Its great to be celebrating Christmas and the holidays na hindi ako
nagpupuyat for a competition plate or a submission... because the past
5 years all the important dates fell after the end-of-year holidays
kaya ayun... wala kaming pasko ng 5 taon! hehehe
1st yr = Comp Plate = Adaptive Reuse
2nd yr = Comp Plate = Aquinas Park
3rd yr = Comp Plate = Division of City Schools
4th yr = Comp Plate = Dreambuilders
5th yr = Thesis!!!!
Fate
treated Eero Saarinen unkindly in many ways. He died of a brain tumor
in 1961 at the age of 51, and never lived to see the completion of some
of his most important works: the St. Louis Gateway Arch; Dulles
International Airport, near Washington, D.C.; the TWA terminal at
Kennedy Airport and the CBS headquarters, in New York City. During his
lifetime Saarinen was met with popular acclaim in the mainstream
press--making the cover of Time magazine in 1956--but he was often criticized for lacking a signature style.
That seems to be changing: this spring a Yale symposium looked at the
influence of Saarinen, a related team of Finnish and American academics
are organizing a major traveling exhibition of his work, and historian
and critic Jayne Merkel has just published the comprehensive new book Eero Saarinen
(Phaidon). Recently I spoke to Merkel at her home in New York, where we
discussed the life and legacy of an architect that history finally
seems to be recognizing.
Paul Makovsky: Why come out with a book on Eero Saarinen now?
Jayne Merkel: Along with Louis Kahn and Frank Lloyd Wright,
Saarinen was easily one of the most important American architects of
the twentieth century. His work represents the time he lived and worked
in. During the postwar period there was a great sense of optimism and a
belief in technology making things better. The disillusionment with the
Vietnam War created a loss of faith and doubt, so Saarinen's work
didn't mean so much to people--they just didn't get it.
PM: Prior to writing the book you went on an extensive tour of
Saarinen's buildings. Had you already developed an argument about his
work at that point, or did it come later?
JM: It came gradually, and I'm still figuring it out. The
question I started with was, Why was Eero's work--so important during
its time--forgotten? Part of it had to do with the changing times; part
of it was because he wasn't alive to complete some of his buildings.
Post-Modernism was a reaction to technology, and largely a fear of it.
There were people--some New Urbanists still do this--who argued that
Modern buildings weren't symbolic and concerned with context. Well,
Saarinen's buildings were symbolic and concerned with context. During
the 1990s we got excited about technology again, and here was this man
who had done high-tech-looking architecture many years before.
Saarinen's furniture has become stylish again because it embodies that
sense of the future.
PM: Who did you interview?
JM: I started with Irwin Miller, a great client. I interviewed
Saarinen's former employees, such as Glen Paulsen, David Powrie, and
Ralph Rapson. I interviewed Dan Kiley before he died, and spent an
afternoon with Frank Stanton in Boston. My best interview was probably
with Gene Festa, who brought Saarinen back to life in so many ways.
Robert Venturi had a very poor experience working in Saarinen's studio,
where he designed a few things that were never used. It was a bad fit.
I had many conversations with Shu Knoll [Florence Knoll Bassett], who
really seemed to care that this book be written and that Eero be
remembered.
PM: But Saarinen also had his detractors?
JM: Particularly the British, who hated his U.S. embassy in
London because it wasn't Wild West enough and they wanted something
bolder. But that was a time when our government was saying, "We want to
fit in!" Philip Johnson, who certainly didn't try to help Saarinen,
said things about him like, "He had all the good jobs" and "We all
followed him"--but not when he was alive. Though Saarinen had this
great start in life--because his father was a great teacher with all
these connections--people were jealous of him. One of the things I was
happiest to learn was that he just worked harder than everybody else.
PM: Saarinen's process was interesting. Instead of coming up
with one solution, he would try every possibility. He did that with the
TWA terminal too, didn't he?
JM: All the people in his office, except the secretary, were
doing design. With the St. Louis Arch and London embassy projects, they
would redo it again and again. Saarinen was this sort of Energizer
Bunny. For the TWA terminal he came back and said to the client that he
needed more time--and took an extra year! Most architects would have
been fired. Saarinen's gift was to inspire clients--not just convince
them to build something good but make them into aficionados and
cheerleaders for architecture. He pushed clients like Irwin Miller, and
got them excited. At the same time Miller rejected eight or nine of
Saarinen's schemes, but he just kept coming back. Most architects today
aren't confident enough to do that, or they just move on to the next
project. There are so many positive lessons here.
PM: And I think with Miller there was a sympathetic cause.
JM: Modernism was a cause. It wasn't just about how it worked or
how it functioned. All these corporations really went out of their way
to get Saarinen, and they did what he asked them--and every single one
of their buildings has been kept up exquisitely. His hockey rink is
still in very good shape, and it has needed very little maintenance,
unlike the buildings of Kahn and Rudolph. Saarinen's buildings held up
because of the way they were built, the level of technological
finishing. He invented a new material or technology for almost every
building he designed.
