A Stern Building Of Place

Clem Labine, writing for his Civitas Chronicles blog for
Traditional Building, relays the disparaging reviews Robert Stern is getting for trying to fit into the historical context of old Philadelphia:

Nonetheless, Stern’s desire to be a good urban citizen drew predictable, disparaging reviews from Modernist critics who bemoan the building’s lack of shock and awe. The attacks were best summed up by a headline from the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Let’s make it revolutionary.” The review even goes so far as to bring up that hoary chestnut: The building does not “speak in the language of its time.”

Other critics chimed it with such easily anticipated denunciations as: “It suffers from all the weaknesses of Stern’s neo-traditionalist design philosophy.” “The revolutionary spirit seems to be conspicuously absent in Stern’s conservative rehashing of Georgian-style architecture.” “This building, with its unsubtle pastiche and imitation materials, does nothing but hold us back.”

Implicit in all the complaints from Modernist critics is their belief that true Architecture (with the capital “A”) should stand in bold opposition to traditional buildings. (However, to make visual affronts more palatable to the public, designers will assert with a straight face that an adversarial new building is “in dialogue” with its neighbors.) These critics are fixated on visual flamboyance without any regard for the making of humane public spaces.

I have little regard for any argument whose foundation is about being “of today”. It is unfortunate that Stern’s desire to make a building that feels right, that feels like it belongs, has brought him such criticism. The highest goal of Architecture (with a capital “A”) has nothing to do with time or era but everything to do with making human Places. We need to get past this “of our time” nonsense and get on with making great places.