In light of the above, we are appealing to you in your roles as founder and lead architect of the firm, and as an educator and a public intellectual, to side by us in advocating to your client, but also to planning and urban authorities in Beirut the preservation of a site with unique characteristics, and withdraw services on this project. If such advocacy efforts falter, we urge you to dissociate yourself and your firm from this contentious project. — Jadaliyya
We have recently learned that the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) has been commissioned to develop a design for a projected development on a prime sea-front location in Beirut (Lebanon): the Dalieh of Raoucheh. Proposing a private development over such a prime social, national, archeological and geological landmark in Lebanon has generated an ongoing public outcry, in the form of protests, letters to officials,discussions, and media mobilization. We are writing today to alert you to the disturbing facts behind the project, and solicit your support in outlining an alternative vision for Beirut’s seafront.
50 Comments
FUCK context
"FUCK context"
...and that about captures the modernist ethos.
thayer,
link to critical discussion of modernism and how it relates to regional priorities in design intent when compared with traditional design philosophies (that were intended for greek/rome/not anywhere else)
curt thank you for that link - great discussion, but not one Thayer will pay any attention to because his mind is made up.
Who dosen't like to get rick rolled? Donna, I promise to read up on LeCorbusier and Mies Van Der Rohe to see how they handled context. Anyone else you could recommend?
If you think Mies and Corbu sum up the entirety of Modernism in the past 100 years, I'm not sure I can help.
Of course you can help. Please, who should I read beyond the founding fathers?
Thayer, I recommend starting here
I don't know why this news is generating "architecture and context" discussion when it is more about developing a public space with long history and public use and against the will of the public?
Hypothetically, would the project be alright if OMA (or any other firm) designed a hotel and condominium complex on the rocks in traditional Eastern Mediterranean style whatever that might be?
This is an invasion and take over of public space by the private investment for profit issue.
Orhan,
I was reacting to the first commentator, but imagined that you where looking to generat support for what seems to be a beloved community space, regardless of the architect. Even if it had been by an architect well versed in traditional Eastern Mediteranean styles, I'm sure the reaction would have been the same, at least from my reading of your link.
I hope OMA or whomever is hired heads this plea from the community. In this case, the context is the historical, cultural and ecological, but in any case, context matters.
Rem could care less
I sincerely hope that OMA pulls out, but given the fact that they designed and built CCTV and the Rothschild bank HQ, I would not dare to hope too much. All that this would do, however, is generate some press. If they do, I can see why this would put OMA in a bit of a fix elsewhere as well. That is not going to happen; Rem has always been a slippery fish and I am confident that he will come up with a non-committal position defending himself and his clients.
I don't quite see, by the way, what all of these more universal issues have to do with either the word context (as in lack of sensitivity to context) or modernism. I am really quite fed up with architects immediately framing things in a stylistic / formal framework rather than to address the moral questions of rights to the city in a deeper way and thus to challenge the notion of private property. The open letter is exhaustive and deserves a more well-considered response. I cringe when it is argued that OMA is some old school modernist swooping in with a tabula rasa philosophy. This caricature may or may not be true but the result is that responsibility is solely laid at the feet of the architect. The client, city and whomever else responsible for this mess are thus effectively shielded from view.
The deeper issue is of course that something which is understood to be public commons should not be privatized. You have to address not the architect as a figure head, as a front for the powers that be, but those who are in power directly. How to fight that battle is something else entirely.
FUCK Context
... and that about captures the capitalist ethos.
Get it straight. The only context for money is money. Let's see what OMA does in that context.
Hey, maybe they didn't know better?
I think Wensing and Jaffe have it right. It is a matter of money, although in a non-capitalist country the situatin might be even different becasue money is just another proxy for power. You either have it or you don't.
"I cringe when it is argued that OMA is some old school modernist swooping in with a tabula rasa philosophy. This caricature may or may not be true but the result is that responsibility is solely laid at the feet of the architect."
