By Ryan McGarraugh, Project Coordinator

In light of the recent announcement that the latest Lego Architecture set is a reproduction of Mies Van de Rohe’s Farnsworth house, I was reminded of the long standing argument between Mies and Philip Johnson about how the columns ought to be arranged in order to make a proper glass house. Mies of course, in the Farnsworth house, held the last column back from the corner creating a cantilever (1/3 the span, + or -) while his then acolyte, Johnson, elected to place it at the corner when he designed his own “Glass” house. As the story goes, the master was so irritated by Johnson’s structural blunder that he stomped out of Johnson’s home in a legendary fit of Germanic temper, saying that he “….could not stand to stay in this house another minute!” So I had to ask myself, is Lego, by releasing the Farnsworth house first, taking the side of Mies in this famous dispute?

The dispute raises important questions regarding the critical recognition of iconic architecture. Could being Lego’d be the new highest acknowledgment of great architecture? Should we as designers and architects revert back to our own childhood experience by designing with Lincoln Logs, or Legos?

Is the purpose of architecture to create a work of design that is so iconic that its toy tribute could be a more profound acknowledgment of lasting relevance to contemporary culture than a Pritzker? It is certainly a more effective way to have the work enter into the minds of the next generation of architects.

Photo 1: The Philip Johnson Tapes; Photo 2: Brickjournal.com; Photo 3: Wirednewyork.com; Photo 4: Daniel Eling