PM: Give me some examples.
JM: At General Motors a neoprene gasket was developed for the
windows. Saarinen also learned from his clients. At the IBM factory
building they made a thinner wall panel (5/16 of an inch rather than
the 21/2 inches used at GM), and at the John Deere headquarters, he
experimented with Cor-Ten steel, which had been used for railroads but
not architecture.
PM: And for the TWA terminal Saarinen used the little circular tiles that he could form sculpturally.
JM: The tiles and the mortar form the curves everywhere; square
tiles wouldn't work. In a way the TWA terminal is Saarinen's pedestal
chair turned into a building. He also started using reflective glass.
He used it to reflect the landscape with the IBM Watson building, in
Yorktown Heights, New York. Bell Labs--one of the first uses of fully
mirrored glass--reflected the landscape and made the building
disappear. At CBS Saarinen pioneered a structure where the building is
supported on the core and the periphery, allowing for totally open-plan
offices.
PM: Some people consider the GM Technical Center Saarinen's best work. Is there one building that you consider his masterpiece?
JM: I certainly don't think it's GM because it's at an
automobile scale--and I'm a person, not a Chevrolet--though it looks
fabulous in pictures. It's between the John Deere headquarters, in
Moline, Illinois, and the TWA terminal. And the hockey rink at Yale is
quite wonderful. The North Christian Church, in Columbus, Indiana, is
brilliant and original--and if you go to the Midwest, you'll see
hundreds of imitations--but it doesn't move me the way the MIT chapel
does.
PM: Some designers have said that working in Saarinen's studio
was a great experience. Niels Diffrient, who's designed award-winning
ergonomic chairs, and Balthazar Korab, who became a great photographer,
both worked there.
JM: Gunnar Birkerts, Cesar Pelli, and Kevin Roche all worked in
Saarinen's studio, where there was this sense of mission. When the firm
decided to move from Michigan to Connecticut, almost everybody went,
which meant uprooting their families. This was an office where everyone
worked ten- to twelve-hour days because they felt it was so important
to finish Saarinen's work. So most people worked at what was still Eero
Saarinen and Associates, and by the time they finished the last
projects the firm became Roche Dinkeloo.
PM: What did you learn from Saarinen by writing the book?
JM: Part of it is a confirmation that although people have
extraordinary talent and opportunities it's really about working harder
than everyone else, about doing it again and again and again. There is
much to be said for reinventing the rules of the game each time. Most
famous architects have figured out something, like Mies did--or like
Wright did three or four times in his long life. Saarinen's approach
was about program, and he started as if he'd never built anything
before: "This is what the client needs. These are the institution's
physical constraints. This is what the site is. This is what the
institution does."
PM: What do you think about his work now, three years after touring his buildings?
JM: I realize how deep the variety of his building went, how it
was about the place of the building on the land, getting the right
functions and materials, and getting all the right people together so
that Saarinen, his staff, and the engineers could--he was like a
maestro--play together. Saarinen did research on every level, whether
it was technological or sociological. It's that very belabored and
hardworking process of doing it over and over again.
PM: There’s also a very sad element to his life.
JM: Oh, it’s tragic. Here’s this man who’s had every
opportunity, with extraordinary talent, and then gets a brain tumor at
51 years old.
PM: And the critical recognition isn’t there.
JM: He always assumed if you did good work and had talent, you’d
have the recognition, which he didn’t get. I hope people read this book
because he deserves this recognition and there are so many lessons to
be learned.
PM: There are also some incredible moments in his life, such as
when the Saarinens thought that Eliel won the St. Louis gateway Arch
competition and it turned out Eero had won.
JM: Yes, the telegram came for “Mr. Saarinen” and when they got
the letter it was actually addressed to Eero. So they had a toast all
over again, because if you’re the father, you win either way.
PM: What did you uncover about Pipsan Saarinen?
JM: I think Eero’s talented sister, Pipsan, got shafted a bit.
She married a businessman that her parents didn’t approve of and Eero
often argued with. Eero wanted to do great buildings and this guy
wanted to run a sensible firm and pay the bills. Eero’s mother, Loja,
would say that Pipsan took her work too seriously, while Loja herself
worked overtime. But they did favor Eero, and though his sister had a
hard time, she did have a wonderful career, made wonderful furniture,
and had a wonderful marriage. It’s not that it wasn’t a good life.
PM: Eero and Pipsan collaborated on some projects where she did the interiors.
JM: Yes, particularly when they were quite young, but her
aesthetic was different than Eero’s. Shu Knoll and Eero were more on
the same wavelength. Pipsan’s was different: glitzy but not as
high-tech. Eero and Shu’s collaboration for the interiors at the GM
Tech Center are among the best interiors, and it’s a mesh of their two
talents. I love those chairs that Eero did, but also the other
furniture that Shu did for the space. It was really a hand-in-glove
collaboration.
