CA Boom Design Show 2009 to be June 26 to 28, 2009

We have a wonderful new venue this year in a beautiful mid-century modern building - the former Robinsons flagship Department Store - Beverly Hills, CA

Now with our 6th Los Angeles show, the CA Boom Design Show continues to be the west’s leading design trade event.

CA Boom Design Show 2009 now has a more convenient and prestigious westside location - adjacent to the Beverly Hilton Hotel - just west of the intersection of Wilshire Blvd and Santa Monica Blvd in Beverly Hills.

Our successful Design & Architecture Tours will be back - with new stops
in Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Westwood & West Los Angeles.

There are lots of new exciting additions to the show you will not want to miss!

Make sure your contact information is current so we can keep you updated on all the amazing new announcements to come.

Mark your calendars June 26-28 for CA Boom Design Show - Beverly Hills!

Why the move to Beverly Hills?

Last year at the Hangar we had to add over 30% additional tented space to handle the unprecedented exhibitor and attendee demand.

Our temporary reuse of the former Robinsons Department Store - which closed in 2006 - gives us a new prestigious and larger westside venue. The move almost doubles the possible exhibit and event space, plus provides us hundreds of additional convenient onsite parking spaces.nal convenient onsite parking spaces.

The Eames House (also known as Case Study House No. 8), is a landmark of mid-20th century modern architecture. It was constructed in 1949 in Pacific Palisades, California (a suburban neighborhood of Los Angeles) by husband-and-wife design pioneers Charles and Ray (Kaiser) Eames, to serve as their home and studio. Unusually for such an avant-garde design, the Eames publicized the house as a thoroughly lived-in, usable, and well-loved home. While many icons of the modern movement are depicted as stark, barren spaces devoid of human use, photographs and motion pictures taken at the Eames house reveal a richly decorated, almost cluttered space full of thousands of books, art objects, artifacts, and charming knick-knacks as well as dozens of projects in various states of completion. The Eames’ gracious live-work lifestyle continues to be an influential model.

The design of the house was proposed by Charles and Ray as part of the famous Case Study House program for John Entenza’s Arts and Architecture magazine. The idea of a Case Study house was to hypothesize a modern household, elaborate its functional requirements, have an esteemed architect develop a design that met those requirements using modern materials and construction processes, and then to actually build the home. The houses were documented before, during and after construction for publication in Arts and Architecture. The Eames’ proposal reflected their own household and their own needs; a young married couple wanting a place to live, work and entertain in one undemanding setting in harmony with the site.

A site near the coast in Pacific Palisades, on a wooded bluff that was once part of Will Rogers’ large estate, was selected. The design was first sketched out by Charles Eames with fellow architect Eero Saarinen in 1945 as a raised steel and glass box projecting out of the slope and spanning the entrance drive before cantilevering dramatically over the front yard. The structure was to be constructed entirely from “off-the-shelf” parts available from steel fabricators catalogs. Immediately after the war, though, these parts were in very short supply. By the time the materials arrived three years later, much pre-construction time had been spent picnicking at and exploring the lot where the house would stand. After a period of intense collaboration between the Charles and Ray, the scheme was radically changed to sit more quietly in the land and avoid impinging upon the pleasant meadow that fronted the house.

The new design tucked the house sidelong into the slope, with an 8 foot (2.4 meter) tall by 200 foot (60 meter) long concrete retaining wall on the uphill side. A mezzanine level was added, making use of a prefabricated spiral stair that was to have been the lower entrance. The upper level holds the bedrooms and overlooks the double-height living room. A courtyard was also introduced, separating the residence from the studio space. This revised scheme required only one additional beam. The 17 foot (5.1 meter) tall facade is broken down into a rigidly geometric, almost Mondrianesque composition of brightly colored panels between thin steel columns and braces, painted black. The entry door is marked with a gold-leaf panel above. An existing row of eucalyptus trees was preserved along the exposed wall of the house, providing some shading and a visual contrast with the house’s bold facade.

Of the twenty-five Case Study Houses built, the Eames house is considered the most successful both as an architectural statement and as a comfortable, functional living space. The brash sleekness of the design made it a favorite backdrop for fashion shoots in the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps the proof of its success in fulfilling its program is the fact that it remained at the center of the Eames’ life and work from the time they moved in (Christmas Eve, 1949) until their deaths.

The Eames’ family maintains the house as an occasional residence. They have overseen the conservation of the structure and have preserved Charles and Ray’s collections and decor. The studio is used for the continuing work of the Eames Office.

