Zaha Hadid has won the scheme to design a new parliament complex in Iraq – despite coming third in the original RIBA-run international competition. — BD Online UK
The news is also the first official statement that Assemblage, whose designs won the competition, will not get to realize their vision. This will be the second building Hadid will design in her native country after the 2012 announcement that she will helm the Central Bank of Iraq project.
Hadid's plans for the Iraq Parliament have been marred by controversy, chiefly because they have been kept secret from Iraqi architects and the architectural community at large. Those who have seen the designs have not been favorable in their comments.
Meanwhile, the US Embassy in Baghdad – probably the most significant architectural project in the city since the 2003 invasion – is under threat from the Isis insurgency surging through the city. The precarious condition of the city makes it hard to imagine that Hadid's ambitious designs will come to fruition anytime soon. More pointedly, it calls into question the need for such expensive architecture in places of near constant social upheaval, particularly by an architect who is so adamant about refusing any responsibility for the conditions of those who actually make her buildings.
46 Comments
St. Peter's Basilica?
I wonder how fundamentalist Muslims are going to respond to a giant vulva?
How dare you speak of Ms. Hadid in such vulgar terms!
pics or it didn't happen.
She needs to be boycotted. This is unethical, and its not like she really needs the money, frankly. I think the Assemblage proposal is beautiful, and is much better than any expensive vulva Hadid will ever create
A parliament for which Iraq? Kurdistan? West Iran? Daathistan?
Um, isn't there some more pressing issues in Iraq at the moment...?
Not for Zaha.
hey
architects gotta architect
She's just keep'n it real.
I'd like to see this one get built against all odds. Finally, something decent I have seen coming out of ZHA lately.
I also remember people in this forum singing patriotic freedom/democracy songs when US were raping Iraqi women and bombing the shit out of it killing civilians and all in 2003 and onwards. I wonder if they are still around under different names?
Now you think it's funny?
Well between the fact that Muslims there won't deal with women (I've seen this personally), the country is in Civil War, and Zaha's architecture flamboyantly disregards budget and good taste this is a no-brainer!
I'd like to see there be some peace for those people, after all they've been through. I don't know if this will help, especially since it's debatable if Iraq is indeed a country. I agree with the St.Peter's reference, but I wonder if the current state of affairs is reflected in this elegant diagram. I'd also be curious about what kind of security measures where taken and how they impact the design decisions.
because of course she is. you can't swing a dead cat without zaha hadid drawing some sort of loopy representation of the movement and making a building out of it.
It's a peace* symbol, for cryin' out loud! How could it not work?
(*Any similarities to the Mercedes-Benz logo are purely coincidental.)
I agree with Orhan that this is the first decent design Zaha's office has produced in many, many years. But it won't be built until Iraq is at peace, and Iraq won't be at peace until it's fully partitioned along ethno-religious lines. And then the resulting polities probably won't have much use for parliaments anyway.
Its st peters with a peace symbol at one end that includes what appears to be two outdoor greek amphitheaters surrounded by an open square on all sides. An axis from one goverment building to another. Parametrics sure as hell can not express that, apparently symbolic and iconic in a post modern way are important, no? You like it because it isn't purely autopoesis autonomous cynicalhaas architecture. A 5 year could see the peace sign...as architecture as performance art this is a good piece...again parametrics can't do that, wonder if Schumacher had any input on this, maybe the facade?
Cool design it reminds me of a peace symbol.
Win the competition, lose the commission. Nice.
hahaha...looking dumb on my smart phone. my bad...damn internet kids can't read. for a second there we thought Zaha was returning to architecture, our bad...
architecture is better without people...
http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/zahas-way/
Quondam - damn you and your ability to read! (Credit: Assemblage)
or wait was that intentional - an editor trick to get people to think Zaha was designing like Assemblage - it worked. everyone actually likes it.
ahem...
pics or it didn't happen
some of us can read.
the stupidest thing I've read here: gwharton " But it won't be built until Iraq is at peace, and Iraq won't be at peace until it's fully partitioned along ethno-religious lines. "
No, that would be the beginning of a whole new cycle of wars and multiple genocides in the wake of demographic earthquakes to reflect new geographies. we have the tinkie tankies of your sordid country to also thank for (as well as the terrorist states of Saudi Arabia, ISrael, Qatar, Turkey (sorry Orhan, i love turks and all but, concerning the current State itself, truth be told) , NATO) and so on. someone who says something so stupid obvious has no clue to whats going on. and that plan was never Iraqi or regional to begin with, hello Biden, Brzezinski, Bernard Lewis, Kissinger etc, etc.
as for Zaha, well...here's what i think.
