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
The most annoying thing about this article is that it is built as an amusement piece: designed to be retweeted and garner comments instead of to illuminate or educate. The architects play along, as they assume the NYTimes still has credibility. The problem with that Buchanan piece above is that is subscribes to the same attitude, that all 'starchitecture' is the same preening nonsense--that is the same disregard for architecture that we see in the silly article. I don't really put Ando, Ban, or even each individual work by Zaha or Morphosis in the category of starchitecture although there are works by them that aren't great.
As long as we are operating in this new Buzzfeed territory of "Worst Architecture," or "Starchitecture," or "Brutalism" or "Utopian" instead of looking at looking at individual works, its more of the same ahead. Lange and the NYTimes know better, but this is kind of a sad symptom of the Facebook prompted content in the future.
Lightperson, I don't see how you can equate Buchanan providing a well-considered basis on which to judge architecture with the bullshit NYT piece headlined by one of the worst architects on the planet.
Buchanan's piece is exactly the kind of serious criticism that the profession desperately needs. He shreds parametricism but defends the tools as viable and powerful. He addresses not only the failings of starchitecture in whatever form but also of the modernism it is based on. The comparison of similar sized roofs - Hadid’s Aquatics Centre (6,000 tonnes of structural steel) and Hopkins' Velodrome (1,000 tonnes of structural steel) - is a tangible representation of irresponsible resource efficiency and environmental performance, factors that should be a primary components of every building in this day and age.
I'm very glad this article was written.
the idea that europeans are more intellectual is false. Most are super racist and conservative compared to americans. The accent makes them sound smart though.
and the loudest dumbest americans get the most talking time.
"The accent makes them sound smart though. " haha.. really?
So Buchanan is like Howard Beale, mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore.
Meanwhile the PR wing ie Lange plays the Faye Dunaway character.... pumping out tripe like this to "get people talking" or to mock architecture. Why interview boring Americans when those sexy Europeans with their cool accents and witty things to say. you can't complain about starchitecture when the media keeps going back to the starchitecture farm, ie Europe to build up the next thing.
Kind of like the classic Frank Lloyd Wright vs Philip Johnson battle... PJ was so entranced with the sexy rhetoric out of Europe he missed the real modernism happening in America.
Aren't there plenty of architects out there for EKE and Buchanan to like? There are many architects exploring ideas on placemaking. Ironically, I find that most traditional firms (in NYC at least) are much more interested in building fancy private spaces, not public ones. The High Line, I would imagine, is a good example of placemaking and it was designed by Diller Scofidio and Renfro. And when I dive into New Urbanism, I find so much bland and cheaply designed architecture. So I struggle with these short and fast generalizations being thrown. Especially since Buchanan has one of those smarty pants British accents.
Just got a call from a friend that read the article saying "And this is why we (the general public) think that architects are completely divorced from from public sensibility"
Lets consider for a second what the actual public sensibility is in the United States.
95% of American households own a car. 52% live in the suburbs. Median wage in the US is about $27,000. McDonald's is by far the most popular restaurant. However, Walmart is by far the most popular store. More than half of Americans visited Walmart on March 215.
The Buzzfeeding of architecture in the NYTimes
Expect more of this... More polarizing arguments and analytics driven viral pseudo critique
This article seems to act as justification for that small numbers, positioning the "top minds" as defenders of publicly hated buildings.
So which architect designed building do you hate the most, Joe Main Street? Buzz buzz buzz tweet tweet tweet. Why don't we just round up the architects and send them to a small island in the pacific
Another case of differing priorities. We will never agree on this kind of thing because we have no common understanding of what a good building is. Here are a compilation of the most cringe worthy statements in this cheerleading group.
1:Libeskind - Maybe Tour Montparnasse is not a work of genius, but it signified a notion of what the city of the future will have to be.”
2: Zaha - "There is an integrity within the design that displays a commitment to engagement and connectivity."
3: Selldorf - "Against my better judgment, I like this complex."
4: Tolla - "If somebody put this complex in front of me right now without adding any context, any history, I would consider it a really strong piece of architecture."
Can you hear the optimism and hope pouring out of these folks? The empathy for the everyday user and what is most important to their day to day existence? I actually like the Pompidou center even though it ruptures the fabric. There are many buildings that do this, and from my experience, it's visual acrobatics and colors aren't the doom and gloom you would expect from a block busting building. The airport and needle are stand alone buildings, so like them or not, they don't seem to cause much harm as they are/where needed at the time.
