French architect Jean Nouvel is moving to sue the Paris Philharmonie following a 2017 ruling against the architect that levied a €170.6 million fine on him for delivering the the group's new €386 million performance hall project late and extremely over budget.
The project, which opened in 2015, was originally budgeted to come in at €173 million, but was delivered more than two years late due to construction delays and on-site design changes that Nouvel says "martyred" and "sabotaged" the project.
According to a report in The Guardian, Nouvel's lawyers explained that the fines are "'unprecedented in the world of architecture' and amounted to a death sentence for Nouvel’s studio."
Nouvel's studio, Ateliers Jean Nouvel, according to the report, added that the claim being lodged against the architect—contractors and other parties involved in the construction were not fined by the entity—is “totally disproportionate.”
miles why do you keep calling Jean Nouvel Rem (koolhaas)?
Large projects are not like other projects. The number of people involved is very large, powered by political groups of every stripe, and Nouvel himself walked away with disgust at the decisions that were taken during construction. Since we know he is a good politician (seriously, no starchitect is not exceptional at that part of the job), what the hell happened?
There is no way in heck the people in charge did not agree to the budget increases, to the changes, and to the outcome, and yet Nouvel gets to hold the bag after all of that, all on his own? Not to say he didn't fuck up, because his office obviously was there when it all went to shit too, and he seems willing to take his normal professional place in the lineup of responsibility even if he thinks its bullshit. There is probably a long story that none of us know about that explains all of the weirdness of the current situation. I doubt it comes down to Nouvel's office simply being bad at architect-ing though. Maybe he did bad politick-ing...
What is more interesting from the big picture, and if we set aside all the schadenfreude flying around, is the size of the fine. It points to a future where architects doing large buildings will have a harder time getting insurance. The lack of competition in the field of architecture is already so small, I cant see why anyone would be happy to see it getting even smaller. Do we really want to see all of our cultural projects done by design/build corporate offices who think design is something they will offer as a free add on?
Damn that would be a dark world.
"Construction was interrupted because of delays in government funding, which created added costs.
...
"But according to Laurent Bayle, president of the Philharmonie and director of the Cité de la Musique, the extent of cost overruns has been exaggerated. Some reports have pointed out that the final cost will be nearly three times the original estimate of €130 million, but Mr. Bayle said that lower figure represented essentially the estimated physical cost of the building and excluded other categories of expenses, such as fees and equipment. These other expenses, which add up to approximately €100 million, are reflected in the €381 million total. Inflation and costs of complying with environmental and energy requirements also increased the final tally, he said."
The fun thing about reacting to coverage of lawsuits is there is never any adequate information about what's going on, so we just revert to prejudices about the architects and clients. Probably the reality is somewhere in the boring accumulation of small decisions described here, and the post-factum political will to absolve the state of any responsibility for project management conducted by their political predecessors.
All 21 Comments
Well, at least it turned out beautif-- oh. This is awkward. Never mind.
you laugh but it could happen to anyone working on a big project. projects this expensive don't happen without enormous oversight, and the architect is never in control. there should be some questions why if nouvel's design and service was so thoroughly deficient he wasn't simply removed from the project before it became a problem. he himself wanted out, obviously.
you should always be suspicious in situations where "caveat emptor" is put fully on the designer and not at all on the builder, construction manager, or owner. the french state is not a naive client depending on a known blustering starchitect to keep costs in line. i suspect something naughty was behind his selection here.
The architect’s responsibility is to manage the project. If the budget is spiraling out of control the architect has to make all the stakeholders aware and offer options to contain it. Regardless of whose fault it is.
That design is ridiculously and needlessly complex and required a tremendous amount of field work to resolve. Blaming this on the subs is disingenuous.
Rem said the legal decision against him displayed "contempt for architecture, for the profession and for the architect of the most important French cultural program of the new century". He’s waving his Pritzker around and expecting everyone to kiss his ass.
Typical starchitect BS. He should return his Pritzker in shame. Put it next to oBOMBa’s Nobel.
He's 70+ years old, and he's a known primadonna. No one hires someone like Nouvel to manage a 173 million EU project (not his estimate BTW, there's an interview somewhere where he laughed at that figure) and hands him his 12% in full trust he's going to figure everything out - you hire him to decorate it and promote it, and then watch every step. Sure, he was irresponsible - but they had every option to hire someone responsible, and stuck with him even when he wanted his name removed from the project. Why? Isn't someone managing this stuff on the owner's side?
In your scenario Rem is a decorator and would have been backed by a competent AE firm for production. In reality he was AOR and the expectation was that a Pritzker winner knew wtf he was doing. 20 years ago his reputation was crap among builders, so anyone doing their due diligence would know that. None of which absolves him, it is a just another black eye for the profession. Funny how many of those are delivered by Pritzker winners.
