It starts around 25 minutes in. In describing the current state of architecture and the powerlessness of the architect he states his belief that the dominance of the market economy is coming to an end. When Charlie presses him ont his and asks what will replace it, Rem says that he believes that institutions (i am looking at you Q) and in particular the role of government (the public) will grow in terms of shaping markets and the conomy. There will be an growth in the "undoing of deregulation"....
He saw this occuring as early on immediately following Sept 11.
He goes on to say that in certain circumstances
the intervention of institution & govenment will constitute another bubble for the free market economy, most probably green energy, infrastructure or commodity.
i predict that the market bubble will come back by mid 09, when the bank start releasing the money to the market.
Rem can contact me here for more detail enlightment.
i would hardly call this prescient. he was dead wrong for the last six years, and while this may be where the u.s. is headed under the obama administration in the midst of one of the worst recessions the world has seen in decades, it is not at all true of emerging economies such as china and india. i love koolhaas, but this was not one of his finer moments.
Ja,
While you may be right about the time delay or the fact that this wasn't exactly on time development, i am not sure that one can say that the situation is completely different in emerging economies..
It seems to me that China and India are taking many of the same approaches to institutions vs market that we are in the USA. Although you are right that in terms of overall trend the market has been on the rise not decline.
Plus, it seems to me regardless of the recession and whether Obama won the world was in general confronting the need for more institutional engagement for issues like tackling climate change, global health and informal settlements et al. As well as a general trend away from the era of un controlled free markets post Bush era...
Actually, that would be uncontrolled free markets of Allende's Chile and then Thatcher's Great Britain. The great neo-liberal era in the US began with Reagan, and has now come to a thudding end with Bush.
JA, the developing economies of India and China have and will have much greater degrees of regulation than the Euro-NA markets ever will have. And in 'developing' economies, the regulation is both onerous and non-existent, i.e. the overall regulatory framework is poorly developed, but there are many regulations in place.
Rem is smart, but it's something that many wide-ranging source [from the economist to david harvey] have expected for sometime.
nam/cowerd, i think both of you are reading your political and ideological beliefs into your posts. even if there is a trend towards regulation (which i am not arguing against), i would hardly call that a move towards a vague notion of "institutions" over "markets." the markets are the agents of change; they predate reagan and thatcher by decades. the role of government and at the microscale, ngos and nonprofits, the institutions i believe you are referring to nam, may right the ship from time to time, but don't be mistaken that the markets are in the driver's seat. i don't see that changing anytime soon.
that's the comment i was waiting for!!!!! this is just half-baked commentary either way. what's the point here? AH, the architect was right!? If this brand of supposed clairvoyance was good for an architect to have, I assume this would have to affect the direction of the work in some way - otherwise who cares what he read before the interview? I only saw the work of this firm growing progessively. . .i hestitate for a half second. . .more bombastic over time. I have a hard time seeing how the content of the work has matured beyond Delirous (is that 40 years old already?), which I loved, by the way, as a provocation.
Make,
Exactly. I think he said this right around the time he began working on CCTV. As you say not a coincidence.
I have been all over Roubini for a sec. Found him through John Robb.
Both of whom have predicting the collapse of market(s) for awhile. But i don't think either of them hae argued that institutions would/will take their place.
If anything i think Robb and probably Roubini would argue that institutions aren't effective enough to replace anything.
I mention Roubini because he is popular. If the market collapses what are we left with? Some sort of new hybird institution. Roubini wanted to create new regulation of the shadow financial market 2 or 3 years ago. This would [have] require[d] new global institutions because there are only some like 55 bank regulators in the whole USA. Each state has one. They work at the state level only. The Feds have 4 or 5. None of them was keeping an eye on what was going on. The "free market" was a free for all.
I'l look at what Koolhaas said but I would read Sidney Robinson's book "Inquiry into the Picturesque" to get an idea of how you can have an aesthetic that describes/visualizes both power, government and landscape. You can use what Roubini or Prof Simon Johnson has to say and create concepts and categories to make Architecture.
