As the permanence, high fixed costs, and relative inflexibility of bricks-and-mortar cultural facilities become more albatross than attribute (as chronicled in Skip Reiss’ inventory of stalled or stalling cultural facility projects), events like the Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival may offer at least one alternative. Christopher Hawthorne’s exploration of the event — and its temporary pavillions — extols the promise of architecture that’s intended to vanish. Says he:
The
architects who thrive in this difficult period will be those able to
reinvent themselves, at least to a degree, as sleight-of-hand artists,
bringing to inexpensive or immaterial designs a sense of heft or
spectacle. And in the coming years, fans of experimental architecture
and design will increasingly travel to get our aesthetic fix not to
some brand-new museum or iconic skyscraper but to gatherings like
Coachella, where the Bilbao Effect is now being recreated on the cheap
in temporary, stripped-down and occasionally thrilling form.
Is there opportunity for more traditional cultural organizations and events to embrace the temporary rather than strive for the immovable?
Very True! They say real innovation is minimum material and maximum creativity. Steel itself is an inexpensive building material and results in not so ephemeral architecture but structures that are durable for a long time.
Thanks for the information! Cool insight
Kirk J. Steel
Very interesting perspective for a new graduate student to think about as I begin my studies.
Andrew, your thoughts could also extend to school buildings as well. I have often wondered what would happen if we built school facilities to last only 10-years. Then we would HAVE to rethink our approach to k-12 education and the design of effective learning environments. This notion of “planned obsolesence” speaks to the very heart of making sure our infrastructre reflects the communities they are serving and not the other way around.
Ah, Andrew: A renewal of our Orlando PAC conversation. Excellent!
Here are a few observations.
1. Skip Reiss notes that “about one third” of the cultural buildings he surveyed have been delayed or deferred. This may or may not mean that the boom is over. If it does, that’s fine; but not because permanent cultural facilities are necessarily a bad idea.
2. Historically, in this country and around the world, new construction of all kinds has ebbed and flowed with the economy. Cultural building is always part of the larger cycle. This was true of the Opera House boom of the 1880s and 90s, the Movie Palace boom of the 1920s, and the Edifice Complex (PAC boom) of the 1960s and 70s. All of these high tides eventually ebbed, leaving both trash and treasure on the shore. Some buildings stood the test of time, some were bad ideas from the start, some have since been modified to adapt to new technology or evolving needs, and some have been (you should excuse the expression) overtaken by events.
3. All building booms leave inspiring monuments and ill-begotten eyesores, community assets and embarrassing boondoggles, economic generators and money pits. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which until 20 years down the road.
4. Temporary cultural pavillions have a long and distinguished history, mostly related to the cycle of World’s Fairs that began with the Paris Exposition of the 1880s (whose remaining manifestation is the Eiffel Tower). Erik Larson’s popular history THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY provides some outstanding insights into the approach of leading architects and designers to such projects, and into the challenges of building such facilities. (More than permanent structures, temporary pavillions are time-bound in their design and construction schedules as well as their use.)
5. The fact that such cultural facilities are ephemeral (great choice of words, Andrew) lends a mythic aura to the events they serve. “The White City” helped Chicago’s Columbian Exposition become a legend — and Erik Larson to sell a bundle of books.
6. Some temporary structures become tragically permanent, however. In 1972, I spent the first eight weeks of my military training in shoddy barracks that had been “temporarily” put up 30 years before to shelter World War II recruits.
7. This was the result of inevitable governmental logic: If we already have one of something (whether it was intended to last or not), why build another? This logic is utterly inescapable in economic ebbtides.
8. The danger, then, of advocating for ephemeral architecture is that, while its finest examples evaporate as planned, some of the most unfortunate will endure forever.
It would be beautiful to see more events become experimental in their use of buildings. While the visual arts have become increasingly inventive with their use of space, performing arts lag behind. I for one would be blown away to see the performing arts use the venue as another means of expression; an opera staged in a warehouse for example.
At last, a more aesthetically pleasing alternative to the basic giant white tent. I can do nothing but praise the efforts of anyone who desires to make their environment more beautiful, even if its just for a short period of time. This idea of beautiful temporary structures opens up an entire new architectural and design market, as someone who is currently planning a wedding this idea makes me rethink my concept of a reception venue.
It would be interesting to explore the line between ephemeral architecture and site-specific, large-scale installation pieces. When reading the article about Coachella, The Gates installation in Central Park immediately came to mind. In that case, the architecture, if you could call the gates themselves that, was the main attraction. Having an ephemeral structure as part of a new exhibit or production could add a sense of “must see” to the event. Just as your music festival won’t go on forever, the band shell and stage the musicians play on won’t be up forever either. The added incentive of going to a production to see a piece of architecture that won’t be around the next day would draw me to an event.
I think that is a great idea actually. Not only is it a different form of art and much broader in the since of size, it is something for the artist and community to take pride in and take ownership of. This can cause a way for the community to come together on a certain matter such as art, take a minute to admire, and walk away feeling proud.
i think that this might actually catch on…reminds me of the green movement we are currently in right now…the idea of temporary instead of permanent might take a while to get used to but with the right campaign for the idea it might actually work…i would love to see that mindset here in tulsa, oklahoma…but we always seem to be the last ones to get anything…:(