"The architect’s responsibility is to manage the project. If the budget is spiraling out of control the architect has to make all the stakeholders aware and offer options to contain it. Regardless of whose fault it is."
Who has control over the budget here? I doubt its the architect. Though they do make perfect scapegoats.
Just follow the money
Maybe a good rethink about how we go about doing these projects (and why) is in order.
Sacrilege!
The concept of Beauty is intangible. However, when a beautiful project like H&deM’s Hamburg Philharmonic is over time and budget, it is somehow palatable, cuz it turned out epic. This project, like most of Nouvel’s work turned out garbage. Maybe he should become a full time academic like Eisenman.
The concept of Beauty is subjective.
Eisenman's new Italy project seemed pretty good at first glance.
Beauty is subjective. That's why everybody talks about it... except architects who think that's why we shouldn't mention it.
nouvel walked out of the project and doesn't want his name on it. so it's fair to say he isn't satisfied with how it looks either. sometimes ugliness is just what happens when no one is in control of the process.
The building makes more sense when you put it in context. It fronts a wide, busy boulevard
which it needs to acknowledge but also command. And the view from cars passing matters. It also continues the line of the Cite de la Musique, left:
Also Paris is really loading Parc de la Villette up. The essentially mound shape of the building blends in a bit instead of jarring with vertical clutter.
But it's hard to get a sense of its shapes in pictures because of the glare. I wonder what it's like seeing it in real life, whether you have to avert your eyes in full sun.
Would it be possible to find a less attractive view? That is fucking hideous. I've seen car crashes that have more aesthetic integrity.
I'll keep going—
This isn't a grand cultural building fronting a plaza and commanding major boulevards, from which it can be seen at a distance.
Rather it is a music hall fronting busy, fast-paced streets. Nor, because of the trees and other buildings, plus the limited or non-existent vistas, it is difficult, if not impossible, to view it whole, or, if one is moving, view it whole very long. I'm not clear about pedestrian access, but it seems to be marginal. It is a building that has to be pieced together, in glimpses, or on the fly as one drives by.
Very much a building of our times.
Still, it glares.
(I question site, putting an important venue on the Bd. Periph.)
Thanks for posting that, Gary. The building still strikes me as ugly, but knowing more of its context helps explain some of the decisions.
miles why do you keep calling Jean Nouvel Rem (koolhaas)?
Large projects are not like other projects. The number of people involved is very large, powered by political groups of every stripe, and Nouvel himself walked away with disgust at the decisions that were taken during construction. Since we know he is a good politician (seriously, no starchitect is not exceptional at that part of the job), what the hell happened?
There is no way in heck the people in charge did not agree to the budget increases, to the changes, and to the outcome, and yet Nouvel gets to hold the bag after all of that, all on his own? Not to say he didn't fuck up, because his office obviously was there when it all went to shit too, and he seems willing to take his normal professional place in the lineup of responsibility even if he thinks its bullshit. There is probably a long story that none of us know about that explains all of the weirdness of the current situation. I doubt it comes down to Nouvel's office simply being bad at architect-ing though. Maybe he did bad politick-ing...
What is more interesting from the big picture, and if we set aside all the schadenfreude flying around, is the size of the fine. It points to a future where architects doing large buildings will have a harder time getting insurance. The lack of competition in the field of architecture is already so small, I cant see why anyone would be happy to see it getting even smaller. Do we really want to see all of our cultural projects done by design/build corporate offices who think design is something they will offer as a free add on?
Damn that would be a dark world.
i agree with this so strongly. in this case especially i think there must be some cozy deal with the construction company and project managers. how does the client agree to double the construction and offer that the architect will pay the difference without questioning the entire process (essentially that's the outcome if this fine stands!) of course it's a moot point. nouvel doesn't have 178,000,000 euros and no insurance will ever cover that. it might put him out of business, but won't make up 5% of the difference in cost.
Not sure who's really to blame here, but it seems folks are walking by the elephant in the room. Just look at the woven shiny metal skin. It might be attractive to some (at least before it ages) but how the hell is that not a detailing and maintenance nightmare? To say the only alternative to this kind of sculpture as building is a design/build corporate office is a false dichotomy. Architecture IS building, so if you don't know how to build rationally and logically, regardless of aesthetics, you should take responsibility for taking chances. Unfortunately we teach students just the opposite.
