Week 10

In the writings by Rem Koolhaas, the sections “The Talents of Raymond Hood” and “Typical Plan” elaborate on Hood’s architecture. Raymond Hood’s architectural theories and designs consist of a multiplex of concepts that consistently challenge each other. Most notably is his relationship with humanism as it relates to design.

The following quote from Raymond Hood begins to illustrate this relationship;

“The architect of aesthetically acceptable buildings must possess an analytical and logical type of mind; have a knowledge of all the elements of a building and of its purpose and function; possess a lively imagination and a cultivated inherent sense of form, proportion, appropriateness and color; possess a spirit of creation, adventure, independence, determination and bravery, and also, a large measure of humanistic instincts and ordinary common sense.”  (Koolhaas 1978, pg 173-174)

In this quote, it becomes clear that Hood is directly influenced by humanistic instincts. Throughout early Modernism, the main focus for architecture was functionalism, and so, Hood’s attention to the relationship between architecture and the people who interact with it was a defining feature of his ‘style’. In the reading, there are frequent mentions of how Hood had to disguise his true intentions for a building or specific elements because the people who commissioned them were trying to align with the times. Hood’s hedonistic approach contrasts Le Corbusier’s methodical designs which respectively relate to the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ concepts. Le Corbusier concerned his designs with creating a master-plan of seamless organization of spaces and movements. This is a top-down approach because it is developed by deciding what’s best for the inhabitants, starting with a clean slate, and focuses on the needs of the group as a whole. On the other hand, Hood focused his designs on creating a cohesive building where all the elements have a purpose. On the surface, it’s not entirely clear how this is a bottom-up approach because this method is not inherently about the individual identities of the inhabitants, but, the specific architectural elements are. This, however, contrasts with other bottom-up approaches, like maki and jacobs because he doesn’t attempt to augment what is already present but something new that supplements the needs of the people and the surrounding architecture. The focus remains on how to create masterful architecture suited for those who experience it rather than masterful architecture in the eyes of other masters. 

This challenge of what is traditionally understood as bottom-up architecture is an example of how Hood’s architecture and writings are contradictory. When analyzing his architecture alongside his theories and his writings, there is an irregularity related to his humanistic design tendencies. For example, Koolhaas wrote, “Raymond Hood, one of its inventors defined the typical plan with tautological bravura: ‘The plan is of primary importance, because on the floor are performed all the activities of the human occupants.’” (Koolhaas 1995, pg 337) Here, he clearly demonstrates his humanistic design mantra, however, it’s later written; 

“[Typical Plan] at its best, it acquires a Platonic neutrality; it represents the point where pragmatism, through sheer rationality and efficiency, assumes an almost mystical status. Typical Plan is minimalism for the masses; already latent in the first brutally utilitarian explorations, by the end of the era of Typical Plan, i.e., the sixties, the utilitarian is refined as a sensuous science of coordination column grids, facade modules, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures, partitions, electrical outlets, flooring, furniture, color schemes, air-conditioning grills—that transcends the practical to emerge in a rarified existential domain of pure objectivity. You can only be in Typical Plan, not sleep, eat, make love.” (Koolhaas 1995, pg 338)

Moreover, Koolhaas writes, “[The] Typical Plan is deep. It has evolved beyond the naive humanist assumption that contact with the exterior-so-called reality-is a necessary condition for human happiness, for survival. (If that is true, why build at all? …)” (Koolhaas 1995, pg 339). This set of quotes illustrates the contradictory nature of Hood’s design practice and design mantra. Once examined in a broader context, it becomes apparent that Hood does indeed design with humanistic goals yet he maintains a unique interpretation of human needs. Rather than understanding humanism as a function of hedonism, he understands it as a function of pragmatism. The cause of his contradictory theories and practices comes from the fact that Hood believes that pragmatism can be objective, and therefore, so can the needs of people. This approach to humanism creates a collective identity rather than individual identities but remains focused on human needs. 

Koolhaas, excerpts from Delirious New York (1978)

Koolhaas, Typical Plan (1995)