Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of a two-part series. Click here to read Part 1.
Last time, we looked at architects who — not atypically — produced some of their best work toward the end of their long careers. In architecture, at least, it seems that old age doesn’t necessarily imply an inability to grow and change. This time, we’ll look at a few architects who changed their design philosophies late in life, and found even greater success.
Edward Durell Stone (1902-78) was one of the most celebrated architects of modernism’s second generation. In his mid-50s, however, Stone became disillusioned with the movement, declaring, "Much of our modern architecture lacks (the) intangible quality of permanence, formality and dignity. It bears more resemblance to the latest-model automobile, depending upon shining, metallic finish — doomed to early obsolescence."
Curiously, this period of uncertainty in Stone’s life — coming at an age when most people are mulling retirement — instead marked an upturn in his career. He was awarded a number of important commissions, landing him on the cover of Time magazine in 1958. His firm grew from 20 people to 200, and he remained at the height of commercial success when he died at 76.
The career of Philip Johnson (1906-2005) also peaked between his 60s and his 80s, when he was busily designing large numbers of more or less generic modernist skyscrapers. But even these late-life works were a mere prelude.
Johnson, like Stone, eventually abandoned modernism and produced a number of postmodern works such as Manhattan’s infamous "Chippendale" AT&T building of 1984 — proving that you could indeed teach an old architect new tricks. His longevity, more than anything else, accorded him the title "dean of American architects" when he died at 98.
With long lifespans so commonplace among architects, it’s all the more tragic when brilliant talents are lost long before their time. Among these was Henry Hobson Richardson (1838-1886), the all-but-single-handed progenitor of the Romanesque Revival of the late 19th century. Richardson made his mark with Boston’s Trinity Church of 1872, and had just completed Chicago’s epoch-making Marshall Field Wholesale Store of 1885 — one of the seminal works of modernism — when he died of a kidney disorder at 47. One can only imagine the face of American architecture had Richardson lived.
Another premature departure was that of Addison Mizner (1872-1933), architect of many incomparably romantic Mediterranean Revival works. Mizner’s passing at 60 coincided with the close of the golden age of Revivalist architecture, and his infallibly picturesque sensibilities remain unequaled to this day.
More recent but equally tragic was the loss of Pritzker prize winner James Stirling (1926-92), architect of the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart and many other distinguished structures, whose best work surely still lay ahead of him.
Thankfully, these are anomalies in a profession blessed by unusually long and active careers. The likely explanation for this longevity is that one doesn’t simply fall into an architectural career. The grueling educational process — not to mention the modesty of the monetary rewards — ensures that only the fanatically dedicated will make the sacrifices involved.
Architects practice architecture because there’s really nothing else on earth they’d rather do. So, even in the absence of more tangible rewards, at least we have happiness and peace of mind. We grow old because we love what we do, and we want to keep on doing it.
What’s your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.