contemporary world architecture€¦ · • identify key architects, buildings, styles, key...

In partnership withCAPA International Education

Contemporary World Architecture

COURSE DESIGNATOR LNDN 3220W LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION English

NUMBER OF CREDITS 3

COURSE DESCRIPTION Investigating several of the most recognizable themes in contemporary architectural production—tall building, iconic building, historic preservation and sustainability—this class compares some of the most (in)famous buildings in London to examples across the globe. Students in this class will not just learn about recent building in the classroom, but will experience some of London’s most notable buildings first hand. We will analyze Central London’s skyline from atop the dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral, investigate how cinematic motion may be captured through writing about architecture by travelling the River Thames by boat, whizzing past London icons like The London Eye, The National Theatre and The Tate Modern, and we will debate the tensions between preservation, development and sustainability through field studies to sites such as The Battersea Power Station. By learning about an architectural industry that champions star architects who design and build in world cities across the globe, students will gain the tools to analyze buildings across the world’s network of global cities. This course is both an exercise in learning about the history of architecture in world cities, as well as a historiographic investigation of how that history has been written, especially in the form of architectural criticism. Through this class students will simultaneously gain knowledge of contemporary architecture, discuss and debate the roles that a variety of individuals and institutions have had in writing that history, and take an active part in writing some of that history for themselves. The end product of this course will be an anthology, or a catalogue, of architectural criticism written by students. Through a series of writing workshops, students collaborate to improve their essays and devise creative strategies to capture the attention of their diverse audience. By the end of this class, each student will have contributed at least one significant essay to the class’ catalogue. Each essay will discuss a different building in London, and each will be accompanied by original photographs. Learning to write about architecture is the central objective of this course.

COURSE OBJECTIVES This course aims to help students to be able to communicate concisely and effectively about architecture and urban space. In order to do so, students will learn: to identify and discuss key monuments, figures, as well as concepts related to contemporary architectural production; to discuss how precedents as well as environmental contextual factors serve to shape architectural form, production and use; to conduct independent research and field studies; and to improve written and verbal communication skills. LEARNING OUTCOMES After taking this class, students should be able to:

• demonstrate improved ability to communicate, in writing and orally, about architecture; • identify key architects, buildings, styles, key concepts of contemporary architectural production; • discuss the how architectural precedents, as well as historical, political, ecological as well as economic factors

influence architectural form, and vice versa; • conduct independent research and field studies.

METHODOLOGY Good architectural criticism contains three essential components: solid written language, powerful and poignant references, and an ability to portray built space through the written word. Reflecting these core components of solid architectural writing, this class will be conducted in three repeating cycles, with each cycle containing three parts (or three

meetings, usually). Each cycle will focus on a single overarching theme: first, building tall; second, iconic building, and third, activism. Each of these themes have been selected for their prevalence within architectural historical, as well as architectural critical writing. In order to learn about, and to write effectively on these themes, each cycle has been designed to contain the following three phases:

1. LEARN: The first meeting of each cycle will commence with a lecture and discussion section. Each of these class meetings will commence with a lecture, supported by slides and videos (when appropriate). After a short break, the class will begin a discussion of assigned readings, which will be analysed in conjunction with the monuments, movements and figures presented in lecture. Lectures and discussions will always address materials at the world scale, looking at both the host city, as well as the most relevant examples elsewhere in the world. The discussion of assigned readings and lecture materials will help students to develop their abilities to read critically, analyse texts in conversation with examples from the built environment and improve verbal communication skills. The subject matter discussed in these sections will help to prepare students for the next step in the cycle;

2. EXPERIENCE: The second section meeting of each cycle will be a guided field study.

With some background understanding of the history of the subject matter at hand, the group will venture out into the field. The readings assigned and discussed during field studies will be examples of architectural criticism written about the sites visited, as well as texts that will help to prepare students to successfully execute the written assignment due at the end of that week. These field studies will be conducted in a manner that will help students to best conduct their own independent research, will help them to identify what it is they should be looking for whilst conducting field research, and to hone their abilities to ask the most interesting, compelling, and prevalent questions. Additionally, these field studies will endeavour to explain how architectural critics have approached buildings and urban space. These texts are the models for written assignments that are due at the end of those weeks when guided field studies are held;

3. WRITE, WORKSHOP, REWRITE: The third meeting of each cycle will be a writing workshop. Students will work together to hone their abilities to write succinctly about architecture and urban space. Mutual respect, constructive criticism and ever-present professionalism will be required of each participant. Depending on class sizes, the class will likely split into smaller groups so that each paper is given adequate attention and feedback. These sections will be conducted, and documented in a manner to mark students’ progress both as writers, as well as collaborators. For more, see the Writing Workshop Guide within this syllabus.

Students will mark their progress through participation in activities and assignments within each class meeting. These assignments are both fun and measures of student productivity. They are intended to hold students accountable for active (not passive) reading and attention to materials presented in lectures. Aside from the larger writing assignments, there are three types of assessment in this class:

1. This class will produce a VOCABULARY PHOTOBLOG over the course of this class. Students will take photographs of examples of architectural vocabulary listed on monuments lists whilst out exploring London in their free time. Students will share their photos on the class’s private photo group on Flickr, and will need to explain which terms their photos illustrate, and provide definitions of the terms with appropriate citations to definition sources.

