SOME GRAVE OBSERVATIONS

Mausoleum of Big four railroad magnate
Charles Crocker, Mountain View
Cemetery, Oakland, California (c 1888)

Suppose I told you about a marvelous outdoor museum of architecture with full-scale examples of every major building style of the past hundred years? And suppose I told you it’s in a beautiful park-like setting that’s great for picnicking, and that there’s no admission fee, and that thousands of people can be found there every day of the year?

Would it matter to you if just about all of those people were dead? If so, proceed to the Wall Street Journal. Otherwise, read on.

Cemeteries contain some of the most splendid—and overlooked—collections of architecture to be found anywhere. And heaven knows, there are plenty of them around. Every metropolitan area has some venerable and important cemeteries nearby. Near my own home outside San Francisco, for example, is Oakland’s Mountain View Cemetery, laid out—as it were—by the famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted of Central Park fame. Here, a series of hillside mausoleums known as Millionaire’s Row boast the last architectural efforts made on behalf of Charles Crocker of transcontinental railroad fame, F. M. “Borax” Smith, chocolatier Domingo Ghirardelli, and numerous other 19th-century high rollers.  Just down the street is a 1926-vintage columbarium designed by architect Julia Morgan, of Hearst Castle fame.  

Ionic columns grace the miniature Greek temple mausoleum
of the Corby family, Pine Grove Cemetery, Manchester, N.H.
(Image: nutfieldgeneology.com)

The caliber of  structures in this relatively obscure cemetery should give you some inkling of the architectural jewels you’re likely to come across in your own town.  The crypts, monuments, mausoleums, and other structures found in large cemeteries nationwide represent a microcosm of American architectural fashions, including not only the expected Gothic Revival, but also Egyptian and Greek Revival, Romanesque (Richardsonian and otherwise), Victorian, Craftsman, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, and Modern. Here, cheek by jowl, you’ll find pyramids, obelisks, temples, domes, and cathedrals, as well as a more than a few architectural creations that defy description.  Since the main purpose of all these designs is simply to look impressive, they’re about as close to pure architecture as anything you’re likely to encounter.  

Egyptian Revival—an especially popular style for funerary
architecture—taken to the limit at the West Point Cemetery
mausoleum of civil engineer Egbert Viele, West Point, N.Y.
(c. 1902) (Image: Wikipedia Commons)

Should you decide to take a Sunday drive to your local cemetery/architecture museum, here’s some basic terminology: 

A crypt is a chamber for storing bodies, while a mausoleum is a large tomb containing crypts and entered through a doorway. A vault is an underground tomb, or a tomb tunneled into the side of a hill, though it can also refer to a mausoleum whose decoration is limited to the facade only.  A columbarium is a building containing niches for the display of cremated remains. The last is a fairly recent development in funerary architecture, since the practice of cremation did not gain acceptance in America until the late 19th century.     

Even renowned modernist architect Louis Sullivan
is represented in funerary architecture—here by the
Wainwright tomb in St. Lous's Bellefontaine Cemetery.
(c. 1892)

One highly unusual thing about cemetery structures is that, since their occupants aren’t too concerned about planning for the future, they’re practically never remodeled or modernized. Standing row upon row, sheathed in slabs of marble and granite, they stand essentially as they did on the day they were built.  

And despite the thousands of people who occupy these miniature cities of stone, crowds are not a problem. If you love old buildings but can’t stand the hustle and bustle of the usual tourist traps, this is the place for you. Temporarily, I mean.

 

BIG-BOX BUNGLING

A while back, I stopped off at my local “big-box” home-improvement emporium to buy a coupling, a common electrical fitting that costs less than a dollar. As usual, I found myself rooting through a disorganized jumble of products on the shelf, and when I finally tracked down the bin that was supposed to contain the fittings, it was of course empty. Coming away sad and empty-handed once again, I paid a visit to the customer service window to ask when the coupling might be restocked. The clerk peered into his omniscient monitor and informed me:

“The computer says we have eight of them.”

Only after leading him to the scene in real time was I able to convince him that, regardless of what the inventory software might indicate, there were in fact precisely zero couplings in stock. Whether the eight virtual ones in his computer were misplaced, stolen, or had entered another dimension, I didn’t know or care. I just wanted to find out when more real ones would arrive.

