Movie Review: The Architect (2016)

My wife and I decided to enjoy a movie night together earlier this week, something we haven’t done in quite some time. Thanks to the YouTube algorithm—through machine learning YouTube knows I’m an architect—the trailer for the 2016 indie film The Architect popped up as recommendation to watch. I previously saw the trailer (in a real movie theater) upon its initial release but never got around to seeing the movie until now.

The IMDb synopsis for The Architect succinctly captures the entire gist of the screenplay by Catherine DiNapoli and Jonathan Parker, so I’ll simply regurgitate it here:

“When a couple sets out to build their dream house, they enlist the services of a visionary modernist architect, whose soaring ideas are matched only by his ego. The woman is swept away by this uncompromising creative artist whose personality provides a stark contrast to her practical husband’s. She is so taken she hardly notices the architect is building HIS dream house.”

In addition to co-writing the screenplay, Jonathan Parker directed the movie. Parker Posey and Eric McCormack play the married couple, Drew and Colin, respectively. She is an impetuous, aspiring ceramics artist, while he is a pragmatically minded financial planner. The characters appear to be 40-somethings: Knowing her clock is ticking, Drew wants to have a baby, but suffering from low libido Colin pointedly avoids sex. They seem well-to-do, though not so much so that their marriage is not threatened by (among other matters) the spiraling costs of the custom home designed by the architect Miles Moss, portrayed by actor James Frain.

 

Parker Posey, Eric McCormack, and James Frain in a still from the movie The Architect.

Spoiler alert: No one will mistake The Architect for one of cinematic history’s great masterpieces. Citizen Kane this is not. The Architect trots out well-worn tropes such as—in the words of two reviewers—the architect as “a vain, imperious, pseudo-intellectual, budget-busting, [scarf] wearing, wife stealer in the classic Frank Lloyd Wright mode,” and the wife and husband as “a pair of prosperous married suburbanites [who] try to paper over their differences” by commissioning the pompous avant-garde architect. The plot line is entirely predictable. The characters are very thinly drawn. The Architect clearly aspired to be at once both funny and serious but fails by most measures as either a comedy or a drama. The fact it did not enjoy a long run in theaters comes as no surprise. Nevertheless, I did find The Architect entertaining and worth a viewing for reasons I’ll now discuss.

Firstly, The Architect is different and noteworthy precisely because a principal protagonist is an architect. His character is not an architect only because the trappings of the occupation provide a stylish set of backdrops the movie’s producers liked. There’s an overabundance of architects as characters in movies (i.e. Keanu Reeves in The Lake House, Wesley Snipes in Jungle Fever, Liam Neeson in Love Actually, Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle—Hollywood likes the idea of what they think an architect is) but most often the fact they are architects is secondary to the movie’s storyline. I like seeing a movie that features an architect being an architect, whose work figures prominently in the telling of the story.

Additionally, though many will undoubtedly regard Miles Moss to be an over-the-top caricature, there’s more than enough that is recognizably true-to-life. The real world has more than its share of Miles Moss analogues. In addition to Frank Lloyd Wright, the ego-driven pretensions and affectations of Daniel Libeskind, Bjarke Ingels, and Patrik Schumacher immediately come to mind. More than a few of Miles’ supercilious, cliched utterances sound too much like words spoken by actual architects. Here’s a compilation: 

• “There will never be a great architect without a great client.”
• “Never let yourself be overwhelmed by a rational analysis. When we’re talking about a house, a room, a space, it’s not something that you think, it’s something that you feel.”
• “A house shouldn’t be on the hill . . . it should be of the hill. Hill and house living, each the happier for the other.”
• “Rationalism is the enemy of art but is necessary as a basis for architecture.”
• “I believe it is just as important to design a chicken coop as it is a cathedral."
• “I don’t know why people hire architects and then tell them what to do. With a painter or a sculptor, you wouldn’t dare suggest alternatives, but an architect has to put up with anything! Often the opinion of the client must be disregarded for his own good. Less is only more when more is no good.”

My profession deserves its occasional comeuppance, especially when too many practitioners are guilty of the same exaggerated self-importance and arrogance expressed by Miles Moss. In this respect, The Architect successfully parodies the egocentric archetype personified by Gary Cooper’s portrayal of the megalomaniacal architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. For what it’s worth, I regard The Fountainhead as bombastic, pretentious, and quite unintentionally humorous as any movie I’ve ever seen. 

Finally, though many reviewers did not, I found The Architect consistently funny when it wanted to be. This is mostly because I simply enjoy seeing moviemakers lampoon architects, so my amusement threshold is admittedly low. Perhaps it’s telling that as a Canadian I likewise revel in movies that satirize Canada and Canadian-ness. Self-deprecation and being able to laugh at oneself is a virtue all of us should cultivate.

