To understand how strange this pairing of client and architect is, you have to contemplate two things: the deeply embedded social progressivism that has become the standard worldview of international architectural firms such as BIG; and organizations such as the NFL, a private club for 1 percenters that bullies municipalities and treats its own players’ health with indifference. Can this marriage last? Is BIG motivated by naivete or cynicism? — The Washington Post
WaPo's art and architecture critic Philip Kennicott discusses the oddities of BIG's recent commission to design a new stadium for the Washington Redskins — and the team's problematic name is just the tip of the iceberg.
More on Archinect:
Bjarke Ingels Group, BIG, tackles NFL stadium design for the Washington Redskin
Herzog & de Meuron's stadium in Chelsea "will be a hefty brute of a thing"
76 Comments
BIG is chasing after big money. That's it. This critic is naive.
"NFL, a private club for 1 percenters that bullies municipalities and treats its own players’ health with indifference. "
talk about stupid assessment of reality, over the top, media gibberish....
not polo
talk about bad writing and horrible metaphors and analysis and peer pressure in thought creation.
Why politics and architecture can be amusingly stupid!
"Architecture is by its nature a self-critical enterprise. But too many architects don’t ask the most difficult question of all: Does this building absolutely need to be built? Firms that espouse lofty social goals as part of their basic organizational DNA have a harder time justifying projects that are egregiously wasteful, and associations that are morally compromising."
talk about reaching for straws as a critic -
"But the NFL isn’t a client that BIG should be proud of. If the firm is indeed working for the Redskins, it makes one even more nervous about what will happen at the Smithsonian. With BIG on board, there was hope that some smart people would be at the Smithsonian table. Now, it looks as though those same smart people will be bringing a lot of cynicism to the mix, as well." whut!
Sure I make fun of BIG a lot, in jest, naturally, but this guy writes for the Washington Post and won a Pullitzer.
I could write a better and more clickable piece on art and architecture in 7 words:
I have to agree with both No_form and Olaf on this.
Architecture in private sector is about finding the next pay check to stay in business. It's business. BIG seeks big money because they are a firm with employees to pay their paychecks so they seek pay.
The business of architecture is first and foremost about getting paid not idealism.
Idealism is for kids. Real world is about finding compromises from individual ideals and finding an equilibrium. It's a (rather large) bread and butter project that brings money to BIG and keep BIG's workforce working and with this and other projects, keeps BIG's employees happily or unhappily paid (the theory goes).
It's just business and one that is likely going to bring a healthy chunk of change as it is a large and expensive project.
If architects were ONLY doing projects that meets their own narrow high idealism, they wouldn't be in business for long.
Architects don't get paid for not designing something. Architects aren't in business to suggest clients, clients with money, not to 'build' (I'm using it loosely to include new construction and renovation) because they don't get paid because they won't be designing anything. If we aren't designing, we aren't getting paid. Well... designing in a loose sense to include master planning, specifications, space planning, exterior/interior & structural designing, etc. Lets not nitpick technicality of my terms used but the essence of my point.
BOTTOM LINE IS THIS IS JUST BUSINESS.
this is a country where a majority black city is currently being poisoned by its government. devoting print space to BIG and the washington redskins just shows how fucked up our think-piece industry is.
Wow Olaf - that Blink 182 reference could be in a rest home by now!
Bench that's Blink 182 citing George Carlin - I was thinking Carlin (the guy who came up with it, see reference link) , but here's your Blink 182
Family Reunion
Balkin's post made more sense than this Pullitzer guy's article. I'm serious.
This is just a bad mish mash of shit, like Dangermouse's post, which is absolutely acceptable and standard on a Forum.
It's not hard to make any narrative work in the media, just like wikipedia, connect the dots, tell us how you really feel and you're done. You can be a journalist too!
Ideologies can be bullshit - did Blink 182 do a song on this?
Very good piece by Kennicott, there are simple truths here. Then again, I'm not a rabid fan blinded to basic reality. To say that many architects are ethically challenged is no great leap.
