I think its a great discussion, but the whole topic is quite regressive.
I think that in the age of globalization, hiring architects from other places to design buildings is totally fine, and it also makes the whole process more interesting and enriching. The same question could be then asked of almost all the american/european offices practising in China.

I think development in architecture occurs mainly because of re-interpretations of culture and working internationally makes that possible. And of course there are successes and failures, but thats part of the game.

I don't really mean the notion of 'working internationally' should be in question. It's really just the phenomenon of starchitects being chosen to raise the profile of a cultural building. The question is, in the US where good buildings are so scarce, aren't these H&deM types hampering the development of good regional american architecture ?

As it relates to the question of a 'globalization' of architecture, what gets built is more important than by whom it is designed. (The sarcity of women & minority architects is another matter).

However, I do think that the loss of the local vernacular in building style, materials and constrution ought to be a true concern for the profession. Its a shame to see the generic glass n' steel of Houston (not picking on Houston- its just one example of many) get replicated in China, Malaysia, Spain, etc. For issues of material, economic and cultural sustainability, we as a profession need to follow nature's cue that if there are certain resources native to a locality, they probably the ones most well adapted to surviving in the construction of a building for the long long haul. (e.g. Pentallic marble of Greece and the Athenian Acropolis).

A side note: On a recent trip to Key West, it was nice to see that the buildings that have survived through decades of hurricanes are largely the structures built w/ local materials (Dade County Pine, coral limestone) prior to WWII. Granted, the older homes are of ship-peg construction, so they are flexible in the winds....

Vernacular is not that something has really been 'lost' I think. I think that modern architecture, for the last 100 years, has been so personalized and so about the architect who made it (so international) that local modern architectures never had a chance to develop in the US.

Architects and academics mostly refuse to deal with the fact that in general, the public hates modern architecture in the US because of the nature of these individualistic 'international' buildings. It's not to say that these buildings are bad per se, but buildings which only converse within the limits global conversation of 'architecture' (the black clad academics, the fucking glossy arch-magazines) do absolutely nothing to make real people believe that new buildings can be better than what they have now.

These international buildings aren't part of a trajectory of development of 'local' architecture. Since they're just foreign objects, to the public these buildings are anomalies. They don't contribute to a sense of 'local' and therefore, their quirkiness isn't really anything to be proud of or to want repeated.

doesn't it go both ways? should frank, peter, richard, and thom only build in the states?

i for one am happy that my u.s. city has a library by rem and wished it didn't have a music and sci-fi museum by frank.

I think it is actually helpful to the local architects because most of the times the starchitects hire local architects as part of the project and boost their portfolios and they can in turn watch the design so thats it is not completely alien to the area.

it always happened in the past.
Leonardo was called to work in France. (from italy)
Bernini was called to design the Louvre. (from Italy/Rome)
Palladio was imitated in England. (from Venice area)
Bramante was called in Rome by the Pope. (from Milan)

No. American architects and developers do it to themselves. All sellouts to make their pockets fat or just to boring/conservative to trying somthing new. Look at the Grand Avenue Project in LA. HdeM or Rem would have proposed a far more interesting project. SOM, Gensler and thoes types are the heart of the problem, not the "starchitects".

Hi
I ansver on subject , yes they are.
Architecture are not something you buy in a can.
Did Liebskind stay with the huge wtc rebuilding or did he speed away to sell the same ilusion all over the world, what happened with that project.
Did Frank then further develob the tin concept, and do it realy carry the innovative aproach people think or did he make sure you all think that the only innovative aproach are tin boxes and emty metal tophats made to make a distant impression --- did that concept evolve in 20 years did any of these icon makers acturly profit architecture with quality houses, warm inviroments no ,all that happened was that even less quality more cold and innovation at stop while fiddelin the old methods into hightech lookalikes.
Fast sketches and dull expressions do not produce quality spaces, none of these architects seem to have a clue about anything but fast money and going from project to project selling the same cold inviroments and lack of real quality. Maby it is good that they sell the emporors new clotches as museums and spetacular Icons, it realy would be bad if they shuld produce real houses.

