Henry Maofei is an American architect. In the history of architecture, he may be "nameless", but he is the American architect with the deepest connection with China. From the auditorium, library, science museum and gymnasium in Tsinghua Park, to the Boya Tower and Beigong Buildin

Henry Maofei is an American architect. In the history of architecture, he may be "nameless", but he is the American architect with the deepest connection with China. From the auditorium, library, science museum and gymnasium in in Tsinghua Park, to the Boyata and Beigong Building in Yanyuan, to the National Revolutionary Army Cemetery and Jinling Women's University (now Suiyuan Campus of Nanjing Normal University), to the Fudan Public School (now Fudan University ), Dalai Building and St. Mary Girls' School ( Zhang Ailing alma mater), to the early buildings of Xiangya Hospital and Medical College in Changsha, to Fuzhou Union University in Fuzhou... In China for more than 20 years, the buildings designed by Maofei have spread all over the country.

Maofei advocated the "adaptation of Chinese architecture " and "revival of Chinese architecture" have had a special impact on modern Chinese architecture. His architectural philosophy deeply influenced China's "first generation" architects. The following is excerpted from "China Construction Industry", authorized by the publishing house, and is slightly deleted from the original text.

"China Construction Industry", written by Guo Weijie, translated by Lu Wei, Cultural Development Press , January 2022 edition.

1933, 56-year-old Maofei entered the dusk stage of his Chinese career. Two years later, he retired and returned to the United States and spent the rest of his nineteen years at his own designed home (Kiram Point, Branford, Connecticut). During the last three years of living in Shanghai, Maofei lived a lonely life but not a lonely life. He rented a small apartment near Bund and prepared a sampan to share the fun of sailing with his friends. He also occasionally worked as a construction consultant at a real estate investment company, helping them design some foreign homes on the plots they intend to develop.

For most of his time, his job is basically just a name, and occasionally he goes to the small office that employs four draftsmen to check out. Among the firm's employees is a young and uninhibited American architect Edmund Bacon. Bacon was influenced by Maofei a lot, especially his interpretation of the value of traditional Chinese architectural design. Although Maofei has never received the attention of most foreign architects, he still maintains good relationships with many Chinese architectural people, such as Zhao Shen and Tao Guilin . The former was a partner of one of the two major architectural firms in Shanghai at that time (founded and operated by Chinese); the latter was the founder of Fuji Construction Factory, which not only undertakes the construction of the Memorial Tower of the Deadly Deadly in Linggu Temple, Nanjing designed by Maofei, but also a creator of a large number of important architectural works in various parts of China. In the last few years before returning to the United States, Chinese friends affectionately called him "a man who speaks and acts with sensible words."

In 1935, more than 50 friends in the industry (mostly Chinese) were invited to attend a farewell banquet held by Tao Guilin for Maofei. After Tao Guilin delivered a passionate praise speech, the American architect reviewed his career in China in detail.

Maofei mentioned two goals he hopes to achieve in China: be a responsible architect and explore the mysteries of Chinese architecture; in this way, he can devote himself more effectively to design work. Maofei specifically mentioned several works that he thought were most satisfied with: Jinling Women's University, Yanjing University and Nanjing Memorial Cemetery. Maofei expressed his gratitude to his friends in the construction industry for his help, and he benefited a lot from this. He also stressed that he firmly believes that China's architectural transformation will surely succeed. However, the long Chinese years also made him tired and eager to return to his hometown, which he believed that his friends could understand. Maofei did not mention his embarrassed financial situation. He respectfully accepted Tao Guilin's kind invitation and helped him pay the ship fee for returning to the United States. A few days later, he embarked on a journey to New York.

Farewell to Maofei Architects returned to the United States to take photos (he sat in the middle of the back row), Shanghai, spring of 1935.

These complicated social relationships and Henry Maofei's legendary experience have sparked discussions on his legacy. How should we evaluate Maofei's works today? Maofei's classical revival architectural works never made him financially rich.

However, after he left, the American architect's professional status in China was often misunderstood by others. For example, a biographer once called Maofei "one of the most outstanding architects in the United States"; it is obvious that the writer is more concerned about his title as a member of the American Institute of Architects and ignores the fact that Maofei is unknown in the American architectural world. Maofei obviously occupies a position in his professional field, but what method should he accurately position him?

The following lists three ways to consider Maofei's heritage. The first method is to trace the relevant literature behind Maofei and review three trends in contemporary architectural reviews: Chinese and English journals published in China, and a large number of cases selected from churches or other types of publications, which can reflect the trend of architectural development. The second way to measure Maofei's influence is to conduct a brief examination of the careers of several Chinese architects of the same era. Third, Maofei's influence was also reflected in the multiple rounds of exploration of adaptive architectural practice by later architects: mainland China after 1954-1960 and 1979, and Taiwan after 1949. These cases show that the adaptive architectural problem, as Maofei's "lifelong career", has never been resolved, and has triggered endless controversy and debate among Chinese architects.

Maofei's legacy:

How "adaptive transformation" affected Chinese modern architecture

1933, the magazine "China Architecture" was founded to establish a platform for Chinese architects to discuss architectural concepts in writing. Considering the purpose of "Chinese Architecture", it is no wonder that this magazine pays less attention to Henry Maofei or other foreign architects. "Chinese Architecture" is just the only time when introducing the resume of Lu Yanzhi's in the first volume of the first issue. Maofei not only helped Lu Yanzhi in New York, but also taught him the method of successfully transforming Chinese traditional architecture , which ultimately achieved the design of Lu Yanzhi in two Zhongshan memorial buildings and some of the Jinling Women's University and Yenching University. While praising Lu Yanzhi, the first publication of "China Architecture" also implicitly regarded Henry Maofei as one of the former's employer and construction mentors.

