Boring, soulless buildings are making people stressed and lonely, according to Thomas Heatherwick [...]
Calling for “a national conversation” about halting the spread of depressing architecture, he said: “We need to fearlessly demand interestingness. We need to rebel against the blandification of our streets, towns and cities, and make buildings that nourish our senses. Human beings deserve human places.”
— The Guardian
The Lantern House and Vessel designer has been making the media rounds lately to promote his new treatise Humanize, which offers a call-to-arms of sorts for architects and planners both looking to combat the proven detriments bad architecture has on mental health. Heatherwick says his prognosis has been informed by multiple years of domestic research, including a new study he commissioned from the New Economics Foundation, and that offenders could be broken down by seven criteria: (too) flat, straight, plain, shiny, monotonous, anonymous, and serious.
Responding to this, the Observer critic Rowan Moore writes Heatherwick “does not have much to say about the value of simplicity” and that his argument is too reductivist and could result in “an outbreak of shallow wannabe Gaudís” should architects adapt his principles en masse. His position that Heathwick was too ignorant of the market forces behind modern architecture, however, seems to misunderstand the point of making such an appeal in an era when many report feeling defeated by the status quo.
22 Comments
Doctor, heal thyself.
Can I get collective permission to kick this guy in the balls?
he's been kicked in the head too many times though
I mean seriously, is Heatherdjick going to start his own brand, a la Gwenyth? What's it going to be called, Spünk?
Beyond branding:
shtickatechiture
Seems a little woo woo.
But it is true that the vast majority of what gets built is painfully dull, even among high profile projects.
money, money, money...
Thomas can "fearlessly demand interestingness" all day long and it will not be effective. His books and interviews are just self-promotion anyway. Develop a good-looking cheap architecture that second and third rate practitioners can learn to emulate, and then you will have something.
I've got an idea on how to make buildings more interesting!-)
We need more kissing buildings!
It's a sign of our current cultural malaise that mindless flakes like Heatherwick are taken seriously.
Competition for "interesting" designers:
Project 25 years of growth. Remove all the buildings that are not "interesting" and replace with "interesting" buildings. By all means bring back The Tulip.
gaaah, yeah that section of London is one of the uglier urban compositions I've seen in quite some time.
Why not have better architecture? Are we all so pissed off at one architect that we collectively are willing to deny the fact that architecture of our time is often very low quality on so many metrics, and instead shit on one person who says maybe we should expect more of ourselves?
Gary's point about London is well taken. Merely interesting is not enough, if it means the goal is only to stand out. That is not what Heatherwick is saying though. Rowan Moore seems to be saying it might be alright for a good architect like Heatherwick to go for this sort of thing, but most of can't pull it off. The exact same thing was certainly true of a lot of the Modernist followers of Le Corbusier and Mies. But so what? It is an absurd complaint. Mediocrity can't be made the presumptive goal of our profession simply to avoid big mistakes, can it? There are probably better remedies than that available...
Not a fan of Heatherwick, but I did buy his book to see what he has to say. My personal experience of his work is a bit limited to what is in London, and his recent project in Tokyo. FWIW,it works mostly for the urban planning in my opinion, and less for the building forms. But it is nice to have the contrast with the recent nearby work by OMA (which I love, personally). If it was all flat boxes there would be no reason even to go to see them and would not be much fun to live in or work in. The project seems to be better integrated with the city than Roppongi hills, by the same developer, and that is a nice shift to see.
Whether Heatherwick has it right or not he is at least looking for a big idea to talk about. Our profession is better off having the conversation and not shutting it down with simple ad hominems.
FWIW, the offender's recent project in Tokyo
And nearby, a view from the bridge that connects the new OMA building to the development across the street. This is over a fairly wide (for Tokyo) street that is relatively busy. The connection is not necessarily required at this spot, but is infinitely better than the stairs and bridges that the city usually has in such cases...
If these projects work it will be because they integrate with the city, whatever their shape. Maybe the focus on "interesting stuff" presumes a discussion of form, when the real discussion is about how to make rich and complex interactions at the human scale (and maybe some nice looking buildings as well).
