Christopher Egan

[JD]

I came across some sad news today. Longtime frequent poster and all around nice guy, Christopher Egan died last February.

I thought that those of you who remember Christopher would like to know why you haven't seen him around here for a while.

jd

[amyrbaker]

Mr. Egan was one of those few who commanded consistent respect for his comments. T

[Warm Worm]

Hi JD, thanks for the albeit depressing news. I sometimes thought about him here and where he might have gone.

[EDS]

He was a fine example of the profession. Reasonable, calm, very knowledgeable, a good writer, and a fine Architect. A real loss to the profession. EDS

[3D Peruna]

Thanks for the update. Sad news indeed.

Any other information about him?

[Chandler Knowles]

Thanks for the info.

A damn shame. He was a fine man and a fine architect. I had spoken to him about some projects that later fell through and was really looking forward to working with him. In the next life now, I guess.

He was younger than I!

Chandler Knowles Pensacola, FL

[Paul F]

Same here, I had a potential project in Mexico that I had talked to him about, but it never materialized. He was always a gentleman and a professional

[Chandler Knowles]

"Paul F" wrote

I guess that about says it all.

"If you seek his monument, look around."

[thisbeit]

Very sad news. Shoking in fact. I didn't know he'd been ill unless he died suddenly...

I often think of the reality that in time people who've been affiliated with this NG will eventually pass on while some of us still lurk, post and preach, inform and in-fight, bicker and bitch. Chris was always more of a peacemaker than monger. Maybe his passing was somewhat of a message from him for some of us to extend olive branches to each other and agree that all the pointed opinionated ugly banter that's been going on over the past few weeks is really just an acknowledgement or celebration of the fact that we all have the freedom to express our opinions and that they are just that, opinions.

All in fun, no winners, no losers.

[Michael Bulatovich]

There doesn't seem to be much interest in threads about architecture left in the group. Why not start one or contribute to one?

[Edgar]

Sorry to hear that.

[thisbeit]

The death of Christopher Egan IS a discussion about architecture

[Michael Bulatovich]

I guess you're right.

[thisbeit]

Wait a second... on the egan-martinez website this page

states:

As of May 1, 2006 we have re-located to a new mailing address in San Antonio:

2503 Jackson Keller, # 703 San Antonio, Texas 78230 We are best reached on our cellular phones: Christopher Egan (architecture) 210-867-3428 Ana Martinez (food & graphics) 210-867-3014

On the 'contact us' page

Chris' cellphone is still listed

Cell Phones: Christopher Egan (210)-867-3428 Ana Martinez [phone]

But more importantly, if Chris passed in February, why is the site updated on May 1st?

[thisbeit]

Hmmmm... never mind:

[Mod.alt.arch]

2007 was quite a year for alt.architecture.

The loss of Christopher Egan, Bob Morrison. JD died long ago, but his ghost still posts from time to time.

In the spirit of the celebration of the dead, here are my predictions for 2008.

Warm W will pass due to blunt trauma of a falling florescent light fixture. Pat will survive the year buoyed by dumb luck. Don will pass due to an accidental gun powder explosion in his garage. Mike B. will pass from choking on his own arrogance. Ken will die from gangrene, stemming from an exposed frozen penis.

[Michael Bulatovich]

Can anyone confirm that this is true about Bob?

Comedy will never be the same again.

[Dezignaré]

After being away from the newsgroup for over a year, due to some mis-setting in my newsgroup stuff, I was determined to try ,once again, to make it work and finally got the darn thing to connect.

My joy is tempered by the news of Chris's death. I had the honor of meeting him several years ago and had the pleasure of seeing some of his projects. He was always a gentleman in word and deed, and a real attribute to the architecture profession. His kind and thoughtful contributions to this group were something I always looked forward to. He will be greatly missed.

Dezignare

[Pierre Levesque]

"Don" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

This one?

--------------------------------- Greetings to all here in alt.architecture.

I have been generally disgusted by much of the recent content of the group, ...especially the cross-posts from some rather odd newsgroups...so I've stayed out of it. However, I finally decided that I have an obligation to express my opinion....welcome or not. In doing so, I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me....simply trying to give balance to some rather bizarre points of view.

I am also going to criticize the beliefs of a long-time poster to this group, something I generally try to avoid. However, I feel quite strongly that my friend ghost-sniper has made too many hostile comments against civilization as a whole, including obnoxious and uncalled-for personal attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees, and that these cannot go unchallenged. For the record, those of you who have followed this group in recent years will recall that I have on several occasions defended his right to express his opinions here, and I will continue to do so. Ghost-sniper has often contributed useful observations on construction and the business of building, and I hope he will continue to do so. I will not enter into personal attacks, and I prefer to think that he will reply in kind....but that is his choice to make.