2. Through their DISCUSSION LEADERSHIP, students will illustrate their ability to: concisely summarize the subjects discussed and methods employed by architectural critics; to draw salient connections between lecture materials, site visits and assigned readings; and to encourage healthy, stimulating and respectful debate amongst their peers. Each student will lead in-class discussion at least once throughout the semester.

3. MONUMENTS QUIZZES will test students’ ability to identify key architects, monuments and vocabulary from in-class lectures and field studies. Powerful comparison references are important to architectural writing. These quizzes are designed with the intention of helping students to make references to other buildings more readily whilst writing and discussing.

WRITING WORKSHOP GUIDE Site visits and subsequent written assignments are simultaneously the most enjoyable and the most challenging components of this class. Throughout the semester, students will contribute a total of four articles to the class’s collection. These assignments require students to conduct additional research, and independent field studies at sites throughout London. Good writing skills, a critical eye and an open mind are vital to the successful completion of these assignments. Written assignments will require students to draw salient connections between readings, lectures, field studies, and their own independent research. These assignments are the thinking components of the course, and will track the students’ development in both criticism and analysis, effectiveness in field research, as well as in written communication. Your instructor will distribute a Writing Workshop Guide on the first day of class. This guide provides full description of the writing and workshop processes, along with grading rubrics for drafts, workshop feedback, as well as revisions. This will be discussed at length during the first week of classes, as well. MYEDUCATION REQUIREMENT This course relies upon each students’ engagement and experience with examples of contemporary architecture here in London. All in-class discussions and written assignments require students to reflect upon their interactions with the built environment. As a result, students can draw upon any number of experiences within London during in-class discussions. Any and all of the activities listed on the My Education calendar, with the exception of lectures hosted within the CAPA building itself, are relevant to this class. Participation in My Education will contribute significantly to students’ contributions to in-class discussions and writing workshops, and will certainly broaden frames of reference within written assignments. Co-curricular learning is the foundation of written assignments. REQUIRED READING AND RESOURCES This course is suitable to newcomers, as well as students with previous knowledge of the subject. This is a challenging and demanding course, however. Students enrol with the expectation of, and commitment to, reading and understanding a variety of texts, conducting independent site visits and, most importantly, should anticipate investing quality time and attention when writing and revising assignments. All students must purchase their own copy of: Alexandra Lange, Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012). Photocopies of and/or web links to other required readings will be distributed during class meetings. GRADING CAPA PROGRAM AND INSTRUCTOR POLICY The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty. Because the value of an academic course depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the student, it is imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work and class behavior. This means to gain full attendance you must attend all classes, you must not be late (unless with a valid reason) and you must be respectful of the professor and of other students by not talking/whispering in class when others are talking or presenting. Persistent lateness or lack of attention in class, i.e., reading materials other than the work assigned, may result in a low or zero grade for participation, and possible referral to the CAO. No electronic equipment will be used in class, including laptops, phones, ipods, cell phones, etc, unless you have written permission from the Chief Academic Officer prior to the course. If you are caught using any electronic equipment, you may receive a zero grade for participation. Plagiarism will be dealt with very seriously, and will be referred to the Chief Academic Officer in London. You may receive an F for the course. If all work is not submitted by the end of the program, you will receive an F for the course. CLASS PARTICIPATION AND ATTENDANCE Attendance at all classes is mandated by CAPA; students who miss a class without permission from CAPA’s Chief Academic Officer will have their grade for the course lowered. Informed participation is expected in every class, so students must have read the full assignment carefully before coming and be ready to discuss it if called upon. At any meeting there may be a brief, pass-fail two-minute quiz on some utterly obvious fact in the assigned reading. Students will also be asked to complete informal in-class writing assignments on a regular basis, which will require them to demonstrate

their familiarity with the assigned materials. Students who repeatedly demonstrate unsatisfactory performance on these quizzes and exercises will be penalized in the participation grade. CRITERIA FOR GRADING AND GRADING STANDARDS

Grading Rubric A 93+ Achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course

requirements. A- 90-92

Achievement that is significantly above the level necessary to meet course requirements.

B+ 87-89 B 83-86 B- 80-82

Achievement that meets the course requirements in every respect. C+ 77-79 C 73-76 C- 70-72

Achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully the course requirements.

D+ 67-69 D 60-66 F <59 Represents failure (or no credit) and signifies that the work was either (1) completed

but at a level of achievement that is not worthy of credit or (2) was not completed and there was no agreement between the instructor and the student that the student would be awarded an I.

GRADING FOR ASSIGNMENTS

Monuments Quizzes** 10%

Vocabulary Photoblogs** 10%

Discussion Leadership 10%

Written Work and Workshops 70%

Overall grade 100%

SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENTS

Course Topics

Meeting Topic In-class assignments Written Assignments (due Friday by 5:00pm)

Week 1 Course Intro and Short Lecture Writer Profile Week 2 Tall Building

Week 3 Field Study: St. Paul’s vs. The Gherkin

Formal Analysis

Week 4 Writing Workshop Vocabulary Photoblog 1 (posted before class)

Formal Analysis Revisions

Week 5 Iconic Building Monuments Quiz 1

Week 6 Field Study: Iconic London in Motion

Historical Perspective

Week 7 BREAK WEEK


Historical Perspective Revisions

Week 9 Sustainability & Urban Space Monuments Quiz 2 Week 10 Preservation & Adaptive Reuse Week 11 Field Study: Battersea Power Activist Piece