“The truck’s coming in tomorrow,” he said, his tone betraying more wishful thinking than certainty. Predictably enough, the parts weren’t there the next day, nor the following day, nor the day after that. In fact, I went back two weeks later and the bin was still empty.

Alas, this experience is par for the course at the big-box home improvement centers. Admittedly, it’s too easy to bash these places, with their perpetually baffled-looking young clerks and inevitable shortfall of exactly the item you’re looking for. And I’ll freely admit that the big-boxes do have redeeming qualities. Their attractive pricing has undoubtedly helped fuel America’s recent home-improvement mania. They’ve also helped acclimate many novice do-it-yourselfers to the often intimidating world of construction by exposing them to a huge range of building products.

But in many equally important ways, the big-box centers have utterly failed the consumer. They’ve dragged both customer service and inventory control down to a new low in the history of retailing, while simultaneously flooding the home-improvement market with second-rate brands from manufacturers especially geared to supply their voracious demand for merchandise. Consumers--myself included--generally seem willing to put up with such shortcomings for the perceived reward of convenience and low prices, but then again, everyone has a limit. I’ve reached mine.

Since the big-boxes are so profitable (the chain I’m referring to reported a 72% increase in profit for the last quarter of 2010), one would think that hiring a few more knowledgeable clerks for a few more dollars an hour might be in the realm of possibility. So would keeping better tabs on the inventory.  Instead, these stores seem to be moving in the opposite direction, with increasing confusion of both employees and inventory.  

While local Mom-and-Pop hardware stores claim they can no longer compete with the vast big-box chains, that’s not quite so: In that old-fashioned realm called service, they blow the doors off the big-boxes, and always have.  While it’s a rare thrill to glean useful information from big-box clerks, those august folks in your local hardware store routinely diplay an almost supernaturally comprehensive knowledge of the field.  

The Mom-and-Pops have one more uncanny trump card I’ve never been able to fathom:  The big-boxes, despite their vast inventories, frequently either don’t carry the item you need, or else have run out of it. Yet more than once, I’ve walked into some musty, twenty-foot-wide old hardware store, asked for a ridiculously esoteric pipe fitting, and had the clerk nonchalantly reply: “Over there by the window.”

Big-boxes, take heed:  Cheap stuff will get you just so far.

THE HOWARD ROARKE SYNDROME

Ayn Rand’s famed novel “The Fountainhead” is the amusingly overwrought tale of an egocentric architect named Howard Roarke.  On finding that one of his brilliant designs has been tampered with, Roarke becomes so incensed that he blows up the finished building.  The novel was eventually made into an even more preachy and melodramatic film—no small task, mind you—with the genius architect portrayed by a chronically pained-looking Gary Cooper.

The Roarke character, a thinly disguised version of Frank Lloyd Wright, was a mouthpiece for Rand’s belief that arrogance and egocentrism are integral components of genius.  Given Rand’s fevered devotion to this unlikeable idea, it’s no wonder the pious Roark was so insufferable.

Alas, fiction isn’t the only place you’ll find architects like Howard Roarke.  The arrogance of many real-life architects is just as legendary.  It’s become sort of an endearing character flaw, to be taken with a wink and a nudge:  Oh well—you know those architects.  

Frank Lloyd Wright remains the undisputed mogul of architectural arrogance, a stature borne out by numberless anecdotes.  My personal favorite involves an enraged client who called Wright to complain that the roof was leaking onto her dinner guest.  Wright’s response:  “Tell him to move his chair.”

Old age did not mellow Wright’s acerbic with, much less his high opinion of himself.  In the 1940s, he gave a talk at a noted school of architecture and declared: 

“There are two kinds of architects in the world.  There is every other architect, and there is me.”

In his later years, Wright frequently engaged in sniping contests with a younger rival named Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, who styled himself Le Corbusier, and who was no slouch in the area of self-importance either.  Le Corbusier espoused radical changes in architecture and planning, based on copious theorizing but only a smattering of actual buildings.  

