Close But No Cigar

So the FHM sexiest women list came out today. The all-time LWoA favorite came in at #2. The last time we tried to form a concensus on this issue, it took an immense amount of work. I have to say, I think that the folks at FHM have much better taste than those at Maxim but I'll let you be the judge. Rather than go through all that again, let's open up the conversation through the comments to this post and see what everyone thinks.

By the way, In case you forgot what the hottest woman in the world looks like:

Studio Gang Bang

As you are all aware, we here at LWoA take architecture and architectural criticism very seriously. Not as seriously as the goings on in the life of Jessica Biel, but seriously none the less. It is in this role that we must talk about the one thing that everyone, except us apparently, in Chicago is talking about. Of course we speak of the great and powerful AQUA! If you have not seen this piece of architectural genius please take a moment and check it out.

http://www.lakeshoreeast.com/aqua/

Welcome back. If you are like us you surely enjoyed the fun water effects as your mouse moved across the rendering. Graphic designers have it made, don’t they? Back to the issue at hand, the state of architectural critique today. If you have been keeping up with the writings and pontifications of Blair Kamin, Lee Bey, Stanley Tigerman, and countless others, then you know that they have a soft spot for Ms. Gang. In fact, the most recent article by Kamin is a borderline obscene overture and seems to go well beyond a passing admiration for her work. As people continue to spew the virtues of Aqua and its creator we must ask, does everyone want to take part in a Jeanne Gangbang? Don’t get me wrong, Aqua is a fine residential tower and will probably look pretty good on the skyline, but really is it the piece of earth shattering brilliance it is made out to be by Blair? Or is he so infatuated by Jeannie that he forgot to put his glasses on and look at the building? Hey if you want to steal a kiss from her and hope she calls you in the morning that’s great, but be honest about it, don’t hide behind “honest architectural review”?
Let’s take a moment to look at Aqua and see if maybe Blair and Stan the Man are correct and it is the pearl in the sea of crap that is residential development in Chicago. We have seen the models, looked at the website, checked out the unit plans, and done the things we assume any good architecture critic would do and come to one easy conclusion: the balconies are cool. They are balconies, right? It's hard to tell because they have yet to be depicted as such, with mandatory guardrails and the corresponding grills and crap that people pile on them. Anyway, the shape of the "balcony" is interesting and makes for a very nice looking façade. No one is arguing against that. Then again, as one noted observer points out: if it were not for the building’s name and all of those flashy effects on the website one might think that this building has nothing to do with water and instead that, like an old tree, a family of fungus is growing from it. Perhaps this dual imagery is its strength, a sign of genius? But we digress.
The rest of the building is the problem. What’s that? You did not realize there was a building behind those balconies? Of course not, because not a word has been written about the actual space inside the building or the earth shattering new concept in residential living you will be purchasing when you buy your aqua unit. Why is this? Well, if you wanted to sleep with the hot girl you would focus on complimenting and ignore the criticism also. Is a building wonderful just because you convinced the builder to bend a little steel to make the concrete formwork curved instead of straight? We bet this works for most people. Even we know absolutely nothing about what Jessica Biel is thinking. We just know she makes us stop breathing with her captivating beauty. It’s a start, but perhaps there could be more. There must be something about modern condos that would be better if we rethought them a little.

It is also unclear what happens where this building meets the ground. Obviously Kamin’s fetish ends at about the knees. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a beautiful set of feet (God what we’d give for a nice close-up of Jessica’s feet) but we haven’t seen much detail of what Aqua holds in store. Most published images seem to focus on the upper three-quarters of the building. I guess it doesn’t really matter because anything might be considered “fine” in the cavernous mess that passes for a streetscape at Lakeshore East. It looks like a massive curved canteliever over a non-descript storefront wall. This may be an overture to contextualism in relation to the rest of the area but maybe we should reserve judgement for when we can actually see the real thing.

There is another confusing aspect to how this building has been depicted. Most images show this thing sitting majestically at the edge of Grant Park. We went for a visit and though you can see it from the park, it doesn’t seem to have the dramatic site that the renderings promise. In fact, it seems to suffer a bit because it is tucked within the development as opposed to being on a prominent edge. This seems fine for the fungus-laden tree trunk imagery but not for “Aqua”. Why was a site somewhere else in the development not chosen? If the edge of Grant Park is impossible, then perhaps something closer to the river?

Regardless of how this might seem, all of this is not a knock at Aqua or The Gang, but points to a problem with the state of architectural critique in the city. Let’s celebrate the cool building mass we will get from aqua when it’s finished, but aren’t critics being paid to look at the whole thing, not just the model? There is not much innovative about the floor plan, that’s for sure. Looks exactly like the stuff inside all the boring towers going up. It should take a little more than a curved balcony to make something as special as it seems this building is.