Station


Revisions to Activist Piece and Writer Profile

Presentations Monuments Quiz 3

Presentations Monuments Quiz 4 (last 20 minutes)

FINAL PORTFOLIO DUE

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTIONS, COURSE OVERVIEW AND EXPECTATIONS Objectives and Key Questions: The first half of this meeting will be used to provide an overview of the course, to set expectations, and to get to know one another. Aside from familiarizing students with the course content, assignments and procedures, this session has been designed to encourage students to get to know one another, to think about what it is that they want to achieve through this course, and to set goals for the next few months. This introductory session will be followed by the first lecture of the course. This lecture will help to kick off proceedings by identifying the most prominent trends in 20th- and 21st-century architecture, whilst paying close attention to the institutions and individuals that have played a role in catalyzing and solidifying the prevalence of these movements. This historiographical investigation sets the tone for the course, and encourages students to consider the following questions: What is a trend or movement in architecture? What are some of the most prominent trends in contemporary architecture? Who are the most (in)famous architects in the world? Why are these architects and trends so prevalent today? Why do certain architects or buildings gain such attention within the general press? Within the architectural community? Within society at large? Required Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 1, Introduction (to be done after class meeting) • Edwin Heathcote, “The London Story,” Financial Times (26 May 2012):

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/727fb0d4-9d58-11e1-9327-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2GzyaJS1F. Recommended Reading:

• Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson, The International Style (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996). [Originally published as The International Style: Architecture since 1922, 1932]

• Terence Riley, The International Style: Exhibition 15 and the Museum of Modern Art (New York: Rizzoli/CBA, 1992). • Philip Johnson, Deconstructivist Architecture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1988). • Andres Lepik, Small Scale Big Change: New Architectures of Social Engagement (New York: The Museum of Modern

Art, 2010). • Ruth Peltason and Grace Ong-Yan, eds., Architect: The Prizker Prize Laureates in their Own Words (London: Thames

and Hudson, 2010). • Martha Thorne, The Pritzker Architecture Prize: The First Twenty Years (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1999). • Pritzker Prize [website]: http://www.pritzkerprize.com/ • Sterling Prize [website]: http://ribastirlingprize.architecture.com/

List of Monuments: will be distributed at the start of lecture Written Assignment: Writer Profile (due by Friday at 5:00pm) Please write a brief (150-word) autobiography. The challenge of this assignment will be to present your own experiences, interests and ambitions in a manner that is relevant to our architectural catalogue. A template for this assignment will be sent to all students after the first class meeting. Using this template, please explain what is it that brings you to participate in this project, how your previous experience will color your own contributions in a distinctive manner, and how you believe your experience through this class will help you to reach your goals in the future. This assignment is due on Friday at 5:00pm. Students must email assignments to the instructor BEFORE this deadline. A confirmation email will be sent to students once the document has been received. If you do not receive an automatic confirmation message, please re-send the assignment to avoid late penalties. WEEK 2: TALL BUILDING

Objectives and Key Questions: This lecture will present a concise history of one of the most notable building types of the 20th- and 21st-centuries: the skyscraper. The first part of the presentation will look into the conditions and technological developments that contributed to the development of taller and taller buildings. This investigation will also highlight key cities, architects and patrons, and will encourage students to consider the historical conditions surrounding skyscraper production before the turn of the twentieth century, and to compare those circumstances to those of contemporary global cities. From this lecture, and in conjunction with the assigned readings, students should gain familiarity with prominent architects, patrons, buildings, cities and technologies. Furthermore, students should be able to discuss the historical contexts from which these constructions emerged. After lecture, the class will turn to discuss the manners in which skyscrapers have been exhibited, discussed and presented across a variety of media. The objective of this discussion is to identify the manners in which skyscrapers have been considered by a variety of writers, architects, filmmakers and artists. This historiographic discussion looks to the assigned texts and a series of videos (screened in class) and asks students to identify the components, organization, structure and varying strategic approaches to writing about tall buildings. The lecture, required readings, selected videos and discussion have been designed to prepare students for next week’s field study and for their upcoming written assignment. Required Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 1 (please read BOTH Lewis Mumford’s article and Lange’s analysis of that text) • Louis Sullivan, “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered,” in America Builds: Source Documents in American

Architecture and Planning, ed. Leland M. Roth (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 340-346. • Rem Koolhass and Bruce Mau, Small, Medium, Large, Extra-Large (New York: Monacelli Press, 1995): “Bigness, or

the Problem of Large,” pp. 494-517.

Recommended Reading: • Paul Goldberger, Building Up and Tearing Down (New York: Monacelli Press, 2009): read “Triangulation,” pp. 148-

151. [Originally published in New Yorker, 19 December 2005] • Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture (New York: Dover Publications, 1986) [Originally published as Vers une

architecture, 1923] • Le Corbusier, The City of To-morrow and its Planning (New York: Dover Publications, 1987). [Originally published as

Urbanisme, 1925] • Ada Louise Huxtable, “The Park Avenue School of Architecture,” New York Times Magazine (15 December 1957):

pp. 30-31, 54-56. • David Nye, The American Technological Sublime (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994): Chapter 4, “Bridges and

Skyscrapers: The Geometrical Sublime,” pp. 77-108. • Louis Kahn, “Monumentality” (1944), in Louis Kahn: Essential Texts, ed. Robert Twombly (New York: W. W.

