Squares have defined urban living since the dawn of democracy, from which they are inseparable. [...]
I don’t think it’s coincidental that early in 2011 the Egyptian revolution centered around Tahrir Square, or that the Occupy Movement later that same year, partly inspired by the Arab Spring, expressed itself by taking over squares like Taksim in Istanbul, the Plaça de Catalunya in Barcelona, and Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan.
— nybooks.com
Related stories in the Archinect news:
16 Comments
Wow, no love for architecture? What is public space without it? That would have been an interesting read. Instead we get... Jane Jacobs 101.
I feel like protesting the horrible state of design coverage (Archinect being a notable exception)... Zuccotti Park anyone?
Kimmelman is a very weak critic. He basically channels the generic anti-architecture rhetoric of Planetizen.
The whole article and only one building mention. And the sole interview is a graphic designer. Pretty damning for the arch-critic of the NYTimes.
KImmelman and Kamin are both hacks. So is Betsky for that matter.
Really wish there was some good architecture criticism at the big name publications these days.
Lots of small publications have decent to good critics but they aren't running any pieces over 500-700 words so you are never going to get critics delving into problems with the depth that Sorkin or Huxtable did.
Actually, I take it back. Every time he writes about a building it gets torn down. Call it the Kimmelman Kiss of Death. Or when he hilariously tried to be an architect with that Prentice design idea. I sure when Rahm saw that one he had a good laugh.
LiMX - I thought that the article was actually very good. He's talking about the importance of public spaces, why do you think he needed to gush about architecture? As much as we don't want to admit it, background buildings are just fine for creating urban places.
And, just gotta point out that he quoted 6 people in the piece, not one.
Architecture criticism does not always mean "buildings." It can mean infrastructure, urban planning, landscaping...
he may be a hack but his argument is important. And if you have a megaphone and you're using it to advocate for high-quality public spaces that encourage interaction and community-building...I'll take it.
The background/foreground dichotomy is pretty much a middle finger to design thinking and design history. It presumes that designers don't have good and pragmatic reasons behind their design choices. It undermines architects by allowing "urban designers" to dictate what buildings get noticed, and what buildings just melt into a slurry of mediocre forgettable construction. If it makes logical sense to break with convention, should a designer worry about their design becoming too much of a "foreground" building? Its Tall Poppy Syndrome on the scale of the city.
^exaxtly. It also allows politicians disguised as arch-critics to write think pieces about generalized urban topics instead of the task of looking into architecture in its totality. In combination with his lecturing to architects, and harsh criticism of any project with ambition, it appears he is doing a bad Elsworth Toohey caracature.
But the Times abandoned architecture long ago. He did interview more (a Bloomberg politician and Middle East public space architect), which all fits into the narrative here. Like, we all get it, public space is important. It's not exactly news. But if nobody is keeping an eye on the details, just people with generalized lecturing to architects.
I get if you don't care about architecture, just get someone, anyone else to cover it. Then do your Smart City puff piece to your hearts content. Architecture is too important to just cater to public ignorance and architect stereotypes. That also goes for many others....
What is architecture? Just buildings?
It should start with a "building" at least instead of some kind of narrative or concept. Always think of design as being a generalized concept or message while architecture is one specific outcome of design. Kümmelman and other "placemaking" types are going out of their way to minimize architectures importance... Oh yeah, let's start with public space and transportation and go from there. Typical smart city thinking. But we know that these things do not make Vancouver the same as Boston. There's something else.
What, did Kimmelman cut in front of you guys at Starbuck's or something? Your hatred is weird and irrational. The piece is obviously about the importance of public spaces - for it to "start with a 'building'" would make it a completely different article. Placemaking is a real thing, and it's actually important - way more important for making cities livable than a few flashy buildings.
Remember: the article was written for the NY Review of Books, not some architecture blog. You're not the only audience in the world.
^well said. Agree 100%
A building can be a public space. It's how "buildings" relate to each other, public space to architecture that would have been an interesting concept, rather than this dated piece from the height of the Occupy/Egypt movements (that, surprise, failed--why they did would probably require larger questions about architecture than happy generalists are giving). There's little acknowledgement of how design even plays a part in public space, and its relation to architecture.
There's nothing wrong with Kimmelman or this article per se, but you take it in combination with past work, and the NYTimes role in analyzing architecture. It'd be like if the NYTimes film critic spent his time bashing avant-garde filmmakers, praising superhero movies, then going to other publications to write about his love of live theater. Or if a politician wrote about his/her love of the communist manifesto, I might assume it would effect your day job. I just think the NYTimes is important, and requires someone that covers architecture in the tradition of every critic up to this point, then Kimmelman can write his crowd pleasing odes to public benches and McDonalds and leave architects alone.
I think we're all feeling that something is missing...not necessarily buildings...but something feels funny about how the article connects the dots...no?
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.