New stadiums are a terrible investment for everyone but the team owners, and the boondoggle of securing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to seal the deal is an egregious wealth redistribution to some of this country’s richest families. The league shows no gratitude or loyalty to cities that are stupid enough to pony up, as this month’s decision to move the Rams from St. Louis to a new stadium in Los Angeles demonstrates (yet again)
...
For more than two decades, the league minimized and dismissed a growing medical consensus about the impact of head injuries. In 2013, it settled a lawsuit filed by former players for $765 million, declaring, “There was no recognition that anything was caused by football,” in the words of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.
...
Architects aren’t saints. They serve power, and always have. And BIG has served some shady patrons in the past. Different firms negotiate the ethical challenges of serving the corrupt and cruel differently. Some see themselves as merely providers of a technical service and don’t claim any particular ethical high ground. Too many overestimate their own powers, and they assuage any concerns about the client with the moral fable that someone has to build the building, so better that it be built right.
The critic is right to address what seems to be an inconsistently applied set of progressive values.
Architecture is certainly a business, but so is News and medicine and law. Reputation and values matter a great deal in some types of business.
The piece probably isn't going to resonate in Architecture circles online. Most of the archi-internet trolls who rail against BIG are bro-y second rate architects who probably work primarily for developers and don't even see a problem with the team's racist name in the first place.
As opposed to the bro-y second rate architect fan boys who worship at BIG's feet?
There are maybe two BIG fan boys and they rarely comment.
"Bjark is the worst starchitect ever. I hate him. I want to bitch smack him and Kanye simultaneously. That would make me happy." - jla-x
The WaPost critic is made some good points. There does seem to be hypocrisy in Ingles promoting progressive values in Europe but catering to super rich in NY and Asia. He just tweeted about a possible presidential run by Mike Bloomberg. #FeelTheBern
Just too much focus on the wrong bad guys.
davvid,
News and ethics..... LOL.
what Carrera said.
RickB-OP, I'm listening to On The Media right now. Are you familiar with that program? Its pretty damn good.
Miles - if he had made an effort to explain the stadium vs city thing a little more and a little less strange ass Smithsonian consideration, the article might be more appropriate.
Its just a bad piece of journalism.
Who owns the Green Bay Packers?
I guess he was trying to link Bjarke to 1% assholes who, say, screw St. Louis out of anotehr NFL team?
I like what he said about the design strategy, regarding making it a venue used for more than 10 days a year, etc. that would be a plus. Sports is a necessary spectacle, always has been, but it is unhealthy that owners are demanding gobs of public money with blackmail demands. What is wrong with the existing stadium? Why does every city need a new Billion Dollar complex?
The red flags go off again when Ingels says he will make the sport "safer." How exactly? Is he redesigning the game? It undermines everything else.
The name and logo don't really offend me as much as media hype gone too far. After all of this talk, I bet BIG designs another gimmicky terraced building. My problem with BIG has always been its process: tweetable PR architecture one-liners. Kennicott sees cynicism in the politics, I see it in the process.
Criticism of BIG seemed lacking until lately, glad it exists somewhere. To me there was a big shift when BIG moved to NYC and stopped wearing comic book shirts and went full blown Wall St. There is a clear difference between old BIG (Danish Eco-OMA protege) and new BIG (douchey GOP-whisperer). Surprised Kennicott said anything since most other DC critics are on the BIG "payroll."
Here's a good related article about media hype gone too far:
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/theranos-scandal-exposes-the-problem-with-techs-hype-cycle/
"Theranos is a cautionary tale of what happens when that mentality creeps into sectors other than software, such as medicine"
Criticism of BIG seemed lacking until lately, glad it exists somewhere.
but Nate, this piece sucked, liked really sucked by Kennicott. I write better stuff drunk on Archinect.
Nate that is a good article, and Kennicott's criticism is the equivalent.
The internet is not the real world. Just because you can think it and get someone to believe it, which BIG does well, doesn't mean anything. see my George Carlin link on Ideologies....
The critic is maybe assuming that his readers are familiar with the history of public subsides for stadiums, player mental health issues and the controversy around the Redskins' racist name.
