Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Crit memories: Foster, Rogers, Libeskind & Scott Brown

  • 1 Comment

Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Daniel Libeskind and Denise Scott Brown share their crit memories


Norman Foster

Paul Rudolph set the master’s class at Yale University (1961-2) a project for a laboratory on a greenfield site in New Haven, Connecticut. I suggested to Richard (Rogers) that we teamed up to do it together and we started right away. Our concept was a spine of horizontal movement for people and goods with laboratory blocks connected to it at right angles - each block was high at the junction with the spine, marked with towers of lifts and escape stairs. The heavily serviced lab blocks stepped down like ziggurats into the landscape.

As we developed the design, it became apparent that other functions were needed - common facilities such as dining and meeting spaces. We agonised over whether these should be incorporated into the spine, or whether they should - like the laboratories - be attached as another kind of building. Rudolph, in one of his customary tours of the studio, came by to discuss our project. We shared with him our indecision as to where to place these elements. He felt strongly that they should not interrupt the clarity of the spine; said so in no uncertain terms and strode off as impatient as ever. After much exploration, we decided that the spine should contain these shared facilities after all and set off to prepare the final drawings with an ambitiously large-scale white cardboard model.

For the final jury, Rudolph assembled a team including Philip Johnson. When it came to our turn, there was much heated debate - which Johnson finally interrupted, declaring loudly that the spine was cluttered with unnecessary little buildings. ‘Just what I told them,’ said Rudolph, whereupon Johnson grabbed the offending structures, ripped them off the model, threw them on the floor, and declared: ‘There now; that’s much, much better.’


Richard Rogers

Norman (Foster) and I had worked together on a scheme for the science laboratories at Yale, which followed Louis Kahn’s distinction between served and servant spaces, with services concentrated in towers. Philip Johnson was like a mafia godfather in the way that he dominated American architecture in the early 1960s. Descending on the crit, he didn’t really speak to Norman and I. Instead, as if engaged in an internal dialogue, he wrapped his fist around the model’s balsa wood towers and crushed them, before throwing the remains on the floor.

It was a curiously aggressive gesture which made quite an impression on me. In fact, 10 years later when Renzo Piano, Su Rogers and I were talking about entering the Pompidou Centre competition, Philip Johnson’s flirtation with Postmodernism and his presence on the jury was one of my strongest arguments for not wishing to enter.

As it turned out, despite his early flirtations, Johnson and Jean Prouvé were two of the strongest advocates for our scheme.


Daniel Libeskind

At the Cooper Union, I took a course on structures in architecture given by Ysrael Seinuk, a renowned engineer famous in New York for his skyscrapers.

Our assignment was to design a structure for a suburban house for a wealthy person. This was the late 1960s, and I raised my hand and said that I refused to do this bourgeois project because I had no intention ever to build a rich, suburban house

So I went off on my own. Because it was all about structures I visited a bus terminal in north Manhattan (G Washington in the Bronx Bridge), which had recently been completed by the celebrated Italian structural engineer Pier Luigi Nervi.

I sourced all the drawings I could get my hands on of its beautiful concrete structures and I did my analysis on the calculations, all the rebars and the loads … it is a very complex piece of engineering and a very beautiful terminal.

When the end of year review came, all my colleagues, of course, had these houses all nicely sized with beams and structures and beautiful drawings. And I hung up my structural analysis of Nervi’s bus terminal.

On the jury was John Hejduk who was the dean of the school at the time - a very famous thinker and architect - and Robert Slutzky, a professor of architecture and famous painter.
When it came to my project Seinuk said: ‘I’m sorry I detest this project, I just don’t accept it.’

Whereas Hejduk and Slutzky were really laughing because it was a quantum leap above their requirements in terms of knowledge of complexity.

So there was a kind of laughter and irony and support from Hejduk and Slutzky, but contempt from Seinuk for not doing the assignment which had been set.
He gave me the lowest grade that I ever received in school - ‘b’.

That grade had such a profound affect on me. But it became a statement - you can be degraded, but you have to pursue your own path - and I was lucky that Hejduk and Slutzky saw the virtue in that.

My advice to students preparing for their first crits would be not to submit to authority just because its authority - think freely.

Often people are cowered by famous names and professors or whatever, but I think the most important thing is to be free and to think for yourself. You might get in trouble, but that’s part of it.


Denise Scott Brown

The problem with authoritarian crits is that when students’ work gets ridiculed or torn up or stamped on, they take it in and end up doing exactly the same thing.
I’ve witnessed one-upmanship wars in crits at the AA during the early ’50s that didn’t teach anyone anything other than how to be mean. And I’ve seen awful politics in American crits during the ’60s - with faculty waiting until the dean has spoken and then agreeing.

When I taught at UCLA I took my studio of 15 students to watch the mid-term crits at Berkeley. I had been invited by Jack Seidner, my former student, teaching then at the school, to be on his studio’s crit, and I suggested he invite my students to join me on the jury.

I believe that being on the power end of the relationship helps students learn, but my students really took down the other students. Although I had been carefully nurturing with them, they were as mean as could be - worse than faculty. When we got back I asked: ‘Why were you so harsh with those students? Especially when you are students yourselves?’ The answer was simply that the same thing had been done to them and I heard the horror stories that had shaped their personalities, turning them toward authoritarianism.

But my questioning caused them to reflect on why they behaved the way they did, I hope it taught them to be more thoughtful.

Send us your crit memories

‘He said to me “this is the worst building I have ever witnessed - it is consistently bad at all levels, nothing redeems it at all. It answers the brief perfectly but offers absolutely nothing as a piece of architecture….” ’ Visit our website to read Ivan Harbour’s crit memory in full.

Want to share your own school crit memories online?

Email: annmarie.corvin@emap.com

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Your enjoyable review this week of the role of architecture schools is underpinned by two elegant essays on the studio system by Ellis Woodman and Murray Fraser, both of whom identify Alvin Boyarsky’s introduction of the studio system at the AA in the early 1970’s as architectural education’s Big Bang. One thing that should be emphasised about the AA at that time was the constant presence of Alvin around the school, and his involvement in, and knowledge of, the work of his students. I think it was Peter Cook who said that Alvin knew the names of a majority of the students in the school, and he knew the contents of their portfolios. He observed his experiment at first hand.

    When I was working with other students in a top floor studio at the AA some time in early 1974 on an urban project in a medieval town in the Midi, Alvin wandered in and asked us what we doing. He listened to my explanation with his usual sceptical expression, tugging at his hair, and smoking one of my Gitanes. When I had finished, he more or less accused us of behaving like Clive of India. This was, of course, a typical Boyarskian provocation, and he made the accusation simply out of curiosity as to how we would respond. I am not sure our further justifications of the AA’s interventions in a small Midi town really convinced him, but I did notice he asked to see a copy of the final submission we made to the French organisation we were working with.

    Alan Power
    Alan Power Architects Ltd
    25 July 2014

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs