The architectural direction of post-storm New Orleans has been hotly debated. On one side, proto-modernists that saw Katrina as an opportunity to plant the seeds of contemporary design in the historical city soil. On the other, preservationists who vowed to impede the "advancements" of modernity at every turn. Thus far, the latter is far ahead in both achievement and public support. Among this group are the New Urbanists; a quirky lot that consider themselves to be social and cultural champions and see New Orleans as the ultimate proving ground for their theories (a run-down of which can be found at http://www.cnu.org/ ). The New Urbanist community is responsible for River Garden Apartments in the Lower Garden District, the new DW Cooper housing development in Central City, many of the proposed "goals" in the city's new Master Plan and indeed most new residential construction in the region. Few deny that the venerable (and not so venerable) past of this region should be remembered and occasionally honored, especially considering the lucrative tourism industry that it cultivates. However, there are dozens of incredibly troubling flaws in this philosophy and in the direction of architectural development in our beloved New Orleans. One of the chiefs of this direction is one Andres Duany. Designer of Seaside, FL and one of the founders of the Congress of New Urbanism, he gives a face to the impending future of the city's urban fabric. A few months ago I had an interesting cyber-confrontation with the Honorable Mr. Duany, ESQ. It began with my reaction to an interview that can be found at http://www.nola.com/timespic/
Colin VanWingen:
(February 1st, 2009, 11:33 am) I've just read [Blending In] on nola.com and I must say that I am absolutely appalled at your ego. I am an architecture student in New Orleans and I have been dealing with the clichéd architectural ego most of my life but for you to assert yourself as an expert in this city's wants and needs from your cushy office in Miami strikes a new low chord. I am by no means a "modern architect," as you put it, but to be so foolish as to believe that quickly contrived, shoddily constructed, overpriced replicas are what is best for the sustainability of OUR city is, to be perfectly blunt, stupid. New Orleanians detest change but that does not mean we are stupid enough to accept cheap knock offs of a vernacular that was developed over centuries. Your application of it is quite simply the equivalent of putting a Victorian facade on a Wal-Mart. And to criticize Make It Right, which has put New Orleans natives in new homes, as opposed to your construction of EMPTY $269,000 "things that people actually like," further demonstrates the astronomical errors in your philosophies, or at the very least your execution of them. It is projects like this, as well as your now infamous Seaside project, that have taken the New Urbanism idea, initially a good one, and turned it into the most destructive force in the urban environment since high Modernism. Unfortunately, I'm sure that at 59 years old you are far too gone to ever take the, as I'm sure you'll call them, "naive musings of an idealist student" seriously. Hell, I doubt whatever secretary or intern collects this message even has the gall to ascend your tower and deliver it. At least my conscience will be clean as I watch you lead us all into Walt Disney's oblivion.Andres Duany:
(February 1st, 2009, 12:55 pm) I love your testosterone level!! Why don't you invite me to Tulane and we will have a good long discussion among your faculty and peers. I bet you won't. Your type of architecture student is usually a paper tiger. And the faculty is terrified of me. They won't let you.CV:
(February 2nd, 2009, 11:52 am) Your reduction of my concern for the future of the city in which I live to a hormonal outburst further illustrates your troubling insensitivity to the needs of the region. I must admit, however, that I did misjudge you by assuming you would not read, let alone respond to, my message. I am not unimpressed. Unfortunately, while my judgment of your ego had some widely published data as its foundation, your assessment of me and my motivation has absolutely no ground. Sir, I am no "paper tiger." I will be meeting with our dean this week to see if we can fit you in. Tulane, however, seems to choose its lecturers based on potential for education as opposed to confrontation, so you may be right; they may not let me. And I personally think that if there is indeed terror inspired by you here, it is quite justified. I think you may have confused terror for bemused annoyance, however. But please, enough name calling and insult hurling (if you must fit a few more in as a response to mine, I understand). I would much rather engage in some honest, academic debate over the merits of your application of this particular brand of New Urbanism in New Orleans. If your up for it, of course.AD:
(February 2nd, 2009, 12:54 pm) At least your writing skill is evident. As for your architectural propositions I am retaining an open mind till I see them. And regarding my insensitivity to YOUR New Orleans--permit me to inform you that I have been studying this city continuously since at least a decade BEFORE you were born, and that I am willing to compare in public my knowledge of the city, present and past, with that of ANY of your faculty members.Disclosure: I own a house in The Marigny and I did three major charrettes for the Recovery.
Second disclosure: as a Cuban and a Caribbean, I may be more culturally sympathetic, intrinsically, than your proximity to the Great Lakes. (am I presuming erroneously?)
The real proof however is in the ideas. I will send you an essay from Metropolis to that may change your mind about my state of ignorance of OUR beloved city.
