Last week we witnessed the loss of Dame Zaha Hadid, one of architecture's most formidable and prolific talents. We'll be devoting a later podcast episode to remembering her and honoring her work. Until then, we'll continue catching you up with the most significant architecture news from the past week.
This episode we discuss Alejandro Aravena's Pritzker acceptance speech (and the designs he's giving away for free), how NASA is experimenting with inflatable space houses, how we "crave" public space, and Nicholas Korody joins us to discuss the cockroach of unpaid architecture internships (they just won't die).
Listen to episode 59 of Archinect Sessions, "Race for the Prize":
Shownotes:
The NASA-grade work of Garrett Finney
Quilian Riano's Who Owns Space project
Florida woman calls out Florida Governor Rick Scott in a Starbucks
26 Comments
Please read the comments before bashing them! The "flavor of the month" was not about AA... In fact, nobody in design media was talking about Aravena before Pritzker. BUT it's also ok to open up a dialogue about the design of what is actually here, if it works (like Ken said), (and that he's now giving it away for free, in spite of his previous comments about the value of architecture--does that make AA the first pritzker winning unpaid intern?). If you think every social architecture project is la de da, perhaps I'd suggest a history book.
I get it, it's uncool to agree with the comments, and best to defer to authority and narrative.
And again, with the Public Space piece, you missed the point before eventually agreeing with me. The piece was "soft" and not bad in itself. Public space is absolutely an architecture topic... if you actually think critically, it can be inside a building, between buildings, etc. but when I think of the difference in what architects bring to the table, we think in terms of specifics. One particular place. Times Square is not the same as Egypt (Tahir?) Square. Why is that? A bureaucritic like Kimmelman would not be able to tell you. The fact that it's in the NY Review of Books isn't the issue, it's that the NYTimes Arch Critic doesn't seem to value design as a value. (Smart City people sound like this)
To bring it around, you guys seem hard on architects for paying low wages. Fine. But realize that we all operate in a society that seems to have little value in the craft of individual things and focuses praise on media darlings who deliver very little. It's always easy to say "we want great design" or "public space is great" but who exactly have been the ones that make these happen? Architects... At least in the past, the public was behind them, now, how can architects have any sway when even the NYTimes arch critic is collecting paychecks while AWOL writing soft odes to generalized concepts?
It's all connected! Everyone is missing the trees for the "Forrest narrative."
I'm glad you're listening, LiMX, and giving feedback! It is funny how hard it is to detect nuance from internet posts.
I definitely see your point about how a critic who really focuses on the significant impact good architecture has on daily public life could bring more attention to good design from the layperson.
But even if it's architects who DO make great space happen through good design, we always work at the behest and pleasure of someone else: a client. Clients are rarely architects, but people who read soft fluffy pieces in the NYRB *are* likely to be clients, yes?
don't think anybody disagrees with a piece praising public space. But a much better article from a supposed arch critic would be a deep dive into ONE space that analyzes the connection between itself and the city (and yes, acknowledges architectue as a value).
Why Is there this notion we need soft pieces to educate a supposedly ignorant public?. It's a self fullfilling prophesy that every publication seems to indulge now, which leads to the dirge of 1000 pieces on starchitecture and none one things that matter. Which is the great thing about this podcast in that you at least deconstruct these phenomenons.
I read a quote from a Deborah Berke Q+A that was so on point in seeing the same idea : "Education about the built environment that starts early and is repeated often, is the key to increasing architecture’s diversity, as well as the diversity of architecture’s audiences." Soft pieces in the NYRB ... Not so much.
doh!
You want deep dive, do it, write it, or email Kimmelman and ask him yourself; what is the goal of this piece, who is the audience? I think what the architariat wants, is not knowing what it wants, or recognizing the audience, or the device used to start a dialog. If MK wrote this for Record, yeah, beat up the piece, if it was written for the NYT Magazine, or the Arts section, yeah, have at it. However, to not even acknowledge it was written for the NYRB, and the method used, as it was obviously not a piece of criticism, seems lost on most in that thread. That you rail on Michael Beruit, as "a graphic designer" without acknowledging several key facts about his contribution to design, and the fact that his office is across from the space MK is referencing, or that he's a human, actuating, and affected by space, only shows some level of disdain for people in general. Which, at the end of the day, was what the piece seemed to me, to be about; democratizing space.
Perhaps you could help me out, what buildings of import were critical in the protests at Tahrir Square, Zucotti Park? Tiananmen ? Taksim? I just want to know.