Norton, 2003): pp. 21-31. • Donald McNeill, The Global Architect: Firms, Fame and Urban Form (New York: Routeledge, 2009): Chapter 6, “The

Geography of the Skyscraper,” pp. 114-135. • Terence Riley, Tall Buildings (New York: Museum of Modern Art, c.2003). • [Originally published in Lippincott’s Magazine, March 1896] • MoMA Tall Buildings website: http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2004/tallbuildings/index_f.html

In-Class Video Screenings:

• Steve Fuller and Mark Gardener, Mad Men Opening Title Sequence, (New York and Los Angeles: Imaginary Forces, 2007). [http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/mad-men/]

• Woody Allen, Manhattan (New York: Rollins & Joffe, 1979). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zActmZ_Ubko]

• Andy Warhol, Empire (New York: Andy Warhol, 1964), • Ted Talk, Joshua Remus, Seattle Public Library:

http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_prince_ramus_on_seattle_s_library.html List of Monuments: will be distributed at the start of lecture WEEK 3: FIELD STUDY, FROM ST. PAUL’S TO THE GHERKIN

Field Study Details: Meet on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral promptly at the start of class time. Nearest tube station: St. Paul’s. Please wear comfortable walking shoes, as we will be climbing the dome of St. Paul’s and then travelling to 30 St. Mary’s Axe (aka, The Gherkin). As with all field studies, students should bring a notepad, a camera, their take-home reading quiz, as well as their copy of LANGE’s Writing about Architecture (2012). Objectives and Key Questions: This field study will take material presented and discussed in our previous meeting and places it specifically in the context of the history of tall building in London. Beginning at St. Paul’s Cathedral, the class will learn about the history surrounding the design and construction of Sir Christopher Wren’s most famous building. This field study will focus not only on the history surrounding this building and reception of St. Paul’s at the time of its construction, but also on the life and significance of the building today. From the top of Wren’s dome, students will gain a new perspective on tall buildings throughout the city, such as Lord Norman Foster’s 30 St. Mary’s Axe, more commonly known as “The Gherkin.” After touring St. Paul’s, the class will then travel together to the base of Foster’s megastructure. There, the class will take part in a tour of parts of the building, as well as the area surrounding the building site. Throughout this field study, students will be asked to reflect upon the assigned readings. All of the readings assigned for this section meeting are written by London’s most prominent architectural critics. The class will be asked to compare and contrast the writers’ approaches to their criticism of the sites, and to identify the methods the writers have employed to characterize the buildings. This discussion will ask students to focus on discussions of architecture in formal terms, in effort to prepare students for their formal analysis assignment, which is due on Friday. Required Reading:

• Jonathan Glancey, “What Happened to Architecture Under Blair?” The Guardian (3 May 2007): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/artblog/2007/may/03/glanceywhathappenedtoarchi?INTCMP=SRCH

• Edwin Heathcote, “Starchitecture Rules but for a True Icon, Look Down,” Financial Times [London] (28 September 2011): 5.

• -------. “Why Bigness Is Here to Stay,” Financial Times [London] (17 May 2006): 2. • Rowan Moore, “How a High-Rise Craze Is Ruining London’s Skyline,” The Guardian (2 December 2012):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/dec/02/london-high-rise-craze-ruins-skyline. • Hugh Pearman, “Embrace the Gherkin,” The Financial Times (16 November 2003): 16.

Recommended Reading

• Jonathan Glancey, “St. Paul’s Cathedral Has Risen Above Its Critics for 300 Years,” The Guardian (1 March 2011): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/01/st-pauls-cathedral-300-years-on?INTCMP=SRCH.

• -------. “Space Odyssey,” The Guardian (8 December 2003): http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/14/britishlandcompany.economicgrowth?INTCMP=SRCH.

• -------. “London Buildings: Grate Expectations,” The Guardian (14 August 2008): • http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/dec/08/architecture.regeneration1?INTCMP=SRCH. • Hugh Pearman, “Designs on a Grand Scale,” The Financial Times (10 April 1988): 7. • Students are encouraged to peruse other examples of architecture criticism written by the above list of authors.

List of Monuments: will be distributed at the start of the field study. Written Assignment: Formal Analysis (due by Friday of week 3, at 5:00pm) Write a 750-word (approximately 3-pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12pt) Formal Analysis of your assigned building. Like all essays, this should have a clever title, a clear argument. You essay should use accurate, appropriate and sophisticated language, and should be free of grammatical, spelling or syntactical mistakes. Your essay should be accompanied by original documentary photographs (at least 3, but no more than 5). Plan ahead. Each student will need to visit their building site before composing their Formal Analysis. This independent field research is crucial to success. All students should contact building administrators in order to gain access to the structure’s interiors. This process can take quite a while, so start contacting appropriate professionals as early as possible. Students requiring additional advice on how to compose site visit requests, please see your instructor independently. Whilst conducting independent field research, it is crucial to document as much of the experience as possible. Students

