Googie architecture

[GaryReggae 80]

Anyone else here a fan of 'Googie' architecture?

Googie was popular in the 1950s and 60s and is truly 'Space Age' architecture, reflecting a real optimism in the future. Googie was most commonly seen in roadside diners, bowling alleys and coffee shops. While there's not many examples of it here in the UK (I can only think of a few amusement aracdes and not much else), it was very common in California.

Googie is typified by exciting architecture that symbolises the space race, common features being bright colours, large expanses of glass, unusual shaped shell roofs and a general deviation from the 'boxy' conventional architecture of the time. Here are some examples, it would be good to see any other photos people have:



You can find out more about Googie here: http://www.spaceagecity.com/googie/

[Chartsengrafs 0]

Absolutely!  I had no idea that it was considered a style in it's own right though!  It's very hip.

I just ran a search and found these websites on it, which have nice photo galleries, background information, etc.:

 

http://www.spaceagecity.com/googie/

 

http://roadsidepeek.com/googie/index.htm

[GAT-X105 3]

This style is really cool, it's what people in 1955 thought life would be like in 1985. There's a lot of stuff like this, and a lot of Tiki stuff in Wildwood, NJ. Most of the hotels there were built in the 60s.

[organicsabre 1]

Another example of futuristic architecture is a local architect called Sam scorer in Lincoln, our company had the please of designing the Damons restaurant in liverpool before sams death 3 years ago. we are now the architects for Damons in the Uk with 2 more restaunrants under our belt. Sams thing was experimental roofs and this Little chef restaurant (formally a petrol station) has his parabolic (can never spell it!!) concrete wing roof designed and built in the 1950's.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

The Jetsons

I think this kind of architecture can be fun to stop by while on vacation or something, but I wouldn't want it where I live, lol.  It's a pretty fun style though!

[Jordanmac 0]

I am a big fan of Googie architecture. I really like the name too. I wonder where they came up with it. But anyway, I like this style because it's different from the boxy, bland buildings of the time. They're really interesting to look at. It's a really cool style. It reminds of the Jetosons.

[Jerebannus XVI 7]

Googie architecture is pretty weird, i can't say i like it but i don't dislike it either.

[GaryReggae 80]

Wow, it's good to see this thread up and running again!!! Yes, I've heard of that Little Chef restaurant but never had the pleasure of seeing it. I hope they don't demolish it, I know it was theatened at one point.

Another UK building that could vaguely be considered as Googie is Clarence Pier in Southsea:



Apart from that, Gerry Anderson's 1960s TV shows such as Thunderbirds and Stingray are a hige source of Googie inspiration, these were set in the future but all the buildings have a very futuristic 60s style, I love it.

[slightlyslack 20]

I friggin' love Googie, although I'm probably biased because every In-'n'-Out Burger is built in that style.

One of the things that really turned me off J.H. Kunstler, and off of New Urbanism itself in turn, is Kunstler's repeated use of terms like vapid and idiotic to describe Googie, and the chorus of agreement from the professional architects and designers who make up the movement.  A world without whimsy is not one in which I'd want to live.

[hdorriker 190]

Oh my god I love those kinds of buildings. Although I thought they were separated into specific styles of modernism (Organic, Brutalism, International, De-Stijl, etc...) But yes, brightly colored cellular windows, wavey concrete roof tops, space-ship houses and anything else spacey looking. Yeah that's basically my favorite kind of architecture right there.

I had never heard the term Googie to describe it before though.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 9/27/2005 8:50:33 PM
Author: slightlyslack

I friggin' love Googie, although I'm probably biased because every In-'n'-Out Burger is built in that style.

One of the things that really turned me off J.H. Kunstler, and off of New Urbanism itself in turn, is Kunstler's repeated use of terms like 'vapid' and 'idiotic' to describe Googie, and the chorus of agreement from the professional architects and designers who make up the movement. A world without whimsy is not one in which I'd want to live.

quote>

In defense of Kunstler, even though he can be abbrasive and insensitive to other people's tastes, much of the Googie style was built with as much concern for culture and posterity as the local McDonald's in the strip mall. Googie is not only a product of the space race but also a product of car culture, since it's designed to look good from a distance (and a certain speed). As functional buildings, Googie structures often fail for the same reasons that many Modernist/Deconstructivist abstractions fail---they're built to look at and not to use.

All that said, they do have a place in our history and in very small doses can be pretty neat attractions in themselves. The question is, do we want functional architecture that adds value to our daily lives, or do we just want to be entertained by everything we see through a car window? It's a matter of personal taste.

