Hadid, who was born in Baghdad and is now a British citizen, claimed that Filler falsely implied she was indifferent to the alleged difficult working conditions of migrant workers on high-profile construction projects in the Middle East, including her own.
She also claimed Filler used large portions of his June 5 review of Rowan Moore's "Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture" to question her success and fault her personality, although she was not a prominent character in the book.
— whtc.com
74 Comments
Fat chance she prevails in court.
"Hadid claimed that passage was based on a February 2014 statement taken out of context, before work on the stadium had begun, and that there were no worker deaths at the site."
Que? I remember that statement, I've been following the project, yet I never remember her or a representative attempt clear things up. Also, workers have died while working on the Qatar project, so I'm guessing the inclusion of "no worker deaths at the site" is just an exercise in lawyerspeak to deflect the reality of the situation there. Add to that the incredibly harsh conditions they work under, the pitiful wages, and the contempt the Qataris have for the people that move there to earn some type of living, and I would say that what we have here is a problem that suing some author for defamation is not going to solve. This is a situation where saying it's none of my business was probably the wrong thing to say as a human being, but completely acceptable in legal circles...
Not sure whether it will prevail in court, but she does have a point. There is a large gap between what she said, that she--or any-architect doesn't have the power to control the well-being of workers (which by definition they don't, after the design is handed to the developer, it is they who carry out the project) and the implication that she doesn't care about the workers. One could say that she would lose this benefit of the doubt if she continued working for the same developers or governments.
The initial disclaim of any responsibility or control and the current action to legally defend the crystalline fragility of her gargantuan ego speak volumes.
This is a woman of tremendous financial success with zillions of professional awards who utterly fails to take an sort of leadership role in the profession. Fuck her and the camel she rode into town on.
Responsibility is out of vogue these days. Owning your mistakes, and misdeeds is not something you see much of in contemporary leaders and luminaries. Of course there are some, but those that lack this virtue outnumber those that have by so much that we can't help but forget who they might be. I'm wondering why this is though...
What makes you think she was riding a camel?
Miles, cut the racist commentary.
Racist? LOL
I love it when she plays the sexist card. Which she will no doubt do (again) when she loses this bogus lawsuit. But hey - any publicity is good publicity, right?
Scharmen ... that's German? A variation of Schirrmann and others from the occupation of shear man, or sheep shearer. Could be from Yiddish for tailor, with sher meaning scissors. Funny how closely they are related. Or maybe it's from somewhere else. Either way it's better than Charmin. Not to be confused with charming.
On second though maybe I should apologize to the camel.
Zaha is getting a lot of action this Friday night.
from the article
"In her complaint, Hadid pointed to a passage where Filler said she "unashamedly disavowed any responsibility, let alone concern" for an "estimated one thousand laborers who have perished" while building the Al Wakrah stadium she designed for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar."
I think that might be the slander bit - 'unashamedly' and 'let alone concern'.
Mr_Wiggin may know more based on reading their post above, but those two words cited above are very 'opinionated' and the purpose of the legal action would clarify if she is and was indeed unashamed and had no concern.
Miles, you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep your commentary on topic, and you won't sound like so much of a fool.
"It’s not my duty as an architect to look at it. I cannot do anything about it because I have no power to do anything about it."
whats that got to do with camels?
It say's she is British and there's a small chance she rides a horse - 6% of GB have ridden horses in the last 12 months
No stats on camels, this is a hard stereotype to substantiate in both Britain and Baghdad.
Miles I just want to point out, unlike you, thousands if not a few million people actually listen to Zaha.
So if some guy turns the comment you quoted above into a degradation of character as part of a critic of some art theory news piece just to make you look bad publicly and possibly deter potential clients from hiring you based on their media piece then yes she is entitled to a lawsuit and some reparations, because the statement above is pretty straight forward legal factual unbias kind of comment from someone who a lot of people listen to.
Legally it is not her duty and who knows how many other political factors are at play here behind closed doors most of us will never see....maybe she will do something positive when this is all over, maybe this is a maneuver in doing the positive thing... a little patience would help.
shhhh! y'all gon get SUUUUUID!
