Long-time Archinector and reliably sane commentator Will Galloway joins us from his base in Tokyo to discuss the weekly news, including his interview with Assemble, crucially taking place mere weeks before they won the Turner Prize. While news from Bjarke Ingels Group commanded the feistiest comment threads this week – with renderings of BIG's spiraling Hudson Yards tower provoking debate over craft in skyscrapers, and the firm being selected to design the Serpentine Pavilion for 2016 in their last last eligible year – recent news included big wins for firms both star-studded and unknown. MoMA PS1 named Escobedo Solíz Studio as the 2016 winner of its Young Architects Program, for their "Weaving the Courtyard" submission, while Dame Zaha Hadid received her RIBA Gold Medal (the first woman to win solo). Lastly, for you planning wonks, we throw in a brief discussion of a controversial proposed ballot measure to halt big developments in Los Angeles.
Listen to episode 52 of Archinect Sessions, "What's the Big Deal‽":
Shownotes:
Donna and Amelia's interview with Elizabeth Timme on Archinect Sessions #13
Paul and Amelia's interview with Bjarke Ingels on Archinect Sessions #14
Granby Workshop, one of Assemble's projects mentioned by Will
Sou Fujimoto's design for the Serpentine Pavilion
63 Comments
If I tune in, will I get the answer to why you are using an image of Romanesco broccoli as your teaser photo?
Yes‽
That answer may spiral away out of reach, EKE.
I've used that photo in quite a few lectures.
bIg fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite 'em,
and those fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.
I like how you guys mock the comments before acknowledging many of the ideas presented. LOL. Assemble and Zaha seem closer in philosophy than BIG... But yeah I get that everyone is afraid to criticize.
"Architecture must contribute to collective well being." Love Zaha's work...don't think the BIG critics and Zaha ones are the same... which would be a surprise to knee jerk assumptions. Another architect that could do a lot more with a 3 Billion dollar tower than a banal glass tower.
Unlike the "commenters" on this podcast, I think we should actually be thoughtful about buildings. And the comments are there...
So it's ok with you guys that BIG passes off greed driven development to the public as ecologically and socially responsive architecture? Seems like you guys glazed over the main point that Bjark is being disingenuous. Everything is not awesome! And "haters gonna hate" is not a counter argument to all starchitect critiques.
Just imagine Zaha in place of BIG at Hudson Yards or 2WTC. That the heart of my critique. You guys obviously like both, but if you had to choose who would it be?
Is good design really that much more $? I mean Frank Gehry has a tower too...he could do it because he has the software and expertise. Looking better by the day, too.
On the positive side, there are still a lot of great tower buildings going up...
Look at Zaha's 1000 Tower design for Miami from a few years ago. Can't help but imagine this at the WTC site... Or on the west side. Look at all the terraces! See, sheep, architecture makes a difference... And I bet this could be done for the same $
nate, are you saying the material cost of the picture you show would be the same as the material cost of a glass block?
or are you saying the labor cost of the picture you show would be the same as the labor cost of a glass block?
or design cost?
or are you saying the check the developer gets each month based on rentable square feet for each tenant in that building (which pays for the building) will be the same?
I really don't want to get into a pissing match, jla-x, but couldn't one invert your statement and say "Doesn't it bother you that BIG passes off ecologically and socially-responsive buildings as greed-driven starchitecture?". Because I think arguments could be made both ways. Architecture is infrequently an easily reducible issue.
It's not just black and white. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Why not both? And lots of other cliches about taking it easy. (I had a drinking lunch today, so I'm all about being mellow. It's all good.)
The same as the existing designs, yes. The existing 2WTC is a twisting stacked block concept, I bet that's more expensive (and why the client walked away). I would bet you 3 billion that this is cheaper... All things being even in NYC construction.
I like this too...
Google ecological skyscraper
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I still have yet to read what it is you think a skyscraper should do, and where the thing you think it should be exists. But then again, I'm still waiting for Bladerunner to become our reality, and the train from Snowpiercer to take us there.
