ttAfit/MD UAtlVBCJ/Tlf atA&to&TZ fc/J-ooL 6p= 3>e-sjt/sj - ^&SD meapt - ra^L /??j'

B O O K R E V I E W S

Arch i tec ture , Power, and Nat iona l Ident i t yby Lawrence]. Vale, Yale University Press, 1992

Reviewed by Jane C. Loeffler,MCP '71

From my window I can see thenew Russian Embassy, formerly the new Embassy of theUSSR, a sprawling moderncompound on the heights aboveGeorgetown. Construction ofthis project dates to the 1970s.It was supposed to proceed intandem with the construction ofthe new Embassy in Moscow,but due to a regrettable seriesof events, too complicated(and sad) to reiterate here, theAmerican Embassy remainsincomplete; thus the Russianproject is "officially" not inuse. People do live there, however, and many presumablywork there as well.

It is tempting to say that theproject and its architecture areunremarkable. Its centralbuilding is a six-story, marble-clad, white cube set on a granite-faced base and topped by apenthouse. Curtain wall construction, symmetry, a grid ofwindows on all sides, the useof small decorative ribs toemphasize the verticality of the

and a remarkable statementabout a struggle for power.

No one has done more tohelp us analyze and understandthe logistics of the architecturalskirmish than MIT professorLawrence J. Vale, author ofArchitecture, Power, andNational Identity. AlthoughVale does not examine myneighbor, the Russian Embassy,the questions that the Embassyposes are those that he exploresin his thoughtful, informative,and beautifully produced book.Why, for example, do peoplewho know the building often

City, and Louis Kahn's concocted "ruins" at Dhaka.

Not only does Vale describeeach place in detail, he alsoprovides an invaluable theoretical framework drawn from thework of scholars such as cultural anthropologist CliffordGeertz and historian EricHobsbawm. Above all, hepoints out that nations facedwith the task of establishingnational identity, particularlyformer colonies intent on distancing themselves from acolonial heritage, confront notonly the problem' of recon-

Uke Chandigarh, like so much that Le Corbusler

designed and imagined, Brasilia, the great monument to

Modernism, is an environment that repels.

describe it as "totalitarian-looking," while those unfamiliarwith its program describe itmerely as boxy, ugly, or nondescript? Can we concludefrom this that totalitarian architecture is boxy, ugly, or nondescript? Can we even conclude

structing a past while pursuingmodernity, but also the addeddilemma of incorporating intotheir capitol buildings theoften conflicting pasts associated with cultural diversity.

With many voices demanding to be heard, architects face

Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka, Louis Kahn

tects impose their own arrogance on projects by turningthem into personal statements?To what extent do clients actually seek identification withsuch ego-driven professionals?These are among the questionsthat Vale leads us to ask, andthese are the questions thatconcern people like me, whostudy the history of governmentarchitecture. My own researchreveals, for example, that LouisKahn's commission to designthe new U.S. Embassy inLuanda in 1959 was one of thefew to be cancelled by theState Department. Kahn's concept was criticized (by the StateDepartment) for its "highlyquestionable character, being

among individuals, interestgroups, cities, and nations.Those relationships, whetheradversarial or not, are based onpower. Recendy, as architecturalhistorians have turned more oftheir attention to the significance of patronage, we haveseen a new interest in architecture's power to persuade.

The late German art historian Wolfgang Braunfels wroteon this subject and Vale's workis influenced by his. In UrbanDesign in Western Europe,Regime and Architecture, 900-

Unlike lawyers or doctors,

who respond directly to

do not combine to produce astunning design statement. Butthere is more to the project thanthat. From its windows, shieldedfrom sun and surveillance, toits penthouse, jammed with thesophisticated electronics thatpermitted the Soviets routineaccess to American intelligence,to the extraordinary strategicvalue of the site itself, theEmbassy, like ours in Moscow,is an artifact of the Cold War

or democratic architecture, forthat matter, exists as an identifiable entity?

Vale would definitely answer"no" and he offers much evidence to support that position.His book focuses on thedesign of capital cities andcapitol complexes, and hiswide purview includes placesthat may be familiar only tothose whose children haveintroduced them to the travels

losing game to choose betweena bland, placeless internationalstyle and an eclectic local pastiche. Vale tells us that in SriLanka, bitterly divided betweenits Sinhalese and Tamil populations, the new capitol complexin Colombo reinforces Sinhalesedominance and symbolizes thestrife that has destroyed civicorder in that island nation.Moreover, in places like Kuwait,the democratic intent so expan-

/

j f t r

•

—4e,

1

l J>A

■ APf '<*JB 1 i l l I L J f e .

*, ' —

- Ik Jk,*kj/k_M_ m »•*.. -:\ r WLMi ■. 1 " « 1

- nn . . . X

"--—-_

Viceroy's House, New Delhi, Edwin Lutyens

Certainly it is a losing

game to choose between

a bland, placeless

international style and

an eclectic local pastiche.

of Carmen Sandiego. Heincludes well-known capitalslike Chandigarh and Brasilia,along with Abuja, Islamabad,and Dodoma. He exploresparliamentary buildings suchas Cecil Hogan's eclectic evocation of a tribal house in PortMoresby, Geoffrey Bawa's"sacred fortress" in Colombo,Jorn Utzon's concrete versionof a Bedouin's tent in Kuwait

sively expressed in new parliamentary buildings is oftenunaccompanied by any actualdemocracy.

Is the architect responsiblefor this failure of fit betweencontainer and contained? Towhat extent do individual archi-

place of detention." It was a ^concept "from which he seemingly would not or could notdepart." In addition, his proposed structure was spatiallyinefficient and vastly exceededits budget. Knowing this, I amnot surprised to read Vale'sdevastating analysis of theDhaka National Assembly, aproject begun just two yearsafter the failure of the Luandaproject. Vale explains howKahn either deliberately misunderstood or just grossly miscalculated costs, energy load,climate, materials, and religioussensibilities, not to mentionthe fundamentally undemocratic nature of the government ofBangladesh.

While Vale does not suggestthat a commissioned architecthas the power or influence tochange a political situation, itis unclear what he expects ofsomeone faced with the challenge, for instance, of designinga home for a tyrant. Should heor she reject the job or take it?If the tyrant does not want toappear tyrannical, is the taskmore or less problematic? Onewonders what the author wouldsay.

Buildings acquire meaning byvirtue of their formal arrangement and by association. Architecture is and always has beenused deliberately and unintentionally to define relationships

identifiable clients or

patients, architects often

design for clients whose

needs differ markedly

from those of the actual

users of the project.

1900, Braunfels similarly interprets skylines and land-use patterns as expressions of politicalpower and cultural hegemony.The most provocative of hisconclusions has to do with whathe calls the necessity for aesthetic exaggeration. "In everycentury," he writes, "anyonewho planned only for necessitydid not even achieve what wasnecessary. Humanity had aneed of an emotional relationship to its dwelling places; itdemanded aesthetic uplift, acreative culture that could lendmore than polish to the everyday." Thus, he maintains, thePiazza San Marco and theMaximiliansstralte in Augsburgeach demonstrate how planningcan reach out beyond merenecessity to create somethingextraordinary and lasting.

3 4