First....as to the notion that each of us is responsible only to him or her self....this is ridiculous. From the earliest dawn of h*mo sapiens, we are a species that has done its best by working in groups...whether for hunting, gathering, agriculture, industry or whatever. Isolated individuals who have no support from or interaction with a group do not drive pick-up trucks and live in gated communities. I assume that every penny that ghost-sniper possesses has been earned by honest work...but within a larger economic system that generates wealth. Outside of that system, life would be quite different.

The original meaning of the word "civilization" is the art of living in cities....the art by which a large group of people organize themselves in order to get along and flourish in a large and complex society. Of course, there are cultures in which this level of complexity never arises...those that operate at the level of small bands, tribes or villages. When everyone is inter-related, or when the group is so small that everyone knows everyone else, the system of governance can be quite simple. However, once the scale increases to include large numbers of people who are unknown to each other and who live in different places, the mechanisms that work for governing a small group simply do not function. They must be enhanced by larger governmental organizations such as states or nations.

Now some will say that this is a mistake, and that there should be no government larger than a village, similar to the type of community effort ghost-sniper described in his description of his gated community. Those who live in the United States and who hold this opinion are entitled to express them....but I will only respect their honesty after they have done the following, all of which are the actions of a national government:

1. Leave the territory of the United States since you consider the national government and economic system illegitimate and do not wish to be tainted by any of the benefits of living here.
2. With your friends, find some un-built-upon land and either purchase it...without using dollars, which is the currency from our supposedly corrupt national economic system backed by the national government...or fight a war of conquest to win it, and then seek recognition as a state by the world community...or prepare yourselves for ongoing military actions by those who do not recognize your claim to the land. (The land should be unimproved if you want to prove your point of self-sufficiency...otherwise you would be taking advantage of the efforts of others which would completely negate your ideas).
3. Build your community any way you wish....providing the infrastructure you desire of roads, ports, airports, water systems, water treatment systems, etc.
4. Support yourselves any way you wish...but if you wish to sell services or goods to citizens of other countries, including the US, you will need to develop treaties and request visas. If you prefer piracy, that is your right, although you will thereby prove your dependence on the efforts of others and must again prepare yourself for the military response of other nations.
5. Develop your own currency and try to win its acceptance and confidence in world markets.
6. Attempt to attract foreign investments if you wish to live beyond the level of subsistence.
7. Develop whatever system of justice, policing, etc. you choose...and your own system to prevent attack or abuse by criminal elements.
8. Develop your own education system, assuming you expect your experiment to survive more than one generation.
9. Do all this without the support of any national government, since you do not respect national governments and have repeatedly said that you do not want any help from anyone.

Then write us and tell us about your new state....then I will listen, but not before.

The fact is that ghost-sniper is benefiting enormously by living in this country under its system of government, economics and taxation...and unless he is willing to back up his words with the actions I describe above, all his attacks are those of someone barking at his own caretaker.

Some examples...I was going to remind him that the current configuration of our nation was the result of aggressive action in the 19th century by the national government, funded by taxpayers, to seize vast amounts of land through purchase and/or military conquest, to pacify these lands through federal military occupation, to subsidize the construction of the railroads through gifts of land and military protection, and to subsidize settlement through the offer of land grants. However ghost-sniper has already suggested that he considers all of these illegitimate and unconstitutional acts in his amusing rejection of Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana Territory with national tax dollars! Without these actions by the tax-based national government we would still be the original 13 colonies on the Atlantic Coast, backed up by a much larger French-speaking nation stretching from New Orleans to Canada, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, etc. Of course we don't know what would have happened between Spain and France....since for some time they were both ruled by the Bourbons,...so maybe all of the North American continent would be ruled by a French-Spanish nation dominating its tiny English-speaking neighbor. Personally, I imagine that if Jefferson had NOT purchased Louisiana, the French and Spanish would have ultimately crushed the 13 coastal states in order to win access to their Atlantic ports. (By the way....ghost sniper lives in Florida...."La Florida" of the Spanish Empire....now just how did THAT become part of the US without action by the national government?...or maybe he would prefer to pay taxes to King Juan Carlos!?)

I for one am quite proud to be part of a civilized society in a nation of states. I am quite happy to be part of a species that survives at its best through combined efforts. I am also proud to be an architect....part of a 5000-year legacy of providing the built settings for the life of this civilization.