References

Steele, James (1994). Eames House: Charles & Ray Eames (Architecture in Detail). London & New York: Phaidon. ISBN 0-7148-4212-5.
Smith, Elizabeth A. T. (1989). Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of the Case Study Houses. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-69213-9.

Eames Foundation Official site

Flickr set of photos of this home - photos above from here

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

There is a certain appeal about re-purposing an iconic cog in the machinery of globalization and international trade. Yes, I am indeed talking about every architecture students favorite play toy the ISO shipping container. The ATC (All Terrain Cabin) designed by the Canadian design collective BARK, is a great new design for a standard 20 foot shipping container unfolding to reveal nearly 500 sq ft of mobile modern magnificence. Just look at the smile on her face – she loves it.

Using shipping containers to build houses is nothing new. Designers like Adam Kalkin and LOT-EK have long been making bloggers and Dwell readers ponder if they can squeeze into a 20’x8’ steel box or configure several like big-kid Legos to make their dream home. The ATC has found very creative ways to get around some of the classic design challenges of ISO containers – mainly space and mobility.

Both of the long sides fold down tripling the usable floor space and opening the interior to the outside environment, blurring the lines between in and out. There is a canvass cover for the rear fold down that is reminiscent of Yellowstone canvass tent-cabins. Storage is set above a queen sized futon in the “tent” area. The white canvass provides nicely diffused sunlight for reading and relaxing after a serious session of mountain biking or birding. The front also folds down to reveal a full wall of glass doors opening to a wood floor deck created by the sidewall of the container. A modern minimalist kitchen and bathroom with nice not-at-all-like-an-RV furnishings make this small structure feel like home (and a little like a fort too). There is enough room to be comfortable no matter what the weather and can accommodate a family of four although it is probably better for a couple.

The unit folds up and looks pretty much like any other shipping container you might see on a truck, train, or ship. This is a part of their design goal – to allow the unit to be moved to any location that the owner might want. It could even be helicopter lifted to an ultra remote location and dropped onto simple footings. All you need to do is fold it open and maybe pick up a couple of things that shifted during transport. Then hop on your bike or ATV and use this ATC as a hub for all your outdoors activities.

Although the ATC was designed and built with a “hey world - look what Canada can do” mindset, they really hit on something here. There are a number of purposes for which this could be used; remote cabins, camps, hotels etc. They did however completely miss the mark when they decided to not bring this model to market. At this point this is only a showpiece of Canadian design ingenuity. Too bad because a number of people out there would buy this is a second if it was available.

So why use shipping containers and not some purpose built shell? A number of reasons come to mind other than it is just cool. First it is inherently green to reuse a scrap yard destined structure with so much embodied energy. It took a lot of time and resources to dig up the steel, melt it, and form it into a usable structure. Second, because of the massive trade deficit between the US and China there is a glut of used ISO containers at many ports. It seems that it is cheaper to dig up more steel and make a new one in China than ship an empty one back. Because we are shipping so much more stuff from China than to China, there is a constant surplus. Because of this surplus the third and most appealing reason ISO’s are attractive is that they are cheap. In many ports you can buy one and have it delivered for less than $2000. I will write about other shipping container homes in the future, but please post here in our forum about any modern style container homes or other prefab structures.

The All Terrain Cabin is a great purpose built prefab structure for a vacation home, especially if your land is way out there and you need an off grid solution. While this model is not available for purchase, I am sure there will be copy-cat designs that will be. My guess is that you could buy something like this for between $50k and $90k with a full solar system adding some to that. So get to it designers and architects – we want one!

The Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs designed by the architect Fay Jones is a remarkable building. The chapel and the site reminds me of Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp, especially in its intimacy with the forest. While I sat on one of the pews, contemplating the splendor of this edifice, classical music (from a CD player) that softly filled the interior was stopped. What followed was the beginning of another type of music - the sound of silence. Of course it wasn’t totally silent. I could hear the rustle of leaves near by, and the wind; yet the harmony of the diagonal purlins, the transparency of the windows looking intimately into the forest and the whimsical play of light seeping into the interior to form patterns; created a sound more compelling than the classical music played earlier. Someone once said that “Architecture is music in solid form” and here was the evidence.