Donna, not trying to get into any kind of "pissing match". I'm just discussing the age old question regarding "honesty" in architecture and the overall trend towards Branding. I am not critiquing BIG so feverishly because I am bored...rather because I see this particular firm as an example of an insidious new/old trend in architecture (knowingly or not). Architecture being used as a corporate/elitist propaganda machine of sorts. Not that Bjark is a bad architect, or a bad person, but he is clearly selling Something for the powers that be...
But he's also bringing attention to architecture - and its need to be ecological and socially-conscious - through his work, isn't he? Yes, it's work for developers, but simultaneously it's work that makes people talk about big ideas like sustainability and greenspace and terroir (not every building captures every one of these ideas).
Isn't that what "yes is more" is about? that a piece of architecture can function on many levels?
Well are these buildings even ecological? Don't think that's what they are saying anymore... So you have to take them for what they are.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." I think someone dopey said that.
It seems people don't like Bjarke because he goes after work, from the corporate hoards, and that's why we don't like him?
Most projects are "corporate" so don't think that's what it is. Probably more to do with his being celebrated as a star architect when the work, while good, is like a nice SOM or HOK project. Perhaps it's similar to the Alejando Aravena win--while nice, it's gaining huge attention due to narrative and message. Very political times.
Zaha's tower is nice. Build that! Gage's seems like proof of the "BIG effect" that seems to be happening--where the concept seems more tuned to make a big splash and controversy rather than be a good building. Like an insincere linkbait headline that gets you to click but then you find nothing of value inside.
the criticism of the critics was based on readings by paul. The comments ranged from Bjarke is an asshat to the trees wont survive. The first comment is funny but not to be taken seriously. The latter has a varnish of legitimacy but like most comments its pretty clearly aimed at Bjarke and not the building. So the discussion we had centered on that.
Ad hominem attacks set aside, simply saying that he is a tool of developers is lazy. How is he a tool, and how is he not as Donna says, making use of the system to produce quite exceptional work? W57th is brilliant. This latest skyline project is kind of weak I admit. It reminds me of a nicer copy of the vinoly project in the netherlands mostly.
but at least he is asking the question about what a tower in the city should be. That has not happened much in the last 10 years as we went down the rabbit hole of symbolism, first with pomo and then with green design.
With that recent history still cooking away as the template for the old schoolers the mixed typology of W57th cannot be seen as anything but entirely fresh. It appears to work in a simplistic way but gives deep experiential satisfaction that we might better expect of a Renaissance building in Genoa or a street in London from the time of Chris Wren. Which is amazing. Usually the only way to get that kind of experiential and urban sophistication is to spend lavish amounts of money. Here Bjarke is telling us its just not so, that it can be done for cheap (-ish), and without relying on formulas that make the architecture unapproachable to the great unwashed hordes...and some critics apparently are pissed about it. He is questioning the role of architecture and the built world as the setting for our lives. Its radically urbanistic in outlook, and sure its cute and cuddly, but at least its a start. As the whole planet is readying to jump into a hyper urban age I gotta say these are exactly the questions that need to be addressed. If someone wants to argue against his solutions then I'd like to hear it. But instead so far the argument is about him. THAT is what the discussion in the podcast is about. ie, that we are having the wrong fucking conversation, and how ridiculous is that?
With comments like the above defining the discussion it is clearly a necessary first step before we can actually talk about his work..maybe in the near future someone will do a follow up on the conversation that talks only about the work and ignores the name of Bjarke. Then everyone will be happy.
Still, if you are in a hurry to revel in some Bjarke oriented schadenfreude, his failed entry to the PS1 competition was in 2010 and can be seen here. Bjarke the loser. Ahhh the good old days.
Mom standing in front of a Pollock...
Mom: my three year old grandson could do that.