The significance of "Chinese Architecture" is that it pushes the thoughts, drawings and models of a large number of new generation Chinese professionals to the stage of the times in the form of high-quality printing layouts. "Chinese Architecture" further promoted this architectural change at a deeper level, and Maofei himself felt that he had played a certain positive role in it because it provided a tool for communication for the weak minorities, and the number of people in this group increased from 7 in 1926 to more than 50 in 1933.

This magazine has published many design cases of "adaptive transformation" with high-quality drawings. This increasingly vigorous phenomenon is in line with Maofei's expectations and vision for the future development of China's construction industry after he left. These cases include: Zhongshan Memorial Building ( Zhongshan Mausoleum and Zhongshan Memorial Hall), Shanghai Special Municipal Government Building, Nanjing National Government Building, and some special cases scattered between Guangzhou and Beijing. This magazine became a forum for Chinese architects to start spontaneously calling for and advocating the realization of "the modern style of Chinese architecture". Although this style is not a complete reproduction of Henry Maofei's vision, in any case, "Chinese Architecture" creates a space for everyone to accept dialogue, discussion, differences and development from all parties. In addition, this publication also made Chinese architects feel that they are also a reasonable component of the "modern architecture" movement under this ever-evolving state.

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

How many "professional" architects are involved, and how many people are related to Maofei? In addition, how did Maofei's influence continue on these people? Combined with the journal research that has been carried out, it may be examined from another aspect: since Maofei once challenged the ontological consciousness of architectural to Chinese architects before he retired, his importance can at least partly be seen from those Chinese architects.

Henry Maofei is an American architect. In the history of architecture, he may be "nameless", but he is the American architect with the deepest connection with China. From the auditorium, library, science museum and gymnasium in in Tsinghua Park, to the Boyata and Beigong Building in Yanyuan, to the National Revolutionary Army Cemetery and Jinling Women's University (now Suiyuan Campus of Nanjing Normal University), to the Fudan Public School (now Fudan University ), Dalai Building and St. Mary Girls' School ( Zhang Ailing alma mater), to the early buildings of Xiangya Hospital and Medical College in Changsha, to Fuzhou Union University in Fuzhou... In China for more than 20 years, the buildings designed by Maofei have spread all over the country.

Maofei advocated the "adaptation of Chinese architecture " and "revival of Chinese architecture" have had a special impact on modern Chinese architecture. His architectural philosophy deeply influenced China's "first generation" architects. The following is excerpted from "China Construction Industry", authorized by the publishing house, and is slightly deleted from the original text.

"China Construction Industry", written by Guo Weijie, translated by Lu Wei, Cultural Development Press , January 2022 edition.

1933, 56-year-old Maofei entered the dusk stage of his Chinese career. Two years later, he retired and returned to the United States and spent the rest of his nineteen years at his own designed home (Kiram Point, Branford, Connecticut). During the last three years of living in Shanghai, Maofei lived a lonely life but not a lonely life. He rented a small apartment near Bund and prepared a sampan to share the fun of sailing with his friends. He also occasionally worked as a construction consultant at a real estate investment company, helping them design some foreign homes on the plots they intend to develop.

For most of his time, his job is basically just a name, and occasionally he goes to the small office that employs four draftsmen to check out. Among the firm's employees is a young and uninhibited American architect Edmund Bacon. Bacon was influenced by Maofei a lot, especially his interpretation of the value of traditional Chinese architectural design. Although Maofei has never received the attention of most foreign architects, he still maintains good relationships with many Chinese architectural people, such as Zhao Shen and Tao Guilin . The former was a partner of one of the two major architectural firms in Shanghai at that time (founded and operated by Chinese); the latter was the founder of Fuji Construction Factory, which not only undertakes the construction of the Memorial Tower of the Deadly Deadly in Linggu Temple, Nanjing designed by Maofei, but also a creator of a large number of important architectural works in various parts of China. In the last few years before returning to the United States, Chinese friends affectionately called him "a man who speaks and acts with sensible words."

In 1935, more than 50 friends in the industry (mostly Chinese) were invited to attend a farewell banquet held by Tao Guilin for Maofei. After Tao Guilin delivered a passionate praise speech, the American architect reviewed his career in China in detail.

Maofei mentioned two goals he hopes to achieve in China: be a responsible architect and explore the mysteries of Chinese architecture; in this way, he can devote himself more effectively to design work. Maofei specifically mentioned several works that he thought were most satisfied with: Jinling Women's University, Yanjing University and Nanjing Memorial Cemetery. Maofei expressed his gratitude to his friends in the construction industry for his help, and he benefited a lot from this. He also stressed that he firmly believes that China's architectural transformation will surely succeed. However, the long Chinese years also made him tired and eager to return to his hometown, which he believed that his friends could understand. Maofei did not mention his embarrassed financial situation. He respectfully accepted Tao Guilin's kind invitation and helped him pay the ship fee for returning to the United States. A few days later, he embarked on a journey to New York.

Farewell to Maofei Architects returned to the United States to take photos (he sat in the middle of the back row), Shanghai, spring of 1935.