Do I recommend The Architect? Sure, if decidedly lightweight fare and a breezy way to pass a couple of idle hours is what you’re looking for. As I said, it’s by no means a great movie but I found it worth my time. I give it a solid three out of five stars.

One of the IMBd reviewers suggested the 1948 film Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House (starring Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas) as a better, funnier alternative to The Architect. I’ll have to check it out.

And the Winners of the 2020 AIA Eugene People’s Choice Awards are . . .

This past Wednesday evening, the American Institute of Architects, Oregon Chapter/Eugene Section (AIA Eugene), in collaboration with the Willamette Valley Section of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), announced the winners of the 2020 edition of the venerable and popular People’s Choice Awards for Architecture program.

Due to the ongoing pandemic, the organizing committee conferred this year’s eleven People’s Choice Awards and three Colleague’s Choice Awards by means of a well-attended Zoom meeting. Kudos to committee members Colin Dean, AIA, Rex Prater, AIA, and Alexis Griffin for hosting the show and ensuring the proceedings were enjoyable and briskly paced. And big thanks to this year’s program sponsors: Arbor South Architecture, KPFF Consulting Engineers, Rubenstein’s, and Central Print & Reprographic Services.

Without further ado, here is the list of this year’s People’s Choice Award recipients:

Commercial: Homes for Good (PIVOT Architecture)

Landscape: Civic Park Phase 1 (Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning)

Multi-Family Residential: Sponsors Tiny Home Village: Jeffrey Commons (Aligned Architecture)

Public/Institutional: Lyllye Reynolds-Parker Black Cultural Center (Architecture Building Culture in collaboration with Maxine Studio)

Single-Family Residential: Mercer Lake Cabin (Campfire Collaborative)

Student/Emerging Professional: Springfield Public Library (Aizeder Iriondo Jayo) 

Unbuilt Landscape: Eugene Town Square (Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning)

Unbuilt Projects: Campbell Community Center (PIVOT Architecture)

And here are the 2020 Colleague’s Choice winners:

Arcadia Townhouse Community (studio.e architecure)

Lyyle Reynolds-Parker Black Cultural Center (Architecture Building Culture in collaboration with Maxine Studio)

Sponsors Tiny Home Village: Jeffrey Commons (Aligned Architecture)

You can still view all the submitted projects at the 2020 AIA Eugene PCAs Gallery.

AIA Salem and AIA Southern Oregon are likewise conducting online voting for their respective People’s Choice programs, so be sure to check out all their entrants as well (voting for AIA Salem is open now—the deadline is November 4—while voting for AIA Southern Oregon will occur between November 16 and December 4).

Congratulations to all of this year’s People’s Choice and Colleagues’ Choice award winners!

2021 CSI Certification Classes

For the 39th consecutive year, the Construction Specifications Institute–Willamette Valley Chapter (CSI-WVC) is pleased to offer a series of classes on Construction Contract Documents in addition to another set covering Construction Contract Administration. While the principal purpose of the courses is to assist those planning to take one or more of the CSI-sponsored certification examinations, they’re also beneficial to anyone in the AEC industry seeking foundational training in the preparation and use of construction documents. Additionally, the classes can be of significant value to architectural interns and to the firms for whom they work, as well as very helpful to those preparing to take the State Architectural Licensing Exams.  

The evening classes begin in January 2021 and continue weekly through the first part of March.  

Click on the following links to locate detailed information about the classes, dates, fees, and registration: 

Construction Contract Documents (CDT) Classes:

https://app.box.com/s/6e7aa92vlwt9c2g71ekxetbe306o8sxm

Construction Contract Administration (CCA) Classes:   

https://app.box.com/s/1ztg67o1gzfxsiq815a1e4f6aktupagy

Due to the continued risks associated the COVID-19 outbreak, the Chapter will conduct the 2021 certification classes virtually rather than in person. The organizers are confident the quality of instruction will be as close to the real classroom experience as possible; regardless, the Willamette Valley Chapter’s board of directors approved a 50% reduction of the standard registration fees in acknowledgement of the limitations of online teaching. 

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

Both certification courses can help students develop a conceptual understanding of the entire construction process, and concrete skills in: 

• Construction documentation development and administration
• Specification writing and enforcement
• Product research and sourcing
• Communication with the design and contracting teams

The Construction Documents program provides a comprehensive overview for anyone who writes, interprets, enforces, or manages construction documents. Being able to understand and interpret written construction documents helps architects, contractors, contract administrators, material suppliers, and manufacturers' representatives perform their jobs more effectively. Understanding the roles and relationships of all participants improves communication among all members of the construction team. The Construction Contract Administration course goes further to emphasize the specific knowledge and skills necessary to administer and enforce construction contract documentation. While not necessary, some students may find it helpful to have completed the Construction Documents course before taking the Construction Contract Administration program.