Miles,
"Fuck her and the camel she rode into town on. "
Really?
all this camel outrage yet mr. serious calls her fat and the p.c. police don't shoot?
fuck them and the tank they rode into town on!
old man Miles can say whatever he wants, he is old.
different era back then, you plowed the fields and got ice cream on sundays only.
the Ay Rabs, well you know they be a team mascot in Cali, the old folks don't know why it's offensive
I don't know all that much, but I am well aware of the treatment that the immigrant labor force is given in the gulf states. It's just terrible that she seemed pretty willing to turn a blind eye. Granted she can't do much about the treatment, when your dealing with a people who feel they are outright superior to the other you can't do much to change practices and opinions. However, she is in a leadership position within the community, and is a role-model to all of us, good or bad, and needs to speak up to injustice. It is the mark of a real leader, so if she want to wear the crown she needs to be willing to stick her neck out once in a while.
Let's try to keep the conversation here on topic: this is actually a huge professional issue.
Zaha's words may well have been taken out of context. There can't have been 1,000 deaths at her stadium project; IIRC it has barely started construction yet, but there have certainly been a thousand deaths of workers in Qatar, even ESPN did a story about 20-year-olds dying of cardiac arrest in the heat. When ESPN is reporting on problems with sports it's biting the hand that feeds it, no?
The question isn't one of Zaha herself but a bigger question of ethics within our profession. Zaha is a British citizen, I believe, which means she isn't held to the same professional ethics as United States' architects are. Nonetheless, it's pretty standard across professional organizations to hold practitioners to a code of ethics, and it's standard practice among humans to hold one another to a level of respect for other humans. If any practitioner - hello, big US firms working abroad and others - flippantly disregards human rights abuses on a project to which they are contractually connected it's fair, within the context of a professional community, to scrutinize their involvement.
Look, I'm certainly not a lawyer but it seems to that what Zaha has just done via this lawsuit is open herself to legal examination as to whether she - or any architect - has responsibility for human rights abuses on their projects. The California Supreme Court just decided architects "...owe(s) a duty of care to future homeowners ...even if the architect does not actually build the project or exercise ultimate control over construction decisions..." That's in the text of the ruling. If a US court finds architects responsible for construction-related issues over which we have no control, is it really a stretch to find us liable for worker-related illegalities over which we "have no control"? It seems to me Zaha has just brought this question further into the light of scrutiny - I'm curious to see how it works out for us. For the record, if it results in less slave trading/abuse of construction workers at a cost of more contractual responsibility on us I'm all for it.
At the center of this issue: Zaha's lawsuit says she's concerned about her reputation. As a professional community, if we care about our OWN reputations and more importantly if we care about the living conditions of all humans we should be pushing Zaha to use her starchitect power and influence to bring about positive change on the realm of worker conditions. Zaha's lawsuit in the interest of protecting only herself is a step backward for all of us.
I agree completely with this statement by Miles: This is a woman of tremendous financial success with zillions of professional awards who utterly fails to take any sort of leadership role in the profession. This. Focus on this, everyone.
As for the camel comment? Jeezus Miles, that's a new level of tastelessness. And any comments about her as a woman are completely irrelevant here: she's an architect, and one who SHOULD be acting like a leader, but instead is acting selfish in a pretty mind-boggling dense way.
Yeah, the camel comment is a bit of a silly hump really. Why associate to a part of primarily Bedouin culture? I mean, there's noting wrong about being associated to it, non-pejoratively, if that is indeed part of her immediate background, say if she were a Bedouin who indeed has camels. But this is not really the case and its being used pejoratively. Therefore, quite correct that some should read it as racist generalizing association.
I'm puzzled by quite another thing altogether. It does not sound to me like she's being slandered by that critic. While it is certainly arguable that she does or does not care about workers and disavowed her responsibility (in the sense that one can argue for either case, irrespective of how good or bad the argument is), it should not be arguable that the critic, who has not personally defamed or insulted her, has the right to make assumptions and judgments derived from certain givens, even if these assumptions and judgments may be found to be untenable by her or others.
Who has the right to put limits on a critic's right to make judgments, as long as these are not slanderous - which they obviously are not here- or racist or personally pejorative (i'm not exactly sure where the law- and in which court- places these limits of definition).
I think that, above all, this is about the right of free expression and free journalism. In my quite insignificant opinion, it sounds ridiculous that the critic and associated entity are being sued over this.
Besides, instead of spending all the money on suing these critics, she could have done something with that money ( I understand suing someone is an expensive process) in order to help, to some extent, address the real problem here (ie not her hurt ego), the issue of the poor site labourers suffering from inhuman conditions.