should attend site visits in smart casual attire, appropriate for visits to office spaces. Whilst conducting research, students should be certain to take careful notes about the building’s interior, exterior and its surroundings, capture as many photographs as possible, and even rough sketch the building’s interiors and exteriors on-site. These sketches will be very helpful in establishing an effective sense of organization to your written formal analysis. The goal of this formal analysis will be to paint a picture of your building in the minds of your reader. Use Lewis Mumford’s “House of Glass” essay (in LANGE, 21-28) as an example. Also, read Lange’s analysis of Mumford’s essay carefully to identify what Mumford sought to achieve through his essay, and how you can incorporate some of his technique within your own writing. Take Mumford’s writing as an example and consider the physical context of the structure. Students requiring additional advice on how to write about a building in formal terms should borrow a copy of Sylvan Barnet’s A Short Guide to Writing About Art (2008, see specifically Chapter 4). Your instructor will mark and provide feedback on this assignment, and will return those notes after next week’s writing workshop. For more details on grading structure, please see the writing workshop guide included in this syllabus. WEEK 4: WRITING WORKSHOP Objectives and Key Questions: Having attended lectures, participated in field studies and read a variety of examples of architectural writing, students will use the space of the writing workshop to hone their abilities to write effectively about architecture. While the nature of the assignments will vary workshop to workshop, the structure of the workshop will remain the same. Please read the guide to writing workshops section of this syllabus for further details. Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 1 (review) In-class Assignment: Vocabulary Photoblog 1, submissions submitted online prior to start of class Writing Assignment: Revisions to Formal Analysis (due by Friday at 5:00pm) WEEK 5: ICONIC BUILDING Objectives and Key Questions: Past decades have witness the proliferation of sculptural, amorphic buildings that mark the world’s cityscapes as icons. Perhaps more than other types, new museum constructions embody this new trend. This lecture explores a variety of examples of iconic building from major urban centers all over the world. Students will discuss the myriad reasons behind the desire for world cities to build not just functional, but sculptural, sometimes whimsical, sometimes fantastical buildings. Within this discussion of iconic building, the group will also discuss the rise of “starchitects,” and the role of various institutions—museums, prize-granting institutions, and architectural critics—in the rise of these architect-celebrities. Beyond questions of why cities and institutions build iconic structures, and why cityscapes are so often dominated by the works of celebrity architects, students will also cooperatively investigate, and debate, how architecture critics have approached this subject matter within their own work. What methods are most appropriate to writing about iconic buildings? How, and to what success, have the assigned authors approached the subject matter? Required Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 2 (both Muschamp’s article and Lange’s analysis) • Charles Jencks, Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma (London: Frances Lincoln, 2005): Chapter 1, “Judging the

Icon,” pp. 20-63. [illustrated] • Witold Rybcynski, “The Bilbao Effect,” The Atlantic (September 2002): 138-142. • Hugh Pearman, “Mr. Whippy Versus Mr. Blobby: What’s Happening to Architecture?” The Sunday Times (22

September 2002). Now available on Pearman’s website: http://www.hughpearman.com/articles4/whippy.html.

Recommended Reading: • Arjun Appadurai, Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of

Minnesota Press, 1996).

• Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life (New York: Basic Books, 2002).

• Fredric Jameson, “Postmodernism and Consumer Society,” in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, ed. Hal Foster (New York: New Press, 1998): 127-144.

• Ada Louise Huxtable, “The Guggenheim Bilbao: Art and Architecture as One,” in On Architecture: Collected Reflections on a Century of Change (New York: Walker & Company, 2008): 107-111. [Originally published in Wall Street Journal, 16 October 1997]

• -------, “What Should a Museum Be?” in Ibid: 93-99. [originally published in New York Times, 8 May 1960] • Herbert Muschamp, “A Queens Factory is Born Again, as a Church,” The New York Times (5 September 1999). • -------, “Trump, His Gilded Taste, and Me,” in Hearts of the City: 539-50. [Originally published in New York Times,

19 December 1999] • Victoria Newhouse, Towards a New Museum (New York: Monacelli, 2006). • Also, see full list of recommended readings from week 1 of this syllabus

In-class Assignment: Monuments Quiz 1 (first 20 minutes of class) List of Monuments: will be distributed at the start of lecture In-class Video Screenings*:

• Sydney Pollock, dir. Sketches of Frank Gehry (Culver City, Cali.: Sony Pictures Classics, 2006). • Nathan Kahn, My Architect: A Son’s Journey (New York: New Yorker Video, 2004). • Deyan Sudjic, et. al., How Much Does Your Building Weigh Mr. Foster? (New York: First Run Features, 2010). *We will only screen clips from these full-length feature films. Students may borrow copies from the instructor, should they wish to watch the full films.

WEEK 6: FIELD STUDY, ICONIC LONDON IN MOTION (FROM TATE TO TATE) Field Study Details: Meet at the front entrance to the Tate Britain (Millbank) promptly at the beginning of class time. Nearest tube is Pimlico, though Westminster is not far either. Please wear comfortable walking shoes, as there will be a significant amount of walking for this field studies. As with all field studies, students should bring a notepad, a camera, their take-home reading quiz, as well as their copy of LANGE’s Writing about Architecture (2012). Objectives and Key Questions: Taking cues from Herbert Muschamp’s cinematographic account of Bilbao, Spain and its Guggenheim Museum, this field study seeks to glimpse iconic London in motion. Beginning at the Tate Britain, the group will learn about the history of the institution, paying careful attention to the museum’s Clore Gallery, which was designed by James Stirling, namesake of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) Sterling Prize. After an architectural investigation of Tate Britain, the class will board the “Tate to Tate” riverboat, and view many of London’s most iconic buildings, old and new, from the Thames. This slow journey will be an opportunity for the group to debate ideological arguments from the previous lecture and discussion section, but within the local context of contemporary London. The group will disembark at the Tate Modern, where we will investigate the new museum designed by Pritzker Prize winning architecture firm, Herzog & DeMeuron. Throughout this field study, students will be challenged to articulate manners in which the depiction of movement, the integration of urban context, as well as the inclusion of historical and biographical references can serve to enrich architectural criticism. Using Muschamp’s article as an example, along the full list of required readings below, the group will work together to compare and contrast various writers’ methods. This exercise should help students to identify the strategies that may be most effective when writing their own works, which will be due the following Friday. Required Reading:

• Jonathan Glancey, “The Power and the Glory,” The Guardian (8 April 2000): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2000/apr/08/architecture.artsfeatures?INTCMP=SRCH.