she cares more for her shoes and clothes than she does for the number of people being killed working on her Qatari stadium under the guise of modern slavery. she makes up excuses to excuse herself from this matter. even if her hands are tied contractually, behind her back, and she is not able to take any action on ground....she IS able to join the chorus of critics and that, as the architect of a significant project in that dire miserable corrupt state of Qatar that is spreading its poison worldwide in buying up enterprises and buying people, she would -at least- be able to ameliorate the chances of improving the condition for these labourers. this, of course, while assuming that her hands are tied. she's not a spectator from afar...she's right in the centre and she - unlike architects and engineers working in qatar who are dependent on the country for a living - is not in a position of weakness. that makes her stance even more condemnable.
people, their rights and well being, wherever they come from,should be more important than buildings. but for some this is not the case. we heard how her accomplice, schumacher, was criticizing the pritzker jury for taking into account humanitarianism in their assessment of Shigeru Ban's work. it is obvious that Zaha and Patrick see labourers akin to those insect-like self-animated cyber-robots that are shown, in presentations, to be constructing parametrical designs or whatnot.
let me even be more clear.its time for godwin's principle. Zaha Hadid and PAtrich Schumacher would be worse than Albert Speer. Albert Speer might have been less privileged in that he was conscribed by his enviroment and surroundings whereas Zaha Hadid and Schumacher would have willingly sought Hitler out from afar for profit. why is the Qatari stadium and others in that country not to be considered concentration labour camps for the hundreds of labourers who died working on them?
Even though your list of 'terrorist states' falls far too short, tammuz, I am not offended as a Turkish ex-patriot and a citizen of US, a known generator of many problems and conflicts in the world which for the most, harms the well being of its own people. I have first hand information from my own nephew who returned from Iraq with some long lasting psychological issues he is dealing with. It is not easy to be duped into a patriotic mission, seeing your best friends blown up, totally disillusioned and disappointed with what you have seen on the ground and seeing you have been lied to by your own leaders.
As for the attribution of plan photo to ZHA, I was too nice to credit them with a graphic idea I liked and didn't read the caption very well.
ZHA is no different than most other architects who get commissioned for these high profile works. I am sorry to say, architects still didn't pass the role of the court jester for the most part. We are a service industry, operating far below our expectations, ideals and training. Things have not changed for centuries and it complies with being members of the elite profession.
There needs to be new architects who can develop new architecture. This is the main issue #1.
Orhan, it would be interesting to see who you would like to add to the list. In mind, I have specifically the two headed serpent, one of the heads being Wahabism and the other being the Muslim Brotherhood...both who lead the corpus of what Miles Jaffe called, incorrectly (and we should debunk that myth already), fundamentalist Islam (in actual fact, they are revisionist literalists - they have their precedent in the Khawarijites, those who assign their first rank enemies as being other sects of the same religion and thereafter christians, jews, buddhists, atheists..etc). Sufi Moslems (and we're nottalking about that mock Sufi group of baathist remnants currently rearing its Saudi subsidized head in Iraq and aiding ISIS) are, on their turf, fundamentalists, yet their fundamentals call for love, meditation...etc...not for killing and decapitating others.
Both these heads and their trailing body have been sanctioned by the British empire and subsequently contracted their services to the American empire, whatever bullshit the US feeds its people about combatting "terrorism"; after the British, the US, through its Saudi client in the middle east and through its duplicitous conniving Muslim brotherhood (now visible via the current Turkish leadership and the Qatari state-the latter also subscribing to the Wahabi brand which in acual fact is one of the roots of Muslim brotherhood...), stands behind the growing might of fundamentalist forces in the form of ISIS, Al Nusrah and what hilariously used to be called the moderate opposition factions in Syria that are now overrunning the region with their lice infested blood soaked beards. All this in order to ensure that no arab countries grows too large and too powerful to threaten US "interests" in the region: oil, gas, Israel..and more generally, its aggressive geopolitical agenda in restricting the Euroasian augmentation of an anti-US axis through an Arab-IRanian-Russian-Chinese axis.
The Saudis have, for decades, been buying over religious clerics around the arab region, getting them to spread their agenda of hate against others. this we know very well in the region...and qatar has been following suit. And of course, the actual Al Saud are anything BUT religious. They use religion to brainwash people so that their colonial masters will allow them to keep their big illiterate asses on their thrones. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4129257.ece
As for this :"There needs to be new architects who can develop new architecture. This is the main issue #1."
i believe that we should stop, if you excuse this term, being naive in thinking that the solution is in a new architecture or an old architecture (Thayer's posts here being typical) or a new-that-pretends-to-be-old. this is not really about architecture...its about a normal human commonsensical ethical assessment that has been exorcised out of the business equation. The fact that people are dying constructing her fugly stadium bears no relation to the architecture itself but to her choice to go ahead and acquiesce to the conditions (if not actually endorse them), whatever "kind" of architecture this is. In the wahabi desert, there are now glitterly internationalist towers, star architecture, new-classical palaces...none of which really makes them any more progressive, creative, humane, etc.