John Anderson:
(February 2nd, 2009, 1:14 pm) Education over confrontation? I recall watching Tulane students get hazed and pummeled in crits during the production of "Architecture School".CV:
(February 2nd, 2009, 3:28 pm) I have not made the mistake of referring to this city as solely my own. It is indeed OUR city and the entire nation's city. New Orleans occupies a very special place in the public imagination for a variety of reasons, all of which I am sure you are fully aware of. That is why I, TSA, and many others from various backgrounds are so concerned with the architectural, social, cultural and economic recovery and renaissance happening here. While you are correct that being a native Midwesterner of no extraordinary ethnic descent may work against my credibility as a cultural defender, I am a full-time, registered New Orleans resident now and plan to be well into the future. This being fact, I would argue that I have as much invested in this city's return to viability as you do. I do, however, retract any insinuations I may have made that you do not personally or professionally care about New Orleans. It seems clear that you do. I do stand by my assessment that the application of "Seaside" principals to this city is dangerous and demeaning. I look forward to reading your essay in rebuttal to this. As to Mr. Anderson's comment, what architecture schools are you aware of where there is never any excessive and occasionally derogatory critiques during review? I am by no means an expert on the practices of the world's design schools, but I can tell you that the crits here at Tulane are, for better or worse, much more sensitive and non-confrontational than any other school in my background, regardless of what impression you may have gotten from Sundance. As I see this exchange is now being passed on to a few other destinations, please feel free to send anyone who cares to contribute my e-mail address so they can contact me directly if they so choose. I will also begin formatting one of my proposals for infill, urban housing in New Orleans that I think may begin to address the issues of affordability and contextual and cultural sensitivity. I look forward to your comments.AD:
(February 2nd, 2009, 3:36 and 3:48 pm) Finally, a civilized dialogue. Essay to come. . . You cannot know what Seaside is without spending a day or two.. Urbanism is not available from photographs, and it is not about aesthetics. If you had the time I could find a place for you to stay. Between Seaside, Alys Beach and Rosemary Beach (our three communities near each other) there is probably more and better MODERN architecture than in the entirety of New Orleans--indeed in Louisiana. Did you know that? Does the faculty know that? Remain ignorant at your professional peril.From Metropolis, November 2006:
RESTORING THE REAL NEW ORLEANS by Andres Duany
Like so many others, I have long been a visitor to New Orleans. In my case, since 1979, when we studied the city to influence the design of the new town of Seaside. I have been back often--for New Orleans is one of the best places to learn architecture and urbanism in the United States. My emphasis on design might seem unusual, but it shouldn't be, for the design of New Orleans is of a quality and character comparable to the music and the cuisine that receives most of the attention.
All those visits, I regret to admit that I did not get to know the people--not really. The New Orleanians I met were doing their jobs but not necessarily being themselves. Such is the experience of the tourist. This all changed when Katrina brought me back in the role of planner. Engaging the planning process brought me face to face with the reality.
Apart from the misconceptions of the tourist, I had also been predisposed by the media to think of New Orleans in a certain way: that was as a charming, but lackadaisical and fundamentally misgoverned place that had been subjected to unwarranted devastation, with a great deal of anger and resentment as a result. That is indeed what I found at first; but as I engaged in the planning process I came to realize that the anger that I witnessed was relative. It was much less, for example, than the bitterness that one encounters in the typical California city with nothing more than traffic gripes. The people of New Orleans have an underlying sweetness, a sense of humor, and irony, and graciousness that is never far below the surface. These were not hard people.
Pondering this one day, I had an additional insight. I remember specifically then on a street in the Marigny I came upon a colorful little house framed by banana trees. I thought, "This is Cuba," (I am Cuban). I realized in that instant that New Orleans is not really an American city, but rather a Caribbean one. I understood that when seen through the lens of the Caribbean, New Orleans is not among the most haphazard, poorest or misgoverned American cities, but rather the most organized, wealthiest, cleanest, and competently governed of the Caribbean cities. This insight was fundamental because from that moment I understood New Orleans and began to truly sympathize. But even government? Like everyone, I found government in this city to be a bit random; but then I thought that if New Orleans were to be governed as efficiently as, say, Minneapolis, it would be a different place-and not one that I could care for. Let me work with the government the way it is. It is the human flaw that makes New Orleans the most human of American cities. (New Orleans came to feel so much like Cuba that I was driven to buy a house in the Marigny as a surrogate for my inaccessible Santiago de Cuba.)
