“If
you can see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be
said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of
it.”
S.I.
Hayakawa, Berkley
A “learning organization” * is defined by its
ability to be open minded, self - reflective and ever changing in response to
new circumstances and new information. In essence it thinks and acts
differently as times change. A learning organization is so “self-disruptive”
that in 5 years time it might not even be recognizable as the same company.
Very, very few large organizations have the capacity to do this. G.E. is an
excellent example of an exception. Large companies chart their future directions
guided by (a) external market forces and (b) outside regulations about how they
do business. Would anyone approve of
large banks being able to not only create their own rules of behavior and
governance crafted in their own best interests, but also enforced only by
themselves? Of course not!
Any company without periodic injections of inspiration from
outside the company (“new blood”) rapidly becomes stale, for they can only see
that which they have been accustomed to creating and seeing already. The
company becomes like a Mobius strip with the illusion of making progress all
the time because work is expended; yet one always ends up right back at the
same place one started. This ossification can only be realized when viewed by
others from the outside.
A reader’s comment in response to Shilpi Paul’s recent
coverage of a project proposal at 14th Street and Wallach (Urban
Turf) prompted the author to wonder if perhaps HPO has become somewhat insular
to its own detriment.
“ Johnny said at 9:10 am on Friday
October 25, 2013:
I like the design as it is. Too bad the HPRB has to offer their
usual input. Which is to make it more boring. “use all the same material and no
cantilevering. Just a big box with windows would be GREAT!”
DC would
look so much cooler if it weren’t for them. Every time it’s the same.
“Make it shorter. Make it blander. Make it look faux historicy (sic) whenever
possible so that it ‘blends in’”
Builders in DC have learned to churn out box
after box because what’s the point of trying to make something cool when they
know they will just be sent back to the drawing board.”
Reference
Many have criticized the rigidity with which new D.C.
construction projects are sometimes scrutinized and sanitized by the Historic
Preservation Review Board. The “unusual” is converted to the usual or
“acceptable”. Landmark buildings that today are revered by many as reflective
of their time – such as the Cairo apartment building – in their time did not
conform to the norm and were excoriated and evoked outbursts of fury.
To some, the decision making process used in adjudicating
new construction seems a little akin to taking a collection of unique rocks
that are all different and putting them in a tumbler so that they all come out
smooth, conform with each other and are much less interesting as a result. They
offend nobody, but nobody is very excited by them either. There appears to be a
judgment process that is continuously moving to the mean or the average to
conform to self-created and self-enforced guidelines. Is this not somewhat of a
conflict of interest? The Historic Preservation Office is fabulous about
preserving history. That’s a primary function of their office and they do it
very well. When it comes to judging something being built today that will define
tomorrow’s past history, perhaps it’s time to rethink the process a little. How
will today’s approved architecture reflect who we are now, rather than succeeding
in reflecting who we were in the past?
In the author’s opinion, the city needs an unfettered
anchor to the future rather than an embedded anchor to the past. There are many elegant examples of how
inspiring modern architecture can coexist with old architecture without being
especially jarring or raucous. Being able to accomplish this takes considerable
creative talent and a gentle hand that understands the modern world, what it
feels and where it is heading. It also means being in tune with how people
think and live today. It is very difficult to place a date on many Washington
buildings from the past 20 years because they all seem so similar. A variation
on a series of themes created from a tired template. One writer referred to the
K Street NW corridor from 11th to 20th as a collection of
filing cabinets. They were so right. Yes, clearly the construction conformed.
But nothing stands out and nothing speaks to the human spirit or is uplifting.
Is the problem a lack of creative architects or is their
creativity being diluted and lost, as they are all being put into the same
template tumbler? With stringent
limitations on what is accepted and what is not, there is a disincentive for
architects to propose anything that they have come to realize will never be
approved. There is an incentive for them to “study to the test” and game the
system in such a way that what they propose passes. They learn about what is
rejected from others and their own past experience. It’s a little like an
invisible dog fence. Go outside the fence and you get shocked. So why bother to
even try? Intellectual curiosity eventually dies.
Today, more than ever, there are exciting things happening
around the country in urban planning, greening of cities, creating walkable
cities etc.! Surely the Historic Preservation Office, which is so good at so
many things, can take the time to retool their thinking about their approach to
new construction in this city and permit the city to grow and evolve architecturally
in a more organic and exciting manner. The city is already top heavy with
inorganic, bureaucratic thinking and it shows in its buildings. Perhaps now is
a good time to begin discussions about the creation of a division within the
Office of Planning that is focused on modern architecture and its integration
into the fabric of the city. Another area of complexity lies in dealing with
“infill” construction where there will always be a creative tension about what
fits and what does not. A Modern Architecture Integration Review Board could easily
be established that deals solely with new projects rather than the modification
of old ones with a view to progressive design rather than preservation of old
design. Is there an opportunity for creating a position of The City Architect or a rotating board or outside council? Many
decisions are financially driven, so ensuring an untainted decision making
process is obviously key to the success such a proposal. This would be a very
interesting and timely conversation. Perhaps this mechanism already exists but
we don’t see it working.