• Edwin Heathcote, “River of Missed Opportunities,” Financial Times (14 June 2003): 13. • Hugh Pearman, “Norman Foster and His Incredible Wobbling Bridge,” The Sunday Times [London] (18 June

2000): http://www.hughpearman.com/articles/foster.htm Recommended Reading:

• Jonathan Glancey, “Why Tate Modern’s Extension Stacks Up,” The Guardian (1 April 2009): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/31/tate-modern-extension?INTCMP=SRCH.

• -------. “Jellied Eels Versus the London Eye,” The Guardian (23 February 2005): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2005/feb/23/heritage.art?INTCMP=SRCH.

• “Sterling Work,” The Sunday Times [London] (25 February 1996): 8. • Hugh Pearman, “Squaring the South Bank Circle,” The Sunday Times [London] (20 February 2000): 6. • -------, “Rothko in the Belly of the Whale,” The Sunday Times [London] (9 April 2000):

http://www.hughpearman.com/articles/tatemodern.htm List of Monuments: will be distributed at the start of field study Writing Assignment: Buildings in Context (due by Friday at 5:00pm) The last assignment, formal analysis, challenged students to write about a building as an object, largely self-contained and within itself. This assignment turns the writer’s focus inside-out, upside-down, and sideways. This assignment is all about how an architecture critic can describe a building in relation to any number of relevant contexts. Historical perspectives vary greatly. Students may discuss the assigned buildings in relation to the history of their immediate surroundings, the biography of the building’s patron(s) or architect(s), or to an almost limitless selection of references contemporary to the buildings’ design and construction, such as cinema, politics, or even the weather. Students must choose which historical contextual approach is most appropriate for their building. Write a 750-word (approximately 3-pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12pt) historical contextual description of your assigned building. Like all essays, this should have a thoughtful title, a clear argument. You essay should use accurate, appropriate and sophisticated language, and should be free of grammatical, spelling or syntactical mistakes. Your essay should be accompanied by original documentary photographs (at least 3, but no more than 5). If appropriate, you may recycle images used in your previous essay. This essay, in particular, requires significant outside research. This assignment should contain references to at least three sources outside of the readings already assigned for this class. Students are encouraged to interview relevant personalities, and include their findings within this essay. The goal of this historical investigation will be to help your reader to consider your building in a new light. Use Herbert Muschamp’s essay as an example. Also, read Lange’s analysis of Muschamp’s essay carefully to identify what he sought to achieve through his essay, and how you can incorporate some of his technique within your own writing. Students requiring additional advice on how to write about a building in historical terms should borrow a copy of Sylvan Barnet’s A Short Guide to Writing About Art (2008, see specifically Chapters 5 and 6). Your instructor will mark and provide feedback on this assignment, and will return those notes after next week’s writing workshop. For more details on grading structure, please see the writing workshop guide included in this syllabus.

WEEK 7: MIDTERM BREAK WEEK (NO CLASS MEETINGS) WEEK 8: WRITING WORKSHOP Objectives and Key Questions: Having attended lectures, participated in discussion and read a variety of examples of architectural writing, students will use the space of the writing workshop to hone their abilities to write effectively about architecture. While the nature of the assignments will vary workshop to workshop, the structure of the workshop will remain the same. Please read the guide to writing workshops section of this syllabus for further details. Required Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 2 (review) In-class Assignment: Vocabulary Photoblog 2, submissions submitted online prior to start of class Written Assignment: Revisions to Historical Perspective (due by Friday at 5:00pm) WEEK 9: SUSTAINABILITY AND URBAN SPACE

Objectives and Key Questions: Sustainability is all the buzz. Now that more than half of the world’s population lives in urban centers, architects and builders seek out methods keep their dwellings from having lasting, negative impacts on the environment, the economy, and the social patchwork that make up the global cities of the future. But can a building ever be truly sustainable? Is sustainability a reality? A potentiality? Or is it empty justification for further building and development? During this lecture, students will investigate several case studies wherein architectural critics have transformed to activists, in order to highlight issues of sustainability in major urban spaces. These cases will illustrate the history behind today’s noticeable desire for sustainable building, whilst simultaneously highlighting the role of architectural critics in affecting changes to urban space. Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 6 (BOTH Jane Jacob’s excerpt and Lange’s analysis) • Cynthia Carr, “Life in the Footprint,” Village Voice (2-8 August 2006): 27-30. Available online at:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-07-25/nyc-life/life-in-the-footprint/. • Benjamin Schwarz, “Gentrification and Its Discontents,” The Atlantic Monthly (June 2010): 85-88. • Edwin Heathcote, “The Schizophrenia of ‘Greenism,’” Financial Times [London] (6 October 2008): 10. • Jonathan Glancey, “The Great Ecotown Land Grab,” The Guardian (25 June 2008):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/jun/25/architecture.ecotowns?INTCMP=SRCH. Recommended Reading:

• Hilary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson, eds., Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007).