This caricature IS true though, no need to portray that issue in a Fox news false equivalency frame. Whatever ism we are on though, modernists don't recognize aesthetic or even cultural "contextualism". It's in their ideological DNA, no matter how many theoretical gyrations it's made since the founding fathers. There's an ideological mental block that dosen't allow them to go beyond some theoretical or conceptual construct of context. Any aesthetic nod to context needs to be so watered down that the average person in the street would never comprehend the connection, but then again, like Donna has stated explicitly, who cares.
So the money'd aspects have always held pole position in our world, as money is power, and power rules all. In this case, Rem is working for the power'd interests in Lebanon rather than China. I don't hold that against him simply becasue an architect's primary role is to give form to their client's wishes. My hope is that they might also be considered custodians of a people's built legacy and as such at least partially responsible for the environment of the non-powerful. Like the hippocratic oath in medicine of " first, do no harm". It's a lot to ask, especially since one building at a time does indeed do little harm. But when architects are taught to disregard the visual context, the one most apparent to the passer-by, when whole centers are replaced with blank abstract minimalims, you end up with soulless cities that erases the pleasures of place and kill the human spirit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/how-to-rebuild-architecture.html?_r=1
Of course the other side of this is what the kind of success lavished on starchitects does to their egos. The Pritzker Prize and fat commissions that come after it are essentially the kiss of death simply because your shit doesn't stink anymore. Celebrity architecture isn't about architecture.
Reason for arguing against superficial stylistic discussions is that I don't see any difference between a landgrab dressed in pomo pseudo vernacular or a landgrab dressed in modernist garb. This whole notion that modernism is somehow synonymous with tabula rasa and pomo / more traditional architecture is not is a lie. The tabula rasa ethos is part and parcel of the destructive nature of capitalism. If you have time you may want to read the Communist Manifesto. Marx paints a vivid picture of the creative destruction unleashed by the bourgeoisie. That aspect of capitalism has not changed.
Point is tract development, and sprawl, as it has been rolled out across the country, is always done in diluted historicist style and almost never in modernist style. One of the reasons why this is so is that banks and developers do not like to take risks and continuously build stuff that gives a guaranteed return on investment rather than to address people's (and the planet's) needs. This does not relieve architects from their duty to perform responsibly, but it is not a question of style.
88 year old Mrs Bingler from the link has a right to her opinion but to blame modernism for creating soulless cities is not understanding the mechanisms that deliver cities nor the variety within modernism itself. I think that a budding environmentalism has been apparent in modernism very early on, but that you have to dig a little deeper than the canon which is regurgitated in architecture school. Schindler, Neutra, Haring, Scharoun - I could go on - are all interesting architects who furthered humane and humanist architecture. Then there is also a whole string of modern architects who had a decidedly communist / socialist bent. Schmidt, Meyer, May. I dare to challenge anyone to convincingly argue that Das Neue Frankfurt or Red Vienna are 'soulless' places that erase the pleasure of place and kill the human spirit. Finally, Arundhati Roy is an architect too, so perhaps changing careers to make a difference is the way to go.
But again such a self-centered architect's discussion does not help the people in Beirut. My advice to them is to read Gene Sharp and visit this:
http://www.aeinstein.org
Thumbs up for above post by Thomas Wensing. It belongs to the other thread also?
Orhan, Thanks for the compliment but I don't work for Mark-1 plumbing.
Oh shit I meant this thread. Texas truck story I put on my Facebook page:)) http://archinect.com/news/article/116110641/how-to-rebuild-architecture-another-back-to-the-drawing-board-op-ed
"The tabula rasa ethos is part and parcel of the destructive nature of capitalism. If you have time you may want to read the Communist Manifesto. Marx paints a vivid picture of the creative destruction unleashed by the bourgeoisie. That aspect of capitalism has not changed."