Me: (smh)
I like how the Podcast now incorporates comments and then back again, and as Will is pointing out it would be better if it turned all this into proper discussions on architecture....although we all like to vent a bit under various aka's on this website, or write random stuff....
the Gage tower is the NYC at it's (re)finest in essence, I've been trying my best in recent projects to get that refined taste. If you like NYC this Interior Landmarks Treasures of New York a book I recommend.
Look at the side of this SHOP proposal for 57th Street (do you see a little Gage in it, or more specifically NYC around Central Park?)
the Seagram's building did NYC very well in the language of Modernism (key word - Bronze)
and a Donald Trump version of this via Costa Kondylis
I find the "disingenuous", "corporate sell-out" comments about Bjarke a bit conflicting to be honest.
If it's based on his architecture, it looks nothing like what I just showed you.
and to be clear, not calling Gage, SHOP, or Kondylis "disingenuous", and "corporate sell-out", just trying to point out BIG's proposals don't look like (re)fined NYC that is linked to massive amounts of funding (see Seagrams building)
That SHoP supertall tower is fascinating to me, is it going forward? I tried to interview them about it but they're awfully busy.
I 100% agree with your comments above, Will. IMO BIG is using the interest of developers - this moment of fame - to explore really interesting ideas for architecture. Similarly, despite the scary dictators and what-not who are involved, ZHA's architecture is always interesting, too.
IDK, I find that Gage tower to be hideously ugly while the SHoP + Zaha are beautiful in execution despite being very different styles. BIG has to be responsible for the criticism they generate because that's how they present themselves. Trying to create an archicelebrity out of gee-whiz gimmicks, not enough about how the spaces will be experienced. All of their marketing is over the top videos, website project logos/branding. No other partners to be seen, only a brief glimpse of office minions, (mostly white males btw).
One of their promo videos relates their process to the Flatiron building; or creativity coming from how the streets generate the shape. But its not just the shape that makes the tower. If you put a banal glass tower on that site (with terraces) its a much different result than what is there, and misses the importance of all of those little details that make the building great. You get the idea of why they do so many projects, because they are only involved with the super large scale concepts and don't really do full service from design to construction. So, if this is the future of architecture, it seems even more relegated to the sidelines.
I agree, the Shop tower is very nice...
Donna its a construction site. so lets compare the two, SHOPS tower vs BIGs proposal. What makes it a better design than BIGs spiral? Can anyone guess what high-rise building in NYC was the first to achieve LEED platinum.
Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park Is First Commercial Skyscraper in U.S. to Achieve LEED Platinum looks like this
[I'm somewhat making Beta's point above]
Bank of America, corporate, Durst - family own - first LEED platinum.
Is this "corporate" architecture? Did the money go towards making a green building over intricate rich details? or is this Green architecture?
Isn't BIG keeping their style? Where should the $3 billion go?
------
Zaha near the highline
what is the difference between this and SHOPs building and Gages?
If you can't tell the diff between SHoP and Gage, there's not much I can do for you other than suggest studying Art Deco, Baroque and then Fascist architecture. though both prove that it doesn't have to look like BIG
LiMX - so we are talking about styles?
SHOP = Art Deco, never thought of them like that, did they "sell-out"? Is Art Deco craft orientated? makes sense right. or is it what works for in and around Central Park?
Gage = Baroque, I don't fully agree, I think it's more Art Deco and Traditionalism in NYC, and if he is Baroque then so is Greg Lynn! But we can ask Christian Norberg-Schulz?
Fascism - I don't see it ?!?
so what does BIG look like? is it a style?
with regard to Jackson Pollack, EKE, and image for this post
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/01/facts-on-pollocks-fractals.html
When Warhol was asked What he thought of the skyscrapers of NY he responded with one word, "money". The buildings were honest representations of their purpose as are the ones pictured above. Big on the other hand is architecturally and verbally sugar coating work with blind optimism and Slick salesmanship. To me this is different from the others..the only comparison that I can think of is the faux "traditional" style that litters suburbia.... Styled with silly "old world" tack on to create a false sense of tradition, permanence, and local neighborhood shops...while in reality it's a modern corporation selling factory farmed imports...razing the real mom pop shops....anything but local and traditional with its headquarters 1000 miles away...Its a dishonest propaganda architecture not too unlike this big tower...just my opinion...I don't think that they (Big) are intentionally doing it, but the clients are likely making them turn tricks. That's my main beef...