These complicated social relationships and Henry Maofei's legendary experience have sparked discussions on his legacy. How should we evaluate Maofei's works today? Maofei's classical revival architectural works never made him financially rich.

However, after he left, the American architect's professional status in China was often misunderstood by others. For example, a biographer once called Maofei "one of the most outstanding architects in the United States"; it is obvious that the writer is more concerned about his title as a member of the American Institute of Architects and ignores the fact that Maofei is unknown in the American architectural world. Maofei obviously occupies a position in his professional field, but what method should he accurately position him?

The following lists three ways to consider Maofei's heritage. The first method is to trace the relevant literature behind Maofei and review three trends in contemporary architectural reviews: Chinese and English journals published in China, and a large number of cases selected from churches or other types of publications, which can reflect the trend of architectural development. The second way to measure Maofei's influence is to conduct a brief examination of the careers of several Chinese architects of the same era. Third, Maofei's influence was also reflected in the multiple rounds of exploration of adaptive architectural practice by later architects: mainland China after 1954-1960 and 1979, and Taiwan after 1949. These cases show that the adaptive architectural problem, as Maofei's "lifelong career", has never been resolved, and has triggered endless controversy and debate among Chinese architects.

Maofei's legacy:

How "adaptive transformation" affected Chinese modern architecture

1933, the magazine "China Architecture" was founded to establish a platform for Chinese architects to discuss architectural concepts in writing. Considering the purpose of "Chinese Architecture", it is no wonder that this magazine pays less attention to Henry Maofei or other foreign architects. "Chinese Architecture" is just the only time when introducing the resume of Lu Yanzhi's in the first volume of the first issue. Maofei not only helped Lu Yanzhi in New York, but also taught him the method of successfully transforming Chinese traditional architecture , which ultimately achieved the design of Lu Yanzhi in two Zhongshan memorial buildings and some of the Jinling Women's University and Yenching University. While praising Lu Yanzhi, the first publication of "China Architecture" also implicitly regarded Henry Maofei as one of the former's employer and construction mentors.

The significance of "Chinese Architecture" is that it pushes the thoughts, drawings and models of a large number of new generation Chinese professionals to the stage of the times in the form of high-quality printing layouts. "Chinese Architecture" further promoted this architectural change at a deeper level, and Maofei himself felt that he had played a certain positive role in it because it provided a tool for communication for the weak minorities, and the number of people in this group increased from 7 in 1926 to more than 50 in 1933.

This magazine has published many design cases of "adaptive transformation" with high-quality drawings. This increasingly vigorous phenomenon is in line with Maofei's expectations and vision for the future development of China's construction industry after he left. These cases include: Zhongshan Memorial Building ( Zhongshan Mausoleum and Zhongshan Memorial Hall), Shanghai Special Municipal Government Building, Nanjing National Government Building, and some special cases scattered between Guangzhou and Beijing. This magazine became a forum for Chinese architects to start spontaneously calling for and advocating the realization of "the modern style of Chinese architecture". Although this style is not a complete reproduction of Henry Maofei's vision, in any case, "Chinese Architecture" creates a space for everyone to accept dialogue, discussion, differences and development from all parties. In addition, this publication also made Chinese architects feel that they are also a reasonable component of the "modern architecture" movement under this ever-evolving state.

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

How many "professional" architects are involved, and how many people are related to Maofei? In addition, how did Maofei's influence continue on these people? Combined with the journal research that has been carried out, it may be examined from another aspect: since Maofei once challenged the ontological consciousness of architectural to Chinese architects before he retired, his importance can at least partly be seen from those Chinese architects.So, how did these Chinese architects respond to Maofei’s challenge?

answer seems simple: in many different ways. Chinese architects have a variety of different attitudes towards Maofei, an American architect who abandoned his earlier (at American universities) major training in architecture and practiced in China. Some people completely ignore his existence and therefore give up the opportunity to study Chinese architecture as a valuable tradition. And those architects who have had experience in cooperating or working with Maofei naturally become Maofei's fans.

Some people know Maofei, but they carefully distance themselves from the architect who was mainly commissioned by the church to imitate Chinese architecture. They believe that Chinese architects should use their traditions, but must seek a new Chinese architectural approach and style. Finally, some people have gained new inspiration from the perspective of architecture academic research and survey of traditional Chinese buildings in physical form. It was the last group that further promoted their academic devotion and ultimately gave birth to a new discipline dedicated to the study of the history of Chinese architecture.

Tsinghua University Auditorium, designed by Henry Maofei.

Therefore, Henry Maofei's uniqueness is not that he hired Chinese architects. Although he recruited some young Chinese people who had just graduated from the Oriental Affairs Department of Maodan Foreign Affairs as early as 1920, Maofei obviously carefully selected these few Chinese students from the list of American architecture graduates. Among these employees, in addition to the famous Lu Yanzhi, there is also Li Jinpei, who joined the company in 1923. The YMCA Architecture Department later hired Li Jinpei back to China in 1927, and the latter took over the Zhongshan Memorial Hall designed by Lu Yanzhi in Guangzhou, becoming one of the most successful figures among the "first generation" Chinese architects.