When understood as Caribbean, New Orleans' culture seems ever more precious--and vulnerable to the effects of Katrina. Anxiety about cultural loss is not new. There has been a great deal of anguish regarding the diminishment of the black population, and how without it New Orleans could not regain itself. Just so. But I fear that the situation is more dire and less controllable. I am afraid that even if the majority of the population does return to reinhabit its neighborhoods, it will not mean that New Orleans, or at least the culture of New Orleans, will be back. The reason is not political, but technical. You see, the lost housing of New Orleans is quite special. Entering the damaged and abandoned houses you can still see what they were like before the hurricane. These houses were exceedingly inexpensive to live in. They were houses that were hand built by people's parents and grandparents, or by small builders paid in cash or by barter. Most of these simple, pleasant, houses were paid off. They had to be, because they do not meet any sort of code, and are therefore not mortgageable by current standards.
I think that it was possible to sustain the culture unique to New Orleans because housing costs were minimal. These houses liberated people from debt. One did not have to work a great deal to get by. There was the possibility of leisure. There was time to create the fabulously complex Creole dishes that simmer forever; there was time to practice music, to play it live rather than from recordings, and time to listen to it. There was time to make costumes and to parade; there was time to party and to tell stories; there was time to spend all day marking the passing of friends. One way to leisure time is to have a low financial carry. With a little work, a little help from the government, and a little help from family and friends-life could be good! This is a typically Caribbean social contract: not one to be understood as laziness or poverty-but as a way of life.
This ease, which has been so misunderstood in the national scrutiny following the hurricane, is the Caribbean way. It is a lifestyle choice and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. In fact, it is the envy of some of us who work all our lives to attain the condition of leisure only after retirement.
It is this way of living that will disappear. Even with the Federal funds for new housing, there is little chance of new or renovated houses will be owned without debt. It is too expensive to build now. If nothing else, the higher standards of the new International Building Code are superb, but also very expensive. There must be an alternative or there will be very few "paid off" houses. Everyone will have a mortgage, which will need to be sustained by hard work- and it is this that will undermine the culture of New Orleans.
What can be done? Somehow the building culture that created the original New Orleans must be reinstated. The hurdle of drawings, permitting, contractors, inspections-the professionalism of it all- eliminates self-building. Somehow there must be a process whereupon people can build simple, functional houses for themselves, either by themselves, or by barter with professionals. There must be free house designs that can be built in small stages, and that do not require an architect, complicated permits or inspections; there must be common- sense technical standards. Without this, there will be the pall of debt for everyone. And debt in the Caribbean doesn't mean owing money- it is the elimination of the culture that arises from leisure.
To start, I would recommend an experimental "opt-out zone." Areas where one "contracts out" of the current American system, which consists of the nanny-state raising standards to the point that it is so expensive and complicated to build that only the nanny state can provide affordable housing-solving a problem that the state created in the first place. However it may sound, this proposal is not so odd. Until recently, this was the way that built America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. For three centuries Americans built for themselves. They built well enough-so long as it was theirs. Individual responsibility could be trusted. We must return to this as an option. Of course, this is not for everybody. There are plenty of people in New Orleans who undergo the conventional American eight-hour day. But the culture of this city does not flow from them; they may provide the backbone of New Orleans, but not its heart.
CV:
(February 3rd, 2009, 12:04 pm) Your essay is very touching. I myself have had similar "awakenings" in this city, as I believe most that stay here for more than the duration of a vacation tend to. I have even from time to time reminded my Midwestern counterparts that I do not live in the "deep south" but in the "northern Caribbean" (I believe that is a paraphrasing of a Jimmy Buffett quote). I agree whole-heartedly that the "leisure culture" that draws so many visitors and indeed new residents like myself must be preserved and considered sacred. However, you must not confuse the light hearted, open armed mentality of this city with an inability to work hard. The traditional 9 to 5 job and its accompanying paycheck would indeed undermine the spirit of many New Orleanians. But those same individuals have proved incredibly industrious in their development of New Orleans agricultural traditions, its cuisine, its folk art, its music (the only truly "American" art form), and the built environment that you cite in your essay. In addition, the tradition of more standard industry and production in New Orleans reaches back in history as far as any other traditions. To suggest that the same peoples that gave so much culturally to this city had no hand in its antebellum industriousness is incorrect. Also, do not forget that it is the "leisure culture" of New Orleans, not its middle class or its aristocracy, that have made the most resounding battle crys of resurrection.You also speak of accepting the troubled government as it is and working within it. First, do not forget that it is that same troubled government that nearly saw to the end of New Orleans and this debate altogether back in the summer of 2005. I believe it was Albert Einstein that said something along the lines that "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Second, your proposal of "opting out" is not working within that system as you suggest. While I agree that there are many layers of bureaucracy that make it often far too expensive to build anew, opting out also removes the citizen from the aid and access to resources that does exist. Perhaps a better proposal is one that rethinks the construction process, replacing it with a more organic, individually sustainable means of building equity and wealth for one's family. I understand that the idea of "equity" may seem counter to the at times anarchic spirit here, but equity is indeed what was lost by the families that had owned their plot for generations. Please see my attached project for more details.