As mentioned above, both classes serve as excellent means to prepare for CSI’s certification exams. Certification as a Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) means you have demonstrated ability to prepare, use, and interpret construction documents. CDT certification is a prerequisite to CSI’s advanced certifications, which include Certified Construction Specifier (CCS), Certified Construction Contract Administrator (CCCA), and Certified Construction Product Representative (CCPR).

CSI offers its certification examinations twice annually, in the spring and the fall. Taking the 2021 Willamette Valley Chapters classes this winter would set you up nicely to register for the spring set of exams.

The classes are especially beneficial for emerging design & construction industry professionals, and to the firms for which they work. They’re also particularly helpful to aspiring architects preparing to take a State Licensing Exam.

By taking either of the classes, fully fledged architects can earn up to 16 Continuing Professional Education (CPE) hours to apply toward maintaining Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners professional licensure; AIA Members can earn up 16 Continuing Education Learning Units (LU) which CSI will report directly to AIA/CES.

Hundreds of local AEC professionals have already benefitted immeasurably by taking one or both CSI certification classes. Do the same and you’ll learn about the importance of clear, concise, correct, and complete construction documents, and more fully understand how projects unfold from conception to delivery. Best of all, you’ll advance your career prospects and become a highly valued member of any project team.

If you have any questions or encounter any problems with the course registration process, please email me at rnishimura@robertsonsherwood.com.  

 

The Better Angels of our Nature

(Photo by Brittani Burns)

If we could travel back through time and ask some of history’s most revered architects whether they believe their work is “inclusive,” undoubtedly many would assert without any hint of irony that it is. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and our current experience we know their buildings often do (or did) exclude or alienate end users. These buildings unwittingly failed to speak to the needs and comfort of many people from all walks of life. They may have presented or continue to present barriers of all sorts, discouraging or barring use for reasons of age, physical or developmental abilities, gender, income, cultural beliefs, or other factors. 

To the credit of our society and more specifically the architectural profession, designing with inclusivity and diversity in mind—appealing to and accommodating as broad a cross-section of users as possible—is now at the forefront of considerations for every new project. This evolution toward inclusive design is in part attributable to the advent of legislated protections, such as the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). It is also a product of the collective social change that has transformed cultural and social institutions over time, and consequently our perception of cultural norms. Architects are more considerate today of the myriad factors that influence whether everyone will feel comfortable and welcome in the buildings they design. They have learned to listen respectfully to and learn from others who have different life experiences than their own. 

Still, architects cannot assume they know what is right. They must be willing to place themselves in the position of others who may be very different from themselves and avoid the trap of insular or parochial perspectives. An inclusive mindset should always be a prerequisite to programming and design. Another is being able to envision successful spaces through the eyes of those who will benefit from them most. This is proving as necessary today as it ever has in the past. Our current, nationwide conversation regarding persistent, systemic racism speaks to how much remains to be done in this country and elsewhere. The goal continues to be to erase barriers to participation and the persistent inequities that debase everyone. 

Beyond conformance with enforceable mandates, what are some of the concrete strategies the design professions can employ to support diversity and the creation of inclusive spaces?

First and foremost, architects must acknowledge their biases and the privilege they enjoy. They might not be aware of the hurdles others regularly confront if they don’t experience those hurdles on a daily basis themselves. Research is necessary to gain an understanding of issues the members of the community who will be affected by the project consider important. 

Second is a focus on equality of experience. Accessibility guidelines ensure built places meet minimum standards for the mitigation of physical barriers. Designed correctly, ramps will not be too steep, hallways will be wide enough, faucets will be operable without requiring tight grasping and twisting, and so on. Generally, architects are thoroughly familiar with the guidelines, so much so that incorporating their requirements occurs without second thought. The trick is to integrate the measures seamlessly so they avoid the appearance of being targeted specifically to a particular subset of the population. If done ham handedly, they might inadvertently stigmatize the very people they’re intended to help. 

The imperative to safeguard equality of experience extends well beyond conformance with minimum standards. In a perfect world, everyone would always feel comfortable and welcome in places they have a right to encounter and use. Thoughtful, good design can help ensure people do not miss the possibility of desirable experiences because they anticipate personal risk. For example, to be able to relate to and comfortably choose to have a new experience, they should be able to preview and imagine its impact and meaning and assess its opportunities. Design-wise, this might translate to making spaces where one can watch things happening without immediately needing to participate themselves. For example, the configuration of a plan might provide opportunities to pass by a place to observe what is happening before committing to joining in. People find places and situations that are overly complex or reveal themselves all at once (as opposed to being slowly revealed) overwhelming and confusing. Such conditions are not inclusive. 