I have never been impressed by Koolhaas' thinking. I find many of his buildings seductive and engaging but I don't look to him to teach me something about government or global institutions because I don't think there's enough density and rigor there to engage. Just like I don't take Peter Eisenman seriously as a great thinker--he's not.
There's so much lazy writing in Architectural theory where someone strings together 20 references without footnotes and does it in a clever way that makes you feel like you're missing something. Eisenman has made a career out of it. It has given architectural theory a bad name it doesn't deserve.
Anyway, I would start with the discussions in Parliament about landscape and power and then think about what is going on. There are no easy answers. It's hard to make something new but it's possible!
The fall of Market Capitalism is nothing new...except that now it actually seems to be happening!
It has been a concept constantly referenced by Frankfurt School scholars, Post-Structuralist philosophers in the 1960's, as well as the Situationists like Guy Debord, etc.
Rem's generation of architects at the AA (i.e.Bernard Tschumi) were influenced in varying ways by these writers.
Both centralized planning and the free (for all) market don't work. We have shades of grey.To then make the claim that some guy in a black turtleneck predicted all of this is like saying Nostradamus first predicted it.
Everyone knows that things cannot stay the same. This guy from the FT talks about the USA being so in debt that the foreign in flows stop. This was considered fringe thinking a few years ago and is now being taken seriously.
The beginning of this post is refreshing in its modesty:
Economic policy is based on a collection of half-truths. The nature of these half-truths changes occasionally. Economics as a scholarly discipline consists in the periodic rediscovery and refinement of old half-truths. Little progress has been made in the past century or so towards understanding how economic policy, rules, legislation and regulation influence economic fluctuations, financial stability, growth, poverty or inequality. We know that a few extreme approaches that have been tried yield lousy results - central planning, self-regulating financial markets - but we don’t know much that is constructive beyond that.
The main uses of economics as a scholarly discipline are therefore negative or destructive - pointing out that certain things don’t make sense and won’t deliver the promised results. This blog post falls into that category.
I'm not convinced he thought he was making some sort of prediciton in this interview. As other have correctly pointed out, these types of end-of-free-market / capitalism have been around for over 200 years, even before de Toqueville's time of influence/writings.
That we are now in a recession is happenstance RELATIVE TO Rem's words. Meaning those particular dots aren't connectable.
I think the 911 influence referred to by Rem struck me odd in a different way. The way he described immediately latching on the the tragedy as a sort of design touchstone, I mean. I get that it consumed all thought for a time -- it truly was an emergency situation after all. But for Rem to describe immediately then re-approaching the Seattle library design due to the sudden "new America" (his words) seemed short on long-term perspective.
If Rem was forecasting anything, I think he was thinking that the government regulation so neccessary as a part of national defense / emergencies would remain in place, or at least with much more influence than normal. That part was wrong.
But within his realm of expertise, he is pretty fascinating. His description of the his process is brilliant...even basic stuff like the groundwork he did on library design before any real meetings with the client was smart stuff that we can all learn from.
Given that whole interview, this "Rem as economic predictor" idea seemed not only kind of a big stretch, but given everything he said, the very least interesting for me,
Jan 6, 09 8:23 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.
Rem Koolhaas predicting the end of the "market economy"
Was a slow work day and was listening to some old Charlie Rose interviews.
This one with Rem caught my ear.
It was done around the time of his books and research; Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping and the Project on the City.
Watch
It starts around 25 minutes in. In describing the current state of architecture and the powerlessness of the architect he states his belief that the dominance of the market economy is coming to an end. When Charlie presses him ont his and asks what will replace it, Rem says that he believes that institutions (i am looking at you Q) and in particular the role of government (the public) will grow in terms of shaping markets and the conomy. There will be an growth in the "undoing of deregulation"....
He saw this occuring as early on immediately following Sept 11.