Finally, it is agreed that a key component of the overall strategy to retain the traditional cultural values of New Orleans is the preservation of the aesthetic that represents them. Preservation is not the same as replication, however. There is no need to manufacture history and culture in New Orleans as there was in Seaside. History permeates from every pore of this city and the ubiquitous image of the New Orleans shotgun that you are mimicking is not the only layer. There is a long, honorable history of building within the present epoch in New Orleans. Yes, the Bywater, Treme, Central City, Irish Channel, and Lower Garden Districts are chock full of the shotguns and camelbacks that are being replicated. But the Vieux Carre was constructed under colonial European supervision and shows it. The mansions of the Garden District came much later as a response to exclusion from the French Quarter. The warehouse district represents many layers of 19th century industry driven architecture (and the 21st century reprogramming of it) while the central business district abounds in Modernism and the occasional patch of Post-Modernism (see the Piazza Italia). The Lakeside neighborhood, also devastated during Katrina, is the site for thousands of prototypical, post WWII, suburban style homes that can be found throughout Americana. To criticize the efforts of contemporary architects for building contemporarily is to criticize a New Orleans tradition as deeply ingrained as your "leisure culture." Let's set that aside however and assume that replication is in fact the best, most affordable way to maintain the cultural aspects of the city's urban fabric and to bring people back in their own homes. There is no way you can honestly believe that the construction of $269,000 houses and $1,300 rental properties fits into your image of New Orleans. That may be a bargain in southern Florida, but here it is an outrageous attempt at "affordable housing." I have been boisterously critical of the URBANbuild program at this school for selling $115,000 homes as affordable but next to your project, these are a drop in the proverbial bucket. This is why I say your application of New Urbanist principles in New Orleans has missed the point. The best ideas of New Urbanism, integration of program, connectivity and flow for more walkable cities, and neighborhoods at the scale of the home, already exist here and have for centuries. Perhaps instead of focusing on the replication of an aesthetic, there are far better New Urbanist ideals that this city could actually use that you seem to have forgotten to mention. Ideals like sustainability, mixed income neighborhoods, and density are sorely needed here. Groups like Make It Right and Global Green are addressing these with admittedly arguable success. At least they have made that effort.
CV:
(February 10th, 2009, 3:35 pm) It seems clear that this discussion is not ever going to elevate into the academic debate and intellectual exchange I had hoped for. In my seemingly infinite naiveté, I imagined that there might be some minimum threshold of cerebral capacity in order to achieve your iconic status as an architect. Evidently, I am wrong; all it takes is enough zealotry and stubbornness to convince a few other fools.My attempts at genuine dialogue have clearly been futile. I argued that $270,000 was a bit much to be called affordable housing and you called me hormonal. I argued that your philosophies were out of touch with what New Orleanians truly needed in order to fully recover from the devastation wrought by Katrina and you pointed out that I am a Yankee. I argued that the "Seaside model" had no place here, where history abounds, and you invited me on a weekend retreat. I argued that your separation from the city and its woes rendered you incapable of being honestly empathetic and you "disclosed" that one of your houses is in the Marigny and you held a whopping three charrettes in the city. In response to your essay heralding New Orleans as "Cuba," I argued that your understanding of the people here seemed superficial and demeaning and that they are capable of much more than you seem willing to credit them with. I have yet to hear your response to that and I doubt you have one. You proposed a "new" 18th century economic model to ease the burdens of home mortgage debt on the "leisure culture," while I proposed a 21st century way of developing infill sites in ravaged neighborhoods that seeks to honor the past and the people and move toward a brighter future. I had the documents and research to back up my proposal and I am sure it never made it into your clouded consciousness. Your only response has been to send me an essay that, I am guessing here, was intended to call me a dogmatic modernist treating architecture like religion, incapable of seeing the obvious errors in my philosophy. Well, I guess that since I co-founded a national organization devoted to the advancement of my own personal architectural agenda, you may have a point… Or perhaps I am confusing myself with you.
I believe you saw this exchange as a means to settle some old score with the university I attend and had no idea that you may actually be engaging someone with the answers, or at least the questions, that you lacked or refused to accept. I see now that absolutely no academic good could come of your presence on this campus and I will discourage any such plans that I may have initiated. I began this conversation with an admittedly pointed outburst, but have since attempted to salvage any real discourse that may be of some educational value for this school, this community, and this city. You on the other hand have yet to move beyond superficial thinking and mildly disguised name calling. I ask you, is that the way you prove to me and this city that you understand and care about the future of New Orleans? Because, stupid me, I just don't see your logic… I wash my hands of this weirdness.