Warhol, Money? Talk about pot meet kettle.
After you wrote Warhol, I couldn't read anything else, the crazy bitch-ass mo-fo laughing in my brain, prevented me from comprehending your keystrokes.
^care to elaborate?
Warhol wasn't saying it critically, just that Manhattan skyline was a symbol of money. Money business, and power are the driving force of every skyscraper.
The comments ranged from Bjarke is an asshat to the trees wont survive. The first comment is funny but not to be taken seriously. The latter has a varnish of legitimacy but like most comments its pretty clearly aimed at Bjarke and not the building.
That's your interpretation. My question was whether or not this amounts to greenwashing - the illusion of ecological responsibility - and the answer to that seems pretty clear. If you want to take it as aimed at Bjarke, go right ahead.
It's a failure of the system and its leaders - the starchitects - who fail to lead. It's only aimed at Bjarke specifically as this is his contribution to the problem. If there was an intelligent plan to create sustainable environments in the microclimates this building will create, that would be different, but it's not. Instead it's billed as a revolutionary open plan.
Brad Pitt is my vote for the next Pritzker.
LiMX & jla-x if we're talking about Bjarke and not specifically his architecture, this might be helpful
archinect thread
Art Atom - by Bjarke Ingels (on Douglas Coupland)
if we are referencing Douglas Coupland, then you have to ask "Do You Like the Talking Heads?", see Archinect Feature by Julia Ingalls Pop Cultitecture: The Genius of David Byrne
---
Yes, this isn't the standard intellectualism we all have come to expect of architects and architectural theory, but if you like Rem Koolhaas then you should like all this...see an original copy of Generation X [1991], wonder if Bruce Mau and Koolhaas in S,M,X, XL [1995] were graphically alluding to that book with the definitions on the side? seemingly random, but appropriate to the context of the work, granted some items were lifted straight from books like Lolita by Nabakov
The possible segue into Archispeak intellectualism would be via Guy Debord, Paul Virilio, Jean Baudrilliard and my new favorite - written by Anonymous - The Coming Insurrection....or Bernard Tschumi (best theoretical architect that builds according to Kipnis)...actually what is a Pipe?
but the solutions or counters to all this to date is only 'craft', or am I missing something?
"Yuppie Wannabe's: An X generation subgroup that believes the myth of a yuppie life-style being both satisfying and viable. Tend to be highly in debt, involved in some form of substance abuse, and show a willingness to talk about Armageddon after three drinks." (Coupland, Gen X)
/\ sounds like Architects to me?
craft vs media?
the latter is easier to wax intellectual on, the former has its limits of intellectualism before it is accused of waxing too much....
I've decided Hunter S. Thompson is just as much a philosopher as Adorno, so all this above can be deep intellectual theory if you so choose.
aside: read "Generation of Swine" by Hunter S. Thompson to get a good feel on the republican race, its funny in massive amounts of parrallels....except after 150 pages he still doesn't think George W.H. Bush will win...
Think it's helpful to actually look at the architecture and see what is being proposed by these various firms. As far as Bjarke goes, if there is a backlash to his celebrity posturing and easy gimmick tricks, then it's kind of you reap what you sow, right? Gage is another interesting reaction to the media--his earlier work seemed more sincere and crafty, and now he's aiming for shock-value. Mission accomplished? We've moved from Architect to Starchitect to Star (and Shockers).....
The New Yorker on Kanye West, seems relevant: "As fame came to seem increasingly like a game that could be rigged, West remained a man of erratic shifts and intense, flitting curiosities. With each new project, West was curious and questing. 'I just want to bring as much beauty to the world as possible,' he added"
^ starting to look like Kim cleaned him out of $50m or more.