Unfortunately, no information about Maofei's employment of Chinese painters in New York has been preserved. However, Maofei's cooperation with graduates studying in the United States in China has been better recorded to a certain extent. For example, the first Zhuang Jun (graduated from the University of Illinois in 1914), who graduated from the United States major in architecture and became an resident architect after returning to China, was Maofei's first employee in China. In 1925, Zhuang Jun came to Shanghai from Beijing and opened his own firm. Although Zhuang Jun occasionally deliberately avoids using imported building materials and construction methods, his design works (mostly banks in East China) neither reflect Maofei's influence in style, nor evidence that Zhuang Jun continued to maintain a cooperative relationship with Maofei after moving to Shanghai.

The most conclusive cooperation between Maofei and his Chinese counterparts took place under the background of Nanjing's "Capital Plan". Four of China's "first generation" architects: Zhao Shen, Fan Wenzhao, Tonghua and Yang Tingbao (all Pennsylvania alumni), were invited to start designing some government buildings in Nanjing under certain unknown backgrounds, and most of these buildings were planned and determined by Mao Fei when he was a construction consultant of the National Government. Zhao Shen and Fan Wenzhao may have met Maofei in Nanjing for the first time when they were hired as consultants of the Capital Construction Committee. As early as when they were studying in the United States, they were classmates (1919-1921). Fan Wenzhao returned to China in 1922 and worked in a foreign firm; Zhao Shen first worked in Philadelphia and New York, and later set off for Europe in 1923 and returned to Shanghai after a trip to visit. In 1927, Zhao Shen and Fan Wenzhao founded Huagai Architecture Firm, the first construction firm in Shanghai that was independently run by Chinese people. Two years later, they have accumulated enough industry reputation and have been commissioned to start the design work of some large-scale construction projects in the new capital.

Maofei became the common friend of the pair. As early as when he collaborated on the design of Linggu Temple Pagoda (in the cemetery of the fallen soldiers of the National Revolutionary Army), Maofei got along well with Zhao Shen; and after Maofei left Nanjing, Zhao Shen still visited Maofei's small office regularly; until 1931, when Zhao Shen shouldered the heavy responsibility of architectural design of Shanghai New Citizen Center, he still enthusiastically introduced Maofei to his Chinese colleagues.Unlike the former, Fan Wenzhao and Maofei quickly reached a consensus on the design concept. Less than two years after their meeting, Fan Wenzhao was hailed as "one of the pioneers in the revitalization of Chinese classical architecture in the modern Renaissance movement in China."

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

Fan Wenzhao incorporates Maofei's architectural language and rules into his design, and strives to open up a new architectural path in China through actual works such as the Guangzhou Municipal Government Office and the Nanjing Central Government Ministry and Commission Building. For example, Maofei once wrote a passage in 1928: "Someone told me... Chinese architecture cannot be revived into a way of life today because they cannot meet modern functional needs and structural standards and preserve basic aesthetic qualities; in other words, Chinese architecture can only be regarded as a purely archaeological research object."

Later, Fan Wenzhao revised Maofei's above remarks in 1933: "China is increasingly recovering her in The body and mind in architecture. A small group of people ('they seek to bring the best combination of new and old') has proved the majesty and magnificence of Chinese-style architecture. It is not only the object of archaeology, but also a vivid architectural style that can be fully maintained and meet the needs of modern China. "Fan Wenzhao, Zhao Shen and Maofei are all key figures in this small group. Maofei still praised these two Chinese people for many years after retirement and called them first-class architects.

"First Generation" architects' reflection on Maofei

Although Maofei has never expressed it in formal text, he may also feel his architectural entanglement with Tong Hu (one of the partners of Huagai Architectural Firm) and Yang Tingbao (one of the heads of the Kittai Engineering Department). Tong Hu and Yang Tingbao both attended the farewell party for Maofei in 1935 (reported by Architecture Monthly); in the 1930s and 1940s, both of them were committed to solving a difficult problem (which they encountered earlier during their studies at , Pennsylvania) - how to use creative design to integrate traditional Chinese architecture with "modern classicism". Missionaries’ attempts to reconcile culturally through architecture—Mao Fei is certainly trapped—sometimes become the object of criticism from the “first generation” architects.

For example, Tong Hu wrote a wonderful article in 1937. He believed that it was necessary to transcend style decoration and focus on the importance of structure to create a new Chinese architecture, which would become China's contribution to world architecture in the 20th century. In "Architecture Chronicles", Tong Hu explained what kind of progress the talented Chinese architects made after Maofei. He unfolds his argument with a unique analogy.

The current Chinese architecture often reminds people of the legend about "pig tail" (referring to braids)... Although it looks chic, it is useless, and (pigtails) gradually evolves from a symbol of humiliation to personal pride. Also picturesque and antique are the roofs of Chinese temples, which are often borrowed and placed on a modern building: once an unavoidable sin, but later became the main feature of Chinese architecture... These Chinese-style roofs, which are placed on the upper part of Shixin's building, look like wearing a burdensome and unnecessary "pig tail".

Then, Tong Hu also mentioned Mao Fei and some other unnamed architects in a roundabout way. Tong Hu believes that they deviate from a basic principle of contemporary architectural training (from the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, France) that a direct correspondence should be maintained between the plane and the facade of a building.

old photos of children.

has already spent too many arrogant and boasting words on the so-called "rejuvenation of Chinese classical architecture". If this revival is just to put a Chinese temple-style roof on the factory, then adding a "pig tail" to a dead man is enough to bring him back to life! The early attempts of this approach were mostly limited to church schools and hospitals, and such buildings often had a romantic attraction to (architecture) laymen; for them, the most vividly evident recurve roofs that reflect the splendor and glory of Chinese classical architecture were the brightly colored reverse roofs.

