Search for the most iconic chair designs in the world and you'll likely come across a list that includes:
Wassily Chair by Marcel Breuer (1928)
Barcelona Chair by Mies van der Rohe (1929)
Grand Consort by Charlotte Perriand, Le Corbusier, and Pierre Jeanneret (1928)
The various Eames Chairs (starting in 1945)
Wishbone Chair by Hans Wegner (1949)
Wiggles Side Chair by Frank Gehry (1972)
And the list goes on.
Most of these chairs also look as if they were just designed yesterday. Meaning, they're timeless and have stood the test of time. But they are mostly older designs. Which raises an interesting question: How much does the passage of time play in a role in determining whether or not something is "iconic"?
There are some more recent designs that you could call iconic. The Roly-Poly Chair by Faye Toogood (2014) and the Louis Ghost Chair by Philippe Stark (2002) come to mind. This suggests that really great designs can become immediate classics. (Though, this latter example is a reinterpretation of a classic French chair that in and of itself is an icon.)
What I think is the mostly right answer is that, yeah, sometimes you can catch lighting in a bottle. The Louis Ghost Chair, for instance, is one of the top selling chairs of the 21st century. It's a clever and modern take that used new technologies (as is often the case) to revisit an old classic. Starck nailed it.
But more often than not, you probably need time. Time is what allows the object to form cultural associations in our mind and to prove that it is, in fact, timeless. However, if this is truly the case, then it makes it difficult to determine if we're still producing as many design icons today as we did in the past. We won't really know until they become old.
Image: Louis Ghost Chair via Knoll
I spent much of this morning reading about and listening to discussions about what's happening in Ukraine and so, instead of a typical post this morning, I'm just going to share a mélange of links.
Monocle 24 Foreign Desk episode talking about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Speakers are Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, former NATO chief Richard Shirreff, Russian journalist Ekaterina Kotrikadze, and Russia expert Mark Galeotti. I found this helpful in better understanding some of the dynamics at play here and what might happen going forward -- though, of course, who knows. All of this is both deeply sad and frustrating. [Link]
Discussion in Bloomberg Green about the feasibility of the EU shutting off Russian gas right now, as opposed to through a protracted transition. Currently, the EU satisfies about 20% of its total energy needs through gas and about 40% of it comes from Russia. [Link] Also, a chart showing Russian natural gas exports, by destination. [Link]
Warren Buffet published his widely read annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this weekend. He likes to deliver news like this on a Saturday so that people have time to digest it before the markets reopen on Monday. The overall message was one that we have heard before: BH has a lot of cash (~$144 billion to be exact) and they're not finding very many compelling opportunities in which to deploy it. [Link]
To add to the above, here is a longish Q&A session with Buffet's partner, Charlie Munger. He continues to be worried about excess money in the system and high inflation. [Link]
Construction has been recently completed on a Mies van der Rohe design from 1952 that had been forgotten and buried in some archives. Originally commissioned to be a fraternity house at Indiana University, the building is now the Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design. This is a supremely cool story, particularly for an architecture school. [Link]
Yet another simple example by Bobby Fijan on how highly restrictive zoning codes and design guidelines don't always produce the end results that we might want. Different times and different contexts in this example. But it's interesting to think about how best to promote design excellence in our cites. Is more creative market freedom the answer? [Link]
My friend Randy Gladman, who is senior vice-president of development advisory at Colliers here in Toronto, published an opinion piece in the Financial Post last week about the hidden costs of inclusionary zoning. It is consistent with the ad nauseam discussions that we have been having on this blog for the past few years, but it of course remains an important read. [Link]
Steve Pomeroy of Focus Consulting makes an argument in the Globe and Mail that elevated home prices in Canada isn't primarily the result of a supply deficit. Using recent census data that allegedly shows that housing supply in Vancouver actually kept pace with demand (over how long of a period?), Pomeroy instead points to the other typical culprits: strong demand, low interest rates, unused homes owned by non-residents, and so on. This one likely deserves a dedicated post at some point. [Link]
Ironically, the post turned out to be wordier than my usual ones.
Mr. and Mrs. Gehan recently completed this home for themselves in the Preston Hollow neighborhood of Dallas. Mr. Gehan is the founder of a home building company called UnionMain Homes, but this home is like nothing the company builds. The architect, Scott Specht, describes it as being "new brutalist." There's exposed and ribbed concrete walls (which alone are reported to cost ~$720,000). But the sliding planes, cantilevered roof, and expanses of glass are reminiscent of the International Style, and in particular of the Barcelona Pavilion.
At around 8,826 square feet, the house cost about $6 million to build (presumably this excludes the 1.5 acre land cost). That works out to around $680 per square feet, which once again goes to show you why "only the rich can afford this much nothing." Minimalism is expensive. Here's an excerpt from the WSJ: "He [Mr. Gehan] was amazed by the level of detail required and the complication involved in creating a clean and simple aesthetic. That less-cluttered, simpler look will start to make its way into his production houses, he says."
Photos: Specht Architects