from e "doesn't it go both ways? should frank, peter, richard, and thom only build in the states?"
There's nothing about these four that contributes to any collective sense of an American architecture. With the exception of maybe Morphosis, the other three produce highly personalized object buildings. Mr. Eisenman's office has the dubious fame of producing public buildings in the US which are unanimously hated by their occupants and the public. Mr. Meier's (SP?) office exports its bland austerity to places, like the Hauge, where capable Dutch architects would have probably designed a better building. To the extent that Morphosis builds on the west coast, they are part of a pretty cohesive continuum of west coast work.

from symmetry "most of the times the starchitects hire local architects as part of the project and boost their portfolios"
For every de Young EMP or SPL, there will only be one architect of record. Sharing fame with the name-brand does nothing to endere 'new' architecture to the public of these cities or advance the cause of modern architecture for normal buildings. The public will see such partnerships for what they are; local architects are needed to negotiate permitting offices and municiple authorities.

from The Thriller in Manila "No. American architects and developers do it to themselves. All sellouts to make their pockets fat or just to boring/conservative to trying somthing new. Look at the Grand Avenue Project in LA. HdeM or Rem would have proposed a far more interesting project"
Only second and third year undergrads are naive enough to talk this way and really believe it. If being 'interesting' (to other architects) is the highest quality architecture can have, then architecture has NO chance of convincing the public that modern buildings can be good instead of a clumsy visual blight. Architecture schools teach their students to be highly competetive, to believe that one's own architecture is most interesting and most worthy of built existance. The false ideal of being most provocative. This cliche mentality of boring vs. interesting is poisonous for architecture. The stilted, incendiary, and hyperbolic language of the UVA open letter demonstrated just how out of touch archidemics are with the real world. Architecture has to be more than provocative, it has to work well and be collective (not personal) and be liked to have a future.

from Per Corell "Fast sketches and dull expressions do not produce quality spaces, none of these architects seem to have a clue about anything but fast money and going from project to project selling the same cold inviroments and lack of real quality. Maby it is good that they sell the emporors new clotches as museums and spetacular Icons, it realy would be bad if they shuld produce real houses."
Here's exactly what's at stake. While single cultural buildings are understandably impotent to really change cities or urbanism, their power for evil increases exponentially if they are hated. In other words, a hated modern building speaks ill of all modern architecture and makes traditional styles seem like an excellent refuge for the public.

Per - Libeskind was essentially fired by Silverstein and kicked out by SOM. He's lucky he's a smart guy and got other thigns going while the fire was still hot.
That disaater lies in the hands of traditional American greed - Silverstein and SOM.

Personally, I don't care if it's local firms or international, just that the best project for a particular site gets chosen. The real problem lies in the laziness and poor taste of the general populace, and, in turn, in the politicians and developers that cater to the general populace's wants.
If there were more visionaries in those fields, there would be more advances in architeture (and, yes, Per, in construction technology). It's starting to happen, but we are decades behind Europe.

Thankfully, therea are a few, and with projects like CalTrans (that I was personally much mroe impressed with in person than in pics, and that's rare) and the few other non-museum projects, people are seeing that something can be done with a boring program. Hopefully, more will take note.

this is a local town for local people
there's nothing for you hjere

I really hope I never become successful, because it would suck for laymen to appreciate my work to the point where I was well known and got commissioned around the world. I mean, who wants that kind of money and success if you get labeled as a "starchitect" and then are forever blammed on archinect forums? I can't wait to start a small scale, localized office of my own, so that I can limit myself to never designing outside of my comfort bubble! Hooray for regionalizing!

Here, in Detroit, where most of the buildings designed are by local architects, with the local vernacular being always taken into account, the result has been nothing more than an architecture of complacent mediocrity.

insular, localized architectural communities typically result in yawnworthy mediocrity. it's good to have outside views. austin architecture, for instance, had settled into a hippiefied yuppiefied eco-postmodernism into the mid- to late-90s. now with some outside views and voices (thank you UT school of architecture) the culture is a little more vibrant and you can't necessarily get by on just an extremely thorough knowledge of rafter tail profiles anymore.