However, in the view of the architect, Chinese roofs have always been a practical design method, which facilitates him to perform "plastic surgery" on the facade. As a stopgap measure, he can first arrange the interior space of the building according to each modern requirement, and then borrow a Chinese roof to complete the design of the exterior image.

What made Tong Hu very angry was that a certain eye-catching symbol, or the "mediocre antique decoration" in his eyes, was mistaken for being a creative building. Tong Hu believes that if you want to create a new type of building in China, you must abandon the previous dependence on the double-slope roof in form, admit that the "international style" has "come and taken root" in China, and then use the experience Tong Hu himself learned from Paul Cry in Philadelphia to carry out quality design practice:

No matter the appearance of a building is Chinese or modern, its plane can only be generated in one way: arrange each room scientifically and reasonably based on the latest knowledge you can obtain. Therefore, the facade, as a product derived from the plane, can only be modernist. Any attempt to give it a local "characteristic" requires targeted learning, research and innovation.

What Tong Jie discussed here is also the experience Mao Fei himself learned after more than 20 years of practice in China, that is, to integrate the old tradition into new buildings, or inject new life into an architectural tradition that has become "pure archaeology". This requires at least a lifetime of hard work for one generation to achieve.

Maofei and Liang Sicheng

Perhaps no one's career reflects this pursuit better than Liang Sicheng. He is the only Chinese architect in the 20th century who can compete with Lu Yanzhi. Rather than being a professional architect, Liang Sicheng is more like a tireless historical researcher. His lifelong research on traditional Chinese architecture inspired China's "first generation" architects and many later followers. He guided people to refocus on an important architectural thesis - "Creation of the French" compiled by Li Jie, an official of the Northern Song Dynasty, in 1103 AD. The copy of the book was discovered and reprinted in 1920. He not only assisted in the founding of the architectural history course at Northeastern University (Shenyang), but also co-chaired the research work of China Construction Society in 1931-1937. The society was founded in 1930 and published an important academic journal between 1930 and 1937: "China Creation Society Translator". In February 1930, at the opening ceremony of the Creation Society, the founder Zhu Qiqin used a hopeful word as the conclusion of his speech:

"The more we move forward, the more we feel that Chinese architectural research is by no means our own property. Neighbors in the East helped us preserve ancient architectural examples and conducted arduous research along the same route; friends in the West provided us with scientific methods and shared their discoveries in this field."

Is Henry Maofei one of the so-called Creation Society of Zhu Qiqin? Even it is only indirect. Although Maofei seems to be consistent with the stated goals of the China Construction Society, he has never met Liang Siyeng and has never cooperated with the Construction Society in any way. Their relationship is like two silk threads placed on the same piece of fabric, each windingly stretching but never intertwined. Perhaps part of this is that Maofei is closer to a commercial architect than an academic researcher; he incorporates archaeological methods into the precise historical study of buildings. Maofei, who wrote the following comment, will definitely not get Liang Sicheng's higher evaluation:

"I have always regarded the study of Chinese architecture as a living organism and considered it in the current practical issues; it is not the object of pure archaeological research, but can only stimulate the interest and hobbies of some academic circles. In addition, I must admit that I am completely uninterested in those clever theories. For example, trying to illustrate that the eaves and corners of the Chinese roof reflect the curved outlines of the tents of the early nomadic tribes, or the dancers' spinning and flowing skirts, etc.Why do we, in ancient Chinese craftsmen, still persistently seek more explanations for the recurved roof, besides that curves were more beautiful in form than straight lines? "

Liang Sicheng believes that the purpose is to reveal the truth behind beauty.

Maofei questioned the traditional practices,

and inspired future changes

From the evaluation of him by contemporary Chinese architects, it can be seen that Maofei has not gradually moved away from the hearts of many Chinese people. In addition to Lu Yanzhi, Maofei is also the employer, design partner or aesthetic ally of some of the most outstanding figures in the history of Chinese architecture in the 20th century. They include: Zhuang Jun, Li Jinpei, Zhao Shen, Dong Dayou , Fan Wenzhao, Tong Hu and Yang Tingbao. However, just like the later designs of these architects studying in the United States were unable to attribute to Paul Cry or any other American architecture professor, it is said that Maofei inspired these buildings. The only source of creativity and diversity in the teacher's design is not only misleading, but also unfair.

In addition, Maofei has not had direct contact with most of the "first generation" architects in China. In addition to Maofei himself, there are Chen Zhi and Liu Dunzhen , including the most well-known Mr. Liang Sicheng, who are important figures in the "first generation" architects who independently carry out high-quality architectural practices. The practice and research carried out by these people show that at least in 1935, the relatively emerging Chinese construction industry had attracted a large number of professional talents to join in and showed rich diversity characteristics. Although Maofei had imagined as early as 1928 that such an "adaptive" building would surely win through a "battle", he could not predict how many twists and repetitions this "battle" would go through. It is also difficult to guess how many new architects will join this "battle"?

Former Jinling Women's University designed by Henry Maofei and his colleagues in the 1920s.

Relevant evidence shows that the "adaptation" of architecture is actually a dynamic concept. It not only changes with the specific characteristics, elements and types of Chinese architecture, but also depends on who dominated the process and what materials and methods were used. Maofei's success lies in his questioning of traditional practices and inspiring future changes. Similarly, Chinese architects have also pushed traditions to new heights, and they sometimes Inadvertently involved in this exploration triggered by Maofei: to move past buildings into a more meaningful architectural future.

