I am wondering how people feel about Nicolai Ouroussoff's recent "turn" towards socially responsible design. Two of his recent articles, a review of Zaha Hadid's Chanel Pavilion in Central Park and a piece from a few days ago about the end of the designer-condo-tower boom in New York, describe his longing for idealistic visions in architectural practice:
"One would hope that our economic crisis leads us to a new level of introspection and that architects will feel compelled to devote their talents to more worthwhile — dare I say idealistic? — causes."
and
"Still, if the recession doesn’t kill the profession, it may have some long-term positive effects for our architecture. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to invest heavily in infrastructure, including schools, parks, bridges and public housing. A major redirection of our creative resources may thus be at hand. If a lot of first-rate architectural talent promises to be at loose ends, why not enlist it in designing the projects that matter most? That’s my dream anyway."
I seem to remember several articles Ouroussoff has written lately about a (rare) public housing project in China, the rebuilding of New Orleans, and the need for investment in new American infrastructure. However, upon closer inspection, his analyses of these projects seem superficial and muddled. One article glorifies the scope and scale of Chinese urban development in advance of the Olympics with only passing references to the displacement of thousands of people, while another laments the destruction of traditional hutong housing, with little or no continuity between the two arguments. I am a regular reader, and cannot remember a single piece he has written about a public school, a park, or a bridge, the "projects that matter most". In fact, I've always thought of him as quite the champion of designer NY condos.
An example, from June:
"Holl has reason to be exhilarated. His Beijing project, “Linked Hybrid,” is one of the most innovative housing complexes anywhere in the world: eight asymmetrical towers joined by a network of enclosed bridges that create a pedestrian zone in the sky. Yet this exhilaration also comes at a price: only the wealthiest of Beijing’s residents can afford to live here."
In September, about the same project:
"This will take real brainpower, of course. But the idea that it can’t be done — or that Americans can’t afford it — seems more ludicrous than ever, given the example of China. Sometime later this year, Steven Holl, one of the brightest talents working today, will complete his Linked Hybrid residential complex in Beijing. The project is both a model of sustainable design and a breathtaking example of how to build an urban community in the 21st century."
I respect anyone's right to change his or her mind, but does anyone else wish that this critic would take a position and stick to it? At least for a little while?
I feel like Ourossoff's stuff has been steadily moving in this direction for years. Ever since he took over from formalist cheerleader Muschamp, it's been a gradual transition.
So critics can't have complex, multivariate opinions about issues that intersect politics, economies, form and cities? I'd be much more dissappointed if his writing were less nuanced and more one-liner about places about China.
I read both these articles when they came out, and in the one, he's critiquing the urban form, in the other, the historical and social overtones.
i'd far rather that he talk to us about what he is currently thinking, even if that changes, rather than just running through a set of polemic talking-points over and over again.
"Serious architecture was beginning to look like a service for the rich, like private jets and spa treatments...Nowhere was that poisonous cocktail of vanity and self-delusion more visible than in Manhattan."
"Serious architecture was beginning to look like a service for the rich, like private jets and spa treatments...Nowhere was that poisonous cocktail of vanity and self-delusion more visible than in Manhattan."
I think he's missed the point on a few counts with the two largest being;
1. that it was the recession that was a 'wake up call' of our profession
2. that only NOW can top flight (re: first-rate architecture talent) architects get involved in projects that improve communities, as opposed to
It began as a discussion at breakfast today, then through lunch, then we began writing. Here is our take (sent to the NYT, cc:d to NO). Nicholai has to pull the rudder alot harder if he's really going to make the argument of why we build over what we build.
Cameron my comment could hardly considered trolling. So sensitive. The author extols the virtues of the collapse as a possibility to usher in some social vision. If anything, the article is itself political trolling on a national level and it worked, looks like he reeled in a big fish.
your critique is right on cameron. why the assumption that only the large and famous are intelligent enough to take on the real problems? or that until these big people get on it the problems have note really been addressed...
to be fair there is a lot of creative talent in those offices and it could be interesting to see what they come up with if pressed.
shigeru ban is one of the names who is at least trying to cover both realms, though i would offer that he is limited by the fact that his research work is in a japanese university setting (where numbingly lethargic students are incredibly NOT innovative)...still he has done some interesting and valuable work. so yeah, maybe he is one of the humvee crowd, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing hybrids too.
more of that, and more of what you write of, would be awesome.
evilplatypus, it was the 'Meet the new left, same as the old left.' comment. This argument is not about politics, it is about the profession of architecture and where we believe we stand in the built environment.
At a time when the industry should be staking a claim in helping change the direction of this country our biggest failure would be not to act.
If NO is looking to the stars for new socially relevant work, it's only because those are the names he has in his outlook contacts. Give him a minute, I'm sure he'll be hitting a lot of other people up soon.
but i think Ousouroff likes to be seduced and simply is not seeing the work that cameron talks about.
that is the real problem. especially if he is actually a fair representative for the common view amongst architects.
if the rest of the profession is convinced that our mandate is only to make jaw-dropping objects then we are seriously dropping the ball. ousoroff really IS missing the real story, and it is worrying that maybe most of the profession and students and future architects and cetera share his view. So if he really does want to see a change then he has to step up to the plate. somehow i don't think he will though.
now if he would do the same as david pogue does with his critical mail at NY Times and actually publishes the letter along with an answer, THAT would be something...
when you see this type of re-positioning going on, you really can verify the directional change. more people would ask, "we were doing it all along, where were you, nick?"