My chief complaint is the idea that architecture can "solve" mental health issues, much like architecture "solved" other social ills, instead of like Anthony Vidler wrote about in Warped Space.
Thanks for this, Will. I'm curious how Tokyo justified such a low-rise project in what has to be prime real estate. A more difficult question to answer is how well it serves a humanizing purpose in what looks to be a token effort. But perhaps it could set an example, or at least provide a little relief. Most, I would be curious to see a similar project less mannered and less heavy handed than Heatherwick's and more significantly expressive, something that might speak to place, to the people.
My inner tony hawk pro-skater2 is tingling just looking at those pics
i dont know if he is saying it does all that or not. I'm reading his book now to see exactly what he is aiming for. Rowan Moore's sketch comments capture some of it well enough. But I can't help but be glad this point is being raised. We have so much negativity in our profession it makes sense that at least one of us aim for something positive, even at the risk of over-reaching. As far as the development in Tokyo it is part of a relatively large development, with towers located nearby. Heatherwick was brought in to do a low-mid-rise part of the project, connecting two sides of the development. The masterplan is pretty good as such things go. MORI (the developers) have a history of actually improving and contributing to the city in a meaningful way with their projects. In this case they also connect two train stations underground and add one more link in the magnificently redundant system of subway lines that Tokyo has on tap. Heatherwick in this case is doing a lot more with his buildings than he might do on his own, and probably more than he would even think to do. I'll reiterate that I am not his biggest fan by nature, but the Maggies Centre that he did recently is easily one of the most beautiful buildings, and it serves people in pain who can take full advantage of that outcome. Whether his office can do that every time is hard to say, but at least once he seems to have done something wonderful that is worth aspiring to.
Should someone, such as Thomas Heatherwick, who designed a project that ignored common sense and kept rails low enabling people to jump to their death really be talking about mental health?
In 2015 the University of Warwick conducted a study asking Britons to rate 200,000 pictures of urban, suburban and rural areas across Great Britain based on their “scenicness”. Over 1.5m ratings were gathered. When compared to the self-reported health of residents in the areas, the study found better health outcomes in areas with pictures that were rated as more scenic.
From the Guardian piece.
This study looks suspect, in fact fuzzy and flaky. I would be curious to see the places where these people live, along with their social and economic backgrounds. Odds are good, unless we're talking about farmers in rural areas, the people who have a "scenic" environment also have comfortable incomes, thus more space and more open space and/or esthetic development, and likely live in a secluded area. The people who feel less healthy likely live in congested spaces, poorly planned, where the banal character of their buildings and environment is not caused by some kind of esthetic deficiency, but rather determined by economic meanness and political blindness and ineptness, as well as a skewed distribution of power and influence. These people feel bad because their lives suck.
The discussion has been around since the Garden City, over a century ago, and before. Ebenezer Howard was reacting to the Industrial Revolution. Since that time we've had exponential urban growth and a change in economy and production we neither understand nor can control, but somehow we have to come to terms with it and forge a working identity.
Esthetic vitality has to based on something, an understanding about our culture and ourselves. Heatherwick, the darling of wealthy developers, does not give us this and is not adding anything insightful or useful.
Imo it is a fatuous statement. Apparently he is struggling to find a higher purpose for his work.
Nothing wrong with entertainment value as a goal. However, shallow work precludes deeper significance.
A lot of people like his buildings. He is rich, famous, and people want to build his designs. Good for him.
To me his buildings are uninspired and never go anywhere beyond the initial concept. Like Piano Man. The song doesn't have a bridge. The melody doesn't go anywhere. That is the point.
They appear to be the result of extrapolating descriptive abstractions rather than form and space diagrams.
There doesn't seem to be a basis for an internal dialog and decision making process that would create a compelling design (at least to me).
While sensitivity to aesthetics varies, there is plenty of evidence that shows the quality of ones environment affects our mental health. For those looking for something deeper, what else is more important?
“The pure subject of art is human perception. Once you take that position, it changes all the rules of the game for what you do and how you do it.”
Robert Irwin
I feel, therefore I think, therefore I am.
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.