And did I mention the crucial role of Saudi and Qatari media in the creation of this internationalist army of these lunatic takfiris, getting their tel-evangelical clerics who look like they crawled up from their graves to proselytize their brand of hatred...feeding the fury between sunnis and shiites, some nonesense that happened a thousand and some years ago. Clerics who are know for their connection to Nato and intelligence agencies.
And did I mention the connivance of the secularists amongst us who have been bought by Saudi cash and Qatari cash in form a secular cover for these brainwashed lost souls, being trained in Turkey, this last forming the logistical backbone of these operation (along with, to a lesser extent, Jordan and Lebanon prior to the involvement of Hezbollah in closing the Syrian-Lebanese borders?). Whats being played in a diabolical play and has nothing to do with that abominably unrepresentative nonsense being regurgitated in western media.
ok, now maybe i should disappear for another few moths :p
All fundamentalism - unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - is bad, especially fundamentalist capitalism.
For real terror, there is nothing like AC130 Specter gunships or assassin drones with predator missiles.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Tammuz,
Iraq only exists in its current geographic form because of the British Mandate, not because of any organic national evolution or identity. It's really three nations smashed together in a way that is only stable if ruled by a tyrant. The tyrant is gone, and so is the stability that maintained the fiction of "Iraq." This is part of the folly of Iraq War 2: Revenge of the NeoCons.
Kurdistan is now effectively independent, and has been for a few years now. They were pressured to stay in Iraq and not formally declare independence by the US and Turkey during and after the Second Iraq War. But that's changed now. Turkey has given their blessing to the creation of an independent Kurdistan (not that they had much choice at this point...it was either that or deal with a three-way civil war on their eastern border, with the Kurds using Turkish territory as a base of operations). So Kurdistan is now a fact, even if it's not officially recognized as independent yet. The Kurds have Kirkuk and Turkey's assent, so nobody's in a position to argue with the Pershmerga. Generally, this is a good thing. Northern Iraq has been mostly peaceful and stable under Kurdish rule during the last 8 or so years. With independence, we can expect Kurdistan to flourish.
The Shia districts of Iraq contain some of the most important holy sites Shiite Islam and a majority Shiite population. Trying to keep them out of the sphere of influence of Iran or putting any kind of non-Shia governance in place over them is another fool's errand and recipe for civil war. For ethnic reasons, it's probably unlikely that they would ever be outright annexed by Iran, but they share enough strategic, cultural, and religious interests that they are natural allies as a satellite state in the Iranian sphere. Of course, the Saudis hate that idea and have been doing everything they can to prevent it from happening. But it is inevitable now. Better to let it happen in peace and officially recognize the reality of it.
Western and central Iraq, along the river courses through Ramadi and Fallujah and following the highway to Syria, is dominated by the descendants of Sunni Arabs. This is the area that has been so swiftly over-run by Daash (called ISIS or ISIL in the western press) in the last few weeks. It's important to keep in mind that Daash is an opportunistic organization that is moving into a power vacuum rather than challenging and defeating any kind of established authority. The Iraqi police and army who fled from Daash were mostly from the Shiite areas to the southeast, and had no local support. Apart from their general incompetence as a rump force contrived to suit the fantasies of Al-Maliki's western sponsors, they were in no position to quell an uprising if that's what Daash's incursions sparked. So they cut and ran, exposing the lie of Iraqi federal government for what it is. Daash, for its part, was expanding like a gas into the actual power vacuum in western Iraq after having been defeated and repudiated in Syria, and it's not at all clear that they'll be able to hold the territory they've taken. But any attempt to restore central Iraqi rule over Ramadi or Fallujah will only strengthen their hold and cost many lives for nothing. The non-Kurdish Sunni peoples of western and central Iraq cannot be ruled by others without tyrannical measures. Best for everyone not to try.
Baghdad, as the central city and fulcrum of all this, is probably best off as an independent city-state like pre-1999 Hong Kong. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen, so it may become contested ground.
But it is certain that Iraq is not a stable nation in it's 20th century configuration without an autocrat to hold it together. The interests of its three main demographic groups are far too divergent, and their tribal cultures make it nearly impossible for them to maintain any kind of polity that isn't based in ethno-religious ties. Partition not only became inevitable when the NeoCons fought their little war there, but its now the only non-horrible option left on the table.