To what extent is the future of Chinese architecture meaningful? If the conclusion of this question is affirmative, who does it mean? So far, this is still an open question. Shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, Henry Maofei came to China to start his own architectural practice, ending in the struggle between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and Japan's aggression against China. It was through Maofei's generation's pioneering exploration in design and construction, and the long-term diligence in process and results that China finally adapted to the new reality in a revolutionary way.

However, the sudden war brought new severe challenges to the Chinese people. Over the past half century, China has tried its best to smooth out the trauma of that war and then tried to find a balance in a turbulent society. Since the mid-20th century, China's urban environment has ushered in a wave of large-scale transformation and renewal: from courtyards to high-rise buildings, from bicycles to motor vehicles, from backyard stoves to Internet cafes spread all over the streets, and Maofei's "adaptive architecture" has gradually become a footnote to this architectural legend.

This architectural legend has not been fully understood by people. The work and influence of many Chinese and foreign architects, builders, engineers, urban planners and other construction practitioners after , , has just begun to gradually show themselves to the world. In this research direction, this book only takes a limited first step. Since the mid-1980s, more and more scholars have devoted themselves to this field, tirelessly searching and making voices about their views on different levels.For example, Professor Wang Tan and Zhang Fuhe of Tsinghua University were the first to create a professional institution dedicated to the research of modern Chinese architecture (1840-1949) - the China Modern Architecture History Research Association, and then held a series of academic conferences in different cities to promote communication and exchanges among scholars who have research in this field.

At the same time, scholars who study Chinese urban history have also organized many conferences related to this field and published corresponding academic journals. In the past 15 years, more and more Chinese and overseas scholars have begun to conduct in-depth exploration of the changes of this era, and this architectural legend has been increasingly presented to the world.

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

However, ironically, just as some people try to reveal the unique significance of many important people in the Chinese architectural circle back then (before and after Maofei’s architectural practice), more people are participating in the demolition of physical remains of buildings that once witnessed this history. Even the most sluggish observer can intuitively realize that the current appearance of Chinese cities is undergoing amazing changes. In a new round of construction boom that began and accelerated in the early 1980s, some relatively complete neighborhoods and communities were completely destroyed. With the new round of urban infrastructure construction, the appearance of "adaptive buildings" in China at the turn of the century is more reflected in the newly built high-rise residential and commercial towers. In the eyes of some people, these cases showcase China's great construction achievements, which are undoubtedly worthy of recognition and praise. But in the eyes of others, they are bad fakes that are kitsch in form, materials and culture. The analysis and research on the internal motivation and external influence of these changes has just begun.

Although more and more Chinese journals, conferences and other events are trying to encourage more meaningful discussions about architecture, most Chinese remain silent as always about the huge changes in architecture happening around them. Just like those predecessors in the architectural world in the early 20th century, one challenge facing Chinese architects today is to flexibly, flexibly, explore and comprehensively find new methods for high-quality Chinese architectural design in response to specific functional needs, spatial presets and Chinese identity (cultural) identity.

In addition, for all Chinese architecture observers and critics, the challenge they face is how to evaluate a series of real architectural pictures from the past to the present, which are far more conceptually than people see. Maofei's works provide an inspiring collection of cases to restore this historical picture. Therefore, his Chinese practice has become a useful research springboard, which can not only help us understand his work background at that time, but also reveal the intertwined relationship between Chinese architecture, culture, society and politics behind it. Although these problems have largely exceeded Maofei's personal abilities.

Original author | [US] Guo Weijie

excerpt | Xu Yuedong

edit | Qingqingzi

introduction proofreading | Chen Diyan

Unlike the former, Fan Wenzhao and Maofei quickly reached a consensus on the design concept. Less than two years after their meeting, Fan Wenzhao was hailed as "one of the pioneers in the revitalization of Chinese classical architecture in the modern Renaissance movement in China."

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

Fan Wenzhao incorporates Maofei's architectural language and rules into his design, and strives to open up a new architectural path in China through actual works such as the Guangzhou Municipal Government Office and the Nanjing Central Government Ministry and Commission Building. For example, Maofei once wrote a passage in 1928: "Someone told me... Chinese architecture cannot be revived into a way of life today because they cannot meet modern functional needs and structural standards and preserve basic aesthetic qualities; in other words, Chinese architecture can only be regarded as a purely archaeological research object."

Later, Fan Wenzhao revised Maofei's above remarks in 1933: "China is increasingly recovering her in The body and mind in architecture. A small group of people ('they seek to bring the best combination of new and old') has proved the majesty and magnificence of Chinese-style architecture. It is not only the object of archaeology, but also a vivid architectural style that can be fully maintained and meet the needs of modern China. "Fan Wenzhao, Zhao Shen and Maofei are all key figures in this small group. Maofei still praised these two Chinese people for many years after retirement and called them first-class architects.

"First Generation" architects' reflection on Maofei

Although Maofei has never expressed it in formal text, he may also feel his architectural entanglement with Tong Hu (one of the partners of Huagai Architectural Firm) and Yang Tingbao (one of the heads of the Kittai Engineering Department). Tong Hu and Yang Tingbao both attended the farewell party for Maofei in 1935 (reported by Architecture Monthly); in the 1930s and 1940s, both of them were committed to solving a difficult problem (which they encountered earlier during their studies at , Pennsylvania) - how to use creative design to integrate traditional Chinese architecture with "modern classicism". Missionaries’ attempts to reconcile culturally through architecture—Mao Fei is certainly trapped—sometimes become the object of criticism from the “first generation” architects.