• Anthony Flint, Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took on New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City (New York: Random House, 2009).

• Paul Goldberger, “Gehry-Rigged,” in Building Up and Tearing Down (New York: Monacelli Press, 2009): 160-163. [originally published in the New Yorker 82, no. 33, 16 October 2006]

• Edwin Heathcote, “From Megacity to Metacity,” Financial Times [London] (6 April 2010). • -------. “A Building Tells a Million Stories,” Financial Times [London] (22 March 2008): 12. • Jonathan Glancey, “Inside Masdar City: A Modern Mirage,” The Guardian (10 May 2011):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/may/10/inside-masdar-city-modern-mirage?INTCMP=SRCH. • -------. “The Thames Gateway: Here Be Monsters,” The Guardian (29 October 2003):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/oct/29/housingpolicy.g2?INTCMP=SRCH. • -------. “The Beauty of Crewe,” The Guardian (6 December 2005):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/dec/06/comment.columnists?INTCMP=SRCH. • -------. “A Thing of Beauty Is a Joy for a Very Long Time,” The Guardian (5 July 1999):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1999/jul/05/features11.g25?INTCMP=SRCH. • The Architecture Foundation, Design Like You Give a Damn (New York: Metropolis Books, 2006). • William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (New York: North

Point Press, 2002). • Nicolai Ouroussoff, “Seeking First to Reinvent the Sports Arena, and Then Brooklyn,” New York Times (5 July

2005). In-Class Assignment: Monuments Quiz 2 (first 20 minutes of class) In-Class Video Screenings:

• Chad Friedrichs, et al, The Pruitt-Igoe Myth (New York: First Run Features, 2012). • Markus Heidingsfelder and Min Tesch, Rem Koolhaas, A Kind of Architect (Collingwood, Vic.: Madman

Entertainment, 2007). WEEK 10: PRESERVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE Objectives and Key Questions: Required Reading:

• LANGE, Chapter 3 (BOTH Michael Sorkin’s article and Lange’s analysis)

• Rowan Moore, “The Shape of Britain to Come…As Designed by Prince Charles,” The Guardian (24 June 2011): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jun/24/prince-charles-influence-architecture-poundbury?INTCMP=SRCH.

• Hugh Pearman, “The Brutal Truth: When Modernism Gets Historic,” The Sunday Times (25 November 2012). Available online at: http://www.hughpearman.com/2012/04.html.

• Edwin Heathcote, “It’s Cover-Up,” Financial Times [London] (5 May 2012): 12. • Jonathan Glancey, “The Hold of the Old,” The Guardian (19 February 2000):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/feb/19/weekend7.weekend9?INTCMP=SRCH. Recommended Reading:

• Blair Kamin. Why Architecture Matters: Lessons from Chicago (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2001). • Elizabeth Grade and Hugh Pearman, “Charles’ Kitchen Cabinet,” The Sunday Times (6 December 1987): 33. • Ada Louise Huxtable, “Lively Original U.S. Dead Copy,” in Will They Ever Finish Bruckner Boulevard? (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1970): 211-212. [originally published in New York Times, 9 May 1965] • Hugh Pearman, “The Curse of the Country House,” The Sunday Times [London]. Now available at:

http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/bighouses.html • -------. “Prince Charles Tears Down Mr. Rogers’s Neighborhood,” Wall Street Journal (18 June 2009):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528739548526041.html. • -------. “Saarinen’s Embassy Must Not Be Razed,” The Wall Street Journal (8 October 2008):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122341771842412923.html. In-Class Video Screening:

• Architects Herzog & DeMeuron: The Alchemy of Building and the Tate Modern (2009) WEEK 11: FIELD STUDY, BATTERSEA POWER STATION Field Study Details: Meet at Sloane Square tube station promptly at the start of class. Please wear smart casual attire, with comfortable shoes. This tour will be both in- and out-of-doors, so please also be mindful to wear attire that is weather appropriate. This tour is a very special arrangement for our class, so please come with questions prepared for the architects who will be guiding us through the site, which will be under construction during our visit. Key Questions: Current debates surrounding the adaptive reuse of Battersea Power Station integrate thematic discussions from the previous two lecture sessions. The architectural plans for this site address both concerns about sustainability, as well as historic preservation. Throughout this visit, students will not only gain the opportunity to participate in a special viewing of this monument, which is not normally open to the public, but will also get the chance to ask the project architects about their decisions throughout the design process. Students should come prepared with a list of at least 5 questions to ask the architects through this very special field study. Required Reading:

• Jonathan Glancey, “Could It Be…Battersea Tower Station?” The Guardian (20 June 2008): http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/artblog/2008/jun/20/couldthisbebatterseatower?INTCMP=SRCH.

• Edwin Heathcote, “Rootless Ambition,” Financial Times [London] (17 September 2011): 12. • -------. “Sustainability at the Heart of Vinoly’s Grand Vision,” Financial Times [London] (20 June 2008): 5. • Emily Wright, “A View to a Killing,” The Estates Gazette (24 November 2012): 60-64. • Avantika Chilkoti, “Green Sky Thinking,” Financial Times [London} (22 September 2012): 19.