It's naive to think that "capitalism" is the only system aligned with the tabula rasa. Considering how horribly wrong Marx got human nature, I think there are other sourses of understanding modern capitalist society we could reach for. Communist ditators have a long reputation of suppressing history to establish their authority becasue money is simply a proxy for power. Ultimatly, it's power than many crave, under any banner they might want to wave. It's human nature to want to preserve one's position, not just capitalists That is why the modernists wanted to scrape history and begin everything a new. Not to recognize that is to completely falsify the historical record, which is understandable but unneccesary.
"88 year old Mrs Bingler from the link has a right to her opinion but to blame modernism for creating soulless cities is not understanding the mechanisms that deliver cities nor the variety within modernism itself."
I think the mechanisms that deliver cities are not that hard to understand. Look at the "tabula rasa" of Baron Von Hausman compared to LeCorbusier. Both proposed destroying large parts of the city, yet how they did them and under which system they proposed matters a lot. In Von Hausman, the capitalist interests where aligned with political interests in that there would be a tremendous amount of construction while the city was modernized. Really not that revolutionary. And while a lot was torn down, there was an effort to keep some key monuments and "dressed in pomo pseudo vernacular", meaning there was an aesthetic continuity with the past. Take LeCorbusier's vision which they thankfully passed on, but which countless American cities persued in the impoverished sections of our cities. Total destruction and rupture from the past. That is what's meant by "FUCK context". And while modernism has changed and evolved as did Hausman's classicism, the need to perpetuate its tenants and thus preserve power can be seen in the smallest details like your characterization of non modernist work as "pomo pseudo vernacular". I've read Marx and the modernist manifestos once, and that was enough.
Tabula rasa is ultimately psychologically and philosophically lazy and is related to the impulse of control................ For example when I come home from a long day of work and I walk into the sun room covered in worlds of toys and recently made artwork my only solution is to threaten standard policy "if it's on the ground it can't be important so it's going in the trash." Then my 3 and 6 year old daughters plead their case by outlining all the names of the characters, the history, whose palace is whose, why prince Eric is not dating Megan and play doh is an integral part to the castle design. So I tiptoe around the worlds carefully.......................I have read Karl Marx and Adam Smith close enough together to make a couple observations - Marx is a much better philosopher and attempts to provide thought out solutions to problems. Smith is more observational and basically states that is the way it is because that's how it's been and will be for example -"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.".............the Smith quote sums of the Architect client relationship here, I would suggest. It's not as much Capitalism vs Culture or Capitalism vs Other Order, its more an issue of accepting the current trends or disagreeing with them. The locals are asking a trend setter to disagree with a trend.
Trend setter? Only if he bails on the project. Otherwise he's just another self-interested goon.
tabula rasa as it relates to 'modernism' doesn't mean you start with a clean site. it means you start with a clean mind.
you don't have to be hung up on how things were done 100 years ago, because things aren't done that way anymore. table saws have changed. lumber mills have changed. we've gone from timber frame to stick frame to metal studs. we put sprinkler pipes in buildings to protect against the spread of fire. the fact that stuff all exists in time is testament to why tabula rasa is important.
tabula rasa does not mean a 'modernist' can't keep a site like orhan is referring to intact. it doesn't mean the architect can't learn about the site's history and design a project that respects and reflects that history. it doesn't mean 'ignore history,' it means 'learn history without the baggage.'
tabula rasa doesn't mean the architect has to be ignorant. quite the opposite, it means start with a clean slate so you can learn the truth without leaning on your predetermined dogma as a crutch, and design a project that respects the site without all the ignorance that someone who can't let go of the past might possess.
as i've said before, there's nothing wrong with continuing traditional design philosophies if that's what you want to do. you already know you have to update the pedagogy to teach the materials, methods, code requirement, etc., that are required to get things done in the world as it exists today. what is wrong is you're pretending that the problem orhan introduces is somehow related to 'modernism,' or a lack of 'traditionalism,' or anything even close to that.
if OMA is paid to destroy the beach, they will probably destroy the beach. that's not because of a design philosophy, but rather political and economic philosophies. they are not connected. at all. 'traditionalism' has spanned several widely varying governmental systems, including democracies and dictatorial empires, as has 'modernism.' destroying the beach but having orhan put some nice beaux-arts details in it might make it traditional, but doesn't fix or even address the problem he's presenting.