Miles, i appreciate your definition however, i know quite a few "fundamentalist" moslems...and none of them subscribe to the agenda of these brainwashed lunatics. in effect, determining whats happening on ground is about determining what kind of fundamentalism, where it comes from, who is supporting it. giving it an umbrella term such as "fundamentalist moslems" has invited a counter-fundamentalism on the part of many to join a hate campaign against moslems. the term is counterproductive, too generic and van be yielded in a racist manner. secondly, according to many many traditional clerics (ie more fundamental), these lunatics are not following the edicts of the religion, their interpretation is skewed, devoid of scholasticism, literalist and contradictory (I'm not defending ISlam here, I just recognize that these boundaries as a person familiar with that background).
for my part, i know the region well enough, im well acquainted with the huge variety of religiosity on the part of moslems. these lunatics are graduates of the saudi wahabi school and the muslim brotherhood. this is not even about sunnism. this is about a specific group that was cultivated in order to serve ends that are really not even about religion...whatever these brainwashed lunatics think they're going to be doing in the afterlife, like having a picknick with the prophet and an orgy with cross eyes virgins. yes, the golem now has its own life...but even now, this golem is serving geopolitical purposes that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, etc etc and behind them the US is using cynically in order to secure its hold over Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the region.
Thats why, respectfully, i am suggesting that we get over that myth of "fundamentalist moslems" that has been used in order to misdirect the western countries' populations, feeding their paranoia, pumping them against other cultures and regions in the world, while their authorities breed and feed this rabid faction in these other regions in order to regional weaken regional progressive forces (secular, open, judicious, etc). In reality, it is not fundamentalism or ideology that is to blame here...it is simple pure corruption and greed which hijacks religion or ideology or even hijacks the lack of religion and ideology (after all, neo-liberalism purports to be nonideological and supremely pragmatic). ISIS and its ilk can be squashed overnight but theyre a valuable tool in the US-Saudi-Turkish arsenal.
On the architectural side of things...and in concert with the mention of neoliberalism and colonialism...I wish to ask this question...which brings us back to the subject (so, i was not really digressing)...is Zaha hadid here, with this project, the globalist architect working well within the frames of neoliberalism and capitalist opportunism OR is she the most famous contemporary Iraqi architect, who happens to be practicing elsewhere, who came back to build in her country? Its funny because some people might think..."oh gosh, another ZHA building being plopped around the world" whereas some others might see that preference was given to her proposal owing to her being Iraqi.
Its also quite tricky because, personally, i believe that this practice of drafting architects from abroad to do the job is detrimental to the practice of architects working within the country, who understand it well, who have payed their dues within the country. In other words, if i were an advocate of protectionism (i am), with this odd case, would I be for or against her building the iraqi parliament?
Gwharton, Im not going to delve too deep into your orientalist myths. There is no such clear cut thing as Sunni descendats or Shia descendants. I myself am from a family that includes Sunni, Shia, Druze and Christian members. Your Pentagon knowledge of the region is dire, unrealistic and is part of the problem (in fact, it IS the problem). There are many many mixed families throughout the region and, it is on full display that with the increasing involvement of colonial powers within the area(such as these plans for divisions), the region is sinking deeper and deeper into violence. It is stupid to assume that further involvement of these powers and their imagination and understanding (to which yours obviously yours belongs) will lead to anything other than more violence.
Again, any division of Iraq, any division of Lebanon, any any division of Syria (and these are all summarily linked in the colonial imagination) will lead to a century of wars in the region. I totally agree with you that the Sykes-Picot accord and the european parcelling of the area has led to the fabricated countries we see nowadays. A calculated division to weaken any entity and render them subservient to western colonialism. We see the result today. You think that further division will rectify the solution? It would be building a mistake on top of another.
The only way to stabilize the region is by 1-ceasing to involve your empire in its involvement in all ways, including its support of ISrael 2- stop supporting the Saudis and co. 3-allow (by virtue of lack of involvement) the progressive secularist forces (not corrupt puppet regimes or opportunist totalitarian ones such as Saddam;s before) that were fought against by the US, Israel and their arab allies (namely Saudi and co) to prosper, this will be the balm that eases the conflict between the various factions
in reality, the solution is and was always an inclusive cultural secular pan-Arabism that does not trample on minorities and other ethnicities, a greater unity of the region that expresses an overlap of similarities NOT faultlines that express differences, not divisions of divisions of divisions until you get down to the scale of a sunni street, a shiite street, an ismaliite shiite street.
furthermore, the first people to go, i mean eliminated, terminated, by these ISIS and their ilk have been the Sunnis themselves. the first people they kill are the moderate sunnis. Ask any moderate sunni (ie the overwhelming majority)whether they really want segregation, ask any moderate shiite (again), etc whether they want segregation and they will get a resounding NO. who are you to tell usin our region we should segregate, and for what reason? Who are you to theorize when the consequences of your theory will be sure to leave genocides in its wake? you think you know the region because you've read a few reports. you have no idea! have some humility for fucks sake, you cant know everything and this should not involve you. no, you have no idea whats better for the region...its not a puzzle you're assembling and taking apart as you think is more appropriate.
