This week, Donna and Ken are joined by Indianapolis architect and ARE Sketches author, Lora Teagarden. Lora is an architect with RATIO Architects and L^2 Design. On this podcast, we'll be discussing three news items from the website. First up is the controversy around the proposal for the "Tallest Building in Portland" by the architecture firm William Kaven. Second is the Op-Ed on "Boring Architecture" by LA Times architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne. Last is a provocative interview with OMA partner, Reinier de Graaf, by the folks at Failed Architecture called, "Architecture is in a State of Denial".
Listen to episode 113 of Archinect Sessions, “Architecture — Tools of Capital: Iconic, Boring, and for the Happy Few”.
Shownotes:
9 Comments
(Always the cynic) Is de Graaf trying to reposition OMA/AMO as the firm of the people ? Added to this, there's an subtle comparison between de Graaf and Schumacher regarding how they are trying to position architecture as a relevant practice. Both seem to be taking advantage of context to leverage their value- de Graaf trying to capture the voice of the people versus the rise of the architect as manipulator of large amounts of capital (Schumacher).
And it was great to hear history being used as part of critique.
https://www.facebook.com/patrik.schumacher.10/posts/10213160568481757
no
Note to self: Always listen to Marc. Always, always, always.
This was a really interesting discussion. Thanks for sharing, as always. Good to hear thoughtful arguments for regional site-specificity for public modern architecture. Thanks for that.
One question for Donna... why would you think that the Driehaus recipients would want to see all architecture follow one path, any more than, say...the Pritzker recipients? I'd challenge you to survey the visual variety of both groups. The Driehaus laureates have a body of work at least as diverse as the Pritzker laureates.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Driehaus recipient publicly deriding "modern" architectural languages. Thom Mayne, Pritzker laureate, has notably lashed out at traditional architecture, and in a really prickly manner.
Sorry, but I feel it's my duty to gently push back when I hear trad architects, as a group, criticized as somehow more close-minded than mod architects. I assure you there are narrow minds aplenty, in both camps.
Looking forward to listening to this, especially the William Kaven rendering.
Some interesting context on that: "Whether it's the Kaven-designed proposal for the USPS site or the Kuma-designed proposal at RiverPlace, I don't blame those media outlets for running with those stories. In each case, it's a combined conversation about height—always a rather volatile topic in Portland—as well as about affordable housing, and about design. It's encouraging that compelling architecture, even just in renderings (or maybe especially then), has the power to seduce us. A compelling rendering gives potentially powerful visual impact to the rhetorical question: "What if?" It allows us to imagine at no cost, and to think differently about how we've approached the process."
the whole “regular people don’t understand modernism” idea is a recent american thing. Go around the world and everyone craves clean modern design. But if modern design is boring, that’s just bad architecture, not a style.
Also, it’s easy to flagellate architects for not being one with “the people” whatever that means, but if you open your eyes, our track record is pretty good. If anything, if we want to connect to the people, look at how media has turned away from local issues—local papers are dying, and popular architecture venues more and more niche (and echo chambered).
I don’t look to politics to save us, architects are going to have to change the paradigm. Architects have always been political in a hyper local way.
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.