I am not familiar with that guy’s writings on architecture, so I can’t really comment on the level of opportunistic behaviour elinor seems to be suggesting in the first place.
It seems to me that for years most architectural critics and publications have primarily focused on the glamorous productions of a handful of ‘starchitects’ for very prestigious buildings and/or very exclusive clients. This coincided with years of uncontrolled (inflated?) economic growth when everything seemed possible and sky was the limit. This has resulted in the production of some outstanding buildings and has greatly enriched the debate on design within the profession but also opened architecture and the built environment to the greater world, something that should not be ignored. Today however, with the global economic downturn and a recession looming around the corner the focus and spending will perhaps start shifting towards or at least acknowledge more socially and environmentally responsible types of practices that were always there to be seen and discussed but largely ignored and that will become increasingly relevant in a slow economy.
File this under "be careful what you wish for". The UN is sending a special envoy to investigate NYC's affordable housing situation as a potential human rights violation. Yes thats correct, putting NYC in the same league as the Flavelas of Sau Paulo and Dehli.
A critic can focus on things she/he deems important/innovative/telling and hopefully NO will now look into the layers of challenges facing non-starchitects in building our everyday environment and national infrastructures.
[Strange to hope that the stars of today should focus on these problems: they seem to have skill-sets that are completely insufficient in tackling these projects - "that matter the most."]
The oscillating of NO between separate points of view comes from the difference between the projects that show up on his radar and his conscience as someone who sees the bigger picture than the closely cropped money-shot.
Many projects call for several, partly contrasting views, maybe most strongly the high-end projects in arguably developing-world environments, like Dubai and China. At least for me these have been the real wake-up call concerning the value (or devaluing) of architecture, not the Great Recession.
Oct 27, 09 5:45 am ·
·
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.
Ouroussoff?
I am wondering how people feel about Nicolai Ouroussoff's recent "turn" towards socially responsible design. Two of his recent articles, a review of Zaha Hadid's Chanel Pavilion in Central Park and a piece from a few days ago about the end of the designer-condo-tower boom in New York, describe his longing for idealistic visions in architectural practice:
"One would hope that our economic crisis leads us to a new level of introspection and that architects will feel compelled to devote their talents to more worthwhile — dare I say idealistic? — causes."
and
"Still, if the recession doesn’t kill the profession, it may have some long-term positive effects for our architecture. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to invest heavily in infrastructure, including schools, parks, bridges and public housing. A major redirection of our creative resources may thus be at hand. If a lot of first-rate architectural talent promises to be at loose ends, why not enlist it in designing the projects that matter most? That’s my dream anyway."
I seem to remember several articles Ouroussoff has written lately about a (rare) public housing project in China, the rebuilding of New Orleans, and the need for investment in new American infrastructure. However, upon closer inspection, his analyses of these projects seem superficial and muddled. One article glorifies the scope and scale of Chinese urban development in advance of the Olympics with only passing references to the displacement of thousands of people, while another laments the destruction of traditional hutong housing, with little or no continuity between the two arguments. I am a regular reader, and cannot remember a single piece he has written about a public school, a park, or a bridge, the "projects that matter most". In fact, I've always thought of him as quite the champion of designer NY condos.
An example, from June:
"Holl has reason to be exhilarated. His Beijing project, “Linked Hybrid,” is one of the most innovative housing complexes anywhere in the world: eight asymmetrical towers joined by a network of enclosed bridges that create a pedestrian zone in the sky. Yet this exhilaration also comes at a price: only the wealthiest of Beijing’s residents can afford to live here."
In September, about the same project:
"This will take real brainpower, of course. But the idea that it can’t be done — or that Americans can’t afford it — seems more ludicrous than ever, given the example of China. Sometime later this year, Steven Holl, one of the brightest talents working today, will complete his Linked Hybrid residential complex in Beijing. The project is both a model of sustainable design and a breathtaking example of how to build an urban community in the 21st century."
I respect anyone's right to change his or her mind, but does anyone else wish that this critic would take a position and stick to it? At least for a little while?
Being a critic is like being the piano player in a whorehouse. You don't have any control over the action going on upstairs.
I feel like Ourossoff's stuff has been steadily moving in this direction for years. Ever since he took over from formalist cheerleader Muschamp, it's been a gradual transition.
So critics can't have complex, multivariate opinions about issues that intersect politics, economies, form and cities? I'd be much more dissappointed if his writing were less nuanced and more one-liner about places about China.
I read both these articles when they came out, and in the one, he's critiquing the urban form, in the other, the historical and social overtones.
i'd far rather that he talk to us about what he is currently thinking, even if that changes, rather than just running through a set of polemic talking-points over and over again.
Well Gee whiz, now that we've torn billions of dollars of public housing projects lets rebuild them! Meet the new left, same as the old left.
