Architecture for a Changing World

The title and subject of Jencks's paper concerns the content of a book entitled The New Paradigm in Architecture. He argues that human thought has fundamentally transformed since the 1930s — and especially since the discovery that the universe is expanding, that matter can be converted into energy, and that gravity can bend light — right up to the present day. He asserts that even mathematics and engineering, the tools for ordering architecture, have changed. Despite these transformations, a significant part of architectural activity still takes place based on sensibilities and assumptions belonging to the era before the theory of relativity. Architecture in every era is compelled to align itself with external categories and a larger world of which it is a part. In Jencks's evaluation, the paradigm — like cosmology — is an ocean in which architects are immersed. He believes the great architectures of history have always been based on paradigms relevant to their time, just as now architecture has at best approached the new paradigm to some degree. He identifies seven recent tendencies in architecture, each of which draws inspiration from the structures and data of the built environment and megacities: Complexity, Organitech or Ecotech, Datascape, Blobs, Land Form Architecture, Cosmogenic Architecture, and Enigmatic Signifier.

Jencks began his lecture from the theory of creation in two worldviews — Christian and Jewish. In these two religious teachings, God is likened to the architect of creation; hence, the human task is to learn the laws of creation and the order of history in order to draw closer to the Creator. He concludes that human perception today has only partially entered the new scientific paradigm, and part of it — such as politics — still rests on old paradigms; architecture too has, at best, only somewhat approached the new paradigm.

The ideas of Jencks, as presented in this lecture and previously in his book Architecture of the Jumping Universe, although they may appear attractive, are not scientific analyses of architecture; they mostly describe a special tendency in architectural design. His arguments, though seemingly logical on the surface, are not well-founded. Jencks, as we said, believes the important architectures of all historical periods were shaped based on a conception of the cosmos. The reality is that in the past, the idea of cosmic structure has in some instances been inspired by architecture itself. The ancient Romans and Sasanians did not create the dome as a symbol of the sky; rather, they believed the sky was in the form of a tent. Humans naturally perceive what they do not know through familiar data and references; it is by this same logic that they comprehended the complex act of creation through the familiar analogy of building construction. By Jencks's own reasoning, we would apparently reach the conclusion that architecture began because humans decided to imitate God, and that the emergence of architecture preceded humanity and any building whatsoever.

"Complexity" in architecture is also an inherent necessity and an intrinsic quality of architecture, not necessarily a stylistic tendency. By reducing the essential problems of architecture to a discussion of style, Jencks, while promoting certain tendencies, diminishes the value of new movements. He is not even precise regarding the influence of Einstein's theory on the formation of the new paradigm. As Jodidio points out, Einstein's principal relativity theory was theorized at a time when modern architecture was at its peak, and there is no reason to regard modern architecture as related to the period before Einstein. As Giedion has explained at length in Space, Time and Architecture, Cubist painting (and consequently Le Corbusier's architecture) was inspired by Einstein's ideas and non-Euclidean mathematics.

Sorkin, in his critique of the Datascape and the megacity paradigm of today, says: the megacity is unavoidable. There is no need to valorize the manifestations of today's chaotic and inhumane cities and regard them as the model for urban form. The city cannot determine its form independently of the real needs and will of human beings.

Jencks's praise of the Bilbao Museum, on the grounds that its form can be interpreted as a ship or a woman lying on her side, seems superficial.

Sorkin's position is completely opposed to Jencks. He calls himself a utopist, or an advocate of the ideal city, and therefore considers the human being and human planning for the future as the fundamental premise. His visionary plans for the future city are presented. The title of his lecture is "The City of the Future." He presents his urban planning projects, all of which are hand-drawn.

Sorkin does not believe in imitating traditional patterns, because he believes these patterns have been severed from their historical context and no longer carry meaning or function. He considers the application of scientific paradigms to design as incorrect, because it leads to the erasure of essential differences in life. Sorkin believes that architecture and urban planning today, instead of being influenced by the models of "globalization," need strategies that protect cities against the negative effects of this phenomenon. His clear alternative for creating "artistic differences" is through indigenous and typological diversity. He is aware that his plans are impractical and exaggerated, but he says retreating and moderating is always easy. What matters is finding fundamental solutions in urbanism and urban design.

Sorkin's city is truly a kind of third-millennium utopia. Although it employs very new technology and materials — such as hydrogen or solar-powered automobiles, building skins made of natural plastic, soy fiber, and natural and agricultural wastewater treatment systems — like nineteenth-century utopists, it has fixed dimensions, defined boundaries, and buildings of limited height. In Sorkin's view, increasing the size of a city endangers democracy, because the relationship between citizens and city officials becomes abstract and unreachable. In sociological terms, he has also addressed contemporary issues such as the coexistence of groups that do not fit within the framework of traditional nuclear families of father, mother, and children, and has designed houses suitable for non-nuclear families. He also takes into account various conditions such as industry and new occupations, the emergence of new phenomena, migration from villages to cities, as well as environmental issues.

Sorkin's theory upends the old concept of zoning and argues that in today's world, where non-polluting industries are feasible, land uses can be placed side by side without rigid boundaries. Instead, the edges of cities should be designed so that villagers and migrants can live in a style resembling their own villages.

In his opposition to the extremely fragile and sensitive system of today's city, he puts forward self-sufficient cities that do not depend on the countryside, because environmental technologies make it possible for a significant portion of energy production, wastewater disposal, and food supply to be resolved within the city and neighborhood, eliminating the need for external dependence.

Jodidio also takes a position against Jencks's statements. He says it would be better for architecture, instead of concerning itself with scientific paradigms, to attend to its elementary and enduring problems — namely costs, site requirements, and function. Architecture has not always gone hand in hand with science, and many of the most important works of architecture have been shaped by attention to a few simple considerations. In his critique of works such as those of Frank Gehry, he says "his primary concern may not be that of the general public."

He believes that beyond the stylistic and theoretical debates, the reality often concealed is that many of today's architects are, more than anything, in pursuit of income and attention. In such a world, having no style is the best style. Jodidio praises the minimalist works of architects such as Richard Neutra, Tadao Ando, Raphael Moneo, and Alvaro Siza, and believes that these simple works constitute the most enduring kinds of architecture. In his opinion, highly ostentatious and showy works quickly become boring and outdated.

Jodidio neither rejects creative and intelligent regionalism nor the use of computers for creating new architectures, but he believes these efforts must be substantive and fundamental. Certain needs of today's society, such as flexibility, are met with greater sufficiency through simpler means.

Jodidio's discussion is significant in that, in an era of the separation of tendencies and one-dimensional positionings, he has managed to bring together apparently heterogeneous categories such as art, environment, technology, utopian urbanism, land uses, and sociology.

The title of Jodidio's lecture is "Architecture Now!" — the title of two books he has published under this name. His latest book, Architecture Now! 2, is highly noteworthy in terms of raising the above issues and introducing very recent projects, many of which have not been built.