“I propose one single building for all nations and climates,” he proclaimed in 1937.  Wright, with a half century of brilliant work already behind him, dismissed the young architect with the observation, “Well, now that he's finished one building, he'll go write four books about it.”

Geniuses can get away with saying such things--perhaps deservedly so.  But unfortunately, arrogance isn’t confined to geniuses.  It can be found in mediocre architects as well, and too often, the results have been less than humorous.  For the better part of the Modernist era, it was this know-it-all attitude that gave us sterile public buildings, look-alike downtowns, and inhumane urban renewal projects.

These well-publicized failures have helped form the unfortunate modern-day image of the architect:  equal parts prima donna and buffoon, fussing over minuscule points of aesthetics while bungling vast portions of the client’s program.

Reality, of course, lies somewhere in between.  Yet, as we enter the 21st century, it’s clear that we architects are beginning to stagger under the mantle of “master builder”--the literal meaning of “architect”--because it’s now quite impossible for us to know everything there is to know about building in this ever-more complex world.

That’s a problem, because genius is tough to come by, and arrogance won’t get us where it used to.

NO O-FENCE...

Some folks just aren’t happy with their fronts yards until they’ve erected a miniature stockade around them.  I couldn’t count how many 3-foot-high chain-link fences I’ve seen placed right up against the sidewalk--occasionally protecting a lovely garden, but more often surrounding a stone-dead lawn.

I’m not sure about the psychology of front-yard fences--one could go on and on about it, I suppose--but I’m quite sure about the aesthetic result:  Bad.

Such dinky little fences could hardly be for security, since anyone with a faint pulse could vault over one.  More likely, it’s a territorial thing.  You know--stay off my dead grass, or else.  Rather than keeping the bad guys out, however, fencing off the front yard more often just prevents the homeowner himself from enjoying it.   

Although a fenced-in yard or two is probably inevitable on the average neighborhood street, there’s no rational cause for a whole row of front yards to be partitioned off into desolate little pens--there are plenty of more attractive alternatives.  In my book, the best front-yard fence is no fence at all.  But if a barrier of some sort is de rigeur, here are some things to think about:

•  Before you build, identify your objective.  Fences--and every other form of barrier--have only three basic purposes:  To keep things in; to keep things out; or to sit there and look pretty.  Things to be kept out could include people, pets, noise, prying eyes--whatever.  Decide which of these is your main motivation, and choose the least obtrusive barrier that’ll do the job.   

•  If you’re just trying to discourage casual trespassers--whether the two-legged or the four-legged kind--consider some other form of barrier before you resort to a fence.  A row of dense, low shrubs with nasty thorns or spiky leaves, for example, will keep out the majority of mischievous kids.  If you want to keep pets in or out, an appropriate-sized wire-mesh fence concealed behind the shrubs will handle any animal short of a mad dog.

•  If your aim is to keep out criminal types--forget it.  No fence of any description is going to keep out someone who’s determined to get into your yard.  Moreover, a solid fence is worse than none at all--a burglar will probably thank you for hiding him from the neighbors while he’s breaking into your house.  

As security measures go, it would probably be more cost-effective to connect your existing outdoor lights to a motion detector, which can be had for a reasonable price at any hardware store. 

•  If it’s noise or prying eyes you want to exclude, landscaping again offers an alternative to a privacy fence, which would have to have solid planks at least five feet high to be effective.  Tall shrubs such as privet give a much friendlier look from the street, and their dense leaves actually absorb sound better than fence boards do.  

•  Lastly, if your fence is meant mainly for decoration, don’t settle for a run-of-the-mill chain-link fence.  Chain-link is excellent for many applications, but thanks to its institutional look, it’s probably the last thing you’d want surrounding your front yard.  While options such as plastic privacy slats and cute little finials can help, it’s still just putting perfume on a pig. A fence with conventional wood posts will have a much warmer look, and can be finished with wire mesh, planks, lattice, or any number of interesting materials.

JUST WHAT DO YOU DO?

Turn on the television any evening, and chances are you’ll come across some TV lawyers engaged in brilliant verbal sparring in court or in some shadowy back hall.  The law--at least as it’s portrayed on television--is pretty compelling stuff.  It must be, considering the parade of lawyer shows we’ve seen since the Fifties.