I love this quote from the most recent article;
"Serious architecture was beginning to look like a service for the rich, like private jets and spa treatments...Nowhere was that poisonous cocktail of vanity and self-delusion more visible than in Manhattan."
I love this quote from the most recent article;
"Serious architecture was beginning to look like a service for the rich, like private jets and spa treatments...Nowhere was that poisonous cocktail of vanity and self-delusion more visible than in Manhattan."
I think he's missed the point on a few counts with the two largest being;
1. that it was the recession that was a 'wake up call' of our profession
2. that only NOW can top flight (re: first-rate architecture talent) architects get involved in projects that improve communities, as opposed to
It began as a discussion at breakfast today, then through lunch, then we began writing. Here is our take (sent to the NYT, cc:d to NO). Nicholai has to pull the rudder alot harder if he's really going to make the argument of why we build over what we build.
http://www.architectureforhumanity.org/updates/2008-12-21-a-letter-to-the-new-york-times
(ps. evilplatypus, love the political trolling)
all is vanity. look it up its in the bible.
Cameron my comment could hardly considered trolling. So sensitive. The author extols the virtues of the collapse as a possibility to usher in some social vision. If anything, the article is itself political trolling on a national level and it worked, looks like he reeled in a big fish.
Cameron,
Nice letter.
But didn't you know? that work doesn't "matter". I guess cause it isn't a visible museum or by a "big" name...
Great sentiment though. Let's hope that this work gets championed more especially with the incoming green jobs program/stimulus..
your critique is right on cameron. why the assumption that only the large and famous are intelligent enough to take on the real problems? or that until these big people get on it the problems have note really been addressed...
to be fair there is a lot of creative talent in those offices and it could be interesting to see what they come up with if pressed.
shigeru ban is one of the names who is at least trying to cover both realms, though i would offer that he is limited by the fact that his research work is in a japanese university setting (where numbingly lethargic students are incredibly NOT innovative)...still he has done some interesting and valuable work. so yeah, maybe he is one of the humvee crowd, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing hybrids too.
more of that, and more of what you write of, would be awesome.
evilplatypus, it was the 'Meet the new left, same as the old left.' comment. This argument is not about politics, it is about the profession of architecture and where we believe we stand in the built environment.
At a time when the industry should be staking a claim in helping change the direction of this country our biggest failure would be not to act.
Great letter, Cameron.
If NO is looking to the stars for new socially relevant work, it's only because those are the names he has in his outlook contacts. Give him a minute, I'm sure he'll be hitting a lot of other people up soon.
but i think Ousouroff likes to be seduced and simply is not seeing the work that cameron talks about.
that is the real problem. especially if he is actually a fair representative for the common view amongst architects.
if the rest of the profession is convinced that our mandate is only to make jaw-dropping objects then we are seriously dropping the ball. ousoroff really IS missing the real story, and it is worrying that maybe most of the profession and students and future architects and cetera share his view. So if he really does want to see a change then he has to step up to the plate. somehow i don't think he will though.
now if he would do the same as david pogue does with his critical mail at NY Times and actually publishes the letter along with an answer, THAT would be something...
should i hold my breath?
when you see this type of re-positioning going on, you really can verify the directional change. more people would ask, "we were doing it all along, where were you, nick?"
I am not familiar with that guy’s writings on architecture, so I can’t really comment on the level of opportunistic behaviour elinor seems to be suggesting in the first place.
It seems to me that for years most architectural critics and publications have primarily focused on the glamorous productions of a handful of ‘starchitects’ for very prestigious buildings and/or very exclusive clients. This coincided with years of uncontrolled (inflated?) economic growth when everything seemed possible and sky was the limit. This has resulted in the production of some outstanding buildings and has greatly enriched the debate on design within the profession but also opened architecture and the built environment to the greater world, something that should not be ignored. Today however, with the global economic downturn and a recession looming around the corner the focus and spending will perhaps start shifting towards or at least acknowledge more socially and environmentally responsible types of practices that were always there to be seen and discussed but largely ignored and that will become increasingly relevant in a slow economy.
File this under "be careful what you wish for". The UN is sending a special envoy to investigate NYC's affordable housing situation as a potential human rights violation. Yes thats correct, putting NYC in the same league as the Flavelas of Sau Paulo and Dehli.
link
More than anything, I hope we all agree that you couldn't come up with a better name for an architecture critic than Nicolai Ouroussoff...
...apologies to Ada Louise
A critic can focus on things she/he deems important/innovative/telling and hopefully NO will now look into the layers of challenges facing non-starchitects in building our everyday environment and national infrastructures.
[Strange to hope that the stars of today should focus on these problems: they seem to have skill-sets that are completely insufficient in tackling these projects - "that matter the most."]
The oscillating of NO between separate points of view comes from the difference between the projects that show up on his radar and his conscience as someone who sees the bigger picture than the closely cropped money-shot.
Many projects call for several, partly contrasting views, maybe most strongly the high-end projects in arguably developing-world environments, like Dubai and China. At least for me these have been the real wake-up call concerning the value (or devaluing) of architecture, not the Great Recession.
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.