I worked at a firm in Chicago in the 80s that did fantastic, gorgeous custom interiors and houses, true works of art, way ahead of their time in terms of fabrication and materials usage. They lost money of every one of these jobs, but their reputation for doing incredible work was built, and today they're still very successful, maybe even a star firm.
To fund the custom work that lost money but that they *wanted* to do, they did office layouts for a huge banal corporation that had locations all over the country and tens of thousands of employees (that's the work I was assigned to as an intern).
A lot of firms do this. Obviously we want leaders to lead in every aspect of their life, but the financial reality is sometimes one has to do work that will feed the machine while simultaneously allowing one to work on the things one is passionate about.
I think people are envious of Bjarke - and lots of other successful people - because they've figured out how to do this. Evey project won't be simultaneously beautiful, an exemplar of green living, the solution to social justice problems, groundbreaking in materials technology, inexpensive to fabricate, under budget, fully leased upon completion, and easily described in one cute nickname.
Donna to LiMX point and yours...yes most firms do a lot of work that never gets published to pay the bills, some firms do not even care if they ever get published, but I think much of the critique on this spiral terrace building is that its somewhat undeveloped, lacking the "craft" often invested in projects worth publishing. the same projects as Donna points out often do not make any money. This seems to have been done simply so that the "media" has something to talk about and at the level the "media" can promote or talk about it. another form of "craft", Charles Moore architecture as a performing art.......with regard to Gage, would a model of the tower been better? do BIGs models look like Allied Works?
As I say in the podcast, craft changes relative to scale, and Will and Paul both correct me: in Bjarke's work craft isn't an issue anyway. They're right. His work is about other ideas; some of those ideas are easily translated to marketing bling.
Does any architect think they could design a mega-highrise in Manhattan these days and *not* also have to accept that it would be packaged in marketing bling for the media to promote?
Everyone has to make their living - marketers, leasing agents, contractors, maintenance crews, lawyers - we're all part of it. BIG doesn't even make their own videos any more, Squint Opera does (who we have also interviewed on the podcast - Episode 34).
Donna, I think that is what jla-x may mean by "disengious" - the very approach to architecture. If you search for SHOPs mock-up for their tower you will see the level of "craft" at that scale. but as noted BIG is not about this and neither was OMA - starting with their models versus say Allied Works.......so its not about style, not really about selling-out styles for developer sake, etc....its about BIGs approach to architecture which fallls more into the world of "media" than "craft". do we agree? if indeed he is an architect for the "media" then when does critiquing the building matter? if it is architecture for "media" how deep does the critique, let alone the architecture, need to be? (i believe LiMXs point)
Can someone direct me to a skyscraper that wasn't designed for some billionaire mega-corporation? Or, one designed for the poor?
Bjarke does what he said he does. If you think that is wrong, that's your problem.
"HEDONISTIC SUSTAINABILITY" by Bjarke Ingels, BIG
Date and place:
3/3/2011, LACMA, Los Angeles
Main Material:
Lecture built around the slogan, "Hedonistic Sustainability" including projects in China. Danish Pavilion in World Expo, terraced condominiums in Denmark that I find similar to a 1983 Glen Small project called "Turf Town." Another large under construction condominium project in Denmark. A government power project in Kazakhstan, an ecological utility factory in Denmark. Amoebic shaped museum overlooking the ocean. In studio models, videos featuring lovable Bjarke. A new press released condominium project in New York City.
Show and tell format mixed with motion media and synced stage co-ordination. Not reading from the text.
Crowd:
Mostly students and young architecture faculty, few 40-50 somethings, few older ladies with LACMA badges, few of A&D Museum Board members, Doug Christmas (owner of ACE Gallery with his long time girlfriend,) few developer types, and occasionally crying baby.