the democratic response to the situation orhan is presenting would probably be to keep the beach as it is, because apparently that's what the people want, and a democratic system would cater to the people it serves. if that isn't the outcome, then it's a failure of democracy, not a failure of 'traditional' or 'modernism.'
to phrase this problem as one of "traditionalism" or "modernism" is a dishonesty that changes the discussion from one with merit to one that is nothing more than another one of your vapid rants. that brings us back to tabula rasa. let go of the perceptions you have of 'traditional v. modern,' and your failed education, and look at this problem starting with a clean state, and you might start to see that your statements on capitalism, which probably plays a deciding role in this problem, has nothing to do with your comparison of Baron Von Hausman and corbu, or your closing paragraph relating the problem to the tenants of modernism.
Thanks Curtram & Chris. Thanks Thayer for being such an antagonist. I have to say that it is bewildering to me that when you ask to achieve some focus on the political and economic nature of this issue you get fed another spiel on how Corb was megalomaniacal. You could easily argue that the same is true of the design of Washington DC. It's really a dead end. Marshall Berman has an interesting take on modernism. He argued that modernism is a response to the condition of modernity. Seeing modernism in this light is more useful than just framing it in a stylistic sense. Postmodernism I don't think is really about historical continuity but is equally a response to the condition of modernity (aka advanced industrial and technological society and all its ailments).
I did think about the notion of historical continuity or 'an aesthetic continuity with the past'. A big question for me in the context of the US is which style you really would like to build in when you hold up historical continuity as some sort of elusive holy grail of appropriate design. Mayan, Aztec, Native American? I don't see much continuity in US architecture and I think its historicism is tired and bears a lot of negative and oppressive connotations. The same is also true - to a lesser extent - of the bland modernism of the 60s and 70s, which has become the style of bland cosmopolitan capitalism.
First off, history is not linear. The greeks developed classical architecture, which was adopted and transformed by the Romans and spread across the Mediterranean. The Roman empire fell and nothing classical was built for at least 1,500 years. (continuity? That's called a breach). Fast forward to Italy and the Renaissance. The modernists of them days, like Alberti and Brunelleschi, were kind of fed up with the traditionalists around them and decided to do something else. They looked at all these ruins and started to put things together in a completely different and new way. That's called the Re-Birth for a reason, since it was effectively dead for a while. Let's not forget that a lot was lost in translation and that ornament and the orders no longer had the same religious connotations as it had had in Greco-Roman times. Lefaivre and Tzonis write on this. When you put columns and capitals on your house in Miami it is sure as hell has nothing to do with the religious meanings the Greeks saw in it, the holy has become profane. (I don't see why anyone would want to do this).
Then with Palladio and Palladianism this architecture gets spread across Europe by way of books and prints and in each nation a different type of classical architecture develops, depending on circumstances and the ability of the designers.
Through colonial rule and empire building, as well as international commerce, the classical language spreads across the Americas as an architecture of conquest and oppression, signifying the superiority of European culture and values. (For what that's worth compared to the genocide of native peoples). It sometimes mixes with native vernaculars but usually wiped out existing 'traditional' architecture. An architecture of domination again, as it had been in Roman times.
Interestingly enough it is Frank LLoyd Wright in his prairie style houses and his 'Mayan' houses in LA, who tries to develop a language which is unique for the USA and, just like the classical architects of the Renaissance, draws inspiration from the past and tries to restore historical continuity. He is also often called a modernist, if I am not mistaken.
Inspiration from classical architecture is, as a matter of fact, evident in Mies and Corb, as well as other vernacular or foreign (Japanese) influences. I do not find the same creativity and innovation in something like New Urbanism, but I do find oppressive classical continuity in something like the Stalin Allee in Berlin. Inspired by Haussmann, no doubt. It is time to move on from another cliche, which is that modernists proposed a rift with the past. This has always been a rhetorical device, to free things up creatively, but as Rowe has shown, Corbusier was directly influenced by Palladio. In other words, you have to test what people are saying against what they do.
