Can the field’s top minds change the way we think about a doomed housing project in Naples or the most abhorred skyscraper in Paris? Allow them to try. — The New York Times
Zaha Hadid, Norman Foster, Annabelle Selldorf, and (everyone's favorite) Daniel Libeskind are among the architects who sum up their thoughts on some of the most controversial buildings around the world. What's your take on these projects?
More:
Zaha Hadid, Piers Gough, other leading cultural figures criticize Heatherwick's London Garden Bridge
Frick Collection drops controversial expansion plan
Frank Lloyd Wright house causes controversy in wealthy Phoenix neighborhood
Developer wants to re-use and trademark the 5Pointz name for their new residential towers
70 Comments
...we have no choice but to build good high-rise buildings that are affordable.
What does he mean by this?
An article like this is spectacularly bad PR for the profession. This is astonishingly tone-deaf.
is the pompidou really one of the most hated buildings in the world? my experience would suggest otherwise.
who said these were the most hated? was it one of those surveys in the baptist church bulletin looking for opinions on a possible expansion?
don't see why it's tone-deaf or bad PR. more like another nail in the coffin of journalism.
people like paul rudolph too
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111007/OPINION/110070350/-1/OPINION02
The fact that they led off with Libeskind defending Tour Montparnasse is telling. My favorite part:
“It’s legendary for being the most hated building in Paris. I want to defend it not because it’s a particularly beautiful tower, but because of the idea it represents. Parisians panicked when they saw it..."
He goes on to make a bogus argument about sustainability, but the truth is he likes it because it has defiled the skyline of Paris. That's what he's about.
I think this article is both good journalism and bad PR for the profession. It's good journalism because it gives people a good look under the hood to see what makes the avant-garde tick. And it's bad PR for exactly the same reason.
The Pompidou Center is beautiful. Dont care what anyone says. The others...not sure they are the most hated buildings, I probably would say the local "jack in the box" is worse than even Hitlers personal sex dungeon, but anyway, these crappy-mediocre buildings are not in the same category as the pompidou...
Its actually very easy to find people in this country who are ideologically opposed to buildings that don't sufficiently pay homage to old european architectural styles.
This article is actually a example of good architectural journalism. It acknowledges architectural conservatism (which is widespread) and addresses the divide between it and the top of the profession. Instead of a split-the-difference "both sides are right" approach favored by Goldberger and Kimmelman, this small piece directly confronts a major contraction in architecture culture. We're living in a strange time where a huge portion of the public is deeply suspicious of experts and yet we still have experts because, of course, they are enormously important to our culture and serve as torchbearers for the history of their professions.
Monuments, if you trace their ancestry, can reveal disturbing things about the past. Nonetheless, they have enduring qualities which, viewed on their own merits, are perhaps an example to us.”
not that i'm a huge fan of norman foster, but this is a really good quote (in regards to hitler's sex dungeon).
in our other discussions about what architecture is and architecture should be beautiful art and inspire feeling and whatnot, tempelhof pretty much nailed it. sure, if you need to see gargoyle to think something is well done, this misses your criteria. but world's most hated buildings? come on. it's an amazing building that has the permanent and metaphysical qualities of the most important buildings in history. just maybe not the period of history you like.
it's not a starbucks. if you hate it, maybe it's just because you have too much hate?
So... should the general public just blithely go along with anything that the leading avant-garde architects come with? Do we need to bless everything that the "experts" come up with, or do we get to question it? If the "experts" are so expert at things, why is it that there is such a "divide between it and the top of the profession."
Davvid.. do you think that Paris is a better place because of Tour Montparnasse? Do you think that there might be some good reasons that people are suspicious of "experts"?
BTW... the "gargoyle" comment was a nice, snarky touch. I laughed.
EKE, What do you think the role of experts is in our society? And what should the relationship between experts and non-experts be?
Should it be adversarial?
Why even have museums? Or history books? Who do curators and historians think they are? Don't they realize that everything is subjective?