Tammuz,
You seem to like to make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. In my case, you've got almost all of them consistently wrong.
Now, I happen to agree that politics and ethnicity in the region is extremely complex and most westerners don't know anything about it (and what they do know is generally wrong). I spend a lot of time there though, as it turns out. I just got back from Beirut, a place I dearly love and which is about as complex as it gets in terms of history, culture, religion, and demographics. It's also suffering the fallout of Obama's meddling in Syria.
I also agree with you that the USA should butt out and quit playing Risk with a part of the world that they obviously do not understand. And we need to quit enabling the bad behavior of both the Israelis and the Saudis. If I was in charge, they would have been cut off and we'd have halted these little imperial misadventures a long time ago. But I'm not in charge and never will be. So instead, the USA's policies and actions are controlled by the right-liberal and left-liberal retards who control the country and are using its various institutions to play out their proxy civil war against one another on foreign shores. It's disgusting, and I hate it, and there's nothing I can do to change it.
Although I've spent a lot of time in the middle east (including places I'd guess you would be afraid to go to), I didn't grow up there. I'm an outsider, so there are many things about it I don't understand. I freely admit that. But I have seen enough, up close and personal, to know a bit about what it's really like, with an outsider's perspective. Sometimes the outsider's perspective can reveal things that aren't obvious to the locals, for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.
All politics is local, and unlike you I am not naive enough to believe that Pan-Arabism is any kind of solution any more than the NeoCon exportation of democracy by force is any kind of solution. In Iraq in particular, that means all politics there is fundamentally tribal. Even Saddam was a tribal leader much more than he was a Baathist ideologue. How would you propose imposing Pan-Arabism on the Kurds, who are not Arabs and have little in common with them? Would you bomb the Pershmerga to impose your glorious vision on them? Or on the Iraqi Shiites, who are part Arab but also heavily Persian? This is a part of the world where father's-brother's-daughter cousin marriage has been the norm for more than a thousand years and tribal loyalties rule everything. Iraq is not Beirut, where 14 major religions and a variety of peoples can live together more or less in peace. Any political order in Iraq that does not account for this reality will fail.
gwharton,
i'm not making assumptions; i'm building on what you offer as an opinion.
it is obvious to me that your sources don't take into account a huge public opnion in the region against further segregation. i follow a great number of arabic newspapers and sites; i am able, to some extent, tell who's who within the arabic world, who's linked to whom, who's bought over by whom. if i can't, i'kk recognize the rhetoric and whats behind it. naturally i speak the language- its my language, i grew up in the region, i'm reasonably aware of how arab intellectuals in tunisia, lebanon, egypt, iraq, algeria etc conceptualize of the problems within the region, of how the "arab street" (this, in itself, is an arabic expression) -as opposed to governmental- also conceives of the situation. i am from beirut and i have lived elsewhere in the region including gulf countries. i am reasonably aware of all the differences between sunnis, shias (i, myself, am a hybrid) , whatever other nonsense inherent to my region. i can talk a great deal about the increasing religiosity of the region after the waning of leftism through specific mechanisms, about the after-shock of nasserism and how what we see today is a result of the prohibition (by the US and ISrael) for greater pan-Arabism and the rise of pan-Islamism - something that was greaty aided by deliberate and nondeliberate calculations on the part of the colonial entities. I can talk about how the spear heads of Arabism were Christians, Shiites and Sunnites because it afforded them a sheild against sectarianism. and about the detrimental effect the Gulf puppet monarchies have had on the region, how they are largely to blame for terrorism within and outside the region, about the radicalization of the entire Arab world (Tunisian, Egyptian, Algerian, Lebanese,etc, intellectuals are all coming out and attacking Saudi Arabia-as the serpent head- for spreading its brand of religion within the region buffered by its petro-dollars)
The rise of sectarianism in the region is inversely proportional to the dearth of a greater cultural identity that was starting to flourish after the Ottoman's hold started waning.
there is such a great deal of subtlety that will be obscure to you not to mention a necessary misapprehension on your part, that it surprises me that you have the audacity to theorize on the behalf of the region.
The myth that there is a contradiction between what is Persian and what is Arabism for one. IRan, as we know it today, would have not existed had it not been for Lebanese clerics from South Lebanon. The organic link stretching between the Arab Shiites from Jabal Amil and IRan started from the very beginnings of shiitism within Iran. The way you think about it betrays your ignorance. Iran is, whether people like it or not, as a modern entity organically and genetically enmeshed within the ARAB world as much as the arab world is enmeshed within the persian one (many of the leading islamic intellectuals in islamic history, irrespective of sect -were persian of origin).