[slightlyslack 20]

Date: 9/28/2005 6:23:48 PM Author: louisville327

Googie is not only a product of the space race but also a product of car culture, since it's designed to look good from a distance (and a certain speed).

quote>

 

Are you a fan of Streamline Moderne, by any chance?  Much of the Art Deco aesthetic in architecture is based on how things look through a windshield at 30 mph.  The Miracle Mile here in Los Angeles was probably the first large-scale Art Deco development in America; at the behest of its developer A.W. Ross, ornamentation was designed to look good through a car window.  Of course, unlike most Googie-rich strips, the Miracle Mile is still relatively walkable.  What's your take on a proto-Googie building like the Brown Derby, which was in a fairly pedestrian-friendly environment?  (For all the talk about Wilshire Boulevard as the first superhighway and all that happy horseshit, for most of its length it's not all that much wider than my quiet residential street.)

 

As far as whether buildings should be useful or just good-looking: what do you think about the Taj Mahal or other essentially functionless buildings whose sole function was to inspire awe in viewers?  Couldn't Googie just be considered a vernacular equivalent of that intention, as reinterpreted through the framework of a capitalist (semi-)democracy?

 

Finally, I take issue with the notion that because Googie isn't explicitly designed with posterity in mind, it lacks functionality.  Maybe I've just read too much literature on bounded rationality and the failure of intention, but it's my view that buildings designed to look timeless become obsolete almost as fast as those in the new as tomorrow! aesthetic of high Modernism.  Or, as the old saw goes, Behavior intended to impress invariably fails to do so.  Buildings we consider timeless rarely started out that way: the Parthenon was garishly painted, and only acquired its hauntingly white color as a result of years of neglect.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 9/28/2005 11:38:59 PM
Author: slightlyslack

Are you a fan of Streamline Moderne, by any chance? Much of the Art Deco aesthetic in architecture is based on how things look through a windshield at 30 mph. What's your take on a proto-Googie building like the Brown Derby, which was in a fairly pedestrian-friendly environment?

quote>

I am not a fan of streamline moderne, for the same reason I'm not a fan of anything with modern in the name of the style. Generally, any architectural form that sheds traditional aesthetic proportions (like the golden ratio) is displeasing to me for the same reason that it's displeasing to most people---even if they're suckered by the gimmicks and the curvy lines. If the proportions are awkward, I generally don't like it. Not everything I look at has to be perfectly (or classically) proportioned, naturally, but I generally favor anything that is. I'm a conservative I suppose!

As far as whether buildings should be useful or just good-looking: what do you think about the Taj Mahal or other essentially functionless buildings whose sole function was to inspire awe in viewers? Couldn't Googie just be considered a vernacular equivalent of that intention, as reinterpreted through the framework of a capitalist (semi-)democracy?

quote>

Well, the question really is, does Googie inspire anyone? Does it represent anything bigger than itself? The Taj Mahal consists of fine aesthetic proportion, meticulous engineering, suberb building materials and represents something very meaningful to many people (traditional Persian culture). It may just be a tomb for some guy's wife, but as a cultural landmark it is bigger than its original intended function.

What does Googie represent, other than the ability to cheaply install gimmicks on what otherwise would be a simple strip mall? Googie embodies the space race and car culture, both products of an industrial society that discards tradition in favor of expedience. Though it's pretty cool to see a building shaped like a rocket ship, it doesn't exactly invoke deep thoughts and powerful cultural messages---other than maybe SHOP HERE!!!

Finally, I take issue with the notion that because Googie isn't explicitly designed with posterity in mind, it lacks functionality. Maybe I've just read too much literature on bounded rationality and the failure of intention, but it's my view that buildings designed to look 'timeless' become obsolete almost as fast as those in the 'new as tomorrow!' aesthetic of high Modernism. Or, as the old saw goes, 'Behavior intended to impress invariably fails to do so.' Buildings we consider 'timeless' rarely started out that way: the Parthenon was garishly painted, and only acquired its hauntingly white color as a result of years of neglect.

quote>

On the other hand, buildings like the New York Public Library, the Chrysler Building and the US Capitol Building all WERE designed to be timeless, and they very much lived up to the expectation. It all depends on the context and the construction---if a building is in the right place, has the right form and serves the correct purpose for the space in which it is built, it's not difficult for it to achieve some level of timelessness. The importance of correct form cannot be underestimated. I think you can agree with me that there is a significant difference between this:



and this:

[slightlyslack 20]

Comparing working-class vernacular architecture to a philanthropist-financed Palace of Culture isn't just apples-to-oranges, it's candy bars-to-caviar.  Sure, a Denny's on an island in ocean of parking is ugly.  Anything surrounded by asphalt is going to be.  But what are you suggesting as an alternative to the Denny's?  If you drop a Googie-styled chain restaurant into an urban block but with the parking lots in the back (like you see in the medium-density parts of Los Angeles), its distinctiveness provides an anchor to the rest of the block.  It's a fairly natural leap from neon signs to Googie rooflines, IMO.  Anyhow, the only society that has ever tried to turn out monumental vernacular architecture is the Soviet Union. *shudder*