^ well, you are conflating appreciation and Liking. You can appreviate without liking and vica versa. Popularity is a poor measure of value, but a good measure of likability...The gap between these 2 things has grown enormously in recent years...At one time popularity had some connection with value, but in this "keeping up with the Kardashian, Katy perry world we live in....I mean, you can like Doritos, but can you appreciate them as a piece of culinary art? You may not Like Some fancy dish made by some top chef with clams and goose liver but you can appreciate it for its effort and craft....All art eventually seems to diverge from likability prefering to seek value through appreciation...Simultaniously, pop seems to emerge seeking likability while not warranting any appreciation due to its lack of depth, skill, care...
Im not really sure whether likability or appreciation is a more significant measure of value...but having both would be nice, as it is becoming increasingly rare...The Beatles were probably most sucessful at reaching both at extreme levels...
And of course you have Nature...But even then some people look at a snake and say "ewww gross smash it..."
should the general public just blithely go along with anything that the leading avant-garde architects come with?
that's not relevant to this conversation or the article. i think. maybe it is, but if so i'm missing the point.
i'm pretty sure the general public does like the pompidou. i don't get to travel and see the world much, but i did manage to go there, and there were lots of nice french people and everyone seemed to enjoy doing whatever it is they were doing in and around the building.
i believe the journalist who said the pompidou or the orange county government center are among the most hated buildings in the world was wrong. it is an inaccurate statement to build the piece on. i'm sure there are some people who don't like those buildings, but i don't think that is a common opinion held by the public. perhaps the journalist who wrote the piece didn't like those buildings, so they just assumed noone else liked them.
I agree with curt here...Where exactly is the study that proves that these are the "most hated"
Until I see that, this article has about as much credability as Joan Rivers "worst dressed" list.
I agree, Curt. That is an inaccurate statement, and was certainly designed to be sensationalistic click-bait.
I would say that Pompidou and the Orange County building are probably much, much more popular among architects than non-architects. In my experience, Tour Montparnasse is an embarrassment to the French. I have been to Paris many times, and nobody I have met likes it. It's literally like a black scar on the skyline.
"What do you think the role of experts is in our society? And what should the relationship between experts and non-experts be?
Should it be adversarial?"
I think that the proper role of experts in architecture is to contribute to the creation of beautiful and humane buildings, places, towns and cities that are loved by the people that experience them. In order to do that, they need to find ways to engage the taste of the majority of people, without pandering to it. They need to provide reasons for people to want the architecture they create to be the way it is. This is a very difficult thing to do, and the avant-garde has basically stopped trying.
Why even have museums? Or history books? Who do curators and historians think they are? Don't they realize that everything is subjective?
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I don't think "everything is subjective". Far from it.
Let's have some fun with this... what do you say? Which of the "most hated buildings" in the article is your favorite?
I'll go first: Berlin Tempelhof
It's bleak and forbidding as hell, but it has good rational classical bones, and a certain structural logic I like. If it just had a few gargoyles...
I loved this article, despite the use of "hated" in the headline, which is clearly used for shock value. These are buildings that are not understood. The architects each do an excellent job of explaining the context of their admiration for the buildings. They discuss the social tenor of the times, the goals of the architects in designing them, the mistakes and what we've learned. The whole article illuminates the notion, so close to architects, that buildings are not just individual artsy objects that spring forth from the ego of a single human but are representative of complex social, cultural, and economic forces.
Asking one of the world's worst architects this question is somehow fitting, but I'd make a new list starting with these:
Donna wrote: "The whole article illuminates the notion, so close to architects, that buildings are not just individual artsy objects that spring forth from the ego of a single human but are representative of complex social, cultural, and economic forces."
I agree with this. Buildings are complex, and often reflect complex systemic structures.