Olaf, thus my comment about her lack of leadership. Friggin' Hollywood actors have more social consciousness, or at least pretend to. Zaha's too worried about offending some sheik and losing a future $100 billion commission that will also be built with slave labor.
A pejorative (also term of abuse, term of disparagement, or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, hostility, disregard and/or disrespect.
In that sense it is perfectly accurate, as I have all of of those for Hadid.
and the horse you rode in on is generally preceded by a considerably more colorful phrase, usually pointed at someone who thinks very highly of themselves. The preceding more colorful phrase - as it almost invariably is - was metaphorical, not literal or sexist, but I'm not surprised that it has been taken that way.
FRaC, nice catch. LOL
Just to throw it out there...if the design was less "difficult" would there be as many deaths? I think not. The "difficulty" of the design combined with the atrocious treatment of workers lead to their deaths. The design itself played a big role. If the designer knew that the worker conditions were not suitable to undertake such a difficult construction then IMO she bears much direct responsibility...possibly even on a criminal level...maybe a stretch...
I HATE HER MORE AND MORE
like she gives a fuck.
a lesson in taste for Miles.
can I get sued for this comment yet?
Maybe Miles was being sarcastic, like his ethnic cleansing joke about the Gaza strip?
Sorry, back on topic. If Zaha Hadid dosen't care about the suffering of people working on her projects, why would she be so thin skinned with a critic? Maybe it's from someone whom she deems qualified to make a critique? I might be curious about the people building a design I worked on, but at the scale she works, it's probably impractical. Maybe she's deflecting attention from her lack of empathy, but it strikes me as an unusual complaint. What has her partner Patrik Schumacher say about all this? Speaking of building in the Middle East, I hear they're always in need of architects.
The bigger the ego, the thinner the skin. I guess it gets stretched out.
I wonder what people will read into that?
And that wasn't a joke about ethnic cleansing, it was an observation. Israel won't stop until they can turn Gaza into a world class tourist resort.
if zaha had made public comments about the worker issues she may have made herself vulnerable to lawsuits. architects ARE NOT responsible for jobsite safety but any comments about that issue could make her liable. so she was correct in not getting involved from that standpoint. i am sure she doesn't want people dying on her projects. attack the contractors and owners and the sheiks, not the architect.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case that established theactual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to bedefamation and libel;[2] and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Except when satire^
I was trying to emphasize that Zaha will LOSE her case. Also, the article at issue doesn't appear to have been satire.
The first question you should ask is what jackass journalist thought they were asking a valuable question when they asked an architect to comment on workers condition. Did this same journalist ask all the other firms working on the many stadiums. http://stadiumdb.com/tournaments/world_cup/2022 I would suggest her hiring of a lawyer is an equal in value political response to what I would call very subjective journalism. I have an assignment for the critic and media here, get on a plane, live in a workers camp and ask every worker if they feel the architect is to blame for their conditions. so yes Miles she is famous and people listen to her and with all her awards she is not quite philanthropist and community organizer you want her to be, but as Vado points out she responded in accordance with the logic of the law, which presumably assigns values to ethics in the form of statements voted into effect via representation by the people. The architect already has quite the burden of irrelevant liability why add another. She unlike all of us here is in a position to make a change, maybe she will, and unlike us we are not in that position due to many factors and failures or choices on our part, so gi put on her shoes and make it happen....
Blame the messenger? LOL The first rule of journalism is to ask tough questions. I would be happy to see some real journalism instead of the fawning celebrity worship shoved down our throats with advertisements for luxury goods. Maybe the next journalist will ask her about solar power or why she doesn't use her position to advance sustainability or world peace or clean water or fucking anything other than her own ambition.
The crux of the issue is not Zaha's (lack of) liability but her lack of empathy and her willful abandonment of the influential power invested in her position, which as stated repeatedly above is global.
Actually abandonment is the wrong word because you can't abandon something you've never taken hold of.
Exactly, MIles. One of the posters on Dezeen said basically "oh she's just another woman who can't succeed so she's suing someone". Which we all know is pure bullshit: Zaha is likely *the* most sought-after star architect ON THE PLANET right now; she has success beyond the wildest dreams of many, which means she also has power and influence. It's sad to feel she's choosing to wield that power and influence to protect herself, only.