Let’s also look at how this thing is situated within the entire Lakeshore East development. So why didn’t it get located on the river-side of the development or in a more conspicuous spot altogether. You would think it would deserve a decent site since it is also supposedly architect-developer Lowenberg’s swan song. It is definitely nicer than his typical productions but frankly, we deserve something decent from him as this guy has been leaving loads of crap along the streets of Chicago for years.

Unfortunately, the issues we raise seem to escape criticism. Step up and look at the big picture Blair, its OK, she will probably still like you. This gushing over architects seems to be a prevalent theme within Chicago architectural criticism circles. What seems to be particularly odd is that all of the most recent gushing is going on over an architect that has very few built structures and over a building that is barely half-constructed. Kamin himself should know the pitfalls of this as he took a particularly strong stance against this phenomenon in a 1997 Tribune article; written when everyone was jumping on the Bilbao bandwagon. Isn't he falling into the same trap by participating in the Studio Gangbang? So that may be our problem: we at LWoA expect a little more form our critics. Aqua is nice, but it is nothing special beyond the façade. Maybe that is our problem, sadly way back when we learned to be architects someone told us that buildings are not just objects to be looked at from across the street, but spaces to be inhabited and experienced. Maybe we are wrong and we should just enjoy the cool form we will get to see, especially since no one at the LWoA staff can afford to live there and have their own wavy balcony. But no, we expect more, just as we will not sit back and simply enjoy Jessica Biel in all her hotness, but rather debate her ability as an actress. We want it all and can not simply over look the flaws in buildings or hot women (although it is a lot easier with the women).

Wait a minute! We have just reviewed the floor plans one more time and we were wrong, the building truly is a brilliant design. Look closely, see it…..the islands in the kitchen have an angled side, they are not standard rectangles, now that is innovative. That clinches it, We were wrong, the critics are correct, sign us up for the studio gangbang!!!

"What would you say you do here?"

Recently we were given a puzzled look when we presented a proposal to a prospective client of our apparently obscure services. The proposal included numbers for mechanical electrical and plumbing engineering design consultants, structural engineering consultants, civil engineering consultants, sustainability consultants, acoustic design consultants, interior design consultants, surveyors, landscape design consultants, and, then, at the very end, our number for architectural services.

What's included in your architectural services? These were, of course, nobly defined in the proposal but with all these other team members it boiled down to coordination and permitting. Those of you who are architects and architects in Chicago, know that these are essential and painful tasks. But they are soft, tangible only when things go wrong. Do they need an architect to do this project? What are we stamping? Where does our responsibility lie? Is our stamp necessary only because the City requires it?

Good questions. Engineers stamp the MEP design, the structural design, and the civil engineering design. The architect is basically there to make sure the interior design is up to code and available to all those handicapped.

We daydream back to the heady days of architecture school. Chip board and plexi glass models abound, lofty vocabulary describing our studio projects floated high with our dreams of a professional career of half art half science. Back in front of AutoCAD, we haven't seen chip board in years, there is no art just building code, no science just coordination.

They could hire project management consultants to do the coordination and construction administration, then where would we at LWoA be?

Making a little better than $34k a year, ready to be fired at any time.

Should we be surprised that they've done it again?

While browsing the latest issue of Architect Magazine for good pics of architects looking like assholes (which doesn't take long), we came across an article just slightly more messed up than the one on intern salaries. Just when we thought Architect magazine put the last nail in the coffin for interns and "underlings", they come up with an article of how the architecture profession can fuck itself a little harder.

In an article entitled, "You're Fired", they go into detail about the touchy subject of how the owner of an architecture firm can "protect themselves" in case they have to fire an employee. It is classic because every architecture firm deals with this issue and some do it better than others. Most of what the article points to is standard stuff - you should do reviews of employees, keep records of their performance, blah blah blah. Incidentally, we have worked at in a number of architecture firms and none of them have been particularly good at this so I guess this article is telling architects something they obviously don't get.
The classic case is my current office (which I must honestly say is better than most). We hold these reviews (that are often joked about on this site). They begin around February and drag on until the week before Christmas. It is classic. By the time most folks are being reviewed, a year has passed since they have filled out their self-review. How the hell are we supposed to remember what we wrote about and did over a year ago??? This also sucks for the folks that don't "make it" for a year, which brings me to the next point in the article.

The part where we think that the "helpful information" in the article really falls apart is when the article insinuates that an "at will" policy infers that architecture firms hire employees on a temporary basis. For those of you that aren't familiar, the "at will" clause usually has wording that says something like"we can part ways at any time for any reason that is not illegal" we are sure that many firms hope and even insinuate that this relationship is not intended to be temporary. Unfortunately, there are many, far too many, that take the other extreme and use this clause as an excuse to "bulk up" when they have jobs and to fire at will when work slows down.