Atrium in the American Wing, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Detached participation and preview (my photo)

The need to address inclusivity, diversity, and choice in the built environment comes from the inevitable collision between the relative permanence of what is built and changing circumstances and value systems. Activities and purposes change. People are wonderfully diverse and different. Sometimes the differences are minor; sometimes the differences are enough to erode the very foundation of what has been built. Because of this, the built environment must be able to flex. The best places do this without losing the ability to evoke and inspire. By providing open, opportunity-rich structure—structure that offers many possibilities and many suggestive cues—they sustain both their usefulness and their meaning over time. 

Spatial qualities and opportunities offering more than what is required to meet the exclusive needs of a particular group and first uses make places that are inclusive and remain useful and meaningful over time. From a design perspective, offering more can be achieved by:

• Providing generous support to activities and purpose so they are more than just basically useful. 
• Recognizing and supporting the full family of activities implicit in and brought to life by the building program and the needs/desires of first users (all places attract more uses than were initially anticipated but some activity families are especially active this way).
• Developing spatial structure that is precisely general; that is structure that is accommodating and evocative without being one-sided or limiting, open-ended in its possibilities without being barren or undeveloped. 
• Establishing spatial variety and ranges of spatial opportunity; for example: large/small, public/private, inside/outside, fixed-use/multi-use, edge/internal, stop-in/pass through, changeable/fixed, etc. 
• Developing the full potential of in-between, residual, or left-over spaces (they may join or separate adjacent spaces, provide necessary transition, define or clarify adjacent spaces, address or form a larger outside space, accommodate spontaneous use, provide opportunity for interaction, provide opportunity to pause without invading or intruding, provide opportunity for retreat, provide opportunity for detached participation).
• Establishing opportunities for imprinting.
• Establishing opportunities for interaction with other people, with ideas, and with events.
• Establishing opportunities for retreat.

If the built environment offers diversity, choice, and degrees of changeability it can better accommodate people of all backgrounds and abilities, and change more broadly. It provides a looser fit, but still a fit. As society evolves, our places should likewise be able to evolve, to flex and adapt in spite of their seeming permanence, and accommodate what is new (whether that be people, new circumstances, new purposes, new values, or all of these). If designed with these abilities in mind, they are more likely to be inclusive. 

The spaces architects design reflect their values and those of their clients. A fair criterion to apply to every project is to ask whether it actively promotes inclusion while limiting exclusion. Certainly, designing with inclusivity in mind presumes a good measure of selflessness and empathy. The most conducive inner traits architects can possess include a good conscience, an ability to acknowledge their biases and privilege, and a broad sphere of universal moral concern. The demands of inclusive design appeal to the better angels of our nature. 

2020 AIA Eugene People’s Choice Awards

Emerald Street Residence by Arbor South Architecture, one of this year's People's Choice Awards entries

Each year, AIA Eugene, in collaboration with the Willamette Valley Section of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), sponsors the People’s Choice Awards for Architecture. These awards aim to educate and inspire our fellow citizens by showcasing architecture, interiors, and landscape architecture projects created within the AIA Eugene Section area by AIA or ASLA members. The program demonstrates to the public the role of the architectural profession in enhancing the built environment by showcasing the talents of AIA Eugene and ASLA members. This year’s is the 31st edition of the venerable and popular program. 

The “Colleague’s Choice” vote is an adjunct to the People’s Choice Awards and meant to be a fun way for our AIA-SWO and ASLA members to weigh in on the question of which of their peers’ projects are most worthy of recognition. 

As the current spike in cases in Lane County attests, COVID-19 is still very dangerous and continues to pose a real threat. Accordingly, all voting this year will be via AIA Oregon’s online platform (click here) and there is no onsite voting at a physical display of the entries. Everyone can vote for their favorite designs, one entry in each of eight categories, for a total of eight votes. If you change your mind, you can revoke your selection by going back to the project’s page and clicking the “unvote” button. 

This year’s eight categories are: 

• Commercial
• Public/Institutional
• Landscape
• Multi-Family Residential
• Single-Family Residential
• Unbuilt Landscape
• Unbuilt Projects
• Student/Emerging Professional

The voting deadline is October 15, so don’t wait until the last minute to cast your ballot. As a means to deliver a message about the benefits of design excellence and what design professionals provide to enhance the built environment, the People’s Choice Awards are priceless and the very best kind of publicity for AIA Eugene and ASLA. We all deserve a break from 2020’s calendar of chaos so give yourself a real treat and check out the outstanding entries in this year’s People’s Choice program! 

*     *     *     *     *

Big thanks to this year’s sponsors for their support of the 2020 People’s Choice Awards: 

• Arbor South Architecture
• Central Print & Reprographic Services
• KPFF
• Rubenstein’s