Sense of Humor:
Over the top. A natural fun guy! Loveable Danish accent, comfortable presence, down to earth appearance, well rehearsed delivery on stage. A total darling.
Relevancy to what's going on (based on global poverty ranking in relation to his clients):
N/A
Best moments:
Almost all of it. Möbius strip (loop) buildings, music in the videos (here is one)
Question asked by an audience member:
"If you were designing LACMA, what would you do?"
Answer :
"Well, L.A. has such a Mediterranean climate for indoor outdoor living. I would build less!"
Who sat on the first row?:
It wasn't really about that. Meaning, less stuck up people in the audience, or, at least in the front row.
Anybody left the lecture?:
Not that I saw.
Did Orhan stay around after the lecture and talked to Bjarke Ingels?:
Yes and no. There was a reception in A&D Museum across Wilshire Blvd. At that time Orhan elbowed Bjarke's arm and said "thank you, great show.., and tell" as Bjarke was just getting ready to respond, conversation was mobbed by a group of hardcore fans wanting his signature. I left him with his fans and went to see if there was any food as was promised. There was not!
Reason for the Lecture:
Book sales. Meeting people and looking for work in West Coast (I imagine) getting in touch with friends and fans, solidifying his presence in the global architecture scene.
BIG's influence on student and professional projects, "the inspiration" factor:
Big time.
His buzz:
Yes is More. Public space, buildings, cultural position, Design is beautiful. Yes boss. Go for it!
Overall message of the lecture:
Nice guy who is on top of his game early on his career. Strong Pritzker candidate in few years. Highly likable projects with a special talent, colors, form. A true design and positivity machine, Bjarke is so talented that one can't help but wonder "what's wrong with all this perfection dude?"
Overall "HEDONISTIC SUSTAINABILITY" factor of the work:
A palimpsest of a hedonistic love Bjarke would live to write.
Chris, well said...
Hedonistic sustainability is an oxymoron.
So, are you saying that "hedonistic sustainability" is an idea not worth exploring? If you are, would you suggest we stop building altogether, or do you have another idea? Should we perhaps revert to building primitive huts, adobe villages, grass shacks?
Of course not.
If you want to start somewhere, how about we stop building suburbs. I think building cities is infinitely more sustainable, than building on farmland. So, I'm up for how we do that.
Maybe some modern decentralized techno - "primitive". I hate the word "primitive" and "hut" ..:it is a Eurocentric word. Who says its "reverting back". Cities as we know them are not sustainable...they rely on imports.
Bjarke does what he said he does. If you think that is wrong, that's your problem.
Orhan you could be a speech writer for Trump!...this statement should read
Bjarke does what he said he does. If you think that is wrong, that's your opinion and your right.
and there you have it. the crux of the entire BIG debate, some people just don't agree with the fundamentals, principles, execution - the entire approach.
So I'm not surprised he is polarizing. I could stand behind Pop culture theory and provide enough intellectual back-up, which is what academics and those in charge of writing history like, but now let's re-frame the entire shit show of comments appropriately.
"asshat". In the world of quick pop culture media headlines, this term is a fair disagreement.
You say "hedonistic sustainability", he says "asshat". Why would a discussion on architecture in the world of media and Pop and coolness, young upstart inspiration, be any different.
The Feedback is as expected. You want to be cool on facebook, you will be equally uncool and the whole thing is amusing.
None of this means BIG sells-out to billionaires any differently than the next architect nor does it mean their style isn't appropriate for Green design...do they care less about "craft", who knows, maybe they don't go that far into the design process, maybe their fees do not cover it....
Continued....another conversation though...but the blind optimism uhhhg...the idea that we can have our cake and eat it...false...we cannot sustain a hedonistic lifestyle. This amounts to nothing more than hipster feel good Kony bologna. Blind Optimism is a dangerous thing in times like this...it creates a false sense of doing something...Sustainable hedonism in reality leads to Elysium. Some rich folks in hip free washed towers with the rest of us eating their garbage.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.