Shouldn't a person owning a business have any responsibility towards their employees? Since when should we "reasonably expect" that we would be treated like crap and that people are expendable? Is this yet another place where the architectural profession has failed in terms of ethics? And why the hell is an architectural journal publishing about how to fire architects??? Maybe it's because the registered architects aren't the ones that will lose. The interns are the ones getting screwed here. At $34K a year, they get a "temporary job" to boot. Hey, maybe THAT"S why they get paid so little: they are temporary.
This article seems all wrong. Unless it is trying to pander to the lowest common denominator scum-bag architects, perhaps problems in our profession can't be solved by creating legal protection for architectural firm owners but instead could be addressed if architects had better training with how to run a business. If you do not have a sustainable office, then maybe you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Or if we we want to be completely truthful, then perhaps suck it up and admit you are hiring your employees as "temporary" and label them as such from the beginning. It is almost as offensive but at least you aren't hiding your scummyness behind legalese. Then again, this might not get you many takers when you start handing out the "temporary" job offers.

All of this is moot, of course, if you hire blacks, women, and people in wheelchairs. The article also informs that you're fucked if you try and fire those folks. There is a catch 22 to that situation. Wouldn't we all expect and want to add diversity to the profession but at what cost? You would end up keeping them around in the fear that you'd be slapped with a law suit? Thank God there are only 2% black women in this field (as stated in yet another brilliant Architect Magazine article) so the chances of getting people with these characteristics walking (or wheeling) in your door are pretty slim in the first place.

The best part is that all of this mumbo jumbo gets packaged nicely in your "office handbook". Boy, we wish we had smuggled a few of these out of the offices we have worked for. They really are classic. Maybe employees are naive. We thought these things were guides for how the office should be run, how to make them more productive and professional. NOT. They set up the case that they can fire you for any reason no matter what. The "at will" policy combined with the "guidelines" and "change at any time without notice" disclaimers give the partners zero responsibility to employees.

Well, that seems like enough of a rant. The laughable note of all of this is that our office subscription to Architect Magazine is to an architect that was only with us for about a year. He got fired and never got his review.

When buildings talk, part 2

Top Ten Reasons Why a Lesbian Sex Scene Between Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johansson Might Be a Bad Idea

In case you've been living under a rock or haven't been keeping track of erotic lesbian scenes between major film stars, we're here for you. In his upcoming film, Woody Allen will feature Penelope Cruz andScarlett Johansson in what he considers to be the "biggest erotic scene in movie history". This kind of film news just doen't get by the folks at LWoA.At first glance, you might think that this is genius – a sure winner at any box office. Hey, if Heath and Jake can draw crowds doin' the nasty, then why can't two chicks? They may be right. Not since Neve Campbell and Denise Richards showed off their tremendous acting abilities in Wild Things (and the subsequent releases of Wild Things 2 and Wild Things 3) have we been so anxious about a film release.

Then again, is this too much of a good thing. The minute someone says "best" or "biggest", our synical side kicks in. After much careful consideration, we are starting to see some down sides to this idea. Here are 10 of them:

10. This is becoming "old hat" for Cruz. Between her music video stint and Head in the Clouds, shouldn't Cruz just give up her current career and go right into into lesbian porno.

9. Do you honestly think they will get through the scene without whining or cracking a self-depricating joke?

8. Can you truly enjoy watching a lesbian sex scene including someone that slept with Tom Cruise?

7. We heard the scene will be in a photographic dark room, surely concealing all the "good stuff". A pool or sauna with lots of daylight is always best.

6. You have to sit through a Woody Allen film to watch the scene.

5. They do another lesbian trist in the film with a guy in the scene. Why did he have to go and ruin it?

4. The scene is most likely too short.

3. People might call Woody Allen a pervert and will no longer take his films seriously.

2. Jessica Biel was not chosen for the Penelope Cruz role.

1. Actually, the casting is all wrong: with Jessica Biel in the Penelope Cruz role, cast Jessica Alba in the Scarlett Johansson role - or is that an entirely new film?

Super Bowl

Only a group of architects would favor form over function in determining their squares in an office pool for the Super Bowl:

DCAP Costumer Satisfaction Survey. Yes, please.

**************************************************
**************************************************
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND PERMITS
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
**************************************************
**************************************************

You have recently been issued a permit from the City of Chicago Department
of Construction and Permits, please take a few minutes to help us serve you better by completing this customer satisfaction survey. Any customer identification information will be kept confidential.

Your responses will be combined with others who complete this survey and used to address customer satisfaction.

CLICK REPLY TO THIS EMAIL AND FILL OUT THE BELOW.