"I write better stuff drunk on Archinect." No you don't.
davvid he is assuming too much and mainly based on recent pop culture hype.
not all pro teams screw the city - see my Green Bay Packer link
and 99.9% of all people who play football know the risks and accept them.
the Redskin name, well that self-explanatory and obvious and not really distorted through media.
I disagree Davvid, that was a shit article if I ever saw one.
Dangermouse's post made more sense and seemed more rational.
closing lines by Kennicott sound high or drunk -
Now, it looks as though those same smart people will be bringing a lot of cynicism to the mix, as well.
I would have preferred if the criticism linked the political and architecture.... BIGs recent work is really awful, especially the High Line project. Seems more likely than ever to go for simplistic, cheap, arch moves: twisting building, etc. I'd bet all of the populist talk gets lost once the zany rendering is released.
Notice how OMA is doing thoughtful preservation projects now--Rem must be horrified by what he created.
from one of the comments on the news link
"Again - WOW. Phillip Kennicott, how many martinis went into this "reporting?""
The Packers' cooperative model is the ideal, in my opinion. Its the only example of its kind and current NFL rules prevent another team from adopting this model. A new team can have a maximum of 32 owners.
Well Kennicott is right--cynicism seems to be at the heart of BIG. But how do people just realize that now? I mean, why the cheesy unpeeling move for the smithsonian--it's just such a cheap thing to do. You don't really need to look at the politics, look at the design.
"I would have preferred if the criticism linked the political and architecture."
I don't see how thats possible.
I wonder if BIG sends the PR hounds after Kennicott. I bet he is promising scoops to other DC reporters that bash him.
Nate, is about Design or Politics?
The design is the politics. But according to the media (and BIG), the politics is the design. That's deep yall.
I actually think the problem is with Media, BIG is just a symptom of a disease.
My question is, why are companies and organizations that do have good/community-based values not creating great architecture? If we don't like that Hadid and Ingles do work for shady corporate clients, we need to somehow change that. Why don't we have more amtrak stations, schools or libraries designed by great firms? There are so many high profile public projects being scooped up by KPF, HOK, SOM or other lesser corporate firm across the country and most of these project end up looking mediocre.
Check out this piece of shit library design in Brooklyn:
by BHC Architects
^Ill venture a guess--wealth has been concentrated away from the middle class and to a few. Architecture thereby becomes a tool for the wealthy only--though in a heavily branded money laundering shell of its former self.
"Architecture" used to be a public value but now it's only in the hands of a few. Popular media used to cover the Frank Lloyd Wrights... Now it's a bread and circus away from things that matter. OMAs work is even more interesting in this context as they have been critical of this...look at their US work: libraries, performing arts, prada, university
IDK BIG has a new school design that is almost great, but just can't let go of the stacking gimmick. Prefer architecture that has depth...
"Architecture" used to be a public value but now it's only in the hands of a few.” – Not true, it’s in the hands of 225,429 licensed architects in the U.S., problem is 98% of them don’t know how to run with a ball....don't blame the wealthy, blame the architects that bend over for them...doctors deal with quacks, architects give their quacks a pass. Too many architects killing patients….they should be writing about the epidemic.
^ 98% of everything is shit. The question is: do only 2% know the difference?
Nate, the OMA/BIG case is an interesting one to me.
I've never felt that any of Rem's pessimism and on point observations were things he believed and would design by, and everything I've read from Renier de Graaf is good shit.
In a way, maybe what you may be suggesting, BIG is OMA stripped of this criticism that OMA brings to projects of the same type.
but this article was bad and frankly if you're looking to take BIG down, this article was embarassing.
davvid, your example is nothing more than the D, or F team in a big firm whipping out shit overnight, because clients just go to big firms because of name. I love when I find a client who asks if we're a small shop because the big firm partner just meets and hands if off.
^^ It’s not that they don’t “know” it’s that they can’t “do”….a profession of order-takers….you have to lead in order for clients to follow.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses” – Henry Ford
^^ Of course 98% of architects think their shit doesn't stink. I was talking about the public.