When I say pan-Arab, i mean as we understand it...not as you understand, not as a proto-germanic nationalistic racist one. The best thing about Lebanon is that, to some extent, it exhibits exactly that. The country was, at its peak, the centre of Arab dialogue and intellectual activity, open to the west and to the east. The worse thing about it was the right wing elements that wanted to divorce it from its context (christian separatism prior to the civil war...and nowadays, the pro-Saudi anti-Syrianism).
Furthermore, it is contradictory that, one one hand, you would want your country not to involve itself within the region and it seems you are reasonable in not supporting the rabid neo-cons and the mock-leftists (the US has no real leftist in admin, it is neo-liberalism garnering itself in the guise of leftism) AND, on the other hand, you see the project of dividing Iraq - a US project, if anything, a viable one for peace.
the division of Iraq will have dire consequences not just for Iraq but for Syria, for Lebanon, for Saudi Arabia, for Jordan which stands now on a very critical fault line. you'll hear this opinion from Tunis all the way to Iran, from arabs and from non arabs.
so please, spare me your "i visit the region and I just came from Beirut" crap. don't theorize about the region as you think you know. you are a case of "a little knowledge is dangerous thing".
sorry, christian separatism during the civil war (that currently survives within the agenda of a certain faction within the country)
Zaha Hadid: Could someone please explain who this person is? Where does she come from? What is her world economic status? Is she Muslim or Christian or maybe neither? Does she like young interns? I need to be more informed. How many people die on her projects every year? Is it related to design or is it just because the contractors are using non qualified people. Does she ever visit sites when they are under construction or does she do remote observation until the building is open and then go for the final visit. Does she review shop drawings. What does she eat for lunch....more important what does she eat for breakfast. If you have any ideas I'm at your pleasure.
I hear she eats architecture for breakfast.
Gwharton, I didn't pay much attention to your last paragraph. Again, too much wrong with how you approach this. I have a few Iraqi friends and colleagues, both Shia and Sunnite, both with family from across the divide. In fact, I worked for an Iraqi architect for a long while and I can tell you, your view of Iraqis is very impoverished and sieved through the eyes of ignorance. Iraq is as wealthy as Lebanon and Syria in the makeup of its population. What has led to the increasing cantonization of Iraq was the US invasion and devastation of Iraq and the sectarian form of governance forced upon it by the US. What you are pointing out to is itself the product of the external violation by the US. Before the US, shiites hated Saddam but this did not translate in a hatred of sunnis. Most sunnis didnt like Saddam as well. Neither did Christians. But it didnt have to do with sunnism or shiism or christianity but rather the despotism of Saddam (who was used by the US and other gulf countries in various ways to their benefit) Even now, the real issue is not religion or sect but the puppetry from outside. As for kurds, it is enough to see that Israel is helping prop up a kurdish state to recognize that the danger of fragmentation.
As for this idiotic question: "Would you bomb the Pershmerga to impose your glorious vision on them?" Well, it just underlines how YOU are the one doing the assumption by thinking that pan-Arabism excludes other ethnicities and by assuming that violence would be within my answer. How assholic of you.. Hellenism and pan-Hellenism was not about a pure greek identity or blood - it was about the fact that greek was spoken in a large region with cross fertilization from other languages and cultures within the region, including Arab and Perse. This shows in our music, language, food, local dialects..you name it.
IT happens that Arab is the most widely spoken language in the region and its people have a very long shared history. a large part of Lebanese druze, for example, have Yemeni roots; i know that i, for instance, have family going back to Iraq, Syria, Palestine. Dig into every arab family in the region and you will discover a long history of travel across the region whether Maghreb or Mashrek.
It is more natural for the region to be united in a pan-Arab union than europe to be united in a pan-european one. We have far more in common than does a greek with an estonian.
As for this shiite sunnite nonsense, suffice to say that the history of the people in the region have known conversions and retro-conversions in their histories (whether from christians to sunnis to shiites to druze or the other way around) that you will find the same arab family conglomeration with a christian greek orthodox wing, a sunni wing, a shiite wing, etc. You will find that this family will have members in iraq, in syria, in lebanon, palestine, etc.
The truth is the people have faaaaaaaaar more in common than this sectarian nonsense. It is sad that many don't see that (i am not contesting that there is no sectarianism, gosh no, all you need to do is open a zillion arab satellite channels) ...and what is certain is that this blindspot is being employed by others against them.
tammuz,
You seem to love criticizing and even insulting people who don't share your conspiratorial frame of mind, but it's rare that I hear you advocating for something positive. You're like the college student who's recently discovered that the history books tell only part of a story and are stuck on the novelty at finding the hidden story.