1. Please check the category that best fits your role in obtaining a permit
from the City of Chicago.

Building Owner__ Developer___ Contractor__ Architect_X_ Engineer__ Expeditor__
Other (Please specify)_________________________________________

2. Please check the category that best describes your permit (s).

Electrical__ Residential General Repairs__ New Commercial__ "Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning"__ Plumbing__ New Residential__ Commercial General
Repairs__ Other (Please specify)__COMMERCIAL INTERIOR BUILD OUT (it's going to be awesome despite your meddling attempts to fuck with us)


3. Please describe the permit process used to obtain your permit?

Easy Permit Process__
Self-Certified Online_X - you know, the one that is supposed to be fast and easy....
Fast Track Online__
Standard Plan Review__
Developer Services__
Neighborhood Permit Center: (select location)
South-95th Street__ Southwest-Kedzie Avenue__
North-Addison__ Downtown-City Hall, Rm. 104__

4. Please describe your level of familiarity with the DCAP permit process.
New to the process/First permit__
Somewhat new to the process/Second permit__
Somewhat experienced/More than five permits_X - DCAP makes me wish I went to medical school.
Very experienced/More than ten permits_

5. Please rate the following using a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent -I CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!
Please mark N/A if item is not applicable

Ease in obtaining an appointment_2 - BECAUSE I ACTUALLY GOT ONE. I LOVE HOW THE APPOINTMENT FORM MUST BE FAXED AND WHEN I CALL TO VERIFY, THE OH SO HELPFUL DCAP EMPLOYEE ACTS LIKE THEY ARE GIVING ME THEIR REMAINING KIDNEY JUST BY SPEAKING WITH ME.

Ease in applying for a permit_2 - BECAUSE IT USED TO ACTUALLY BE HARDER! DO THEY DESIGN THEIR SITE AND PROCESS TO BE MORE DIFFICULT ON PURPOSE? SOME SORT OF TWISTED BUREAUCRATIC WAY TO TAKE REVENGE ON THE REST OF US FOR NOT HAVING TO WORK THERE .

Ease in submitting permit information online for Self-Certification - 2 -
NOW I REALIZE THAT A BUILDING IS A COMPLICATED AND FAIRLY PERMANENT STRUCTURE BUT WHEN YOU ASK FOR ARCANE INFORMATION ABOUT EXHAUST FAN RPM AND TOTAL FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION OVER THE LIFESPAN OF THE EQUIPMENT, QUESTIONS MY ENGINEERS DON'T KNOW, THE PRODUCTS SPECIFICATIONS DON'T LIST, WHEN YOU ASK ME TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE I SUBMIT FOR PERMIT, WELL....IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF.
DCAP, WE'RE THE TROLL. ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS THREE.

Simplicity of the permit process_1 UM, FUCK YOU!

Convenience of the permit process_1 WOW, I WISH I COULD PISS ON YOUR FACE.

Friendliness, helpfulness and courteousness of neighborhood permit center
staff__ N/A_X- THANKFULLY I DIDN'T EXPERIENCE THESE ODDITIES OF HUMANKIND.

Friendliness, helpfulness and courteousness of customer service staff_3
N/A__ ONE LADY ACTUALLY SMILED AT ME. ONCE.

Friendliness, helpfulness and courteousness of reviewers_3 N/A__SELF CERT PROJECTS DON'T REQUIRE REVIEW, THIS MADE THEM ALL MORE FRIENDLY.

Timeliness of reviews_1 N/A__STILL TOOK TO LONG FOR THEM TO DO NOTHING.

Consistency, clarity and thoroughness of reviews__ N/A_

Approach of reviewers (positive and helpful)_3 N/A__MY PROJECT MANAGER WAS KIND OF HELPFUL. HE CAN LIVE.

DCAP staff was very knowledge-able about permit process/building code_4
N/A__HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO LOOK IN THE BOOK! THE CITY SHOULD HIRE MORE LIKE HIM.

Speed in obtaining the permit_1 N/A__THE CITY EQUIVALENT OF WHAT SUPPOSED TO BE A THREE HOUR CRUISE. I MADE A WHOLE BUNCH OF SHIT OUT OF COCONUTS IN THE TIME IT TOOK TO GET OFF THE PERMIT APPLICATION ISLAND. (too much Gilligan?)

DCAP Web site was useful, informative and easy to navigate_1 WHEN YOU NEED A SITE TO EXPLAIN HOW TO NAVIGATE YOUR SITE, IT IS NOT USEFUL, INFORMATIVE OR EASY TO NAVIGATE, IT'S EVIL.

DCAP hours of operation _1 N/A__I JUST HATE DCAP SO MUCH THAT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE OPEN 24 HOURS OUT OF SPITE.