But I get a little queasy when I hear architects say things like, "These buildings are not understood". I don't think that a building should need to be "understood" in the sense you are describing. I think a building should be able to appeal to people without special inside knowledge. If they are able to peak behind the curtain, and get a special understanding of the complexities underlying the design, that's great. If that understanding gives them further reasons to want the building to be the way it is, that's great. That's what great architecture is. But I don't think that it's great architecture if it loses the layperson at "hello". Architects may love it, but that's not enough.
The Pompidou is very popular, and all the negative criticism from back in the day seems to have washed out.
What is Daniel Libeskind smoking?
"I think that the proper role of experts in architecture is to contribute to the creation of beautiful and humane buildings, places, towns and cities that are loved by the people that experience them. In order to do that, they need to find ways to engage the taste of the majority of people, without pandering to it. They need to provide reasons for people to want the architecture they create to be the way it is. "
I'm starting to see it Curtkram's way now. If thats what you think the role of an expert should be in Architecture, they're already doing that. Zaha Hadid's or Frank Gehry's approach, for example, has broad appeal.
Zaha Hadid's or Frank Gehry's approach, for example, has broad appeal.
Did you get that from a NYT poll? Cartoon architecture notwithstanding.
Aside from that, their approaches to architecture are largely if not exclusively formulaic.
Miles,
I'm sorry. I don't understand what your point is.
nice cherry picking ellipsis, eke. Danny's point is perfectly fine and perfectly valid and perfectly simple. Stop your 'avant garde enjoys making people panic' routine. You're such a horror show.
eke, to pick my favorite, i might go with Tour Montparnasse.
words like 'hate' and 'scar the landscape' are not wasted on this building as they are on the others. i don't know why you don't like rudolph's building, but i understand why you don't like this one.
sometimes something so destructive can be beautiful. it's like bdsm or 50 shades of gray. not my thing btw, just in case that comes up in the future. i think of it more like the death star, but 50 shades is probably a more appropriate pop culture reference.
this building is passionate. it's destructive. it's just crazy and powerful. couldn't that represent the french people better than pei's pyramid, an imported obelisk, or the arc du triumph? who say's 'oh, you're french. you're redundant and typical?'
boy in the well: do you have any doubt that this is what Libeskind is all about?
"You're such a horror show" ??? Really? That's the most childish thing I've read in a long time. How about we talk about grown up stuff and stop calling people names?
this list has 2 buildings in NY, and none of them is penn station/MSG? What a ridiculous selection of hated architecture. Kind of an oddly curated selection of architects anyway.
Libeskind's defence of the Montparnasse is pretty reasonable and quite relevant to the situation today in San Francisco and many other cities. We do need buildings, somewhere...
Libeskind is saying that the only sustainable urban architecture is high rise buildings. I don't think that's true, or reasonable.
"eke, to pick my favorite, i might go with Tour Montparnasse"
You're saying that just to Irritate me, huh? :)
"Redundant and typical".
Is that how you see Paris? Have you been to Paris?
panties in a bunch eke?
yes, i've lived in paris multiple times.
im just not really interested in hearing you spew more 'modernism is antihuman nihilism of hate' kinda stuff.
and you purposely shaped your quote to make it look like Danny is celebrating making people panic, which is what you think he's all about, and which isnt at all what he said.
good night
EKE, maybe not true, but at least interesting to talk about. Why is it that new cities don't get built at the same density as historic cities unless there are high rises? I suspect people simply have greater expectations in terms of outdoor space, parking and vehicle access, and house size. It doens't make sense to me to imagine there is some kind of global cabal of modernist architects deciding these things - presumably modern building patterns are an expression of some underlying cultural preferences. Perhaps to undesirable effect.
"panties in a bunch eke?"
Nah... Just used to discussing ideas with adults who can disagree without resorting to name calling. Should have learned by now to recalibrate by expectations. My bad.
I think that it's economics, and architects are only too ready to pander to it, if there are fees and publication and accolades from other architects to be had, the city and human beings be damned. That's why city planning is so important. Speaking of "horror show", look at Abu Dhabi or Beijing. They are the very embodiment of the steel and glass sustainable paradise Libeskind wants to turn Paris into.