Can you tell me what significant piece of architecture exists at the perimeter of Washington Square Park, aside from the Arch, that we should be aware of, that directly impacts my experience of the space?
"Please read the comments before bashing them! The "flavor of the month" was not about AA... In fact, nobody in design media was talking about Aravena before Pritzker. BUT it's also ok to open up a dialogue about the design of what is actually here, if it works (like Ken said), (and that he's now giving it away for free, in spite of his previous comments about the value of architecture--does that make AA the first pritzker winning unpaid intern?). If you think every social architecture project is la de da, perhaps I'd suggest a history book."
The "flavor of the month" comment was about AA, and not about you. You didn't make it, you specifically said it wasn't. My criticism is to that criticism, that Q suggested this was a FOTM.
I think we need soft pieces, I think the public doesn't need to be bashed over the head, with heavy think pieces, mainly drawn for our consumption, the world, and architecture isn't just about my experience in it, and I need to let others consume at their level of experience, if I care about them, or hope to have them, care about mine. Many architects do that in their work, it's time we ask the professional writing class to do the same.
For me, one of the biggest issue I take is it's opener about seemingly non-democratic civilizations in contrast to the Greeks. First ruling out Egypt's ability to claim a public space and then circling back and talking about the Arab Spring in Tahrir Square...it just seems like democracy chest pumping....
If I were to refer someone to a glowing discussion about the beauty of public space (without some democratic exceptionalism thrown in), maybe Peter Zumthor's "Atmospheres" would be a good place to go. I like his public space narrative
~~SPACESHIP EARTH~~
http://designsciencelab.com/resources/OperatingManual_BF.pdf
Quoting: "Congrats to AA. Great work so far... And kudos to Pritzker for rewarding real creativity and not the flavor of the month" so.... Read it and weep Ken!
Anyway... Ken, if I'm writing an article about Graphic Design for the New Yorker (it's like the NYRB but with literate readers) and the first person I interview is Frank Gehry does it mean a) I don't know of any Graphic Designers b) i dislike graphic designers or c ) I'm killing time while the design department wips up one of those snazzy, award winning interactive pieces. You guessed it, it's d). All of the above. So, it's no knock on the great Michael Bierut if he is miscast. If you are a film critic, How about reviewing some goddamn movies?
What buildings are around Tahir square? How the hell should I know? But my guess is the reason people are protesting is because of a corrupt system that doesn't look at the details. I bet they don't take architecture for granted as we apparently do.
Oh, I should write these reviews? Im not the critic of the NYTimes. I don't need to lecture Kimmelman, he knows exactly what he's doing: playing politics with a job he probably is using as a stepping stone to talk about "more important things" like De Blasio's horse carriages. He's been at the NYTimes for so long he probably has tenure.
"If you like football, and you like to come in and work on football, then the New England Patriots is a great place to be," he said. "If you don't, if it's a job, if you'd rather be doing something else, honestly you'd be better off with another team." - Bill Belichick
something like this? http://archinect.com/nosyopsis/taksim-square-a-spatial-narrative-of-the-perpetual-reconquista
Now that, is some deep writing, on an architecture site, for the design discipline.
Limx, I read that, and I also read what Quondam wrote. My response was to his comment, not yours. Go back and read what I wrote above.
I mean it's just a meandering article about public space going through different scenarios wherein the author has experienced a positive public experience. Some vague history claims, then refugee public space, protests, Germany, mentions of New York, watching his children grow up... end scene.
Deep but not unreadable!
http://youtu.be/niqrrmev4mA
If +/- 3 anonymous commentators complaining about Kimmelman are suddenly the "architariat" does that make the +/- 3 anonymous opposing commentators in the same thread, plus the podcasters the "archistocracy"?
In general, I praise the podcast and the main players for their nuanced discussion and viewpoints but this particular portion felt pretty clumsy and impetuous.
Take Amelia's supposed quote of a commentator (given without context or citation), "it's too bad the New York Times doesn't have an architecture critic." Where does this come from? No one said that in the public space piece's comments. archanonymous opined, "Really wish there was some good architecture criticism at the big name publications these days." If you fail to see the difference in that statement with the one that was quoted on air ... maybe the podcast contributors aren't as nuanced as I thought.
Yeah man, thanks for bringing that blog post to light.
Read initially like a story from Ficciones, but I like it.