6. How quickly did you receive your permit after submitting an application?

Same day__ Three days__ One week__ One month__
Other (Please specify)_____FIVE WEEKS - WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AMAZING IF THERE WERE THE REGULAR PERMIT PROCESS BUT LIKE I SAID, IT WAS SELF CERT. SELF CERT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FAST, ONE WEEK FAST. WE PAY EXTRA FOR THAT SHIT.

7. Please rate the following using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and
5 being excellent.

Satisfaction with the level of professional service at DCAP__2 I THOUGHT MY PROJECT MANAGER WAS GOOD, SO HE BRINGS THIS SCORE UP FROM THE NEGATIVES.

Satisfaction with the permit process (simple and easy to follow)_2 MY EARLIER COMMENTS ON THIS ASIDE, WHEN A PROCESS CHANGES EVERY YEAR OR EVEN EVERY FEW MONTHS, IT MAKES THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE ANYTHING BUT SIMPLE AND EASY TO FOLLOW. THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION! WHICH ONE SHOULD I USE? I FELT LIKE I WAS PICKING FOR MY LIFE, LIKE THE WRONG CHOICE WOULD END IN ME RUNNING THROUGH A CAVE WITH A GIANT BOULDER OF STINGING SCORPIONS CHASING ME AND I DON'T OWN A BULLWHIP! RUN INDIE, RUN!

oh and expediters. The best way to get a permit fast seems to be by hiring expediters to move it through the process. Doesn't it seem odd that a service has sprouted up solely for the purpose of waiting in line at DCAP? Nothing against them as people, but expediters don't know anything about construction, why are they required? because DCAP permitting process is so fucking slow, unprofessional, and needlessly complex.

8. In what areas do you feel DCAP performed well?

The project manager was reasonable and professional.


9. What else can DCAP do to make the permit process more convenient?

The separation of the Zoning department, separate review process
caused significant time wasted waiting in their lines. The zoning
examiners were prohibitive to a speedy process. I would like to see
the DCAP project manager expedite the zoning review, act as the
interface between myself and the Zoning department.
This project was a Self Cert. It was unclear as to which of three
different permit applications available online we were supposed to
use. This confusion caused the zoning people to repeal their approval
due to irregular application documents. This was infuriating as the
project is interior work only and doesn't change use, no zoning
issues. This caused a nine day delay in permit being issued. CAN WE HAVE THE ENTIRE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF LIQUIDATED? WHO DO I SPEAK TO ABOUT THAT?

10. What else can we do to make the DCAP Web site more helpful to you?

The site is slow, poorly organized and has too much information is on
each page. Make it clear what documents are required for each permit
process / type. Make it clear or only have one permit application
available. Be able to schedule appointments online - NO FAX. Be able
to submit drawings in PDF format.
-------
These are my thoughts on a recent experience with the Chicago Department of Construction and Permits. These are my feelings, however unrefined, and don't necessarily represent the feelings of the LWoA staff...at least not at this very second. Maybe now. Or now.

I'll end with a story. Once I was working on a prospective project in Palm Springs, CA. I walked into their immaculate and empty building department. A lovely woman stood with a smile and said to me, "Welcome to Palm Springs Building Department. How can I help you get a permit today?" Bless her. RIP Sonny Bono.

A new year and we still have our jobs

Well, most of us do... ...so far. I guess with all of the doom and gloom of the economy, we should be happy. Things are looking up though. At least this is what you might think if you consider what a client of ours said the other day: "At least now they are talking about an overall recession and are no longer fixating on how the housing market is in the gutter."

And what do we need to pull us out of our economic-induced coma? A cool horror flick that depicts havoc in the largest American city. One uplifting thought comes to mind while watching the head of the statue of Liberty crashing into a building, chunks of the city flying here and there, and major portions of the city infrastructure getting ravaged. That thought: they're gonna need some architects when this is all through."Earthquake in New York" is on tonight. I don't know about you guys but this architect is making a shit-load of popcorn and parking himself in front of the tube!

The reviews continue - everyone gets a beer

The 15th has come and gone, there is no end in sight for employee reviews, more than 3 people have left, and the new guy never showed up for work - even after he was hired. Though CM had the closest guess, there are no winners so I guess we all win. We can all go celebrate with a beer. Except for John, because he is in San Francisco and is busy studying the interrelationships of Feng Shui and urban planning. Hint: If you have an architectural firm with a policy of yearly performance reviews, you might want to actually have the reviews before you have no employees left to review.

Blog Action Day

Today is Blog Action Day. We’re not sure if the Shrub has declared it a national holiday or not but if you are browsing the blogosphere today, you’ll likely notice that everyone is writing about the environment in some way or another. We’ll try to be serious for 5 seconds and contribute to this.

