to the masses.  The unfortunate problem with
this approach is that the latest solutions tend to be expensive and 
difficult to understand and emulate without a high degree of education. As
such they are completely inappropriate.
	Though at first the arguments of Fathy and Berman may seem
similar, it is actually Grant with which Fathy strikes the closest chord. 
Most of the problems associated with the African American architectural
plight are directly related to government-sancti oned interference and
discrimination - not unlike the Egyptian government's red tape in Fathy's
little experiment.  In addition, American society's blind refusal to
recognize many American architectural achievements (such as the large
covered porches of S outhern plantation mansions) as the works of African
Americans is as equally frustrating as the Egyptian government's
abandonment of Fathy's traditional methods and materials.  Society and
government, it would seem, are more interested in crediting achiev ements
to the ruling class while advocating only the latest technologies. 
(Though Ingersoll may enjoy this advocacy, he also points out that the
savings in efficiency are balanced by the sheer increase in population.) 
	At the same time, the problems Grant exposes are closely
paralleled by those of Ahrentzen.  Both represent the views of minorities
not only in society, but (especially) in the architectural world. 
Ahrentzen's tales of feminine oppression may be question able in the
extent she describes, but their existence is no less real than the
well-documented adversity faced by African Americans.  (Were it not for my
personal experiences in several areas in which Ahrentzen claims knowledge,
I might be inclined to fol low her carrot of a horrible masculine
conspiracy; alas, what she claims to be commonplace, I have never
witnessed anywhere.)  Both advocate an increased awareness of minority
issues, specifically the way the profession recognizes and integrates with
them .  For Ahrentzen, this means a turn away from the masculine loner
tactics to a more humanistic, collaborative, and supportive architecture
process.  For Grant, due recognition for African American achievements and
sensitivity to the social concerns of the African American culture are
paramount.
	Berman's exploration of the Modern condition is very interesting
when compared to Ingersoll's appeal for responsible use of materials out
of respect for ecology.  Ironically, the same society Ingersoll wants to
slow entropy is the same bourgeois society Berman labels "the most
violently destructive ruling class in history" (Berman 1988, 100).  How
does Ingersoll expect his ideas to be taken seriously?  Ingersoll draws on
the architecture profession itself:  following the idea behind "The
Housing Question " (which addressed the need for fair and clean housing
for everyone, not just those who could afford it), he proposes "The
Ecology Question."  Such an idea, he warns, runs the risk of "treating the
symptoms without changing the system" (Ingersoll 1996, 14 3).  It is
essential to treat not only the current, tangible ecological problems
(such as nuclear waste), but intangible aspects such as cultural response
to environmental responsibility.  Thus, Ingersoll's solution calls on one
of the fundamental aspects of Modern society:  the propensity for change.
	These writings all address serious deficiencies in the modern
architectural atmosphere.  Though some are poorly explained, each leaves
the reader with an enlightened view of the deficiencies of architecture
today.  Architecture is not a perfect professio n; indeed, from the
material presented here, it would seem to be a very imperfect profession
in almost every aspect, from social to economic to political.  And yet,
despite overwhelming evidence of the need for change, little happens.  For
architecture is fiercely proud of its traditions and will fight to the
bitter end to see them preserved.
[word count:  1501]