When Patrik Schumacher spoke at the 17th World Architecture Festival back in 2016, his speech, calling for an end to social housing and the privatization of public space, caused serious push-back, even from the firm he currently runs. Since, Schumacher has been trying to lay low—at least as far as spewing his politics is concerned.
“I was a bit shocked. I mean, I have a thick skin, but it was unexpected and troubling. And it did for a while make me pull away a bit and calm down, to hide my polemics for a little bit and let that storm kind of fly over. I was really ducking under for a while" the architect told the Guardian.
Now, however, Schumacher wants to clarify his stance, arguing that he has been misunderstood. In this recent article in the Guardian, the architect once again touts his neoliberal, privatization scheme clarifying that "it’s not about me attacking vulnerable groups in society and wanting to throw them on to the street...The headline premise here is how can we actually create prosperity for all.”
This article was worth reading and I thought it would not be.
The points about mixed use and diversity are interesting generic things to wish for the city. They are easy to agree with, and I think he is throwing them in as camouflage for something else.
The context I have in mind when I read anything he says is London, and that is warped by its nature. When I lived there in the early naughts I was looking at buying a flat in Greenwich, because they had a percentage of affordable housing in a development there. I was a Project Architect making a not horrible wage for that position, but totally out of scale for the London market. It was clear that affordable housing was not for janitors or whatever though, it was for young professionals...barely. It was barely affordable for me, but only because I had some savings. I ended up in Tokyo instead, but the entire exercise of looking for a home was an eye opener. No one I knew at that time had anything like the resources to live even in affordable housing. It was not affordable. Not at all. And that was before things got really crazy and things moved towards severe disparity. The market wills all of that into existence and its ruthless, so I dont see the market as a possible solution.
For what it is worth, it works better in Tokyo because zoning has a different history here, but I am not sure how it can ever be a rational way to achieve Patrick's supposed goals when the entire basis of his philosophy is that people get what they deserve. Its cut-throat. It doesnt work in an individualistic society.
The thing I did like is his set of observations about the hypocrisy at play. He is right in diagnosing a serious problem at the heart of the regulations and the motivations behind them, and the fact that the government is itself complicit in rising housing costs. This line he has, that nobody is wishing for lowering housing values, is smart. It is true too, unless value drops there is no possibility for affordability. But that is not allowed. In which case, we need a much more serious plan. Patrick has an inkling that deregulation would solve the problem, but that is on the face of it absurd. It doesnt mean his definition of the problem isnt sharp though. The solution needs to be smarter is all, more Bjarke-y perhaps, some impossible mashup of market economy and social justice that is actually real would be nice.
I find this side of his shit-stirring worthwhile. An antidote to the other fascist-light talking heads out there, new urbanists, density gurus, etc.
All 9 Comments
why does PS get so much attention/hate when he echoes much of the McUrbanism movement popular at the NYT, CityLab, etc, which shares many of his themes: anti-nimby, pro-development, data over design, generic spaces, anti-architecture. I find both equally dogmatic and anti-design in a humanistic sense and scale.
As for PS, it’s kind of sad he has turned the ZHA aesthetic into dictator chic, but you gotta be who you are in this world. Maybe the Guardian should talk to some other architects, not just the “Heels”
He didn't turn their aesthetic into dictator chic, they just built a couple of buildings in non-democratic countries like so many many more (st)architects are doing on a daily basis, and ZHA were doing so way before Zaha passed away, it's easy to blame him for everything you don't like about ZHA or dictators but that is very simplistic in my opinion.
Chemex I appreciate your parallel of Parametricism and New Urbanism.
What I have to say about it is here.
Parallels between Parametricism and New Urbanism? Sculptural object buildings derived from algorithms equated to background buildings that create public spaces. I guess anything's possible if you see everything through an ideological lens.
ideology is a nice word for bias
I think people are just prejudiced bc of how he looks. If some woman said the same thing it's quite possible they would be presented as a visionary, strong female architect.
And she would get a Pritzker
Wealthy artiste philosopher attempts to understand socioeconomics, is carte blanche given umteen opportunities to do so in front of an audience. Thinks room of highly educated diverse people are rioting/against him because they don't understand (are too stupid). Firmly believes in trickle down. Has never had to drink from a trickling stream...has no idea it's actually only dirty pee!
This article was worth reading and I thought it would not be.
The points about mixed use and diversity are interesting generic things to wish for the city. They are easy to agree with, and I think he is throwing them in as camouflage for something else.
The context I have in mind when I read anything he says is London, and that is warped by its nature. When I lived there in the early naughts I was looking at buying a flat in Greenwich, because they had a percentage of affordable housing in a development there. I was a Project Architect making a not horrible wage for that position, but totally out of scale for the London market. It was clear that affordable housing was not for janitors or whatever though, it was for young professionals...barely. It was barely affordable for me, but only because I had some savings. I ended up in Tokyo instead, but the entire exercise of looking for a home was an eye opener. No one I knew at that time had anything like the resources to live even in affordable housing. It was not affordable. Not at all. And that was before things got really crazy and things moved towards severe disparity. The market wills all of that into existence and its ruthless, so I dont see the market as a possible solution.
For what it is worth, it works better in Tokyo because zoning has a different history here, but I am not sure how it can ever be a rational way to achieve Patrick's supposed goals when the entire basis of his philosophy is that people get what they deserve. Its cut-throat. It doesnt work in an individualistic society.
The thing I did like is his set of observations about the hypocrisy at play. He is right in diagnosing a serious problem at the heart of the regulations and the motivations behind them, and the fact that the government is itself complicit in rising housing costs. This line he has, that nobody is wishing for lowering housing values, is smart. It is true too, unless value drops there is no possibility for affordability. But that is not allowed. In which case, we need a much more serious plan. Patrick has an inkling that deregulation would solve the problem, but that is on the face of it absurd. It doesnt mean his definition of the problem isnt sharp though. The solution needs to be smarter is all, more Bjarke-y perhaps, some impossible mashup of market economy and social justice that is actually real would be nice.
I find this side of his shit-stirring worthwhile. An antidote to the other fascist-light talking heads out there, new urbanists, density gurus, etc.
the problem with patrik is he doesn't know where his knowledge ends and his ignorance begins.
he got hired by zaha at a very young age and quickly got used to being the smart guy with all the answers, but he is totally blind to the fact that his expertise is limited to an extremely narrow range of topics. i saw him start an argument about the civil rights act with a former lawyer from the ACLU; it was very embarrassing to witness.
How anyone can take this guy seriously is beyond me. Like LeCorbusier, Ayn Rand, and Donald Trump, these "disruptors" say something that's 5% true wrapped in a 10 pound bag of shit and somehow they get a following for being bold.
Arguing for selling off Hyde Park because land prices are too high? This is the antidote to fascist lite new Urbanists? You just can't write this stuff.
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.