He goes on to say that in certain circumstances
fascinating interview. I hope what Rem predicts is true.
on a tangent: if you're a fan of Charlie Rose, you might get a kick out of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFE2CCfAP1o
i wouldn't call this a prediction...
if u read new yorkers, economist, what he said is at least 6 months old....
the intervention of institution & govenment will constitute another bubble for the free market economy, most probably green energy, infrastructure or commodity.
i predict that the market bubble will come back by mid 09, when the bank start releasing the money to the market.
Rem can contact me here for more detail enlightment.
predicting the fall of rem koolhaas, because of the fall of the market economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/arts/design/21ouro.html?_r=1&ref=design
koolhaas is no dummy.
my bet: he's gots his finger on the pulse as well as just about anyone. fun to deride him as just like the other stars, maybe, but it ain't true.
Aspect,
except this interview is at least 3 years old...
nam> ha, then i was wrong, Rem is great^^
however, i wouldn't call an end to market economy, its just a different form of bubble under the name of institution.
I think its the end of Rem's market
i would hardly call this prescient. he was dead wrong for the last six years, and while this may be where the u.s. is headed under the obama administration in the midst of one of the worst recessions the world has seen in decades, it is not at all true of emerging economies such as china and india. i love koolhaas, but this was not one of his finer moments.
Ja,
While you may be right about the time delay or the fact that this wasn't exactly on time development, i am not sure that one can say that the situation is completely different in emerging economies..
It seems to me that China and India are taking many of the same approaches to institutions vs market that we are in the USA. Although you are right that in terms of overall trend the market has been on the rise not decline.
Plus, it seems to me regardless of the recession and whether Obama won the world was in general confronting the need for more institutional engagement for issues like tackling climate change, global health and informal settlements et al. As well as a general trend away from the era of un controlled free markets post Bush era...
Actually, that would be uncontrolled free markets of Allende's Chile and then Thatcher's Great Britain. The great neo-liberal era in the US began with Reagan, and has now come to a thudding end with Bush.
JA, the developing economies of India and China have and will have much greater degrees of regulation than the Euro-NA markets ever will have. And in 'developing' economies, the regulation is both onerous and non-existent, i.e. the overall regulatory framework is poorly developed, but there are many regulations in place.
Rem is smart, but it's something that many wide-ranging source [from the economist to david harvey] have expected for sometime.
nam/cowerd, i think both of you are reading your political and ideological beliefs into your posts. even if there is a trend towards regulation (which i am not arguing against), i would hardly call that a move towards a vague notion of "institutions" over "markets." the markets are the agents of change; they predate reagan and thatcher by decades. the role of government and at the microscale, ngos and nonprofits, the institutions i believe you are referring to nam, may right the ship from time to time, but don't be mistaken that the markets are in the driver's seat. i don't see that changing anytime soon.
market economy is constantly regulated in many forms. it may be occasionally regulated by institution or currencies flow...
a prediction is to predict when will it happen... if fail then it becomes a general statement.
I think Rem saw what was happening in China and extrapolated it.
BFD
china's enclosed market is to prevent US treating their country like an ATM(cash machine)
Read someone who knows something about the economy like Nouriel Roubini. Rem is sort of Thom Friedman for dummies of the Architectural persuasion.
that's the comment i was waiting for!!!!! this is just half-baked commentary either way. what's the point here? AH, the architect was right!? If this brand of supposed clairvoyance was good for an architect to have, I assume this would have to affect the direction of the work in some way - otherwise who cares what he read before the interview? I only saw the work of this firm growing progessively. . .i hestitate for a half second. . .more bombastic over time. I have a hard time seeing how the content of the work has matured beyond Delirous (is that 40 years old already?), which I loved, by the way, as a provocation.
And then take some of the things Roubini says, think about them and try to make architecture of of them or partially with them.
Make,
Exactly. I think he said this right around the time he began working on CCTV. As you say not a coincidence.
I have been all over Roubini for a sec. Found him through John Robb.
Both of whom have predicting the collapse of market(s) for awhile. But i don't think either of them hae argued that institutions would/will take their place.
If anything i think Robb and probably Roubini would argue that institutions aren't effective enough to replace anything.