Finally, equating Marx with Communist dictators is akin as saying that Einstein is responsible for Hiroshima, in other words a complete platitude and intellectually lazy.
I really did enjoy Chris Teeter's comments on tabula rasa. The analogy with his kids and the toys was powerful as were his comments on Smith and Marx. By stepping away from the usual ideological clashes I was suddenly struck by the fact that perhaps we should not frame the discussion so much in capitalism (Marx vs. Smith) but talk about how civilizations usurp all resources and then come to an end. I think it is this kind of human hubris which is underlying the attack on the commons as well. (This is also taking place in Turkey where Erdogan wanted to build a shopping mall and mosque in a public park). I do not think that this is a trend, I see it more as an all-pervasive affliction / mental disease.
I have a strong sense that it is the blind leading the blind nowadays and that's why I feel strongly that the protesters should build a popular movement in Lebanon to address these grievances. I do not think, by the way, that what is traditionally is called the Left has been able to very effectively formulate workable solutions for what should happen in terms of governance in the longer run. Democracy is way too corruptable as it is currently applied.
Happy holidays.
p.s. it is tenets not tenants.
Thank you for your comments Thomas Wensing. Very interesting points.
p.s. it is tenets not tenants.
guess what i'm doing instead of classical detailing?
" I have to say that it is bewildering to me that when you ask to achieve some focus on the political and economic nature of this issue you get fed another spiel on how Corb was megalomaniacal. You could easily argue that the same is true of the design of Washington DC. It's really a dead end."
Corb was megalomaniacal if one looks at his proposals to re-build many of the worlds great cities in his vision, but maybe you have a higher criterion for megalomaniacs, who knows. And considering how influential he still is in architectural education, I don't think it's a dead end at all, especially since one so often hears "FUCK context" type commentary here when that was his and his fellow modernists view on context was, which was what I was responding to, until you correctly refocused the thread to what Orhan was trying to call attention to. If you feel that Mies VDR's IIT design or hudreds like it show some kind of abstracted respect for context, happy to differ on that point as well.
" Marshall Berman has an interesting take on modernism. He argued that modernism is a response to the condition of modernity. Seeing modernism in this light is more useful than just framing it in a stylistic sense."
You can see modernism in that light if you like, but I think it's fair to point out that the context was specific to Post WW1 Europe rather than modernism per say, since what we call the modern condition was arguably more prevelent in the United States at that time and the historical record will show that we didn't actually have the same reaction, rather it was imported like so much cluture was.
"Postmodernism I don't think is really about historical continuity but is equally a response to the condition of modernity (aka advanced industrial and technological society and all its ailments)."
Historical continuity? Do you mean the fact that it's continuous? No argument there, but this idea of history being a clean line of evolution is more a historian's construct rather than how it actually plays out, so I guess we can agree on that.
"The modernists of them days, like Alberti and Brunelleschi, were kind of fed up with the traditionalists around them and decided to do something else. They looked at all these ruins and started to put things together in a completely different and new way."
So plastering the orders on a medieval palazzo was complelety different? ok.
When you put columns and capitals on your house in Miami it is sure as hell has nothing to do with the religious meanings the Greeks saw in it, the holy has become profane. (I don't see why anyone would want to do this).
Maybe you want to ask Jefferson about why he did it...he was plenty profane thankfully.
"Through colonial rule and empire building, as well as international commerce, the classical language spreads across the Americas as an architecture of conquest and oppression,"
You say potato, I say potaato. Why would I take your characterization of what these styles meant over what Michelangelo, or Jefferson said? Becasue it suits you own mental construct? No thanks. If you think that empire was unique to 'capitalists' then I have a neo-gothic bridge to sell you.
"Interestingly enough it is Frank LLoyd Wright in his prairie style houses and his 'Mayan' houses in LA, who tries to develop a language which is unique for the USA and, just like the classical architects of the Renaissance, draws inspiration from the past and tries to restore historical continuity. He is also often called a modernist, if I am not mistaken."