We’ve done a little browsing and there is some great stuff going on out there but in all of the chatter about composting, wind farms, and hybrid vehicles, it’s very easy to lose focus. We are all on this planet for a pretty short period of time – and then we’re gone. You would think that with such a finite existence, we would take the time and exert the effort to enjoy one another’s company just a little. Our advice for a better environment is this: Smile.

What is the point of the world being here forever and what is the point of prolonged life if we don’t get along – or at least be amused by each other’s existence? People are pretty damned entertaining if you just give them a chance. If you hate people, you can even fake it so you don't ruin it for everyone else. Hey, if this guy can do it, anyone can.
Have a nice day!

Architect must be boycotted

The magazine, Architect, must be boycotted. Do architects actually read this shit? This stuff might be great for Annie Choi’s friends but who else picks it up? You know you are in trouble when a guy with Le Corbusier glasses is on the front cover and his last name isn’t Johnson. This, in our minds, is going too far.

We though that the magazine was flawed from the start but were willing to give it a chance. We also thought that really had it coming. They are the ones responsible for that horrible salary article a while back. This is great for people like us that like to criticize this shit but what other good does it do?

Has anyone seen the latest issue? The first couple issues had a few annoying pics of architects. I can take my occasional self-promotional horse shit but the latest issue is the worst. Every article, commentary, ad, you name it, is accompanied by a full-page photo of an architect or architects. It has become the GQ of architecture magazines. The poses are terrible too. It is like the word “ASSHOLE” should be scrawled beneath each picture.
The flaw of the magazine is that it is all about focusing on the architects not the architecture. Who the fuck cares about what architects wear or how they look or whether they are a nerd or not? Your buildings and designs should be your connection to people, not your picture in GQ. We are all for celebrating the newest, cool design to be done by someone but lets allow the architecture ego to be enlarged through that and not through you looking cool in a black suit. Besides, there are no hot chicks doing cool architecture so who would want to look at the photos. Could you imagine the next issue: Zaha Hahaha naked in a hot tub except for a couple of artistically placed bubbles? That’s the crescendo that magazine seems to be building towards and it’s just wrong.
Maybe this is the point of the magazine and why it is called "Architect" and not "Architecture - something". If so, then we think this point is all wrong. It not only exacerbates the problem we have with the image of the architect as the all-knowing savior but it simultaneously pushes the point that image is more important than anything else when it comes to architecture. Personally, we not only find this inaccurate but a disservice to what we do as a profession.

One building says to another building:

Why do we do such crappy buildings?

Most of the buildings we design are condominiums. It’s not a romantic job but someone has to do it. One question we often ask ourselves is, “why can’t we make nicer buildings”. The easy blame gets spread between the head designer and the owner but this doesn’t really tell the entire story.

First it’s important to clarify; I don’t think any of us feels particularly guilty about our work. We aren’t killing kittens or doing anything as unseemly as that. We are making a minor contribution to the world: people need a place to live. We are fulfilling a need. It’s not great that they seem to love living in little cubicles in the sky but what can we do about that? Also, our buildings don’t completely suck. They have a little detail, are typically not un-pleasant to walk by and they sure as hell aren't the worse things on the street.
One of the problems is that work is somewhat mundane. How many cubicles in the sky can you really design while keeping it interesting? Some architects get more excited if those cubicles in the sky are glass and steel instead of brick and wood but I am not sure there is that great a distinction between the two. Others are excited if you just change the shape of the cubicle – boy, if only that apartment were round or obtuse – now that would be more fun to design. Please…

I am not sure that the product is the problem. Part of the problem with designing these things is that we are only concerned with what sells. Granite counters, body sprays and rain cans, that perfect “sweet spot” of square footage. Oh, and it has to have a little outdoor space – even if that space is a 25 square foot checker-plate deck facing an garbage-filled alley, it has to have it. These are all that really matters in the condo world. And why is this so? It is easiest to blame the lemmings that seem to be lining the streets to buy this stuff. Or is it the developers who believe that this is all people want so this is what they are going to serve them. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two.
Another line of thought is that architects are to blame for this entire dilemma. Since we are the harbingers of architectural culture, it is our job to educate the public about quality space and design. If this were the case, wouldn’t we have spent more time learning how to teach and communicate then how to draw and design?

Ultimately, cheaper and bigger end up being the goal and in order to make the client happy (so we can get paid and commissioned to designed more “bigger and cheaper” cubicles) we do whatever it takes. Cheaper and bigger is what the client wants and it is what the client sells to the consumers – which is, in this city, most of us. What a screwed up circle.