They all look alike to me. Especially when I’m foaming at the mouth. LOL
lol miles. @ Thayer-D, what building is maintenance free? My guess is this building has been designed for maintenance as much as any classical building, which when you go see them, btw, are often held together by toothpaste and a large pocketbook.
re: the skin. just spitballing here but i'd imagine they tried to pull a Frank Ghery-style parametrization of the detailing and fabrication, but did it without the necessary technical expertise and summarily fucked it up. generally, in the background, there's a good architect of record or engineer or fabricator who handles the messy little details which the starchitect cannot be bothered to address, or simply does not understand (SANAA and Guy Nordenson, Gehry and Zahner, DS+R and Perry Dean Rogers). I see no mention of this partner firm in any of the press...maybe Nouvel tried to go it alone?
nouvel's website lists an associate architect and facade consultants. the original renderings do show a billowing glass facade which was later done as metal scales, so i'm sure they had some issues. but it's hard to imagine facades led to doubling the cost.
A facade like that can definitely lead to doubling of cost...
Haven't followed this story, but I wonder what his contract says... maybe he should have paid more attention to what he was signing? Ignored his legal team? Fire them?
All big projects are about one thing: money.
Stakeholders want it all for cheap. Starchitects are big egos competing against each other for commissions and gargantuan fees. Municipalities have budgets and public responsibilities (in theory, at least). Institutions want celebrity promotion and bring additional levels of complexity. Lawyers are required at every step between every party and often afterwards despite all their preparation. Every one of these things is a minefield for all the players.
My natural inclination - based on training and experience - is to blame the guy in charge - in this case Nouvel. The guy with the global architecture prize is expected, and rightly so, to make the project work. If he can’t it is his responsibility to inform all of the stakeholders that it doesn’t at the first indication that it’s not. This is basic professionalism, something that is sadly lacking universally.
It all comes down to money and in the end to the bottom feeders: legal fees, insurance premiums, and so on. Surprise, surprise.
the guy in charge is the one with the money!
The project was split between the government of France, the city of Paris, and the Philharmonie (10%). The one with the money is Nouvel. Although maybe not for long.
I'm surprised you're not more cynical about the role of the state client in this. Clients composed of assertive stakeholders with competing interests outside the project are the worst - Nouvel is totally at the mercy of a group of well-connected politicians who have every reason to blame him for anything that went wrong. What do you mean by saying he is the one with the money?
This building is probably as good a place to start as any.
A point by point comparison of the Garnier, above, with the Nouvel might be illuminating (I'm not especially a fan of either). I see similarities along with the many contrasts. The Garnier reflects 2nd. Empire ambitions and desires. Its power and exuberance—and excess—are restrained by symmetry and classical language, columns, etc. It fits within and commands a grid, within a consistency of styles surrounding. And so on.
But what are we to say about the Nouvel?
To give an extra buzz to La Villette, then, it was considered vital for the Philharmonie to stand out as an architectural monument, one not only visible from the city’s busy ring road, but also as commanding in appearance as, say, I. M. Pei’s glass pyramid at the Louvre or the Grande Arche de la Défense, to the west of Paris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/0...
There was also a height restriction.
It has to draw attention in a big way, but there are no guidelines of style or form, no common language or system of reference. Symmetry is out: it has to unsettle. Beyond that, we're left guessing and reeling, like the building. Site is essentially a blank slate, energized largely by moving cars.
My point only is that the Novel, like so many buildings we see today that shock, disgust, or intrigue, is a reflection of our culture, and it may well be an adequate reflection. What that culture is and whether it's worthwhile is where we need to turn our attention—and I'm at loss here and won't attempt anything penetrating or grand.
I don't know about the Philharmonie's finances, but they must be strapped and the case is an attempt to shake loose some money any way they can. They won't get a full settlement if they win. And/or maybe it is a symbolic attempt to distance themselves from an ordeal that has wracked Paris, in which case Nouvel is the figurehead.
it's very interesting to consider how something as fundemental as siting for the project reflects the priorities and values of a society. there is an enormous difference between a prime corner in a busy urban center, and a stretch of low-usability land along a highway. to some extent the building comes across as an intentional wall to protect the park, which maybe is all the client really wanted...
Great point.
so i figured maybe the interiors were well designed?
non?
Fuckin' redneck French don't get it!
midlander, above, et al.—
Site and design of both the Garnier and Nouvel were heavily influenced by social and political imperatives. In the case of the Novel:
Politics rather than culture, however, were behind the decision to place the new hall in La Villette, an outlying zone. In the early 1980s, reacting against the concentration of cultural institutions in central Paris, France’s government, then led by the Socialists, decided to turn this area, once crowded with slaughterhouses, into a new cultural district within easy reach of low-income suburbs to the east.
From the NYT link. I don't know why it was put on the boulevard. Access? Available space? From the same egalitarian motive, it was decided that no one in the audience would be more than 100 feet from the conductor. This decision influenced design inside and out many ways. I assume acoustics are good, in fact exceptional, because Paris wants to showcase the Orchestre de Paris and compete with orchestras in other major European cites.
