INFRATECTURE. Preeminence of the Decorated Shed.

[2M3] PREEMINENCE OF THE DECORATED SHED.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, architects have become trapped in the ‘decorated shed’ problem. Coined by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown in 1971, the term refers to a condition "where systems of space and structure are directly at the service of program, and ornament is applied independently of them."⁸⁴ This definition is vague enough to include most buildings; however, it is a familiar term which applies to a very familiar building type. The decorated shed actually reaches far back in history: the Parthenon, Pantheon, and Chartres Cathedral all fit the mold (these buildings, however, are also ‘ducks’ by the Venturi definition). Today, it is most clearly represented by the sea of cheap commercial and industrial buildings that surround us. The buildings that occupy the enterprise zone–the same buildings in Gruen’s new urban landscapes–are decorated sheds.

The problem with the decorated shed is not that it exists; the justifications for its widespread use are all too clear. The problem is that as architects have become less involved with the space, structure, and program of a building, they have focused primarily on the ornament. In our time of widespread standardization and unquestioning pragmatism, the program, siting, massing, structure, and general floor layout for a building are already decided by the time an architect is hired to finesse the details of the curtain wall. Realizing the limitations of the architect, Cesar Pelli has become a champion of the skin. Herzog and De Meuron, Lagerhaus Ricola Herzog and De Meuron have followed in due course. In the day of the triumph of the corporate logo, it has become all too tempting to leave one’s stamp on the box, without much consideration for what happens inside it. And, as building development processes become more complex, increasingly specialized, and faster paced, architects are hard-pressed to keep up, applying their talents solely to the creation of an image, which is manifest in a thinner and thinner envelope.

I am not suggesting that the wrapper is inconsequential; it is unfortunately only too rare that the envelope of a building be truly beautiful. However, substance is more important than skin. In their 1971 treatise on "ugly and ordinary" architecture, Venturi and Scott-Brown distinguished between "urban sprawl" and the "megastructure", which they presumed to be opposites.⁸⁵ As Koolhaas and Wamble have said more recently, however, a new type of building has emerged which is so massive in scale that the exterior has little or nothing to do with the interior. Today, urban sprawl and the megastructure have collided. They are now one and the same.

It is therefore time for architects to face this new typology head on. It is time for architects to grapple with the new processes of development and the forces which have brought this typology into existence. It is time for architects to reinsert themselves into this process, so that they can be part of the collaborative journey of development, instead of providing an irrelevant service at the end. Scenario planning, programming, site selection and operational structuring are all conceptual, non-image related activities which are imperative to the development of innovative, well-functioning spaces. In order for the endeavor of architecture to relate to the new zeitgeist, it must put the substance of operational processes before the image, and allow such processes to generate the image. This strategy is easily defensible, because it simply makes sense. Thus, like Venturi, I would argue that it is important for architects to be aware of the realities of the developmental processes which shape our built environment. Unlike Venturi, however, I believe in the role of architect as innovator; one who is not bound up in the trivialities of image-making based on outdated ‘styles,’ but who instead leads the search to comprehend, and give new form to, the megalopolitan order.

⁸⁴Venturi, Robert, with Denise Scott-Brown and Steven Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1972) p. 87

⁸⁵Ibid., p. 118

Images: 1. Herzog and De Meuron, Lagerhaus Ricola

A Master's Thesis in Architecture at Rice University by Blaine Brownell.