"the stupidest thing I've read here: gwharton " But it won't be built until Iraq is at peace, and Iraq won't be at peace until it's fully partitioned along ethno-religious lines. "No, that would be the beginning of a whole new cycle of wars and multiple genocides in the wake of demographic earthquakes to reflect new geographies"
Then what would you propose, that no one would make money in the process? I admire your idealism, but it's a bit too far removed from the reality you seem to claim sole ownership. " the globalist architect working well within the frames of neoliberalism and capitalist opportunism" What frame would you have architects working in? "Your Pentagon knowledge of the region is dire, unrealistic and is part of the problem (in fact, it IS the problem)." So the people actually blowing innocents up isn't the problem?
I would love for whatever your peace incucing soltion as to who should control what, but my guess is "tradition" would dictate a whole other round of blood letting. Like in Europe, this kind of religeous inspired genocide seems to have to run its course, unfortunatly. "allow (by virtue of lack of involvement) the progressive secularist forces (not corrupt puppet regimes or opportunist totalitarian ones such as Saddam;s before) that were fought against by the US, Israel and their arab allies (namely Saudi and co) to prosper" So pull out??? That would be awsome! I wonder who would move in?
i believe that we should stop, if you excuse this term, being naive in thinking that the solution is in a new architecture or an old architecture (Thayer's posts here being typical) or a new-that-pretends-to-be-old. this is not really about architecture...its about a normal human commonsensical ethical assessment that has been exorcised out of the business equation. Again, your naivete is stunning considering how based in real politic you present yourself. Let me know when you've been able to re-introduce ethical assessments back into the business equation. In the mean time, all us delusional folks will continue to try to do just that in our own little ways, despite our "pentagon knowledge".
"The truth is the people have faaaaaaaaar more in common than this sectarian nonsense." The smartest thing you've said by faaaar. That's the problem with always claiming to know better than the next guy, especially when their intentions seem noble. You push people away who could help all to look like the smartest guy in the room.
Thayer, I didn't insult gwharton, I said that what was written was the stupidest thing i read (well, along with your post now) ...and that doesn't mean he or she is being called stupid. gwharton's person is besides the point.
as for the rest of the insubstantial and impertinent garbage in your post, there is no point going through it.
As to Iraq, ISIS/ISIL will no doubt cancel Hadid's contract or stone her to death if she dares to show her face there.
I suspect you were smiling as you wrote that, Miles.
tammuz, I know you dismiss me out of hand for daring to look at history as a guide to today's problems, at least architecturally, but my whole point is that I think you'd find more people are with you than against you if you weren't so pedantic. I learn a lot from your posts, at least in terms of middle east history, but slamming everyone who dosen't see the world exactly how you do is counter productive.
Personally, I think if you elevate the treatment of women in the middle east as a priority, you might see all those sectarian issues decrease in importance. We all have mothers, without whom we wouldn't be here. Surely that's more important than who did what in 700 ad.
Thayer, I slam gwharton not for "having a different view" but for assuming a position that s/he's not entitled to - namely prescribing solutions onto a region that s/he has obviously very little knowledge of and that I am not just familiar with but belong to, speak its lingua franca, reads its media, knows who is behind that media (this is crucial to know in the middle east ...as elsewhere), has a considerable knowledge of how the region perceives itself in contrast to someone who jetsets here and there. I'm glad you removed that phrase about measuring penises because it wasn't me who did that, go hark after gwharton with his :" places I'd guess you would be afraid to go to". If i were indeed comparing penises, i would have said " try to live in saudi arabia for four years as a gay man" (ok admittedly, to some its paradise) but i didn't.
This is not an expressionist art class so that you could chastise me for dismissing her or his view/painting. you either really know or you don't. in regards to Sunni and shiite thing, everything s/he said was rubbish. with regards to the Kurdish question, there is indeed a lot to be said - this I would agree about. But not with Barzanni who's connections to the US neocons and and the link to Israel are well known and the Kurdish puppet, like the Arab puppets in the Gulf monarchies of terror, is being played in the theatre of its master.
And why do you bring up the women's rights thing? Are you trying to insinuate that, because I profess to be of a Middle Eastern origin, that I'm against womaen rights for instance and that therefore you have all the right to attack me using that cliche? Are you trying to score cheap points? I am for women's rights, gay rights, minority rights everywhere and anywhere...but whats your point? I don't say that women's rights in the region are protected...in fact, what I'm saying, is that the US and western support of the Wahabi monoarchies has led to the regression of the region, whether be it in terms of women rights, basic democratic freedoms, the right of having and not having different beliefs....And yes, so much needs to be done to better the societies in the region., and believe me there are progressive forces, but these are being driven out of focus by the regressive ones that have latched on to capital, to power and to their colonial masters.