^ She may not have a legal responsibility to the workers safety but she does have a moral one. The law is designed to serve as a bare minimum. Someone of far more than bare minimum success should IMO demonstrate more than bare minimum behavior/leadership as a representative of the profession. Her complete lack of giving a shit is clearly deliberate and part of her overall world view and philosophy. I guess this alignment is also part reason why she's all the rave with the oligarchs and plutocrats.
Ok Miles.. name me her employer, the contractor on the job, and outline Qatar laws with regard to labor and immigration.....tough and real questions. You are critiquing fantasy like an arm chair journalist.
Olaf, the info you're looking for is literally all over the internet right now. Zaha's stadium isn't the only construction project in the region with this issue. But she's a high-profile participant and she was asked about a widely-acknowledged ongoing global human rights issue. Her response was tepid at best, and when she was called out on it she threw a tantrum aka a lawsuit.
I really want to read the original Filler article. I've usually enjoyed his architectural criticisms a lot.
So, not many are concerned that this is equally about the right for a critic to criticize (and not just the concern of an architect not to be "defamed")? Where do you draw limits around "defamation"?
Any negative criticism, to some extent, could be seen by a hurt ego as an instance of a "defamation"...but defamation really is defined by the falsity of the claim being made and not by the negative consequences of a negative criticism.
In order to prove the falsity, there must be facts that do so. It strikes me that the critic's denunciation is based on inference (a combination of subsequent derivation and of interpretation) - from her own statements and from her expressions of detachment from the issue of labourer rights (whether you believe that she has the power to fully engage on that front or not).
In other words, the critic is making a critical leap that any critic makes, be it that this takes place on work ethics ground (as opposed to aesthetic for instance). This also occurs in politics. You interpretatively judge your politicians on the basis of their statements and actions (or equally palpable non-actions) and you subsequently condemn them, as seen from your perspective. In a democracy, this is a right. You're not "defaming" them (which carries the nuance of a smear campaign); they are a public figure whose public enunciations impact your wordview and you have all the right to criticize them and call them out on it.
Notwithstanding what Serious Question here above says - that she may well stand to lose- we also know that suing someone could also be a form of bullying and prohibiting them or others from repeating the action in question. Perhaps, Zaha Hadid (I assume she is quite rich now), knows that even if she stands to lose the case, she also stands to gain in shutting down easy criticism of her on this front, given the incurred financial costs to the critical party.
......................................................................................
As for those trying to absolve the architect:
1- She has the power to choose or reject a project.
2- She has the power to accept working with or rejecting working with certain contractors who have a shoddy labourer rights record
3- She knows well enough what comes with that business venture in terms of labourer rights.
4- She is in a rare position to negotiate and influence.
5-She knows that going ahead, business as usual, will have the same recurrent consequences.
Does this or does it not mean that she is complicit?
In my opinion, to some degree, everyone on site and off it, all the way from the government, through the client, architect, contracting company owner down to the site engineers are complicit. Everyone. But the more power you have, the more elevated your role is, even the more abstract your association with the project is (government, then client, then the others - the labourer being the most hands-on with the least abstraction), the more you form part of the structure of the system in place, the more responsibility you have.
Which is to say, no one should be saying that Zaha is the most responsible amongst the lot for being "hands-off" when it comes to human rights...but, equally, no one should be saying that she and her firm are not responsible and no one should try to absolve her as if she did not form a part of that structure of the oppressive system in place. The fact that she is a world renonwn architect and public figure gives her far more clout - and therefore endows her with far more ability to empower the cause of the labourers.
In other words, while in terms of operating within these gulf and other countries she is as complicit as any other architect there- however small their footprint is-, the fact that she has such influence exaggerates her potency in acting on this matter. It is this deliberate absence of actualizing this reserve as a world famous figure with more clout than your usual architect that virtually inflates her (ir)responsibility.
For what it's worth, I find her comments to be callous and reprehensible. She should be using her position and influence in the profession more ethically.
But tammuz, your #2 up there is probably technically false. At least in the US, the owner usually has separate contracts with the architect, and the one has no say about the choice of the other. I don't know the specifics of Qatari practice, but it may be that she has no power to accept or reject the contractor. She *could* of course accept or reject the client, though.