Call him what you want, he at least was a meglomaniac with talent. Remember, some of us believe this noble profession to be an art and not just an extension of geo-politics 101. Plus, if you can't *see* American architecture beyond the Neo-Mayan or Japanese influenced Prairie style, it says more about your *eye* than anything else. Maybe you should look up from your Marx book and learn to appreciate the nuances between Savanah classicism and Brooklyn Italianate for a change.
"It is time to move on from another cliche, which is that modernists proposed a rift with the past. "
Sure, and Pevsner told me that the Chicago School was propo-modernism. If you still believe that crap, I suggest it is you who are stuck in a historical mind set.
"Democracy is way too corruptable as it is currently applied."
Yeah, that's why they call it 'checks and balances', because unlike Marx, the founding fathers at least had the insight that humans are corrupt when confronted with power rather than freely passing it on to the next well meaning chap. I wish all oppressed people the best in this new year, especially the children of Syria who don't deserve this hell they are living through, and while I've enjoyed this stroll through historicist lane with you, I've had a long week.
Merry Christmas, best wishes, and thank you for being civil, despite our differing views.
if OMA is paid to destroy the beach, they will probably destroy the beach. that's not because of a design philosophy, but rather political and economic philosophies. they are not connected. at all.
Real design encompasses both politics and economics. And thus we get to the crux of the biscuit: the sell-out. A large enough pile of dough assures the disconnect. How much do your principles cost, Chris?
Miles and thayer-d - Chris Teeter is not Curtkram, just want to point that out.
Thomas great post with an excellent re-cap walk-thru. Unfortunately I think your point about the blind leading the blind is too accurate to the state of affairs. Some of the comments I see on this forum, although often just quips and jokes; and that recent NYtimes op-ed piece have nearly convinced me that no one bothers with ensuring they educate themselves properly...............I realize that's probably a funny statement to make, who am I to say what is proper? (Nevermind i attempt to educate myself from all sides of an issue before i translate my intellect from an often unfounded emotional expression). Thayer-d somewhat shows this in his response to Thomas, every point someone makes can be contradicted or refuted based on some other source, etc......the best example in the last week is the Communist Death Memorial in Canada, I really thought that was an Onion piece. Did anyone notice how absurd the whole thing is? The context, the premise? So what does this mean for the locals in Beirut and Lebanon? This simply means whoever wants to destroy whatever they want for their own grounds can and will find ample amounts of resources to support whatever the fuck they want to do because they can. It's as ridiculous as watching Fox news and Msnbc on flash/previous (I do this for entertainment sometimes, it's quite humorous, until you realize there are people committed to each side religiously, and that's when the thought of jumping like the photo in this post makes sense.)...................in this sense Curtkram point on tabula rasa and clear mind makes the most sense as the only means for reseting the blind leading the blind. If OMA is to approach this as Curtkram suggests in this notion of tabula rasa,maybe walking away would make the most sense,or maybe tricking the client into doing the right thing?.....Koolhaas is a master of inception
Chris Teeter is not Curtkram, just want to point that out.
Whoops, my bad. Sorry, curt.
I am signing off on this discussion, it starts to go round in circles a little bit. Thanks for making some great points. Highly enjoyable.
It became an ordinary form of speech to target famous architects no matter what the issues are. Post after post and not only in this thread but every other thread the expression is one of short condemnation but not much else. I'm not the one to defend but the critical discourse should not be watered down for personal and often misinformed reactions. It is fascinating this project gave a way to such reactive condemnation of the architect, history of architecture and development of above without seeing a single image of the project. The real discussion on bigger issue is aborted once more. Easy target is also missed.
Orhan I did try to find more info, but from what I could find it was photos of the new fence, the scenery, old photos and videos about the public versus private developments in general with regard to zoning and the wealthy, a very common theme throughout the world.... Your post here is one the most popular links on this subject.