 

Also, having ornamental columns on the front of a bank or a museum is the late 19th/early 20th-century equivalent of putting a 3-foot-deep porch on the front of a McMansion.  Look at us!  We're venerable!  Trust us with your money/scarce leisure time!  The feelings I get from Googie stuff are mainly, Yeah, we can afford to be silly, 'cuz we're RICH!  Like I said--a vernacular equivalent of a massive monument to nonfunctionality such as the Taj Mahal.

 

For curiosity's sake: do you like the Hausmann-era parts of Paris where every single residence has the same grey stone facade?  I find rowhouse areas of Baltimore and New York, where 19th-century developers would throw up all the rowhouses in a given neighborhood and make them identical, to be nearly as drab as the godawful gated communities in southern Orange County where every house is cream-colored stucco with a red tile roof.  I much prefer duplexes and four-flats to rowhouses.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 9/30/2005 5:14:25 PM
Author: slightlyslack

Comparing working-class vernacular architecture to a philanthropist-financed Palace of Culture isn't just apples-to-oranges, it's candy bars-to-caviar. Sure, a Denny's on an island in ocean of parking is ugly. Anything surrounded by asphalt is going to be. But what are you suggesting as an alternative to the Denny's? If you drop a Googie-styled chain restaurant into an urban block but with the parking lots in the back (like you see in the medium-density parts of Los Angeles), its distinctiveness provides an anchor to the rest of the block. It's a fairly natural leap from neon signs to Googie rooflines, IMO.
Anyhow, the only society that has ever tried to turn out monumental vernacular architecture is the Soviet Union. *shudder*

quote>

You clearly misunderstood my use of the two photos. I was merely comparing two kinds of architectural form---one timeless, the other forgettable. You did bring up the subject of timelessness, and I was merely illustrating the differences. It would hardly be reasonable (or desired) to have every single building on every single street look like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and that's not at all what I was suggesting.

But what is Googie without the ocean of parking and the stand-alone roofline? You couldn't really plop a truly Googie building into an urban line of street-oriented storefronts because the gimmicks of the style would be lost. Other than just adding a neon sign, it would be pretty disruptive to the facade of a three-story, traditional urban building (for example) to have a giant rocket ship or a diagonal roofline hanging off of it. That anchor of distictiveness would undoubtedly be referred to as a disruptive eyesore.

But, I realize that we're mostly arguing opinion here. I'm no fan of Googie, as I see it as mostly garish and unattractive. I could argue its faults all day long and still not convince anyone of anything---and that's fine. Let's move on:

For curiosity's sake: do you like the Hausmann-era parts of Paris where every single residence has the same grey stone facade? I find rowhouse areas of Baltimore and New York, where 19th-century developers would throw up all the rowhouses in a given neighborhood and make them identical, to be nearly as drab as the godawful gated communities in southern Orange County where every house is cream-colored stucco with a red tile roof. I much prefer duplexes and four-flats to rowhouses.

quote>

Again, you misunderstood me. I was definitely NOT arguing that every single building had to look identical to the next. Where is the sense in that? What I did say, though, is that every single building should look good---where proportion, function and urban cohesion are concerned. Landmarks, though, are landmarks, and can stand on their own, no matter the style. That said, Googie and styles like Deconstructivism assume that every building should be a little landmark (even a Denny's), a testament of industry, space, or the architect's ego. When those landmarks fail to say anything other than Let's go shopping!, we have a problem. Googie and styles like it try to turn banal things into major architectural statements. The urban landscape is poorer for it, I'd say.

Again, that's my opinion, and you know what they say about those...

[Compromise 1]

Yes Googie architecture has always intrested me. My best souse of it would definatley be Thunderbirds.

[hdorriker 190]

Well, technically all vernacular architecture is forgettable. Or has reasons why it should. But I'll bring up the argument that some of this googie architecture, in largely being a thing of the past, is as much a part of our history as anything else. In another 50 years, it will be a century old, and I know that there are some vernacular houses and stuff that have been standing for a hundred years around where I live because there is a general concensus that it has character. (Some of these houses are just turn-of-the-century tract houses that were intended to be occupied by working-class wage-slaves, and it shows too).
So I think that some of the googie architecture that has character should be preserved likewise. I mean 1950 through 1980 was as valid a space of time as any other period in history. (I'm not saying that any other period of time is less valid. I'm just saying that history is a continuum and didn't just stop when we decided to abandon some of the architectural concepts from it for a while.)

