Librarians are all familiar with Rem Koolhaas’s groundbreaking deconstructivist masterpiece library in Seattle. While in Boston for ALA Midwinter meeting, I decided to take a look at another piece of deconstructivist architecture that got a lot of press in recent years. I visited the Frank Gehry structure known as the Stata Center or ‘Building 32′ at MIT. The Stata Center does not enjoy the same reputation that the Seattle Public Library has, in fact some call it a complete disaster and there has been a legal battle about construction issues.
The quote below is by Nikos Salingaros ( a really interesting dude); I lifted it from the Wikipedia entry on Building 32.
“An architecture that reverses structural algorithms so as to create disorder—the same algorithms that in an infinitely more detailed application generate living form—ceases to be architecture. Deconstructivist buildings are the most visible symbols of actual deconstruction. The randomness they embody is the antithesis of nature’s organized complexity… Housing a scientific department at a university inside the symbol of its nemesis must be the ultimate irony.”
If I’m reading that quote correctly, Salingaros is saying that a deconstructivist building is a rejection of order and natural self-organizing principles. If I start thinking of one kind of building program that I’d hope would be harmonious with natural order, it’d be a library! Order is really a big piece of what we do in libraries, we organize and contextualize information and knowledge. I wonder if Salingaros would criticize the Seattle Public Library the same way? Aside from the known construction issues with the Stata Center, what might happen if Gehry approached a library the same way?
Well… Gehry did build a library, it is at Princeton University and it looks pretty awesome. I’ll have to visit that one another time… I wonder how the users of the Princeton library feel about their building, and if it is also “the antithesis of nature’s organized complexity”?
There are 5 Comments to "Deconstructivist Architecture: Would it Work at Your Library?"
I agree that this is an interesting comment, but it in no way diminishes how well Gehry’s architecture blends the chaos physicists describe in our universe with the beauty of nature and raw strength. The risk and originality integral to Gehry’s buildings captures the eye and moves observers like myself. Those who enter his designs experience the internal space differently than those who study them externally. I am a reader and writer who finds this architect’s talent soaring and inspirational. His daring designs rage against convention, totally consistent with what literature and writers have always done.
Not gonna lie to ya Lynn, I’m a Gehry fan as well. I really would like to get to that library in Princeton some time. His work makes sense to me particularly in the case of museums though, and philosophically I think this deconstructivist stuff is most intriguing in that context… awesome looking museums that fall apart and don’t necessarily work well is something of a tradition at this point, just look at the Guggenheim in NYC. The reason I got excited about Salingaros’s point was that it addresses the program for the space… not the general awesomeness in appearance of the building envelope. I mean, embracing disorder in the library is some pretty antithetical business, ain’t it? Or ain’t it? Its fun stuff to consider, for sure…
Someone mention my name?
Well, the only way to truly judge a building is to experience it and see whether it provides a pleasant working environment. A library should not only help someone find and read books, it should also regenerate a user through the visceral impact of its spaces and surfaces (not a cocaine-like momentary high, but a longer term satisfaction). I’m not sure the deconstructivist libraries mentioned in this article do that.
As for validating a library because it somehow reflects current literary thought, that is a slippery slope. What if there is a transient intellectual infatuation with nichilism, or with satanic cults? Surely we don’t wish to tie architectural form to extra-architectural notions, which may be here today but gone out of fashion tomorrow, while the building is left to torment generations to come.
Also ponder on the historical fact that libraries are expressions of order in a society that desires to store and catalog information. This requires a tradition of political and philosophical stability, and is the opposite of the randomness expressed in contemporary architectural discourse. There do exist random and disordered societies, unfortunately, and there you can find no libraries at all. The mathematics of organization and coherence that creates a library in the first place must be supported by both its society and its architecture. Any deviation from this fundamental idea, say for the sake of architectural novelty, is bound to be short-lived.
Best wishes to all,
Nikos
Nikos, thanks for dropping in!
One of the things that excites me about the best contemporary public libraries is the fact that they are more than “historical… expressions of order in a society that desires to store and catalog information”, now they seek to engage participants (patrons) in different ways. A great public library is a community organizing space that connects the ideas, thoughts and knowledge of its participants with those of other users, as well as with the traditional media resources. I wonder if this new connective mission for public library spaces doesn’t make sense ‘deconstructed’ and if it isn’t a natural conclusion for architects to create spaces that embrace these different stages of knowledge production and transmission.
While I think Dr S’s points are well taken; as a trustee of a public library embarking on a new building project, there are more practical issues to library architecture, reflected in the legal problems surrounding the Stata Center.
In an era when many conventionally designed buildings develop major problems within 5-10 years of completion, any structure which deviates from conventional design must at least meet some basic requirements; namely that it not leak and the design not enable climate-related problems such as improper drainage, blockage of exits, and the creation of safety hazards.
To do otherwise is not only a breach of the public trust, but also a waste of public monies, even if a building is largely build with donor funds (since most new construction doesn’t come with an endowment for maintenance and upkeep). Let’s hope the Lewis Library doesn’t develop similar problems as has its northern cousin.