And by the way, did you bring up the accusation of penis size measuring (the part you deleted from your post) just because you happen to know that Im Middle Eastern? Are you going to be calling me something like Nigger next? I mean, just come out and say it. Youre already racist on architectural terms (neoclassicism and what not) so it wouldnt be very surprising. I won't come after your wife, don;t worry..I'd come after your husband though.
tammuz,
I bring up women's rights becasue I think there's a strong corrilation with how well women fare in a society and how just and safe that society is. We were talking about the middle east in general and I've always thought that women's positions in many of those countries was abbysmal. How can anyone talk about injustice when certain groups in their own population have such a crappy position. We're talking about half the society, but I agree with there needing to be other rights for all minority communities. But I infered nothing about you or your place of origin regarding women, just a thought on the middle east, and societies in general. As for penis size, I thought it was over the top, so I deleted it, but it does seem like that's what a lot of men like to do rather than focus on the problem at hand.
I happen to be of Carribean hispanic descent, so I probably look like you, but I can assure you I don't harbor any racist feelings, lest I should hate on my own family members. As for racist on archtiectural terms, wow, we couldn't be further apart. The AIA just celebrated Julia Morgan and her historicist confections, which I hope to see on my upcoming vacation to beautiful San Francisco. I suppose she was a tool of the empire?
I wish you all the best though becasue it sounds like your heart is in the right place. I'll just leave you with somehting you said... we have far more in common than people might say. That is why you disqualifying gwharton from contributing to a solution to that hell in the middle east is so disheartening. Excluding those who you don't deam worthy of helping only impoverishes the final outcome. Something that can bee seen in the current state of architecture, but I know we'll never agree on that.
btw, as for your implication that "old architecture" is illegitimate in contemporary work, this NPR story might help, should you deem me worthy of commenting on this...
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/27/322721353/why-would-more-than-500-artists-sample-the-same-song
"That is why you disqualifying gwharton from contributing to a solution to that hell in the middle east is so disheartening. "
Thayer, read my post, please. i went out quite a distance to justify my dismissal. whether s/he or you wish to accept that or not is up to you. this has nothing to do with penises; it has to do with misrepresenting cultures and peoples who have already suffered so much and it has to do with a colonial mindset betrayed by those who pretend or even genuinely exhibit altruism. for those interested in the middle east, get your information from the people of that region...not from people who can't even understand the language or from people who are on the payroll of someone who has a subversive interest (oil, gas,etc) to the detriment of the people of the region. gwharton's "solution" is nothing but regurgitated material from US plans to partition Iraq, hatched up by foreign policy hawks, threshed out by think tanks and so on in order to exasperate, fuel and capitalize further on the religious and ethnic differences in the region. divide and conquer. this has nothing to do with Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds and what not. These are all pawns, some willing pawns that aspire to be promoted to more important pieces (as happened in the wake of the sykes-picot accord) and many are not willing. in the meantime, the true complex intertwined social and cultural fabric extending throughout the region (from central asian countries to the tips of the african continent) would undergo seismic shifts that will see disasters in their wake (this is whats happening in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq with some like Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and so on on the verge of catastrophes). In Lebanon, for instance, and in all surrounding countries indeed, the focus on Iraq is now critical because what happens in Iraq (paritioning, for instance) will have great impact on the internal makeup of surrounding countries and what could lie in store for them. This is a vital indication of why there should be greater unity amongst these century-old countries with thousands of years of shared history rather than more and more partitioning. Many are now keeping their eyes trained on Jordan - it is being said to be the "next in line". And, how convenient, since part of the US-ISrael plan is to completely throw out all remaining palestinians from Israel and render Jordan a replacement country for the palestinians thereafter reifying Israel as a true Jewish state. You know, like deplacing people is just a matter of moving furniture around.
Whether gwharton and yourself want to accept my dismissal is up to you and her. I'm not a bearded lunatic who is going to chop up your head or your penis in order to compare its size with mine. But I certainly have the right and the reason -as explained-for such dismissal. It is your business whether you choose to get butthurt in the meantime or not.
Also, I didn't imply that old architecture is illegitimate in contemporary work. it is your dogmatic way of thinking as you've repetitively presented here on archinect that was the implication and not the type and choice of architecture. you obvious can't draw implications therefore kindly cite me exactly through my words.
"leading Iraqi architectural critic Ihsan Fethi complaining that he has yet to see what Hadid’s design looks like"
so when will they release plans for ZHA building? did she sign contract without plans or just not releasing yet?
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.