Given the complete lack of real information, like an image of the project - you have one? It's hardly surprising the debate was similar to a political or religious debate in a bar after a few drinks. Although, there were some real contributions posted here, Thomas mainly;and given the information presented and available on the web, this forum frankly was fruitful.
In general, most people on this forum don't actually know the architects we talk about, outside of what the media states about them and for this reason these architects, such as Koolhaas, are essentially placeholders for histories, beliefs, and theories and in the debate become rather terms for debate instead of actual persons - Objectified.
What was the easy target here?
I wouldn't worry that the post takes on a life of its own, especially since there were no images to critique. Like design, inspiration can come from a multitude of sources.
if somebody develops the project do you want somebody who will follow the orders of the developers and their politicians or somebody who bothers to write this letter?
OMA
Dear Civil Campaign team,
Thank you for your open letter from the 15th of December. I appreciate its tone and its content.
Several months ago we were asked to think about the Dalieh of Raoucheh site. From the beginning our client has shown an awareness of its uses, its history and its beauty, and is clearly expecting us to respect and preserve these qualities in the development of our ideas.
Since we have become involved, our research has convinced us only more of the site’s uniqueness, its importance as a public space on the Beirut coastline, and its role in the civic life of the city. The directions that we are beginning to develop do full justice to these qualities, and are compatible with the pleas expressed in your letter. It is, for instance, our intention to actually enhance public accessibility of the site. As in all our work, we are trying to preserve what works well and add only with discretion and intelligence.
I should emphasize that at this point there is in fact no project, just a series of initial explorations. If in due course a project takes shape, we look forward to continuing communication on a more concrete basis. For the time being, please know that we take your letter seriously and that we hope to together maintain a substantial conversation about the issues your letter justly raises.
Best regards,
Rem Koolhaas
Orhan, you believe that? Did you have that info when you posted this NEWS report?
Koolhaas so inspired Sanford Kwinter's visit to the Venice bienelle that Sanford covered the one slightly hidden exhibit that had some video of a 1962 Ohio police sodomy sting operation video, see Log 32 . This is a good interpretation of Koolhaas, Architecture, and Fundamentals - in essence.
See Thomas Wensing above.
Log 32 is another issue you wont want to miss.
In this issue: Ross Exo Adams questions resilience; George Baird rereads landscape urbanism; Carson Chan learns nothing from Venice; Preston Scott Cohen authors successive architecture; Cynthia Davidson lunches with Odile Decq; Reinier de Graaf & Laura Baird chart megalopoli(tic)s; Marco De Michelis traces OMA exhibitions; Tina Di Carlo notes Tschumi’s notations; Kurt W. Forster mines W.G. Sebald’s world; Luca Galofaro builds a space station; Mikhail Grinwald & Chelsea Spencer visit fungi; Jeffrey Kipnis sees affect in event theory; Gabriele Mastrigli reevaluates “Roma Interrotta”; Luke Studebaker meets Amale Andraos.
Plus: Observations on the Venice Architecture Biennale by Lili Carr, Tom Daniell, Ole W. Fischer, Mark Foster Gage, Rafael Gómez-Moriana, Alicia Imperiale, Charles Jencks with Rem Koolhaas, Dora Epstein Jones, Alfie Koetter, Sanford Kwinter, Camille Lacadée, Jennifer Ly, Kyle May, Michael Meredith, Keith Mitnick, Daniel Tudor Munteanu, Paola Nicolin, Christian Parreno, Bryony Roberts, Matt Roman, Gustavo Alonso Serafin, Laura M. Tchorz, Philip Ursprung, and Emmett Zeifman.
Chris, with all due respect, this looks like a reality tv to me (excuse my ghetto) but I will not apologize from some of the names I came in contact over the years for saying that.
This people did write funny stories and inner jokes that I like and some of them meant to be serious. Tom Wolfe could be the curator of that issue and might as well I assume that. I'll try.