The arch school standard insults, buzzwords, and cliches here are super lame.

There is such a thing as new dutch architecture, new spanish architecture, and for a while there was a contingent of recognizable new California architecture. I would also argue that there is becomming a sufficient mass of new good offices in new york city to comprise a 'new york scene' of offices. Similar to how different cities or regions have music scenes or cultures of bands and artists who may play radically different music but who together constitute 'montreal music' or 'austin music' or whatever.

Those with too-short attention spans to read through what this thread is supposed to be about should know that it's not about advancing 'vernacular' styles. I'm not advocating shlocky local or regional architecture as seen today in Detroit, Austin, or whatever burg someone might be from. The regional I'm advocating is a vibrant ever changing culture which is nonetheless associated with an area of the country and is thus more accessible by the general public many of you have such open disdain for.

It's about asserting that it's better to give important commissions to GOOD architects from the same region as the project.

Newold, all i am saying is that, in my opinion, a city free of internationally designed buildings, will not necessarilly develop "a vibrant ever changing culture which is nonetheless associated with" its region. There are many other factors standing in the way of the development of a successfully engaging regional "culture" (see Trace's 2nd.paragraph). Furthermore, in my humble (that is non- arch insulting, cliche'ed buzzworded short-spanned) opinion, I believe an injection of a "foreign substance" could sometimes jump start a region into developing an architecture it could be happier with. Local population will start to wonder why a swiss firm is designing in california, people will push for local architects to be used in public projects, there will be discussions on archinect...

i'm gonna take a cue from the "moving to NYC" thread and state that donald judd moved to marfa TX b/c of the new york art "scene." i think most architects couldn't care less about who else is designing in their city -- unless they didn't get the job.

i mean, most architects aren't BOTHERED by who else is designing in their city -- unless they didn't get the job.

starchitecture is a phenomenon that has always transcended time and place. and most local architectural cultures stem from things like commonality in education (NL, E, NY), societal values (NL), or the accumulation of a lot of money (NY). whether or not they are vibrant tends to depend on the bank accounts financing the buildings and the tendencies and values of the clients.

from what i hear, SF was not particularly conducive to supporting the work of young architects who don't do gimcrack for many, many years.

Starchitecture and everyday architecture are two different species.

Frank Gehry and Santiago Calitrava are both not really about regionalism, both are supernational, not international. I think there is little danger of our world being remade in Gehry's image... And Gehry himself has said this... That he sees his work as a particular kind of thing, he wouldn't want to start some kind of Gehryism, but that his clients and many people like what he does. We can hate what he does, but I don't really think there is any danger of Gehry's Disney Music Hall "killing architecture". If a Japanese starchitect were to design a building with a strong Japanese aesthetic in New York City, there isn't really a danger of New York becoming more like Tokyo. It would always be the exception, not the standard.

But I think if the debate is between regional everyday architecture and an international style, then I'm all for regional.

But regional architecture does exist, take Pacific Northwest modernism for example... I think if we're talking about good design that is responsive to a regional climate, environment, and culture, I think we will start to see this more and more, given society's increasing awareness of environment and unique environmental contexts of regions. Regional architecture will simply become "smarter" than blind universal style.

For example, the tragedy in New Orleans may have a far reaching impact on development, and raise awareness about real economic and ecological impacts of regional (vs. universal) design, and maybe even the preciousness of regional character?

If our world is increasingly moving towards environmentally sustainable design, I think it's inevitable that regional materials will be used more (probably by law or incentives), and design will become more regional in character simply due to the fact that places have different environmental contexts. Local architects might even become more prominent in regions because they will have more expertise about the particularities of their region...