The Thorncrown Chapel also lends credence to the idea that ‘lack’ shapes creativity - the church had trouble raising the finances to build the chapel and all the building materials were delivered to the site by hand. Fay Jones created a jewel within the forest in two ways. First, the chapel stands out totally demanding all visual attention from onlookers and second, paradoxically , the chapel is a prism through which the beauty of the forest and nature can be admired. It is not a stretch to say that the Thorncrown chapel supports a theology where nature and the divine are intertwined.

Yet for all the chapel’s glory, I can’t help thinking that it’s mystery is compromised by its transparency. The chapel is too open. For a religion like Christianity that thrives on mystery and a gradual unveiling of revealed truths, the lightness of the chapel seems to be at odds with its creed. Part of what makes us human is the desire to attain rewards slowly. Medieval literature abounds with tales of young men arduously trying to win the favor of young damsels to no avail. Instead of being discouraged they persist, relishing in the hunt. The Thorncrown chapel reveals its splendour too quickly.

Perhaps the lightness of the Thorncrown chapel is a reflection of our society’s desire for immediate answers.

There is a famous house by a famous architect that I find intellectually beautiful.  That I would be honestly thrilled to own.  Because to me it’s a piece of art.  But where do we draw the line between art and architecture?

Now the home I am talking about has always caused a stir.   Dr. Farnsworth, the owner herself,  signed off on the project every step of the way.  She had wanted a weekend home.  But when it was done Dr. Farnsworth was less then happy. The architect Mies Van Der Rohe said “Less is more.”  She responded that “We know that less is not more.  It is simply less!”

In fact she wasn’t less then happy - she was enraged.  She took it to court.  She took it to the press. She started a major American debate.  Now, it was the ’50’s, oh excuuuuse me - “mid-century”, so of course some folks had to throw in the idea that the house was communistic, and we are talking RED SCARE here not Hippy-Trippy.

What I find remarkable is that the architect was amazed she didn’t like it.  Seems he had never meant it for any kind of real family living.  Mies took this work, he thought she believed in, and created not so much as a home but a pure idea of what is architecture. He wanted to minimalize it to its barest bones - to bring architecture he said, “to almost nothing.”

What do you think?  Was it much ado about nothing?  Is it beautiful?  I can find some serious faults with it just looking at it and I know of some more I’ve read about it.

So I agree that some ideas can be art.  But Art in 3D doesn’t mean it’s good architecture.

Please please please — if you don’t know the house look it up.  It’s a jewel and you can see that it really influenced our idea of what a home should be.  But mostly I’d like to hear what YOU THINK.  The debate about this house has never ended — some come on jump in the fray!

photo from: (official national trust historic site)

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/index.htm

Could Gehry have paid significant attention to Expressionism in school ? And if he did, was it a conscious or subconscious attempt to stem the tide of Expressionism’s waning influence in the field of architecture?

Gehry’s architecture resembles Expressionist Architecture not only in architectural form, but in ’spirit.’ Expressionist Architecture has been defined as a manifestation of an  ’eruption of the soul’ (Theodor Daubler) and the sensuous curves of buidlings like Guggenheim Bilbao and the Walt Disney Concert Hall protray that.

Frank Gehry may or may not agree with my premise, but anyone familiar with the Expressionist Architecture that flourished in Europe in the early part of the twentieth century will agree that Frank Gehry’s architecture is the bastion of Expressionist Architecture in this century.

Architects are trained to be students of architectural history and the sculptural forms of Expressionist Architecture would catch the fancy of any architectural student with an artistic bent. (I loved the sculptural forms of Erich Mendelsohn’s Einstein Tower and made a bas relief of it as a class project).

In an interview on the PBS program; the Charlie Rose Show; Frank Gehry revealed in passing, that he listens to a lot of classical music. This prompted Charlie Rose to ask if classical music influences Gehry’s work, to which Gehry replied “I don’t know, I guess it (architectural concept) comes out of it.”

Of course many factors influence architectural form, but it is not a stretch to say that the intervals of rest and movement in classical music - not to mention its harmonic form and abilty to describe inner human feelings; have influenced Gehry’s work also.

Expressionism and Music are like that inseparable old couple who complete each other and can’t be alone. The German word ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ which means ‘total work of art’ has been used to describe Expressionist architecture and Richard Wagner’s music. Both these inspire people to think of the totality of human experience.

The Walt Disney Hall dramatizes the musical performances  that take place within it. Guggenheim Bilbao seems to be in communion with art pieces that are displayed there.