Lord knows we’ve also had enough medical melodramas during that time, from Ben Casey to E.R. to all those oogie crime scene/inquest/autopsy shows.

And then we have architecture.  

Chances are you’ve probably never seen a show or a movie about architects, and there’s a good reason:  the preposterous histrionics of “The Fountainhead” aside, seeing an architect in action is about as thrilling as watching ivy grow.

That, unfortunately, is one of the architectural profession’s biggest image problems.  It seems reasonable to pay your lawyer big bucks for slaying the enemy with a well-honed courtroom phrase.  And it certainly seems worthwhile to pay a hefty doctor’s fee when your gall bladder is at stake.  But it’s harder for many people to see the return on paying an architect thousands of dollars for a) talking in dreamy generalities about your project, b) sitting on his or her butt for three months waiting for inspiration to strike, and c) sending you a thumping invoice for the mysterious services rendered.  

You haven’t been spared from six months in the slammer, nor has your gall bladder been restored to making first-rate gall, or whatever it’s supposed to do.  Instead, all you’ve got to show for your hard-earned money is a few lousy sheets of paper.

I’d love to remedy this public-relations shortcoming with a long, comprehensive list of all the nitty-gritty things an architect does for his commission.  Unfortunately, I can’t.  The truth is that designing a building is in fact a vague and amorphous business, because the most valuable part of an architect’s service is purely intellectual.  But that doesn’t make the work any less valid--just less visible.  

Architecture, alone among the professions, is a schizophrenic mixture of art and science—a lot more of the former, if you ask me.  And while an Einstein might be methodical in documenting his work, no one expects a Picasso to explain how he goes about producing great art.  What’s more, it would be utterly unthinkable to ask an artist, brilliant or otherwise, to justify the cost of his work.  

Yet it’s seldom that an architect, upon presenting his bill, doesn’t get a certain look from his client that says:  Exactly what the blank did I get for all this money? 

It’s perfectly reasonable that people want value for their design dollar.  In architecture, however, value doesn’t consist of objects or even accomplishments, but simply of ideas.  That’s a pretty tough sell, and it can lead to bad feelings on both sides.  Still, buildings last a long, long time, and I’d like to think that anyone who cares enough to hire an architect can also appreciate that the road to good design is bumpy and not well charted.   One hopes that, ultimately, the client will find it worth all the effort and expense.

We’re not prime time stuff, but we try.   

HOME IS WHERE MY CARS LIVE

America is a car-centered culture, and its homes reflect that fact.  Since World War II, garage doors have been a dominant feature of suburban streetscapes--and with the widespread adoption of triple garages, they’ve become pretty much the only feature.  True, developers perform all kinds of design contortions in an effort to make their garages less overbearing--whether breaking the doors up into single bays, stepping them backward or forward, or giving them happy little roofs.  Yet, even in these troubled times, the garage is still king on most new homes.

I thought this situation couldn’t get much worse until a few days ago, when I came across an advertisement for some new tract homes ostensibly aimed at middle-class buyers.  I could hardly believe my eyes:  The entire first floor of the home’s L-shaped street elevation consisted of garage doors.  On one side of the L was a double garage; on the other was an additional single door.  In between, looking like the mousehole in a Warner Brothers cartoon, was the home’s entrance.  The one meant for people, that is.

After so many years, it’s finally happened:  The human resident has become an incidental accessory for the support and maintenance of the home’s real occupants--a family of automobiles.

Most thoughtful people would concede that, in these times, using 30% of a home’s area to store cars is pretty silly--much as we now have the sense to eschew gas-guzzling automobiles.  Yet while our battered auto industry has finally throttled back on building gas guzzlers in the face of ever-rising gas prices, developers are still cranking out plenty of houses with three and even four-car garages.  

Who is responsible? Those developers, for doing whatever they can to make a buck?  Buyers, for preaching one thing and practicing another?  Or the governement, for building all those suburb-generating superhighways in the first place?  

The fact is, we’re all to blame for the increasingly corpulent form American homes have taken since World War II.   For their part, developers claim they’ve only been reacting to what buyers want.  Yet their usual reaction time to new ideas--such as the need for more energy efficient homes--has been measured in decades, not months.  Developers are the last people one could expect to set the pace for a changing world.  