[slightlyslack 20]

Date: 10/12/2005 11:52:48 AM Author: hdorriker I mean 1950 through 1980 was as valid a space of time as any other period in history. (I'm not saying that any other period of time is less valid. I'm just saying that history is a continuum and didn't just stop when we decided to abandon some of the architectural concepts from it for a while.)

quote>

Oh, you'll get a lot of disagreement from the New Urbanists on that.  I am surprised that more of them don't wear tweed jackets and bow ties, but I suppose those have been co-opted by College Republicans.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/12/2005 3:39:30 PM
Author: slightlyslack

Oh, you'll get a lot of disagreement from the New Urbanists on that. I am surprised that more of them don't wear tweed jackets and bow ties, but I suppose those have been co-opted by College Republicans.

quote>

See also: Tucker Carlson

I find it especially ironic that New Urbanism is hated most by American conservative Republicans, when it is in fact very conservative at its roots. New Urbanists like Kunstler repeatedly refer to traditional and historical architecture and urban planning as the ideal, the pinnacle of human achievement, and then face withering criticism from right-wingers who are supposed to be champions of past virtues!

But, then again, we live in an age where fiscally responsible Republicans are now the biggest government spenders (and debtors) in history.


But, to get back on topic, I'd say that not all time periods are equal. An era in American history does not have value simply because it existed. Googie is not a valuable architectural style just because it happened.

[Fred_Ginger 1]

We use to have some Orbit's (sp?) gas stations in Sacramento (CA) that were that style, most are long gone and I really miss them as they were a reminder to me of my coming of age and getting a driver's license - oh! and 25 cents a gallon!!!!!

[slightlyslack 20]

Date: 10/12/2005 3:49:00 PM Author: louisville327 I find it especially ironic that New Urbanism is hated most by American conservative Republicans, when it is in fact very conservative at its roots.  New Urbanists like Kunstler repeatedly refer to traditional and historical architecture and urban planning as the ideal, the pinnacle of human achievement, and then face withering criticism from right-wingers who are supposed to be champions of past virtues!

quote>

I'm not at all surprised, for two reasons.

 

1. NU's immediate intellectual predecessors were 1960s Marxist social critics.  It's only a slight exaggeration to say that New Urbanism draws the same crowd as the SMASH THE STATE! types did in the '60s.  I'm not sure how many young New Urbanists would subscribe to the movement (independent of its very real virtues) if they knew that Duany and Calthorpe were heavily inspired by the New Left.  The irony is, of course, that New Urbanism absolutely requires a capitalist system to function properly, because a true socialist system leads to Le Corbusier.

 

2. The urban form espoused by NU only came into its own with the Progressive-era reforms of the 1900s and 1910s, and ever since the 1912 presidential election the GOP has pitted itself against Progressivism.  Notice that Karl Rove wants George Bush to be the new William McKinley, not the new Teddy Roosevelt.  If high-speed private transportation had been available in 1870, wealthy exurban enclaves would have developed that early, and they would not look especially different from today's cul-de-sac suburbs.  The Progressives--most of whom were wealthy, or at least upper-middle class--essentially said, Look, we know that a capitalist system organized around large cities is the only thing that's gonna work, so let's try to make this arrangement as painless as possible.  The GOP has been rebelling against the Progressive legacy, in various ways, for 90+ years.

[hdorriker 190]

I always associated the GOP with suburban reductio-revivalism (temporary steel cubes covered with stucco reduced italian refferences surrounded by oceans of parking lots) Or for the sake of sounding like a 1960's marxist, The architecture of the elite, right, status-quo. Oddly enough, the architecture most often associated with socialism is the polar opposite (and my personal favorite) just as mentioned before. Obviously, socialism is in the process of becoming an abandoned concept (in this country).

According to Kunstler's claim that period architecture is the pinnacle of human achievement: that would mean that we've been going down hill ever since. At this rate, Kunstler would predict the architecture of 2020 to be stick-and-mud lean-to's.

I'm pretty sure deconstructivism will never get that literal, if it even continues that far.

Now just to clarify, I've seen new-urbanist developments and I think they are actually pretty cool. It's just the suburban application of architectural pastiche that I find irritating.



And now I'm going to post some pictures of one of my two most favorite architects works (both happen to fall under the googie umbrella):

Oscar Niemeyer

And Good 'ol Le Corbusier

(I can just feel the de-stijl influence in this one)

There's a lot more Corbie out there. I'll post it when I find some more.

[GaryReggae 80]

Oh yes, Corbusier and Niemeyer were two of the best Modernist architects there were. Actually, Niemeyer's Brasilia Cathedral that you posted a picture of rather reminds me of Liverpool Cathedral - although I think Brasilia was first.