" That's why city planning is so important." So that people who don't like contemporary architecture can impose their preferences for historical new urbanist bullshit.
really, name calling? would you like to attack my punctuation next?
and you think your cheap deliberately misleading rhetoric is somehow acceptable or contributes to a conversation about ideas?
give me a fucking break. i cant imagine a reason to have a discussion with someone who writes that kind of shit. you cant even refute the point.
"field’s top minds" ... Zaha, Foster... Perhaps the most well-known to the NYC design twitterati.
Alexandra Lange must be the Times' go to now for dopey, Buzzfeed garbage. Suits her talents well.
This article is catnip for the usual architects are all misanthropes trying to ruin the world with their garbage ideas crowd (except for Bjarke of course, he's so creative and cute!)
Can't wait for the next NYTimes column, "You won't believe how these cats react to pictures of the Villa Savoye," though perhaps Kimmelman will piggy back off of that and go with "You won't believe how these Hatian, stray cats raised in the bosom of the Frick garden react to pictures of the Villa Savoye while gently cradled by a feminist architect while being underpaid by an evil white male architect."
Really, the media can stop lecturing architects about what they should and shouldn't do if this the only coverage is between listicles and crowning the next starchitect.
I've never called anyone on this board an unpleasant name that wasn't their real name. I never would. Just my nature, I guess. It would never occur to me to be rude in that way.
Anyway, I've thought about your complaint about my editing of the Libeskind quote, and you are right. It wasn't fair to him. He was making a primary point about sustainability. More on that in a moment.
I do believe that his architecture is in fact about shock, defilement, disruption and violation. He seems to do it at almost every opportunity. So I have no doubt that he enjoys the fact that Montparnasse is a big FU to the skyline of Paris. It's entirely in his nature to see things that way.
Back to his central thesis. I think he couldn't be more wrong. Central Paris is one of the densest cities on the earth. I would bet that La Defense (the district outside the core city, where all the skyscrapers are) is in fact less dense than the Paris core. And central Paris is pedestrian oriented, humane and beautiful. I haven't seen any statistics on the relative densities, but I'd bet that I'm right.
Actually...never mind. Libeskind is an "expert".
I suppose if someone doesn't like Zaha Hadid, they won't really care what she thinks about the Goshen building. But for those who do appreciate Zaha Hadid's architecture and insight, her opinion matters.
The Archinect comment section tends to promote a very America-centric group of architects...
Since we're betting, I'd bet that Libeskind is more of an expert than EKE.
Her opinion matters, even if she is wrong.
Archinect comment section tends to promote a very America-centric group of architects...
Why is it that all of the "fields top minds" are European? In the New York Times?
I don't know, why is it that the design intelligencia (in America) always looks to Europe as the fields "top minds." And yet in Europe they are still fighting old battles vs. international style modernism and things like that, things that are mostly irrelevant elsewhere in America and Asia that don't have the same issues.
"Why is it that all of the "fields top minds" are European? In the New York Times?"
I think its because the NYTimes tends toward a more international viewpoint.
"why is it that the design intelligencia (in America) always looks to Europe as the fields "top minds."
I'm not part of the global "design intelligentsia" but I suspect its because the US tends to be too anti-intellectual, and too little of anything else. The world used to look to the US for unrefined trends related to capitalism, but now there are so many places in the world to find that in its purest form. We could have Learning from Macau or Delirious Dubai.
If you brought a European to the US, what would you take them to see that shows what the US architecture/design culture is about in 2015?
Experts.
http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/empty-gestures-starchitectures-swan-song/8679010.article
^ Excellent article.
Peter Buchanan is a very smart man. I like his idea of describing parametric starchitecture as what Marshall McLuhan calls a "sunset effect".
Also by Buchanan - Place and Aliveness:
http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/the-big-rethink-part-7-place-and-aliveness-pattern-play-and-the-planet/8633314.article
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.