I also agree, tammuz, with your comments about the chilling effect this might have on criticism. That's very scary.
Fred;
I worked within a consultancy (not multi-national, not world famous) in the Emirates and I know that the architect's estimation in the process of choosing a contractor is extremely significant and helps determines the client's choice. Not everything is merely about post-fact legality of already established contractual roles. Also, post-fact, an architect, on site, has the right to recommend and enforce punitive measures as well as the eventual removal of a contractor on matters such as health and safety.
There is absolutely no restriction on her to demand, upfront, that contractors she works with abide by enforcement of human right laws regarding labourers.
Yes, the system is larger than the architect and the architect might not have her or his way -depending on the choices they make- but this does not negate their role and influence they hold within the factual run of events leading up to making a contract with the client and afterwards.
So, although her entanglement with a contractor is, legally, by way of her entanglement with the client, her choice of working with the client can well be conditioned on the choice of contractor. Directly or indirectly, she has the right to weed out contractors.
Is Zaha's firm that involved in Qatar or is there a local firm dealing with the day to day? It's defamation in the sense the critic was claiming her state of mind and character based on nothing other thann assumption. There are many other ways to say this without actually saying it and I am sure given the reputation of this critic they are capable of doing that. Unlike being an artist or strictly a designer there are legal consequences for statements and actions made by an architect. Critics and all of media essentially have no liability or accountability. I do not think this will crush the critic even if she wins, if any thing better and more valuable criticism - stupid questions get stupid answers and cause stupid things to happen. Here is an equally stupid question: why isn't Architecture for Humanity doing anything about this? (On phone no googling, if some nonprofit operation is that would be great to know). My complaint is how the picture is being painted by media.
With regard to the chilling effect of the suit-- Filler (or his publisher) should defend it vigorously and then recover attorney's fees. If anything, that should teach Zaha and her attorneys not to file such frivolous bullshit.
That's very interesting, tammuz, thanks for that information.
@Olaf, I'm not sure if they're looking at Qatar or not, but the organization Gulf Labor has helped raise awareness about similar practices in the Emirates, especially on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi.
http://gulflabor.org
no problem Fred.
About the local vs multinational...when a multinational firm hooks up with a local firm (a situation I've been in on different occasions) the local acts as part of the body of the multinational. they get policed just like a subcontractor gets policed by a contractor.
being a multinational firm working with a local firm does not mitigate your responsibilities, either in terms of whats happening to the design or whats happening on site. the multinational and the local are seen to represent a singular body and multinational staff work in close cooperation with the local, on site or on the design.
Zaha Hadid Architects is working with AECOM on the project, right?
Yet Zaha Hadid, the individual, functions as the sole lightning rod for criticism..
Now is that fair?
And are we ready to go to bat for architecture critics who fail to accurately describe these situations? Keep in mind that they are paid to give accurate descriptions and rigorous analysis.
I am not a fan of most of Zaha Hadid's work or its conceptual foundation, but I do think the criticism is getting very personal. We live in a post-Ouroussoff climate where it has become very popular to dislike the most well known design architects in the world. Some of that anger seems to be informed by the professional/business goals of the less-than-well-known competition who would like a better shot at high-profle commissions. As a reader and not a critic, I want to know that the criticism is based on facts and rigorous analysis, not shaded by personal gripes and personal relationships within the NY Architecture community.
davvid, I don't see what is personal about this. This seems to be to be about work ethics (and does not have to do either with whether you like her conceptual foundations or not) . What does her person or personality have to do with this? Anyone in her shoes would be susceptible to the same criticism...especially after the self-professed claim calculated to disappear her responsibilities via :
"...It’s not my duty as an architect to look at it. I cannot do anything about it because I have no power to do anything about it. I think it’s a problem anywhere in the world. But, as I said, I think there are discrepancies all over the world.”
There is nothing personal in the criticism being made. Whether you agree with the content of the criticism or not.
I think it is at least partly tied into the conceptual foundations of the office's practice. "It’s not my duty as an architect to look at it" can be read as a statement about standard business models, or it can be read within the context of the larger projects of disciplinary autonomy and formalism. Patrik Schumacher's polemical post from facebook is in the same vein: "STOP political correctness in architecture. But also: STOP confusing architecture and art. Architects are in charge of the FORM of the built environment, not its content."
Say what you will about the tenets, at least it's an ethos ...
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.