Davvid, BIG does garbage work. I am pretty confident that the top 10% of any M-arch program could out design them. I am not easily amused by shiny things like some people.
jla-x, This line about a building looking like a student project is a standard attack. But we know that it takes more than a student mentality to prevent the process of consensus building and value engineering from dragging a project into the toilet. Thats the skill that most firms lack. Look at what gets built around NYC or Chicago. I'm not talking about the starchitect projects. Look at the condos going up in Long Island City or Downtown Brooklyn or Jersey City, for example. Look at the mediocre public buildings (NYC actually has a growing collection of impressive ones) that get built across the US. Those generic uninspired buildings are probably being designed by well-educated architects who know better, but when their "tastes" meet the realities of the industry, the result is often generic. You attack BIG all the time, and you overstate their flaws. I really think that your beef with BIG is personal. You don't like the man. There are so many firms doing dull work, yet you take on the enemy that you can name. Maybe you're not "amused" by shiny things but you're clearly drawn to them, otherwise you'd be talking about the vast amount of dull non-celebrity work.
Actually you are wrong. I rant all the time about elevating the everyday. Most architecture is really really bad...but that's a whole separate discussion. A food critic comparing top trending restaurants in nyc does not include Taco Bell in that debate.
It shouldn't be a separate discussion. The reason it shouldn't be a separate discussion is because there isn't a Taco Bell equivalent in Architecture. When you separate firms that get a lot of press from firms that don't get press, you're being a victim of the hype. Accountability cuts both ways. The library design that I posted is by a firm that can't be called the "Taco Bell" of Architects. Its just a firm that, for whatever reason, isn't delivering the level a quality that the community deserves.
The only reason we talk about BIG is because Bjarke is a marketing god--his retroactive manifestos are on point. His architecture is fine.
People cannot seem to unpack the architecture from the marketing. Thus we get people like Kennicott, who should know better, writing about a firm that is an image marketing machine first and an architecture studio second.
If anyone wants a proper takedown of Bjarke just lookup his discussion with preston cohen @ the GSD.
If BIG can use the power of sport make the residents of adjacent ward 7 get excited about all the noise and traffic on game days while the tax money goes to ward 8 first- that will be amazing. They hated the traffic then, and a large "Cowboys-scale" stadium won't help. Good luck to them. If BIG can use the power of design to make a Cowboys sized stadium look like it is something more that a pig with parsley- more power to them.
Blame Vincent Grey for this circus. He was desperate to get the football team back in RFK during his re-election run to increase usage. It was only made worse by the impending departure of the MLS team with the construction of a shiny new purpose built stadium near the navy yards (read:near the nats) and their failed Olympic bid.
The OMA twist is an interesting one given that they are under contract to complete a mixed use masterplan for the RFK site. An alternative site would be on Anacostia, across the river from the nats and united. You'd only need to walk across a fancy new bridge park being designed by OMA to get there...
^yeah was just thinking about OMAs RFK proposal ... Wonder if BIG co-opted the mixed use idea? seems like a part of all of the projects, perhaps as a selling point for tax funds. Seems better than yet another Jerryland. (snyderland?) I'm sure BIGs rendering will produce the required lapse of civic judgement away from a OMAs better plan.
I would seriously wonder about building a new stadium from scratch when the NFL might not be around in 8 years. Unless Pete Carrolls Rugby style tackling catches on (though a bit wishful thinking at game speeds). Bjarke to the rescue!
None of you guessed. Maybe BIG is trying to pave his way into this market with big opportunities. Good call Mr. B, teach these animals some moves! Instead of yapping about how bad BIG is, why don't you trash your tv and not be such beer sucking fan, supporting the consumers of real bad architecture you normally hate.
Do you guys have double standards? Don't support NFL racket before they buy into modern, sustainable, good looking houses that you approve or design for them. Get to work. The market obviously exists. Think about it before rushing into call me an idiot and understand my point.
* I changed my name again. Trolls like me (or you) use this technic often.
Hey, even better link you can just scroll to see the masterpieces of waste!
http://www.worldlifestyle.com/trending/mansions-owned-nfl-players?all=1
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.