Expressionist Architecture was a breath of fresh air in a stifling environment filled with utilitarian architecture. Perhaps the popularity of Frank Gehry’s work indicates that though utillitarian architecture may be functional, we need beauty and the freedom to express ourselves.

Like any other art, architecture must be experienced before one can write adequately about it.  Bruce Goff designed many remarkable buildings but I will comment on one of two I have visited and why I think, his work needs to be revisited.

Bruce Goff - a child prodigy who started working in an architectural firm at the age of twelve was the Dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Oklahoma in the 1950s. His creative spirit looms large in that school where his remarkable architectural renderings and those of his students hang on the walls around the College. Like Frank Lloyd Wright, he took pride in drawing and saw the art of drawing as part of the architecture that would take shape. Nowadays, I fear drawing is seen as a means to an end. Like the ancients who created myth, Goff saw drawing as a vehicle to articulate our humanity. The purpose of myth was not to give an historical account of heroes but rather to try to articulate the inexhaustible dealings and feelings of people. It is to Bruce Goff’s credit that he had the skill to translate his ‘dealings and feelings’ from drawings into architecture.

The Pollock House in Oklahoma City, reveals a mastery of color, light, space, illusion and materials. Like Gaudi and Wright, Bruce Goff had a profound respect for nature and local materials. Like Frank Gehry, he was a sponge that soaked Classical music and was inpired by Balinese artistic traditions and the Pollock Hosue reflects this. Spaces flow into other spaces. Mirrors deceptively create greater depth in the rooms. Like repetition in music which sustains a moment and creates a sort of infinity of that moment, the enlargement of the rooms by the mirrors challenge the certitude that three dimensional space is all exists.

The pool and the sound of water flowing recalls Feng Shui and an Eastern reverence for nature and stillness. His daring cantilevered roofs show a disdain for conventions and throw down a gauntlet at gravity.

He had a fascination with a blue-green color - some of his other buildings have bluish-green stones.

People are trying to conserve a lot of his buildings.

Neither he or his work should be forgotten.

“Lightness” is a word I have heard in more interviews of Modern Architects than any other. For a long time, I grappled with what this phrase meant. Then I visited the Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth Texas. Images and articles do not do this building justice. This building must be experienced.

Apart from Light or “Lightness” another word that came to my mind as I walked through the museum was “spiritual.” I could not help but feel that there I had stepped out of finite time into eternity.

Modern Architects have understood the power of light to shape architectural form, tease our senses of perception and also to symbolize other metaphysical ideas.

Expressionist Architects thought that crystals, white and glass symbolized spiritual realities. Many religions have categorized white as a color of peace, purity and holiness.

Louis Kahn used the colors of grey and white in a marvelous way at the Kimbell Museum. The concrete vaults and walls are austere and give the building a solemnity that is not depressive but serious. The light shone on the concrete from florescent tubes symbolize a clear understanding and illumination of something - to be honest I’m not sure of what, but I just felt I knew something that I didn’t know before. (Colors and art can have that effect on you). Le Corbusier’s chapel at Ronchamp has the same effect on visitors. (The chapel is also white).

The austerity of the concrete helps the light showcase its revelatory power. Light is fully appreciated when it illuminates something that has been stripped to its essence. This is why Light and Modern Architecture make such good bedfellows.

But Light not only reveals - it is mysterious. What do I mean by ‘mysterious?.’ Mysterion - the greek word from which the English word was derived from, is defined as a slow ‘revealer’ of things. The Kimbell Museum had that effect on me. Through the interplay of the light and form, it slowly revealed to me other ideas. It symbolized these ideas without being an organ of propaganda.

You can say a lot of things about New York City but you can’t say that things don’t happen there.  Cooper Union is today a monument to architecture, so it’s interesting to know that Peter Cooper had an elevator shaft built into the building four years before the first elevator (as we think of a passenger elevator) was built.  Mr. Cooper was that sure that the invention was just around the corner.  He was right, not long after construction Elisha Otis in nearby Yonkers, developed the safety elevator, (this meant you could cut the cable and not immediately go plummeting to your death.) The first one was installed in New York on March 23rd, 1857 four years more or less before the American Civil War.  Cooper had built a round shaft thinking that was the most obvious shape for an elevator, while it turned out not to be so, Otis did design one especially for the building.