It had to get attention, draw people from the center, former patrons, out to the location as well as attract nearby residents in the suburbs, likely with less highbrow tastes. I understand they are mixing up the program as well—classical and pop. Further, the audience for classical music is aging and declining. A subtle, understated building would not do, or even a dramatic but contained balance of forms. Thus the eccentric shapes in a silver sequin gown. Whether this is desperation or practicality, time will tell. I read that attendance is up.
We discover the Garnier gradually and continuously as we approach. We acquiesce to its forms and power. The Novel has to transition two scales quickly. The large, shining, striking form at the front announces the building to cars approaching from a distance. Up close, the intricacy of shining scales.
My comparison with Garnier's Opera is not facile. It was designed to dazzle as well.
Compare with the pictures of the Nouvel interior, above.
The Opera brings this showy opulence of the age to the masses. This is their palace, the setting where they can have their chance to glitter, and Garnier spares no effort to ensure its success.
From Kostof's History. By masses I suspect he means the bourgeoisie, and the Empire's motives were quite different: it wanted to impress with its majesty and power.
Beauty is another matter that needs discussion. There are assumptions that need to be factored in, but I'll put it aside. I'll note, however, most then considered the Opera beautiful and held it up as a standard, as many do today.
And both buildings were quite expensive, though I don't think the Empire cared or Garnier got sued.
Again, buildings like these are worth reflection, as they challenge us and our notions of what architecture is supposed to be. But first look at their conditions and influences and see where that takes you.
The temptation is to question both eras, in Garnier's case, criticism of empire; in Nouvel's case, of a culture that is pumped up yet at the same time fractured, in disarray. I find both buildings excessive. In both, styles have been pushed to their limits, neoclassicism and modernism of some sort. It's not hard to see why modernists like Corbusier hated the Opera, that this excess influenced the next wave. You have to wonder what will follow the Nouvel.
Let's be honest: Nouvel's thing is a tear down.
Paris Opera House foyer below.
The last time I visited the Opera house it had two large tractor tires painted gold in the grand stairs, and a crazy ass disco installation in the basement that I could not fathom. I took from it the lesson that opera is a show and grandiose, maybe even a bit bloated, on purpose. The foyer that volunteer shows is above the entrance and was being used as a dining hall for some kind of fancy reception. I'm sure it was lovely. We walked past it to enjoy the massive balcony facing the street. The best place in the building possibly. Even there the assortment of colors and kinds of marble was astonishing. Like visiting a showroom.
In all honesty the thing that impressed me the most about Garnier's building was the chagal painting in the ceiling. It was incongruous because his painting was filled with space while the opera itself is filled with details. Even the details have details. I enjoyed that, as did my kids, because the devotion to extravagance cannot be denied. It is fun, weird, indulgent.
Nouvel's building is kind of baroque, but I dont think it is as indulgent, somehow, or not in the obvious blingy way as the Opera is. I wonder what it was that brought the costs up so much. And why didnt the client simply ask for a redesign if they felt the extra costs were not worth the outcome?
Nice non-classical detail which shed rain. En'joie!
Look only at Nouvel's reflection through this, France warned, for
anyone casting their eyes upon his hideous work will be instantly turned to stone.
Like! Can you do one for turning people into travertine?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/arts/international/philharmonie-de-paris-prepares-to-open-amid-controversy.html?_r=0
"Construction was interrupted because of delays in government funding, which created added costs.
...
"But according to Laurent Bayle, president of the Philharmonie and director of the Cité de la Musique, the extent of cost overruns has been exaggerated. Some reports have pointed out that the final cost will be nearly three times the original estimate of €130 million, but Mr. Bayle said that lower figure represented essentially the estimated physical cost of the building and excluded other categories of expenses, such as fees and equipment. These other expenses, which add up to approximately €100 million, are reflected in the €381 million total. Inflation and costs of complying with environmental and energy requirements also increased the final tally, he said."
The fun thing about reacting to coverage of lawsuits is there is never any adequate information about what's going on, so we just revert to prejudices about the architects and clients. Probably the reality is somewhere in the boring accumulation of small decisions described here, and the post-factum political will to absolve the state of any responsibility for project management conducted by their political predecessors.
I'm guessing the fact that it's both a government job and super complex had a lot to do with it. First, it's an elephant that many a contractor would like to get their tentacles on, especially in a country as bureaucratic as France. Second, how do you accurately bid a job with so little precedent. With details left to another firm and a prima donna architect carping about their vision. Hard to see this one going smoothly from the get go.
what are Starchitects fees typically for these big prize projects? the likes of Mssrs Nouvel , Calatrava , Foster , Ms Zaha H , IM Pei OMA , Herzog Meuron etc etc
what would Pei's Office fee for Arch Services net of Consultants have been on the Louvre Paris I wonder. or Nouvel's for the Louvre Abu Dhabi , Zahas Azerbajan Cultural centre ..etc
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.