Just the fact that they have to try and make the public like these buildings should tell you all you need to know about how messed up our profession is. Imagine making this argument with music or any other art form. And we wonder why the AIA needs a campaign to sell our services.
Thayer, this does happen with other art forms.
I'm very optimistic quondam. I actually think it's possible to reconcile the various camps in architecture around humanism and environmentalism. I think there's room for stylistic plurality and theoretical pluralism, if we don't see every disagreement as a zero sum game.
As you know, I tend to lean towards traditional architecture in personal taste, but it's crazy to think we all must hew to one style or approach. I think where we can agree, we should, and that, for me, revolves around the human experience and leaving this world a better place for the next generation.
I believe what binds us together is much stronger than what divides us. Granted, I don't expect anyone to buy into a stupid platitude like that one, but if we can create a more tolerant middle ground for exploring ideas that might cross ideological boarders, it will be for good.
Isn't it interesting that the so-called cheerleaders are the ones who are most tolerant of the diversity of contemporary architecture. They appreciate architecture culture broadly. They don't use urban planning as a weapon against particular styles. They don't wish to squash any particular style.
The cheerleaders are also biased towards newness, because they operate in the realm of mutations and not refinement ... evolution requires both random and rapid mutation followed by a slower selection process that refines things or makes them extinct. Mutations do not always/ever contain 100% desirable traits...
quondam,
Your right about there being stylistic and theoretical pluralism...that's the marketplace. But you're wrong about my desire that people see our education as a modernist monopoly because that's clear to anyone who can see.
As for most work not being done by architects, hasn't that always been the case? Regardless, architects exert a strong influence on what get's built by non architects. If McKim Mead and White did a nice train station, then a train depot in Weehawken New Jersey by builders would have an echo of it's elegance and civic importance, only because the MKMW building would have been recognized as the standard. The same goes for today. After the first 100 perfectly done glass office buildings by Mies and his followers, builders and developers got the signal that all they need to do is spread a glass grid on the façade and it will pass as architecture. Now it's hard to tell the difference between many random streets in our downtowns. This kind of anonymity and banality is noticed by many people you would never think to ask. Even popular music sings about it from Joni Mitchell to the Pretenders. (I'm oldish)
BTW, I don't think being untaught modernism is the key...that's silly. The key is getting schools to acknowledge the pluralism that even you readily admit exists without prejudice. And don't get me wrong, there are 1,000 things more important than designing buildings that people will love, but I can't help thinking about so many people I've met who react viscerally to their environment, be that consciously or not.
That's what I was trying to point out in the quotes I picked out. The lowering of our standards to a Montparnasse tower, because we "have to". Or liking something "against my better judgment" when acknowledging how inhumane something is. Or arguing that if you looked at architecture divorced from it's context and history, it would be really great. This kind of thinking is unnecessary, even if developers are greedy and many other factors that are out of our control. That being said, I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. As jla-x says, evolution requires mutations, so we need to allow for experimentation while ensuring base level competence. Too much to ask for, some days it sure feels like it.
Peace.
I'm not sure you're the one to talk about negativity quondam. My point of view is shared by many though who work from a positive point of view rather than a negative one. Was Jane Jacobs negative when fighting Robert Moses? Classic NIMBY right? Please don't get discouraged by my wishing for a nicer environment, one worth preserving. Here are more folks expressing their negativity about the general lousiness of our built environment.
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/lords-voice-support-for-greater-architecture-training/8666683.article
If you'd rather not go on a downer trip, here's a sample of what the article says...
"For too long we have suffered cities and housing estates made fit for the motor car and thereby also made polluted, dangerous and ugly for people to walk in and children to play in."
Keep hope alive :)
Quondam, I'd respect your opinion more if you didn't force your neon colored computer drawings on everyone. I'm sorry that never took off for you (thus quondam?), but there's no need to be so bitter.
Here's an article on the same buildings in question. The author is one of the many who hold my opinion, the one schools don't recognize and the one you're trying to stifle. Typical neo-con drivel.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/06/08/daniel_libeskind_zaha_hadid_norman_foster_defend_the_world_s_most_hated.html
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.