I expect that others share this pride...and I offer you my respect and friendship.

Christopher Egan, Architect and citizen of the United States of America

------------------------

[Pierre Levesque]

"Don" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

Or maybe this one?

------------------------

I guess I could start writing for days on the discussion....about half of which would be questions...so please consider this post an act of "thinking out loud" rather than a definitive reply. I won't try to make a tidy essay...just a series of thoughts.

1. Sorry....I haven't read the book but certainly someone here has.

1. My words may sound a little academic, but they are real thoughts of a practicing architect....one who only makes a living by designing real buildings for very real clients. I do believe, however, that we have the honor and the challenge to use thought in our work...even though sometimes it is no more than thought about how to get a school board to listen to its teachers. Our website has some of my papers that others have described as useful...and the intro talks about this...."The Demon of Consciousness". My own work occasionally manifests real thought...and I hope this will increase now that I am entering the "second half of life".

2. I would like to question the fundamental method of dialectics that underlies Rowe's premise as you describe it. Much thought in the 20th century (the past, you know!) used the intellectual model of dialectics...positing opposites in conflict....to describe ideas, trends, etc. While it received its most famous push from Marx (Karl, not Groucho)...this approach was so universally assumed that it was almost invisible. However, I once heard Stanislaus Fung (a delightful professor from Adelaide) remind us that there are other ways to think about phenomena....instead of seeing things as opposites in conflict, we can see them as "poles"...two ends of the same thing. For instance, most plants have roots and leaves....but they are not in opposition to each other...they are equally necessary, although different, aspects of the same reality. It is possible that the whole notion of "the idea of architecture" versus "relation to nature" is simply a failure to leave the 20th century behind. Maybe we need a new model for thinking about different aspects...Fung's idea of poles...inextricably bound to each other but different. Sadly, I think that Rowe may be right that many

20th century architects fell into the trap of using dialectical thought, and therefore felt obligated to choose between "architecture" and "nature". Fortunately there were others, notably Alvar Aalto, who rejected this and gave us another model for modernism.

1. I think there may be something to this idea of "architecture versus nature"...but only as a historical description of what people thought....not as a theoretical model for an inevitable reality. It was probably inevitable, because so much of modern thought, in all disciplines in the late 19th and early 20th century, involved a crisis of self-identity for the disciplines (the reasons can be found in any discussion of the dramatic social, technological, political and cultural changes that took place between about 1870 and 1918). Painters asked "what is painting?"...composers asked "what is music?"...physicists asked "what is matter?"...and architects asked "what is architecture?"

Of course ONE way to understand a thing is to compare it to other things and look for the differences. I think it was inevitable that some architects would look for the essence of architecture in its birth in the human mind....and to try to do this by setting up an opposition to some "natural" order.

1. I personally think the truth is more complex and interwoven (I once presented a paper in Auckland called "Dancing on the Threshold of Thought" that presents a thought-model in which opposites dance with each other instead of shooting at each other....maybe I'll post it when we do our next website housekeeping). One example is here in San Antonio...very old and very solid....and I used it to make this same point for a group of architecture students from Mexico City. In the

1700s the Spanish built a system of "acequias" throughout San Antonio...small canals to carry water to the small farms and produce gardens of the inhabitants. The water came from the river, and since the fields were always higher than the river, they needed some way to bring the water to the higher level. Now in many places this was accomplished by physically lifting the water...but the Spanish had learned another less-energy-demanding approach from the Muslims who civilized southern Spain. Instead of raising the water....they would go upstream to a point where the water level was approximately that of the fields they wanted to irrigate...and there they would build a small dam, to raise and maintain the level of the water. Then they would cut a ditch ("acequia") from the newly-created pond to the fields a few miles downstream. Now..to get to my point...so I can take my wife to dinner...there is one place at which the man-made water course must cross above a natural water course. The solution is obvious...to build an aqueduct, a bridge to carry the man-made stream over the natural stream. But for me this 250 year old elegant little stone structure, in the south side of my hometown, is a direct manifestation of the duality/polarity that is architecture. It is a clear and unapologetic construction of an intellectually-determined line, carried across a natural meandering line, and the physical manifestation is made of stone and geometry. The naturalness of nature is enhanced by the presence of the human construction...and the clarity of human thought is enhanced by its juxtaposition with the natural.

1. I think this approach I recommend can be found also in Heidegger's notion of the "world and the earth" described in "On the making of the work of art".....and in Lao Tsu.

Christopher