In 1987 Howard Pronsky like Cooper, decided to take a risk, he opened the first parking garage condo in Brooklyn.  A lot of people told him he was crazy.  He took the risk and started selling spaces of about 7’6” by 16’6”.  There was a monthly fee for maintenance and an optional fee for transportation back and forth to the garage.  Having lived in the Park Slope neighborhood during some blizzard winters that’s a fee I’d be paying. Currently the garage is still thriving and another condo garage has come to Brooklyn.

Most people seem to think that New Yorkers have no use for cars.  While unarguably lots of New Yorkers don’t even have a driver’s license (which seems odd to people from car dependent cities and states), there seem to be some New Yorkers whose cars mean a lot to them.  The New York Times carried a story during July of 2007 about how much people are willing to pay to be able to have a convenient parking space.  The article quotes Jonathan Miller, an expert in development, real estate and parking spaces, and there he estimated that private spaces are “a fairly rare amenity”, amongst co-ops and condos.  Miller estimated that less then 1 percent have garages. Is it an oxymoron to quote a Futurist who in the past referred to something as a good idea? I wonder this out loud because, for the record, the Futurist Dr. Tomorrow said (on his website under “Volume VII - Lessons From The Future”) that, as real estate investments, buying parking spaces was “a product whose time had come.”

By now you may be wondering what do condos for cars and elevators have in common?  How’s this for the latest new happening in New York – an apartment that comes with it’s own spaces.  The spaces aren’t across the street, in the basement or on another floor; the cars will be parked adjacent to the owner’s apartments.  The architect chosen for the job is also up and coming, she is Sara Logergolo with Selldorf Architects. Sara’s comment on her design is “It’s like suburbia in the sky.” No one is taking a risk here though.  In Manhattan there are people on waiting lists to buy into their building’s garages and to quote the title of the New York Times article “for parking space, the price is right at $225,000.”

488 Broadway in New York City is the location of the first Otis (passenger safety) Elevator.  1857

841 Union Street, Brooklyn NY, 11215 is the site of New York City’s first “Condo Garage”.   Called the Park Slope Garage you can call them at 718 398-0700; I did at 12:30 at night to verify their address.  Because an owner might need something, there is always someone there and the cars are always watched as part of the service.  1987

20 Eleventh on 24th Street in New York will be the location of the first drive in elevators that will take the driver to their own parking space beside their high-rise condo apartment.  To be completed 2008.

Three years ago Daniel Libeskind delivered a lecture titled “Building Places from Memories.” As I watched the webcast, I said to myself, “Modern Architecture has exhausted its limits and become what its tenets cannot support.” What I mean by that is that early proponents of Modern Architecture like Le Corbusier sort to create Architecture that was purely programmatic and functional. Thinking was limited to reasoning and architectural projects were created by “solving the utilitarian needs” of the clients.

But it was extremely refreshing to hear Daniel Libeskind talk about how the integration of reason and sensory experience in Jewish thought has influenced his architecture in such a way that his buildings must be experienced not only with the eyes - but with all the senses. In fact in the lecture he said that just “seeing” architecture is idolatrous.

He talked about numerous projects from the Jewish Museum in Berlin to the proposed Freedom Tower at Ground Zero - stating that they embody his desire for architecture to shrug off its utlitarian role and be something more. He quoted Adolf Loos who said ”in life we have buildings but in death we have Architecture.” Think about that. In other words, Adolf Loos was trying to say that there are many architects who have given up trying to make fantasy a reality. Fantasy will remain in the realm of the dead.

But according to Libeskind, limiting the power of architecture this way, makes us less human. The ability to fantasize makes us human. We have an innate ability to imagine whatever we want and anything that stunts this capacity can be seen as harmful and I would say that utilitarian architecture is in that category.

Imagination springs from memories - of events, myths, experiences and so on. In the Freedom Tower project he talked about visiting the Ground Zero to be inspired by the “voices of the site.” Again and again architects have expressed that the site has a voice which must be listened to. These voices are the wellspring of imagination.

The Freedom Tower’s beauitful searing structure is a symbol of freedom. Perhaps the Statue of Liberty was a source of inspiration for Daniel Libeskind. In the lecture he talked about seeing the statue for the first time on the ship which brought him to America. He said it was hard to describe the feeling he had when he saw the beautiful lady on the horizon. Even as a child he felt that the lady would promise him peace and the environment to fulfil his potential.

His was not just a logical conclusion but a marriage of reason and sensory experience. He should be applauded for attempting to achieve this in his buildings.

To listen to the lecture click on http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/ and look for Daniel Libeskind: Building Places from Memories.