For all of you young architects with dreams of fame and fortune, and prizes! None of that will give you humanity or common sense as demonstrated in the example below; doing "out of the box" solutions(even this is debatable), the imposition of a lifestyle by these architect celebrities (aren't they like the kardashians, only uglier?) usually end up in unlivable conditions and most of the time abandoned.(corbusier is another messiah that built mostly crap when doing "living machines"). Read the article, it's enlightening. https://www.architectural-revi...
ill_will
Dec 14, 22 12:19 pm
Damn, I should probably quit while I'm "ahead". Which celeb architects/designers are you referring to? The only un-used or abandoned buildings that come to mind are works of FLW and Corbusier. I know there are others, but my architecture history is a little rusty (idk, people like Adolf Loos?). Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these "abandoned" buildings are typically under the protection of historical preservation institutes and have limited contemporary use?
I think is also something to be said about mindset and the attention to tackling relevant issues through the profession too. I think a good example of this is a project by Tatiana Bilbao here which was designed with the future of the coastal environment in mind (rising sealevels, flooding, marine biology, yada yada). Supporting article here. Of course, we have yet to see if this will also get abandoned or crisis zone. Not trying to down-play your point, just adding another perspective.
ill_will
Dec 14, 22 12:22 pm
Gosh, I should read over my replies before posting, apologies for the grammatic errors :(
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 22 1:22 pm
JLC-1 - you're a bitter, hateful, middle aged man. It' must be exhausting to be so offended and angry all the time.
As for the project in question - it's in a slum. Like most low cost housing projects things get modified by the users. Because of their low income these user made changes tend to be 'ugly' and poorly constructed.
The city's government came to the architect for low cost housing. The architect for this project never said it was going to change anything. This was an attempt to provide the city with a solution their housing problem that was within budget. Providing low cost housing isn't a solution to problems of poverty and urban blight though. Without government and social reform low cost housing is just a temporary bandage.
JLC-1
Dec 14, 22 1:41 pm
sure chad.
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 22 4:12 pm
Yup.
sameolddoctor
Dec 14, 22 1:38 pm
One needs to realize (and remember) that the Pritzker awards merely reflect the zeitgeist of a given time. When Aravena won (and to this day, arguably), the zeitgeist is all about low-impact, community driven stuff. It does not reflect what most of us have to do on a daily basis, so theres no need to judge with that yardstick...
monosierra
Dec 14, 22 2:42 pm
Aravena, like Wang Shu, won for his intent rather than the fruits of his (and unpaid interns') labor. As sameoldoctor explained, he stood for the zeitgeist of the '10s and was the ultimate Pritzker insider. What better way to thank a former juror than by giving him the Prize itself? The old boys club has its traditions. The committee gets to pat itself on the back and make the Prize more relevant to mainstream headlines. It helped that Aravena, with his spiky hairdo and good looks, was the consummate salesman - peddling a brand of do-good-feel-good populism while maintaining the kind indie credibility that Bjarke Ingels lost a long time ago.
That said, these housing projects are meant to be freely modified by their residents. They are no panacea, regardless of Aravena's posturing, as they are just low cost buildings bound by the political, economic, and social conditions of their situation. Was the design strategy flawed from the get-go? Possibly. But it was probably the best of a bunch of bad solutions.
sameolddoctor
Dec 14, 22 3:12 pm
More than anything, what we should know (and should be mentioned in architecture schools, but never will) is that the Pritzker and its corresponding starchitecture is the domain of the 1% of architects who see and treat the profession as a proving ground for architectural idealogy, whilst most of us exist to create habitable or leasable spaces.
Jay1122
Dec 14, 22 4:26 pm
Man screw Pritzker. Only academic and students care about that stuff. I want better pay for the field. A 2 BR apartment/house rent costs around $3000/month in my area. Roughly 70% of my monthly pay as a licensed project architect. It is not even NYC, just a shitty suburb 1.5 Hr away from NYC.
Chad Miller
Dec 14, 22 4:43 pm
That's abhorrent. I'm sorry. Come to western CO. Your rent will be 1,200 a month but your commute will be 15 min. ;)
For all of you young architects with dreams of fame and fortune, and prizes! None of that will give you humanity or common sense as demonstrated in the example below; doing "out of the box" solutions(even this is debatable), the imposition of a lifestyle by these architect celebrities (aren't they like the kardashians, only uglier?) usually end up in unlivable conditions and most of the time abandoned.(corbusier is another messiah that built mostly crap when doing "living machines"). Read the article, it's enlightening. https://www.architectural-revi...
Damn, I should probably quit while I'm "ahead". Which celeb architects/designers are you referring to? The only un-used or abandoned buildings that come to mind are works of FLW and Corbusier. I know there are others, but my architecture history is a little rusty (idk, people like Adolf Loos?). Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these "abandoned" buildings are typically under the protection of historical preservation institutes and have limited contemporary use?
I think is also something to be said about mindset and the attention to tackling relevant issues through the profession too. I think a good example of this is a project by Tatiana Bilbao here which was designed with the future of the coastal environment in mind (rising sealevels, flooding, marine biology, yada yada). Supporting article here. Of course, we have yet to see if this will also get abandoned or crisis zone. Not trying to down-play your point, just adding another perspective.
Gosh, I should read over my replies before posting, apologies for the grammatic errors :(
JLC-1 - you're a bitter, hateful, middle aged man. It' must be exhausting to be so offended and angry all the time.
As for the project in question - it's in a slum. Like most low cost housing projects things get modified by the users. Because of their low income these user made changes tend to be 'ugly' and poorly constructed.
The city's government came to the architect for low cost housing. The architect for this project never said it was going to change anything. This was an attempt to provide the city with a solution their housing problem that was within budget. Providing low cost housing isn't a solution to problems of poverty and urban blight though. Without government and social reform low cost housing is just a temporary bandage.
sure chad.
Yup.
One needs to realize (and remember) that the Pritzker awards merely reflect the zeitgeist of a given time. When Aravena won (and to this day, arguably), the zeitgeist is all about low-impact, community driven stuff. It does not reflect what most of us have to do on a daily basis, so theres no need to judge with that yardstick...
Aravena, like Wang Shu, won for his intent rather than the fruits of his (and unpaid interns') labor. As sameoldoctor explained, he stood for the zeitgeist of the '10s and was the ultimate Pritzker insider. What better way to thank a former juror than by giving him the Prize itself? The old boys club has its traditions. The committee gets to pat itself on the back and make the Prize more relevant to mainstream headlines. It helped that Aravena, with his spiky hairdo and good looks, was the consummate salesman - peddling a brand of do-good-feel-good populism while maintaining the kind indie credibility that Bjarke Ingels lost a long time ago.
That said, these housing projects are meant to be freely modified by their residents. They are no panacea, regardless of Aravena's posturing, as they are just low cost buildings bound by the political, economic, and social conditions of their situation. Was the design strategy flawed from the get-go? Possibly. But it was probably the best of a bunch of bad solutions.
More than anything, what we should know (and should be mentioned in architecture schools, but never will) is that the Pritzker and its corresponding starchitecture is the domain of the 1% of architects who see and treat the profession as a proving ground for architectural idealogy, whilst most of us exist to create habitable or leasable spaces.
Man screw Pritzker. Only academic and students care about that stuff. I want better pay for the field. A 2 BR apartment/house rent costs around $3000/month in my area. Roughly 70% of my monthly pay as a licensed project architect. It is not even NYC, just a shitty suburb 1.5 Hr away from NYC.
That's abhorrent. I'm sorry. Come to western CO. Your rent will be 1,200 a month but your commute will be 15 min. ;)