Or am I just deluding myself?

you guys lost the right to regionalism when you started aping all our classical european stuff, get your own heritage you filthy monkeys.

but seriously, why would someone from the region be better placed to design a museum? displacement often lets you see things the natives take for granted. and the "native" we are talking about here may have moved countries three times before settling down in nativeland anyway.

we have our own heritage. it's called strip malls.

besides if we're talking about killing architecture, international architects are the only ones gaming the media machine - ie the ones connecting us to the life support that is public approval. we have to maximise difference and the novelty of the image, never let up to ensure a broad consensus on our need to funk. and not until our currents of funk are projected after the news like the weather report everynight at 10 can we rest in peace.

would anyone be able to identify regional architecture if they can't identify regional fruit?

yeah, maybe you filthy euro monkeys should stop aping our heritage.

also, how heavy is the hand of the international architect? i'd like to know that percentage. the percentage i learnt today: 2% of all buildings are designed by architects. i don't know how that's calculated.

but seriously:

people dress differently in different regions. even fashion is regional... "currents of funk aside", what is funk in different places reflects the climate, the culture, environment, demographics, and lifestyle... It reflects economy which to a certain degree is regional.

this has to do with market forces too... its just less economical to build with stone in canada, just as its less economical to build with heavy timber in italy. so regional funk emerges... surfer shorts are more likely to emerge out of california (and even if they are proliferated around the globe) they are probably more likely to be worn in california than in scotland... Or if they did become popular in scotland, their nature would be different, and the style would probably be completely different.

i remember watching euro total request live in helsinki and hearing someone request a song "for all the gangstas in denmark". i think the song was "king of my castle." it had an anime video. methinks that cultural aping is a game we can all play.

seriously, culture is now global and if an architecture student can move from north dakota to rotterdam to do his/her internship then that rotterdam firm can do a skyscraper in shanghai. hell, there were enough koreans at som in chicago to have their own christmas party. in ADDITION to the firm one, mind you -- there wasn't any of that racist crap going down or anything so don't anyone even bother.

i just don't see the destruction by international architects. i see more destruction of regionalism by our own with developers building crappy housing and strip malls being the heart of every town across the u.s.

a tract house in suburban chicago looks the same as a tract house in suburban austin except for the exterior materials (and the house in suburban chicago has a basement)

we went into an ihop in zion, illinois and it was so similar to the ihop in haltom city, texas that i instantly knew where the bathroom was

maybe if H&deM could do ihops then this little-by-little homicide of the american locality would taste a little better (or at least as good as the rooty tooty fresh and frooty breakfast)

of course, there's the central contradiction: that maybe there's something about standardization that we actually like as american's

the only homogeneity architects typically like is their own

i meant, americans (not american's)

true, and then there's the other kind of destruction: destruction of innovation (regional, international, or otherwise)... the kind of kitschy touristic "flavour of a region" development that is all about "preserving" / constructing / reconstructing a regional character (and heritage) of a place... this too is usually driven by another set of economic forces... or perhaps a preservationist's counter-action to the strip mall?

or maybe this is like what happens when regionalism goes strip mall?

'the righteous fist of archinect..blah blah'

you might want to remember that most of us filthy monkeys moved here from europe, hence the classical european stuff.

but i agree with you in that someone from the same region will not do a better job necessarily. What we can expect is there should be a free-and-fair competition, but if the project is privately funded, the client can get anyone to design it, and theres no way to change that.

"in a state like california"? come on, nothing here is native, let alone the architects. every one of the architects you say are regional are from someplace other than california. maybe you should have to be born in the region before you're officially 'regional'? architecture is supposed to transend 'regions', ideology, etc...
the whole premise for the argument is flawed...and thus pointless.

are we really discussing how international architects have affected regional landscapes or starchitects?

i'm sure we all agree with sameolddoctor that it should be a free-and-fair competition for what is actually best. regardless of region or fame.

but something to consider is the number of people who yearn to travel. you do this because you want to see new things, or learn about someone else's history and in the end it will change your perspective on the world. why shouldn't that apply to architecture? bring the world to your little region.

i do think that big box buildings and strip malls have become the architecture of america after all this amelorization and melting pot mentality. so who is really the problem? i'd say all the people who want cheap buildings/architecture because they only care about the next 5 years.