Modernism, at Mid-Century: The Architecture of the United States Air Force Academy ed. by Robert Bruegmann

Abstract

646 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE earlier part of the book. Nevertheless, as a non-North American and non-European, I was delighted to read this excellentbook which deals with one aspect of the development of technology in my re­ gion. More, please. Leigh Edmonds Dr. Edmonds worked in Australia’s civil aviation administration before becoming a historian. He currendy lectures at Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Modernism, at Mid-Century: The Architecture of the United States AirForce Academy. Edited by Robert Bruegmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Pp. 200; notes, index. $70.00. The design and construction of the U.S. Air Force Academy be­ tween 1954 and 1962 was a classic “big project” and, this volume argues, a landmark opportunity for architectural Modernism. That the opportunity came from the newly-created Air Force, and was taken by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), the designers of Oak Ridge, raises intriguing issues at the borders of the history of technology and architecture. How far did the architectural disci­ pline tread the Cold War path of science and engineering? To what degree does SOM—both as a large organization and as a distinctive design approach—belong to the long history of military-sheltered innovation? Was “the new architecture” corrupted by the Academy project, or was it uniquely well-fitted to the new military branch and the new type of design firm? This collection of fifteen essays and three interviews necessarily suggests more questions than it can an­ swer, but editor Robert Bruegmann is right to identify the Academy as an unjusdy neglected watershed in the Modernist consolidation. Modernism at Mid-Century portrays architects notjust drawing, but competing, negotiating, compromising, framing, and promoting their work politically, and generally acting as the social beings they are. Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill had a talent for interweaving design, planning, and corporate and military clientage with an aura of technocratic efficiency. Instead of initial concept drawings, they offered the Air Force a fifteen-foot long, six-foot high work progress chart. SOM saw “flow, function, and architecture” as being so closely allied, according to essayist Kristen Schaffer, that “the ap­ proval of one automatically settled the design of the rest” (p. 39). The formula failed to win over architectural traditionalists in Con­ gress, however, who delayed the Academy’s funding—citing the church design in particular—and forced the use of more masonry at the expense ofglass. Not that this prevented SOM’s Walter Netsch from insisting in a post-design interview that, even regarding the marble facings, “the materials really evolved from the program” (p. 180). TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 647 Bruegmann’s selection of essays keeps formal analysis within mer­ ciful bounds. His own contribution, “Military Culture, Architectural Culture, Popular Culture,” is particularly strong, although the bur­ den of contextualizing the project might have been spread over more essays. Robert Neuman’s “Presenting the Academy” shifts at­ tention from the site itself to a photo exhibit that SOM and the Air Force mounted to garner project support (with mixed results, it turns out). Sheri Olson’s essay on the “Comprehensive Design Vi­ sion” for the Academy suggests that standardization of the interior decor surpassed that of the architecture, with mock-up rooms being “tested” before the furnishings were produced in quantity. When it came to designing the cadet uniforms, however, the Air Force called in Cecil B. DeMille. In a too-briefarticle on SOM’s site experi­ ments in building technology, James Russell tells us that much Air Force-funded research was later applied to general construction. While it is refreshing to watch architects in so many situations, Modernism at Mid-Century still follows the designers so closely that others tend to appear in the account as obstacles. The Air Force, while never forgotten, is never adequately fleshed out; indeed, “the Air Force” is repeatedly quoted in one essay. If the new service was, as the book suggests, a crucial legitimizer of Modernist architecture within government, the point deserves more exploration. An intri­ guing discussion of attempts by masonry interests to influence the design would have been more effective if less condescending; the Modernist palette of materials was itself highly political...