I should have cited specifics @Everyday Intern, I was referring in part to Nate Hornblower's comment from this article that implies the NYT doesn't have an architecture critic:
"NYTimes Drama Pimping
When you have no architecture critics, it becomes tales of Revenge! Sex! Murder!"
I agree there isn't an arch critic at the NYTimes. Kimmelman's biggest accomplishment was preventing the Library Renovation (Huxtable already said it) and proposing the rediculous gentrification light rail in Brooklyn (wont happen). Most anti-architecture critic of all time.
If he wants to be the "people's critic" and run around giving speeches about how revolutionary he is, fine, just don't call yourself an architecture critic! Find someone who actually knows about it! I just hate how some in design intelligenca wrap themselves in architecture titles and and then write think pieces bashing architects because they supposedly don't fulfill your social narrative.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/michael_kimmelman/index.html
My favorite article was the one where he bashed Zaha, then totally changed it amid Twitter praising. What a tool.
everyday architect, i'm pretty sure you're part of archistocracy
^ it's because of my crown jewels isn't it?
@Amelia, thank you for clarifying the comment. Still disappointing as it was still a misquote.
I enjoy the episodes where the forums and comments get brought up. However, you still need to approach those episodes with some rigor.
I question the architariat in general; hate BIG, Aravena is FOTM, Mayne is an ass, I mean really, Vals - WTF, Gehry sucks, Zaha, suck. Zumthor, what the fuck is he doing in LA. REM - Dick. Jimenez Lai - Poseur. Andres Jaque - Clown. I could go on. Hell, even me, I like DS+R, but think they fucked up on the FAM/MoMa. I don't like a lot of Graves work, I think Stern is a douche. Calatrava, well he's not really an architect. Bernini, ugh.
I guess that's what makes us great?
I like Hejduk - my reason for, when Eisenman isn't screwing the profession, I like his early work. Woods and Abraham - genius. Tod and Billie. DS+R - early. LTL. Adjaye. Jiminez. Zumthor, Ando, Borromini. Piranesi.
What do you like?
I like that you talk about the architariat like there is some sort of agreement on who to like and who to hate when it is clearly evident in any discussion thread that there is never any consensus (except for Balkins needs to get a job). I like that you want to paint everything as either black and white when discussing the viewpoints of others, but then talk about all the shades of gray that are evident in your own opinions ("I like DS+R, but think they fucked up on the FAM/MoMa"). I like that you usually sound fairly composed on the podcast yet in the comments can't seem to hold your tongue. I like that you forget sometimes whether to post as Ken or your alter ego ... doh! I also like being sarcastic occasionally.
I like that you ask some of the tougher questions to podcast guests. I like that you take the time out of your schedule to do the podcast. I like that you are capable of reflecting on your opinions when they are confronted with information you hadn't thought of or didn't remember. I like that Archinect isn't just another glossy architecture website posting photos of projects. I like engaging with others on Archinect. I like my job. I like the firm I work for. I like what they pay me and that they support a good work/life balance. I like that even though I post as an "intern" there are archinectors that can see past that and acknowledge I have something to add to the discussion.
Finally, I like pie.
Well fuck, who doesn't like pie? Well, except mince meat, that pie is shit. Well, I hate apple pie with raisins too, but that is it.
Oh also, I am filled with contradictions, I accept and embrace my inner hypocrite.
I guess it's that I spend not a lot too much time running down architects that do large work, but don't like when they work for dictators, or MoMa - one and the same. I like when people try to do complicated things, in a complex world, and try to offer room for failure. I don't like Calatrava, his work has always sucked. Stern, well, he did the Bush Library, and hates women. Graves, Target.
I just don't think I spend the time running down the talent, and spend more time running down how we treat those coming into the profession; I will always dog the profession and the AIA.
Oh god, I can't listen to the podcast, the asshole in Minnesota grates on me.
I like vegan meat too.
This comments discussion, is as good/better than the episode. Definitely part of what makes the whole Archinect package (from podcast to forum) so great!
Also pie is good, even some savory ones. Ken, how about a vegan "mince meat" pie? Get the Herbivorous Butcher folks on it...
q, this statement confused me then, "So, what is the flavor of the month (that was not awarded the Pritzker Prize)?" as it came after LiMX wrote he wasn't, as i read as a Pritzker winner, he was.
my sincerest apologies.
Ken called it! Kimmelman's essay was for a new book, a collection of essays on public spaces: http://www.npr.org/2016/05/01/475265075/from-tahrir-to-tiananmen-city-squares-cant-escape-their-history
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.