One of the ladies formerly in our office informed us that Oprah had a show on “living small” (as if this would eventually change the world). The show featured one guy that lives in 94 square feet of space. This guy is obviously not married and he certainly doesn’t rake in the kind of dough that Oprah does. Does Nate Berkus live in 94 sq feet? Shit, I don’t think Oprah can confine herself to 9400 square feet (and I am not making a crack about her body here)!
Who knows, maybe Oprah is the answer. Perhaps she can begin to assist architects in the education of the general public about quality space through her show!!! Then again, I am not sure I could stomach a talk show filled with architects. HGTV and the DIY network are bad enough. Perhaps if we can convince Oprah what quality design is and that quantity is not everything, I am sure we are well on our way to not designing crappy buildings anymore.

Dear Annie Choi

Dear Annie Choi,

Good riddance. We haven’t been so keen on you hanging around us like an archi-hag anyway. It's too bad though, we will truly miss all of those “deep” interjections you have about turkey eggs and tacos.

We are sorry that you have not been able to use us for something self-gratifying like you do the rest of your so-called friends. Sorry we seem to have nothing to offer you but we do take offense at the suggestion that we are not good to hang out with at a bars. Frankly, we believe we are some of the most jovial drinkers out there. We are also typically quite generous with buying rounds as we hate to drink alone. Perhaps you didn’t catch a round because you were too busy ogling the doctors and lawyers at the tables next to us. Or maybe we were downing our drinks so fast that you missed a round or two.

We also don’t get the whole 11:00 at night dinner thing. We are sure that there are some in our profession that love to work more than anything else in the world and unless we have been out drinking and skipped a regular dinner hour, we typically dine right after work. It is unfortunate that those are the only architects you hang out with. We believe that if you started slumming it and hung out with some of us from the 2nd and 3rd tier architecture firms (not the SOMs, KPFs, or any of those snobby arty firms) you would quickly find that many of us realize there is much more to life than architecture. We typically show this by drinking profusely; religiously attending every nearby happy hour.

Don’t think for a moment though, that while slumming with us lesser architects you will escape discussions of architecture. We still over-indulge in ourselves and in our work and why shouldn’t we? We are the most brilliant and most important people we know. We are responsible for some really cool shit. We just don’t work as hard as our big-wig counterparts. Stressing over stuff like what angle to tilt our curtain walls or what type of zinc-coated panels to use on our buildings is really not high on our list of priorities.

Again, we are not so sad you are giving up on us. It's just too bad you have such a bad impression. If you stuck around long enough you might eventually see us slip into some meaningful conversations about space elevators, Adam & Eve, or Jessic Biel’s acting career.

Yours truly,

Architects Suffering a Life Without Andy

Top ten clues that you may not be environmentally friendly:

10. You shoot anything that moves in your back yard out of fear that it might carry disease.

9. You have covered every inch of your yard with landscape fabric to prevent weeds.
8. You put all your “empties” neatly back into the case but still can’t find the energy to recycle.

7. You own a battery-operated Roundup gun.
6. You choose to drive to work even though it takes longer than public transportation. 5. You are frightened by compost.

4. You bring a television with you... ...camping.
3. Your idea of watering the lawn is leaving the sprinkler on until puddles form on the sidewalks.2. You are convinced that compact flourescent bulbs are part of a communist conspiracy.
1. You believe it when the president says that scientists are unsure about global warming.

A New List

So here it is. After long hours of debating, we have come up with a system to revise the Maxim list. Each of us was given the top ten women and were allowed to subtract as many women and re-arrange them in whatever order we wanted. We then add a new woman to the list to create a new top ten. Since some of us at LWoA know nothing about following directions, a few of the lists break that mold. In that event, any women beyond 1 that was added is deleted in the final tally. An asterisk follows that woman's name. Note that some of us had a hard time making a top ten out of their top ten.

Architect #1:
1. Jessica Alba
2. Adrianna Linn
3. Kristen Kreuk
4. Jessica Biel
5. Lucy Liu*
6. Scarlett Johansson
7. Eva Langoria
8. Christina Aguillera
9. Ali Larter
10. Eva Mendes

Architect #2
1. Adriana Lima
2. Jessica Alba
3. Jessica Simpson
4. Jessica Biel
5. Scarlett Johansson
6. Christina Aguillera
7. Alissa milano*
8. Angelina Jolie*
9. Eva Langoria
10. Cindy Crawford*

Architect #3
1. Scarlett Johansson
2. Jessica Biel
3. Ali Larter
4. Sarah Carter
5. Scarlett Chervat*

Architect #4
1. Jessica Biel
2. Sarah Lancaster
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Eva Mendes

Architect #5
1. Natalie Portman
2. Jessica Beil
3. Scarlet Johansen
4. Chick from Rome*
5. Clare Danes*

Architect #6
1. Jessica Biel
2. Kiera Knightly
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Ali Larter
5. Jessica Alba
6. Eva Langoria
7. Eva Mendes
8. Christina Aguillera

After analyzing the voting with a highly sophisticated point system, the LWoA list of Maxim's hottest women is:
1. Jessica Biel
2. Jessica Alba
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Ali Larter
5. Christina Aguillera
6. Eva Mendes
7. Eva Langoria
8. Natalie Portman
9. Adriana Lima
10. Sarah Lancaster

I guess in hindsight, Maxim's list is not as bad as we originally thought. When it comes down to it, many of the women ARE hot. Perhaps putting LL at the top just threw us for a loop.