Roubini is too hot nowadays to mention...
i hope one day economist will look into architectural theories to understand economics and not vice versa.
I mention Roubini because he is popular. If the market collapses what are we left with? Some sort of new hybird institution. Roubini wanted to create new regulation of the shadow financial market 2 or 3 years ago. This would [have] require[d] new global institutions because there are only some like 55 bank regulators in the whole USA. Each state has one. They work at the state level only. The Feds have 4 or 5. None of them was keeping an eye on what was going on. The "free market" was a free for all.
I'l look at what Koolhaas said but I would read Sidney Robinson's book "Inquiry into the Picturesque" to get an idea of how you can have an aesthetic that describes/visualizes both power, government and landscape. You can use what Roubini or Prof Simon Johnson has to say and create concepts and categories to make Architecture.
http://baselinescenario.com/
I have never been impressed by Koolhaas' thinking. I find many of his buildings seductive and engaging but I don't look to him to teach me something about government or global institutions because I don't think there's enough density and rigor there to engage. Just like I don't take Peter Eisenman seriously as a great thinker--he's not.
There's so much lazy writing in Architectural theory where someone strings together 20 references without footnotes and does it in a clever way that makes you feel like you're missing something. Eisenman has made a career out of it. It has given architectural theory a bad name it doesn't deserve.
Anyway, I would start with the discussions in Parliament about landscape and power and then think about what is going on. There are no easy answers. It's hard to make something new but it's possible!
The fall of Market Capitalism is nothing new...except that now it actually seems to be happening!
It has been a concept constantly referenced by Frankfurt School scholars, Post-Structuralist philosophers in the 1960's, as well as the Situationists like Guy Debord, etc.
Rem's generation of architects at the AA (i.e.Bernard Tschumi) were influenced in varying ways by these writers.
Both centralized planning and the free (for all) market don't work. We have shades of grey.To then make the claim that some guy in a black turtleneck predicted all of this is like saying Nostradamus first predicted it.
Everyone knows that things cannot stay the same. This guy from the FT talks about the USA being so in debt that the foreign in flows stop. This was considered fringe thinking a few years ago and is now being taken seriously.
The beginning of this post is refreshing in its modesty:
Economic policy is based on a collection of half-truths. The nature of these half-truths changes occasionally. Economics as a scholarly discipline consists in the periodic rediscovery and refinement of old half-truths. Little progress has been made in the past century or so towards understanding how economic policy, rules, legislation and regulation influence economic fluctuations, financial stability, growth, poverty or inequality. We know that a few extreme approaches that have been tried yield lousy results - central planning, self-regulating financial markets - but we don’t know much that is constructive beyond that.
The main uses of economics as a scholarly discipline are therefore negative or destructive - pointing out that certain things don’t make sense and won’t deliver the promised results. This blog post falls into that category.
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/can-the-us-economy-afford-a-keynesian-stimulus/
I always enjoy listening to Rem speak.
I'm not convinced he thought he was making some sort of prediciton in this interview. As other have correctly pointed out, these types of end-of-free-market / capitalism have been around for over 200 years, even before de Toqueville's time of influence/writings.
That we are now in a recession is happenstance RELATIVE TO Rem's words. Meaning those particular dots aren't connectable.
I think the 911 influence referred to by Rem struck me odd in a different way. The way he described immediately latching on the the tragedy as a sort of design touchstone, I mean. I get that it consumed all thought for a time -- it truly was an emergency situation after all. But for Rem to describe immediately then re-approaching the Seattle library design due to the sudden "new America" (his words) seemed short on long-term perspective.
If Rem was forecasting anything, I think he was thinking that the government regulation so neccessary as a part of national defense / emergencies would remain in place, or at least with much more influence than normal. That part was wrong.
But within his realm of expertise, he is pretty fascinating. His description of the his process is brilliant...even basic stuff like the groundwork he did on library design before any real meetings with the client was smart stuff that we can all learn from.
Given that whole interview, this "Rem as economic predictor" idea seemed not only kind of a big stretch, but given everything he said, the very least interesting for me,
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.