Recommended Reading:

• ADDITIONAL SOURCES shall be provided closer to the date of this field study. The debate surrounding the redevelopment of the Battersea Power Station is constantly shifting. This field study will be shaped greatly by current events, and more recent articles will be provided to students closer to the date.

Written Assignment: Activist Piece (due by Friday at 5:00pm) Write a 750-word (approximately 3-pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, 12pt) activist argument about your assigned building. Like all essays, this should have a thoughtful title, a clear argument. You essay should use accurate, appropriate and sophisticated language, and should be free of grammatical, spelling or syntactical mistakes. Your essay should be

accompanied by original documentary photographs (at least 3, but no more than 5). If appropriate, you may recycle images used in your previous essay. The goal of this activist argument will be to help illuminate perspectives of debate surrounding your building. You many use any of the assigned activist readings as a model for your argument. Students requiring additional advice on how to write about an argumentative activist essay should borrow a copy of Sylvan Barnet’s A Short Guide to Writing About Art (2008, see specifically Chapters 5 and 6). After deciding which direction is most appropriate, students should engage in further research. This assignment should contain references to at least three sources (primary or secondary) outside of the readings already assigned for this class. Students are encouraged to interview relevant personalities, and include their findings within this essay. Your instructor will mark and provide feedback on this assignment, and will return those notes after next week’s writing workshop. For more details on grading structure, please see the writing workshop guide included in this syllabus. WEEK 12: WRITING WORKSHOP WITH PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURE CRITIC Objectives and Key Questions: Having attended lectures, participated in discussion and read a variety of examples of architectural writing, students will use the space of the writing workshop to hone their abilities to write effectively about architecture. While the nature of the assignments will vary workshop to workshop, the structure of the workshop will remain the same. Please read the guide to writing workshops section of this syllabus for further details. Reading:

• LANGE, Chapters 3 and 6 (review) In-Class Assignment: Vocabulary Photoblog 3, submissions submitted online prior to start of class Written Assignment: Revisions to Activist Piece and Writer Profile (due by Friday at 5:00pm) WEEK 13: STUDENT PRESENTATIONS In-Class Assignment: Monuments Quiz 3 (first 20 minutes of class) Student presentations will be scheduled at least four weeks before these sessions. Presentations may take many forms, both video presentations, and slide presentations are acceptable. Presentations must be scripted, and scripts should be included in the student’s final portfolio. Presentations should take no longer than 10 minutes, and should provide a clear and polished overview of the building the student studied over the course of the semester. The most salient points raised through essay writing should be drawn upon within these visual presentations. Presentations will be graded for content, organization and presentation. Feedback will be provided following the presentations in-class. Guidelines for Final Portfolio Composition The final portfolio should be a snapshot of what each student has achieved through this class. The introductory section shall be the students’ reflections upon their achievements. A specific set of questions to be addressed through this 1000-word essay will be distributed in-class prior to the due date. Students must demonstrate their abilities as writers and students by articulating how they have achieved learning objectives, what strategies they used to identify opportunities for improvement, as well as explain how their study of others’ architectural criticism has illuminated new strategies for analyzing and exploring the built environment. This essay should discuss at least three, if not all four of the written assignments, and should specifically address what they learned about their own writing and editing style through participation in writing workshops. In addition to this essay, the final portfolio should contain all drafts and revisions to each essay. This will provide both the student and the instructor will clear evidence of the student’s development through the course. Contents of Final Portfolio

1. Self-Reflection and Personal Narrative (guidelines for this section will be distributed in-class) 2. Author Profile: final revision, and previous drafts in reverse chronological order

3. Formal Analysis: final revision, and previous drafts in reverse chronological order 4. Historical Perspective: final revision, and previous drafts in reverse chronological order 5. Activist Piece: final revision, and previous drafts in reverse chronological order 6. Presentation script 7. Complete collection of illustrations

WEEK 14: STUDENT PRESENTATIONS (CONTINUED) In-class Assignments: Monuments Quiz 4 (final 20 minutes of class) This quiz will ask students to name the buildings discussed by their peers throughout the semester during writing workshops and student presentations. FINAL PORTFOLIOS DUE AT START OF CLASS ATTENDANCE POLICY Regular attendance and punctuality are mandatory in order to earn full marks. The final grade will take into consideration preparation required for class (i.e. readings) and participation in class discussions. If you miss any meetings without an excused absence from the on-site director, your final grade will be dropped accordingly. In the case of absences, it is the student’s responsibility to find out what information was given in class including any announcements made. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Academic integrity is essential to a positive teaching and learning environment. All students enrolled in University courses are expected to complete coursework responsibilities with fairness and honesty. Failure to do so by seeking unfair advantage over others or misrepresenting someone else’s work as your own, can result in disciplinary action. The University Student Conduct Code defines scholastic dishonesty as follows: SCHOLASTIC DISHONESTYScholastic dishonesty means plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; altering forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or falsifying data, research procedures, or data analysis. Within this course, a student responsible for scholastic dishonesty can be assigned a penalty up to and including an “F” or “N” for the course. If you have any questions regarding the expectations for a specific assignment or exam, ask. STUDENT CONDUCT The University of Minnesota has specific policies concerning student conduct and student needs. This information can be found on the Learning Abroad Center website.