Long-time Archinector and reliably sane commentator Will Galloway joins us from his base in Tokyo to discuss the weekly news, including his interview with Assemble, crucially taking place mere weeks before they won the Turner Prize. While news from Bjarke Ingels Group commanded the feistiest comment threads this week – with renderings of BIG's spiraling Hudson Yards tower provoking debate over craft in skyscrapers, and the firm being selected to design the Serpentine Pavilion for 2016 in their last last eligible year – recent news included big wins for firms both star-studded and unknown. MoMA PS1 named Escobedo Solíz Studio as the 2016 winner of its Young Architects Program, for their "Weaving the Courtyard" submission, while Dame Zaha Hadid received her RIBA Gold Medal (the first woman to win solo). Lastly, for you planning wonks, we throw in a brief discussion of a controversial proposed ballot measure to halt big developments in Los Angeles.
Listen to episode 52 of Archinect Sessions, "What's the Big Deal‽":
Shownotes:
Donna and Amelia's interview with Elizabeth Timme on Archinect Sessions #13
Paul and Amelia's interview with Bjarke Ingels on Archinect Sessions #14
Granby Workshop, one of Assemble's projects mentioned by Will
Sou Fujimoto's design for the Serpentine Pavilion
63 Comments
Chris, Most people are not seeing his salesmanship as a breach of his responsibility to the public...That's the problem with dishonest marketecture...Its all about selling development by selling a false sense of social consciousness. Like some gated communitu selling a false sense of security or "family values." It's a mingling of architecture with marketing. I don't think Most 20th century architects saw their work as marketing/branding/graphic design...they carried themselves more as scientists and artists...this is very different, and imo very shitty. I'm having a hard time seeing why you are defending this behavior. Business is business is fine and dandy, but when something is shady expect criticism...and when the architecture lacks depth, shallow criticism is inevitable.
He said "Hedonistic Sustainability" not me. And if it is not your problem but your opinion and right, that's fine too. In the light of all the stuff being built in NY, why people are so offended by Bjarke? I haven't been in NY for a while, who's doing good work there? I haven't really seen any in the media that is so much better than some other ones. With all the picture posting around, can anyone lead me to a great hi-rise condo in Manhattan? I am just curious. Maybe I don't know as much as you guys know what's good what's bad. I don't really care for much of it anyway.
jla-x what I would be defending philosophically is that BIG, as you somewhat put it - is their blind optimism for living in "today" - they offer a way to live in modern day society with a positive attitude (regardless of how sane and fair that may be to the rest of humanity).
Orhan - we can have the media report about the architecture for us, no?
also i was suggesting - the low brow debate and criticism for BIG is well within the debate BIG and the media has framed. more is fun, etc.... oddly enough "asshat" or a version thereof gets applied to Zaha and Schumacher who actually offer at least a "intellectual" body of text to debate around, but most people prefer going the "asshat" route or "politics"........in short the debating or lack there of around BIGs work is framed by them - Bjarke.
Architecture is pop culture.
Architecture isn't pop culture or a catchphrase. Architecture is life. I'm amazed at the cynicism and anti-intellectualism of those that belittle and say "you're jealous" to those that hope for a better design in our built world, even if they are designed by corporations or whomever. BIG and Gage both seem like the wrong responses, but that's my opinion. There does seem to be a split between young architects (generally don't like the work), older architects (don't seem to care much at all) and media people many of whom seem to be close to the firm (and love controversy and comments). It appears the new virtues of architecture are not firmness, commodity and delight but branded, narrative, and marketable.
"It appears the new virtues of architecture are not firmness, commodity and delight but branded, narrative, and marketable."
other towers being built in NYC, just a few with big names behind them...
111 WEST 57TH STREET
520 PARK AVE
16 WEST 40TH STREET
432 PARK AVE
11 MURRAY STREET
56 LEONARD STREET
branded, narrative, and marketable.
Sounds like pop culture to me.
To me this building warrants the same depth of criticism as any of those "what style is my house" threads because it is clearly coated in a load of faux bullshit.
I find all of the above examples (from H&deM to Stern to Chipperfield to...) to be beautiful, much more so than the nasty Gage tower or a clunky BIG design. Wierd, guess all hope isn't lost. Rich people must still have good taste! Perhaps I find BIG and Gage's work to be very clunky and faux-populist, not really the work of a good architect. Again, my opinion as a design snob who values beauty. Whenever we (as a society) cheap out on good design, everyone suffers.
We are in danger of going to these "new virtues" if we don't value good work, but architecture doesn't have to be just branding. Also, you left out the very nice Nouvel MoMA tower.
What I find most strange is the level of vitriol aimed at those that don't agree that Gage and BIG are wonderful?
"I'm amazed at the cynicism and anti-intellectualism of those that belittle and say "you're jealous" to those that hope for a better design in our built world"
I am very skeptical that BIG's harshest critics are actually leading us toward "better design". Remember when Andrew Bernheimer and Alexandra Lange called out Nicolai Ouroussoff back in 2009 and 2010 for over-emphasizing "starchitects" and undermining a cadre of smaller NYC firms? Look at the development along the High Line and across NYC and compare the design quality of firms like Herzog and de Meuron, Steven Holl, Diller Scofidio & Renfro and David Chipperfield with work of the supposedly under-credited NYC firms that Bernheimer listed, such as Alexander Gorlin, nArchitects, SHoP or LTL.
There is this idea/belief out there that there are all these diamond-in-the-rough firms that are being ignored by the media or by the architecture community. They're not being ignored. Everyone sees them and sees the kind of work they do.
Quondam, do you consider yourself part of the problem you describe?
Looking back, it seems they were critiquing Ouroussoff's general lack of rigor and ignorance of NY architects both "stars" and small. Bernheimer's seems much more reasonable, agreeing with Ouroussoff's ultimate premise demanding a "radical shift in priorities" while later critics out for blood just seem to want to just throw architecture out all together. Mission accomplished! Now they have a politician.
So yes, firms like Holl and Chipperfield aren't under the radar, but they aren't going to be around forever. Now we have the media-driven narrative of the young "disruptors" whose work seems very thin. If you want to be disruptive, please please bring more to the table than slogans. Maybe Gage and Ingels need more practice, honing their obvious skills to better ends than what we are seeing, but hey they are still young.
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.