For example, Tong Hu wrote a wonderful article in 1937. He believed that it was necessary to transcend style decoration and focus on the importance of structure to create a new Chinese architecture, which would become China's contribution to world architecture in the 20th century. In "Architecture Chronicles", Tong Hu explained what kind of progress the talented Chinese architects made after Maofei. He unfolds his argument with a unique analogy.

The current Chinese architecture often reminds people of the legend about "pig tail" (referring to braids)... Although it looks chic, it is useless, and (pigtails) gradually evolves from a symbol of humiliation to personal pride. Also picturesque and antique are the roofs of Chinese temples, which are often borrowed and placed on a modern building: once an unavoidable sin, but later became the main feature of Chinese architecture... These Chinese-style roofs, which are placed on the upper part of Shixin's building, look like wearing a burdensome and unnecessary "pig tail".

Then, Tong Hu also mentioned Mao Fei and some other unnamed architects in a roundabout way. Tong Hu believes that they deviate from a basic principle of contemporary architectural training (from the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, France) that a direct correspondence should be maintained between the plane and the facade of a building.

old photos of children.

has already spent too many arrogant and boasting words on the so-called "rejuvenation of Chinese classical architecture". If this revival is just to put a Chinese temple-style roof on the factory, then adding a "pig tail" to a dead man is enough to bring him back to life! The early attempts of this approach were mostly limited to church schools and hospitals, and such buildings often had a romantic attraction to (architecture) laymen; for them, the most vividly evident recurve roofs that reflect the splendor and glory of Chinese classical architecture were the brightly colored reverse roofs.

However, in the view of the architect, Chinese roofs have always been a practical design method, which facilitates him to perform "plastic surgery" on the facade. As a stopgap measure, he can first arrange the interior space of the building according to each modern requirement, and then borrow a Chinese roof to complete the design of the exterior image.

What made Tong Hu very angry was that a certain eye-catching symbol, or the "mediocre antique decoration" in his eyes, was mistaken for being a creative building. Tong Hu believes that if you want to create a new type of building in China, you must abandon the previous dependence on the double-slope roof in form, admit that the "international style" has "come and taken root" in China, and then use the experience Tong Hu himself learned from Paul Cry in Philadelphia to carry out quality design practice:

No matter the appearance of a building is Chinese or modern, its plane can only be generated in one way: arrange each room scientifically and reasonably based on the latest knowledge you can obtain. Therefore, the facade, as a product derived from the plane, can only be modernist. Any attempt to give it a local "characteristic" requires targeted learning, research and innovation.

What Tong Jie discussed here is also the experience Mao Fei himself learned after more than 20 years of practice in China, that is, to integrate the old tradition into new buildings, or inject new life into an architectural tradition that has become "pure archaeology". This requires at least a lifetime of hard work for one generation to achieve.

Maofei and Liang Sicheng

Perhaps no one's career reflects this pursuit better than Liang Sicheng. He is the only Chinese architect in the 20th century who can compete with Lu Yanzhi. Rather than being a professional architect, Liang Sicheng is more like a tireless historical researcher. His lifelong research on traditional Chinese architecture inspired China's "first generation" architects and many later followers. He guided people to refocus on an important architectural thesis - "Creation of the French" compiled by Li Jie, an official of the Northern Song Dynasty, in 1103 AD. The copy of the book was discovered and reprinted in 1920. He not only assisted in the founding of the architectural history course at Northeastern University (Shenyang), but also co-chaired the research work of China Construction Society in 1931-1937. The society was founded in 1930 and published an important academic journal between 1930 and 1937: "China Creation Society Translator". In February 1930, at the opening ceremony of the Creation Society, the founder Zhu Qiqin used a hopeful word as the conclusion of his speech:

"The more we move forward, the more we feel that Chinese architectural research is by no means our own property. Neighbors in the East helped us preserve ancient architectural examples and conducted arduous research along the same route; friends in the West provided us with scientific methods and shared their discoveries in this field."

Is Henry Maofei one of the so-called Creation Society of Zhu Qiqin? Even it is only indirect. Although Maofei seems to be consistent with the stated goals of the China Construction Society, he has never met Liang Siyeng and has never cooperated with the Construction Society in any way. Their relationship is like two silk threads placed on the same piece of fabric, each windingly stretching but never intertwined. Perhaps part of this is that Maofei is closer to a commercial architect than an academic researcher; he incorporates archaeological methods into the precise historical study of buildings. Maofei, who wrote the following comment, will definitely not get Liang Sicheng's higher evaluation:

"I have always regarded the study of Chinese architecture as a living organism and considered it in the current practical issues; it is not the object of pure archaeological research, but can only stimulate the interest and hobbies of some academic circles. In addition, I must admit that I am completely uninterested in those clever theories. For example, trying to illustrate that the eaves and corners of the Chinese roof reflect the curved outlines of the tents of the early nomadic tribes, or the dancers' spinning and flowing skirts, etc.Why do we, in ancient Chinese craftsmen, still persistently seek more explanations for the recurved roof, besides that curves were more beautiful in form than straight lines? "

Liang Sicheng believes that the purpose is to reveal the truth behind beauty.