Sodomy case sounds hilarious and well played, hats off to Sk. Do you have a copy you can post? I am going to put Sanford, Rem and Tom W on the comparative study, using Delirious NY, from B to our House and for Sanford's closet story he set up in Venice, the latter, I just found out from you.
As far as your question, yes sure I believe what Rem says in that article. He is not saying anything we don't know. We know whatever he can put in the program, will be done well, he would come clean. He sounds like he has some good ideas going for the project. Don't forget, even a drawing from OMA can influence an outcome there. I don't think he would risk a position by being a developer d(a)wg.
I happened to like his work after seeing Kunsthal and some Prada stores, and his large condo building in Rotterdam recently. In the past, I was helped to understand the contextually analytical and rebellious way of looking urbanism and architecture as a student via Delirious when it first came out.
Orhan I read your post twice, not sure what you are saying and you never did explain the obvious target. What was purpose of your news repost here?
obvious target (better said: news interest) was development of public lands by private interests for profit (often disproportional.) the purpose was to show this happens across the globe and in some places people take active role of try to prevent it. often these developers use well known architects to gain support for their pr and marketing. there is enough will on oma's side to surprise and i hope they/he do that. things get snatched rather fast in those places. which part of my previous comment didn't make sense to you?
This relates directly to the Paris thread, development interests using headline architects to push their private agenda. Not public land in that case but most certainly subversion of the public process.
So we are all on the same page apparently.......Orhan you were trying to use the names as I had indicated above, but doesn't make sense, this comparative study of yours, needs more substance.
Chris, except I am not unloading crap on any architect and I'm not saying you are either. I guess people detect substance when it fits their way of thinking and sometimes it's hidden in unexpected places or in development, no pun on development. It is not my fault if you can't find substance and I wasn't trying to be descriptive. There are a lot of in the know type of gossip which I am not interested. It is not my kind of a thing. I appreciate if you have Kwinter's piece handy. I like his pov.
here you go brother Orhan, but since I respect this reality TV show you call Log, I think you should buy a copy and read the thing through....
Listen i have a lot of childhood Turkish - Berlin incidents to deal with on a personal level, so if I give you a hard time, don't mind me.... It was all made up later with my Kurdish boys at City Grill in Dortmund, DE.....(2000 AD) 2 paddy wagons of Polizei, 3 Irishmen and 2 American and we got out of it! and lots of free sub salamis sandwhiches later when I showed-up with my buddy from Ghana,
My Turkish childhood dilemma, I used to skateboard and wear Starter hats and shit with my boys Ben and Frank (like the only 2 Jews of maybe a 1000 in Berlin at the time, early 90's ) and what would inevitably happen is some 10 year old Turkish kid would ask to borrow our boards or try on our hats, we would say NO, and then around the corner this kids would have cousins' and brothers and 10 other guys about 10 years older than us who would threaten us and we would skate away with angry dudes following us....
Merry Christmas and Holidays!
It is unfortunate that you have a summary judgement about Turks for a skateboard incident.
Did that post of the image work? Should I write more about?
That story (true) kind of sums up this post and the situation doesn't it? If the kids had only known we were just as foreign as they were maybe it would have played out differently. Since I've worked for and with many Turks...
You're right though, no one talked about the obvious target here. Rem is kind of like us on the skateboards....
yes write more about it.
I'll work it into a blog...some archifiction.
Also, I think you should re-post this NEWS with your Rem letter, since from my Google searches your NEWS post for this subject has received the most hits, so if anyone wanted to know what's going on and not get dragged into a architectural debate and a photo of a dude in a sodomy sting...they could learn more.
and then point out the obvious, since so many people that post here - post first and read later....others try to distract from the obvious obsessively as well.
More on the subject.
A city without a shore: Rem Koolhaas, Dalieh and the paving of Beirut's coast
A development frenzy has wiped out the natural coastline of Lebanon, replacing it with concreted marinas and upscale resorts that are off-limits to the public. Now developers have their eye on the last bit of Beirut waterfront.
via, Habib Battah in Beirut
Tuesday 17 March 2015
the Guardian
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.