buildings disproportionate to the em- phasis placed on economics by the building client?
Obviously not. Where there are con- siderable sums of money involved such emphasis is justified. The threat to the client of financial failure looms larger than any aesthetic acclamation result- ing from his new office tower. This is understandable, though no less regret table, and the primary reason why buildings look the way they do is be- cause of the architect's acceptance of such programmatic restraints.
While architects are expected to lead in the development of our build- ings, they must be in concert with those who follow. Leadership therefore comes as a response to a need and not a presumption. When it comes to building and planning, that part of leadership responsibility which de- mands innovation or something ex- perimental is always a proportionate variable.
In the world of inner city commer- cial architecture, the scope for innova- tive leadership by architects is best appreciated when they maximize the building return on the investment, pro- vided the building quality is not dis- tinguishably cheaper than its neigh- bours. The pressure to accommodate the commercial demands is great and
-
Metal and glass a response to economic demand
the significance of the costs involved cannot be ignored - least of all by the architect, for it is here in the com- mercial amphitheatre of building that his profession is at stake.
Summarizing the response to this largely negative criticism towards our cities one could say, just like most purchases in the contemporary market place, "we get what we pay for". Any aesthetic innovations will ride on the coat-tails of technical innovations, jus- tified in the name of economy.
Amortization
Costs cannot be viewed only as the purchase of material and skills; the period of amortization is not incon- sequential in determining the outcome of a building. Where such a time period is short it reflects the sense of risk.
Hong Kong bears the direct results of the sense of high risk and quick return on the investment. The ten- dency is to avoid all unnecessary ex- penditures - the aesthetic satisfactions of the public are such that they usually demand more expenditure than the period of amortization will allow. It could therefore be said that "we get what they pay for." All too often our public judgements of architecture are straight-jacketed by limiting our criti- cism only to what we see and whether
11
TA. JU
IB
E
זו ח
T
ין
T
11
11
or not we like it, without deference to time or where the responsibility really lies.
Architectural success of course is to be judged by a variety of criteria, not the least of which is design. Since the profession as a whole has been loath to put forward standards by which contemporary designs can be judged, it is not surprising that ignorant criticism stems from this neglected education of the public. It would seem a desirable thing that individuals ex- ercise their aesthetic judgements to the fullest, but it is peculiar that a man's own opinion, when he has one about matters of aesthetics, is usually the one he respects most regardless of professional advice.
Collectively however, public opin- ions have proved to be mostly reaction- ary (in their attitudes to change) and uninformed (in their knowledge of change). The judgement of contempor- ary growth in our inner cities bears. implicity upon our attitudes to change. There is good cause for scepticism when it comes to accepting public opinion as a true barometer by which contemporary architectural success can be judged.
Glass box constructions then are response to market demands. The question now arises: Do they make any contribution to our environment?
between
It is significant that when deploring the products of our new commercial centres the contrasts brought to mind are with the qualities found largely in the domestic architecture of yester periods. Such a basis for comparison almost stops with the one fact that the comparisons are between buildings. Little accounting is made for the fact that the types of buildings under com- parison are themselves different.
Comparisons of the past in general, relative commercial and domestic examples, invariably show the commercial examples to be notably plainer, within the bounds of the cur- rent style; reflecting, one can assume, the same concern for investment so much in evidence today. Indeed, pre- stige value obtained through real-estate identification has not diminished as a business asset, and judging from the corporate interests where the econo- mics of image are keenly judged, IBM for example, it could even be argued that commercial prestige values its buildings more highly than ever before.
This argument is substantiated by comparisons with domestic architec- ture of today in contrast with times past. Old estates are giving way to multi-storey residential buildings, both
34
Far East BUILDER, February 1969