Maofei questioned the traditional practices,

and inspired future changes

From the evaluation of him by contemporary Chinese architects, it can be seen that Maofei has not gradually moved away from the hearts of many Chinese people. In addition to Lu Yanzhi, Maofei is also the employer, design partner or aesthetic ally of some of the most outstanding figures in the history of Chinese architecture in the 20th century. They include: Zhuang Jun, Li Jinpei, Zhao Shen, Dong Dayou , Fan Wenzhao, Tong Hu and Yang Tingbao. However, just like the later designs of these architects studying in the United States were unable to attribute to Paul Cry or any other American architecture professor, it is said that Maofei inspired these buildings. The only source of creativity and diversity in the teacher's design is not only misleading, but also unfair.

In addition, Maofei has not had direct contact with most of the "first generation" architects in China. In addition to Maofei himself, there are Chen Zhi and Liu Dunzhen , including the most well-known Mr. Liang Sicheng, who are important figures in the "first generation" architects who independently carry out high-quality architectural practices. The practice and research carried out by these people show that at least in 1935, the relatively emerging Chinese construction industry had attracted a large number of professional talents to join in and showed rich diversity characteristics. Although Maofei had imagined as early as 1928 that such an "adaptive" building would surely win through a "battle", he could not predict how many twists and repetitions this "battle" would go through. It is also difficult to guess how many new architects will join this "battle"?

Former Jinling Women's University designed by Henry Maofei and his colleagues in the 1920s.

Relevant evidence shows that the "adaptation" of architecture is actually a dynamic concept. It not only changes with the specific characteristics, elements and types of Chinese architecture, but also depends on who dominated the process and what materials and methods were used. Maofei's success lies in his questioning of traditional practices and inspiring future changes. Similarly, Chinese architects have also pushed traditions to new heights, and they sometimes Inadvertently involved in this exploration triggered by Maofei: to move past buildings into a more meaningful architectural future.

To what extent is the future of Chinese architecture meaningful? If the conclusion of this question is affirmative, who does it mean? So far, this is still an open question. Shortly after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, Henry Maofei came to China to start his own architectural practice, ending in the struggle between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and Japan's aggression against China. It was through Maofei's generation's pioneering exploration in design and construction, and the long-term diligence in process and results that China finally adapted to the new reality in a revolutionary way.

However, the sudden war brought new severe challenges to the Chinese people. Over the past half century, China has tried its best to smooth out the trauma of that war and then tried to find a balance in a turbulent society. Since the mid-20th century, China's urban environment has ushered in a wave of large-scale transformation and renewal: from courtyards to high-rise buildings, from bicycles to motor vehicles, from backyard stoves to Internet cafes spread all over the streets, and Maofei's "adaptive architecture" has gradually become a footnote to this architectural legend.

This architectural legend has not been fully understood by people. The work and influence of many Chinese and foreign architects, builders, engineers, urban planners and other construction practitioners after , , has just begun to gradually show themselves to the world. In this research direction, this book only takes a limited first step. Since the mid-1980s, more and more scholars have devoted themselves to this field, tirelessly searching and making voices about their views on different levels.For example, Professor Wang Tan and Zhang Fuhe of Tsinghua University were the first to create a professional institution dedicated to the research of modern Chinese architecture (1840-1949) - the China Modern Architecture History Research Association, and then held a series of academic conferences in different cities to promote communication and exchanges among scholars who have research in this field.

At the same time, scholars who study Chinese urban history have also organized many conferences related to this field and published corresponding academic journals. In the past 15 years, more and more Chinese and overseas scholars have begun to conduct in-depth exploration of the changes of this era, and this architectural legend has been increasingly presented to the world.

Old photo of Henry Maofei.

However, ironically, just as some people try to reveal the unique significance of many important people in the Chinese architectural circle back then (before and after Maofei’s architectural practice), more people are participating in the demolition of physical remains of buildings that once witnessed this history. Even the most sluggish observer can intuitively realize that the current appearance of Chinese cities is undergoing amazing changes. In a new round of construction boom that began and accelerated in the early 1980s, some relatively complete neighborhoods and communities were completely destroyed. With the new round of urban infrastructure construction, the appearance of "adaptive buildings" in China at the turn of the century is more reflected in the newly built high-rise residential and commercial towers. In the eyes of some people, these cases showcase China's great construction achievements, which are undoubtedly worthy of recognition and praise. But in the eyes of others, they are bad fakes that are kitsch in form, materials and culture. The analysis and research on the internal motivation and external influence of these changes has just begun.

Although more and more Chinese journals, conferences and other events are trying to encourage more meaningful discussions about architecture, most Chinese remain silent as always about the huge changes in architecture happening around them. Just like those predecessors in the architectural world in the early 20th century, one challenge facing Chinese architects today is to flexibly, flexibly, explore and comprehensively find new methods for high-quality Chinese architectural design in response to specific functional needs, spatial presets and Chinese identity (cultural) identity.

In addition, for all Chinese architecture observers and critics, the challenge they face is how to evaluate a series of real architectural pictures from the past to the present, which are far more conceptually than people see. Maofei's works provide an inspiring collection of cases to restore this historical picture. Therefore, his Chinese practice has become a useful research springboard, which can not only help us understand his work background at that time, but also reveal the intertwined relationship between Chinese architecture, culture, society and politics behind it. Although these problems have largely exceeded Maofei's personal abilities.

Original author | [US] Guo Weijie

excerpt | Xu Yuedong

edit | Qingqingzi

introduction proofreading | Chen Diyan