Maxim is Dead Wrong

Warning: this article contains language that some might construe as offensive. If you are one of those people, do not continue reading and please click here: This site is for you

What are the editors over at Maxim thinking? How in the world can they think Jessica Alba, Christina Aguillera, and Lindsey Lohan better looking than Jessica Biel? I'll admit Scarlett Johansson is way hot - much hotter than the aforementioned train wrecks but hotter than Jessica Biel? How in the world did she not end up on the top of the list. That's a stretch. I am afraid that Maxim uses the "hot like a drugged out whore I just dumped in an alley" standard for their hottest women and I don't get it. I am not sure that Maxim is taking their important work seriously. Many men rely on Maxim for their fix of scantly clad women, to be kept up to date on the latest hot chicks, and a number of reasons that are better kept behind bathroom doors. In order to try and kick them into shape, here is a quick critique of their list. If I am way off base and guys actually think that LL is the hottest, then perhaps there is a greater sociological problem that just can't be addressed within the confines of this little blog.

Lohan is just plain spooky. I'd rather bang roadkill. And why the fuck are Mary Kate & Ashley on this list anywhere? Maybe this should be the "top women whose rib cage I'd love to rub my dick against" list. I can understand why people think Alba is hot but she looks too young and too skinny. Many of these women look like underage boys. I think it is creepy when a guy over the age of 18 say that these women are hot. Any guy over 30 that agrees has a problem and should be arrested. I agree, they have some hotties on the list but to put LL at the top is a bit frightening. At least fucking road kill would give you less of a chance of scraping against bone because you have maggots there to cushion you.

Let's look at the rest of the list. I don't watch "Heroes" but after checking IMDb, I have to confess that I think Ali Larter is pretty damn hot and should remain on the list. Fergie looks like a cross dresser or something scary. Have you ever seen that face up close? There is something very wrong there. I guess if you are into cross dressers with messed up faces, she is hot. In my book, she shouldn't make the list. Langoria is ok, but I would not say top 10. I don't even know who Rhianna is and given the way this list is going, I doubt she is worth googling. Mendes is pretty cute again not top 10 material. Aguillera has a great body and even better voice, but a little bit of a jacked up face, still O.K. though. I guess I can always cover part of the page with my thumb so I'll let it slide. Johansson is hot, but people give her too much credit as the hottest person out there. Alba used to be hot, but got too skinny. Too skinny = not hot.

This listing raises a few questions. First, who is the hottest woman? Second, how do you create a "better" list?

In answer to question 1: Jessica Biel is the hottest woman right now. Those that don't agree either don't like women or need their eyes checked. Her accomplishments as an actress can be debated (Is she a bad actress or has she just not been given the proper roles to prove herself?) but her stature as a magnificent specimen of pure feminine beauty can NOT be questioned. Her presence in one of worst movies of all time, Blade 3, almost makes that movie watchable and every man with a half an ounce of testosterone in their system has to admit that they snuck in an episode or two of 7th Heaven just to get their Jessica fix.As for how to create a better list, the folks at LWoA are working diligently on that. Since reading the news about Maxim's list, we have done very little except debate this critical issue. Stay tuned for poll results of the hottest women in the world as brought to you by LWoA.

Happy Whacking!

Choir: Oh Whacking Day!
Oh Whacking Day!
Our hallowed snake skull-cracking day!
Boy: We’ll break their backs
Gouge out their eyes
Their evil hearts we’ll pulverize!
Choir: Oh Whacking Day!
Oh Whacking Day!
May God bestow His grace on thee















Homer: Just squeeze your rage into a bitter little ball and release it at an approprate time. Like that day I hit the referee with a whiskey bottle. Remember that, when daddy hit the referee?











Lovejoy: (Reading from bible) And the Lord said, whack ye all the serpants which crawl on their bellies and thy town shall be a beacon unto others. (Long pause) So you see Lisa, even God himself endorses Wacking Day.
Lisa: Lemme see that.
Lovejoy: (Puts bible behind him) ...Mmmmmmm, no.


Bart: Ladies and gentlemen! Whacking Day is a sham! It was originally conceived in 1922 as an excuse to beat up on the Irish.
Old Irishman: 'Tis true. I took many a lump, but 'twas all in fun.