On the other hand, the majority of homebuyers still have to drive to everywhere despite their best intentions, thanks to the infrastructure of auto-dependent suburbs we continue to create to this day.  What's more, local government still indirectly encourages driving through their stubborn retention of obsolete, auto-centric zoning laws that encourage suburban sprawl.   

Yet there are ways to break this vicious cycle:  

•  Zoning laws should be revamped to allow more intelligent land use such as courtyard homes and zero-lot-line development for lower-density housing, along with expanded live-work and mixed-use zoning for higher density areas.

•  Developers should weigh the potential value of innovation and leadership, not just their short-term risk.  To follow an automotive example:  In the 1960s, the tiny, strange-looking Volkswagen Beetle hijacked a huge share of U.S. auto sales while Detroit was busy insisting that lumbering, chrome-plated dinosaurs were what people really wanted.  So--who has the guts to be the Volkswagen of developers?

•  Lastly, consumers who are currently shut out of the housing market should loudly demand smaller and more practical homes that they can afford, rather than pining for overblown, gimmick-laden ones they can’t.  Ultimately, it’s homebuyers who’ll dictate what course American housing takes.  

And while we all hope to prosper again soon, let's hope we no longer gauge that prosperity by counting garage doors.

SAFETY TO DIE FOR

When do building codes meant to insure safety actually hinder it?  

When they’re administered rigidly, reflexively, and without regard for common sense.  In too many instances, building codes--which were originally intended to promote public health and safety--instead end up punishing homeowners who attempt to make voluntary safety improvements.  

Case in point:  A client of mine in a city to remain nameless (but which has cable cars and a pointy skyscraper) recently proposed to replace a rot-damaged exterior stair in her 1920s-era rowhouse.  The dilapidated stair, which stood in a lightwell shared with the adjoining house, was built with “winders”--precipitous, pie-shaped steps radiating from a center post--which are so hazardous that the building code outlawed them many years ago.  

Accordingly, we proposed to build a new stair with generously-sized landings in place of the winders.  Mind you, all of this was being done voluntarily in the interest of safety.  

The building official’s response?  She informed us that altering the stair configuration in any way would, among other things, require us to construct a two-and-a-half-story-tall firewall, complete with foundation, along the property line--a sort of spite fence that would run right down the middle of the shared lightwell.  In her interpretation, the new stairs constituted an addition, which in turn obliged my client to bring the entire lightwell area up to modern codes.  If we wanted to avoid this requirement, we were told, we should keep the stairs exactly as they were, treacherous winders and all, and instead replace the rotted portions piecemeal.  

So much for meeting the spirit of the Code.

Nor is this an isolated example.  In another large city nearby, a client  owned a turn-of-the-century house that was perched precariously atop tall, unbraced basement walls.  Having read numerous accounts of such houses collapsing in earthquakes, he voluntarily decided to replace his crumbling foundation and provide some seismic bracing as well.  

The building official’s response to his plans was to demand that the entire house be upgraded--not just the basement story.  Nice incentive, huh?  Rather than encouraging my client’s voluntary seismic improvements, the official’s idiotically intractable demands penalized him instead.

Such requirements pervert the historical intent of the building code.  They are a twisted product of bureaucratic rigidity and fear of litigation, a mixture which produces frantic adherence to the letter of the code rather than to its broader intent, even in the face of absurdly counterproductive outcomes.  

Which serves the homeowner better, a safe staircase which doesn’t conform to the letter of the code, or a dangerous one which conforms by dint of a technicality?  Which is preferable, a draconian seismic upgrade that’s too costly to implement, or one that’s as effective as possible within the homeowner’s means?  Isn’t something still better than nothing at all?

Such bizarre perversions of the code’s intent are both unfair and unnecessary. Building officials are explicitly empowered to interpret code requirements in the manner they feel will best serve the interests of public health and safety.  The building code, after all, was not handed down to them by Moses.  From its inception, it was meant to be a living, growing, and above all adaptable instrument.  Like any set of rules, however, it requires a modicum of thoughtfulness, reason, and common sense.