It's being reported, that Lord Richard Rogers has made a statement, which apparently says, he supports the Israeli Security Fence, and that he allowed the APJP group to hold a meeting in his office out of a favor to a friend. But, if they decided to ever organize a boycott of Israel, he would oppose it. So, there's Lord Rogers' conscience. Read: Haaretz; NY Daily; etc. (Discuss)
18 Comments
well, extortion can do that to a man, especially when you have to run an office that's built on doing projects. I think the real blame should be projected at the proper place...not at the feet of people who have to negotiation through this crime! And thats what it is!
Although I do not agree with RR for being railroaded and he should have a stiller upper lip--its not an easy thing to lose millions of dollars in fees...
it may be extortion, or maybe he is really exposing his true color this time. but i always hold that a conscience can't be bought. i have no idea, if he compromised, or truly does support the fence, in which case all bets are off in my book. he should dump the project, in my eyes, if he truly feels any connection to the Pal struggle. I don't let Rogers off the hook, for 'doing what he's got to do' to run an office, or a business w/ mill's in fees. that's not the ethical practice i am after. his stock has gone down in my book. he could have fought. but it sounds like he has made his position clear, and this time i will assume he is telling the truth. he supports the wall.
i agre that his politics re: Isr/pal should have no bearing on the javits, and the fact that it does enter the equation (to the point of ruling it) is a crime. but that's money, land development, that's politics and how it infects the landscape. again, he could have stood up to that. but chose not to.
I'm not letting him off the hook, but we should be MORE upset with the New York government forces who have created the situtation in the first place. this leads to a choice between work for your office or laying off half your staff--these choice are REAL and should be recognized as legitimate reasons for being a flip-flopper. Now it would have been great if he stuck to his guns, but I think thats alot to ask of Rogers.
well, i dont know. i certainly agree, the extortionism, or the mechanisms of that are largely in play here. that process should be indicted. but again, he could have used this as a platform to do that. to fight the good fight in terms of NYC's extortion ring, but instead, not only did he not stand up to the fence, he didnt stand up to NYC either. so, he kind of dropped the ball all the way around, as far as i am concerned. however, i do need to be more understanding of the realities of the business side of running an office. as you say, it' not just his own life on the line, but 'half of his office' too. but Rogers is a big guy, not some lil architect just trying to build a name for himself. i would like to have seen the starchitect power be useful in tihs case, rather than move on to enforce the same old political mechanisms which led to all of this. so, next time, nothing has changed. the next architect will face the same. i almost wish it was a lil guy for the porject who may have had more balls to stand up to it all. i dont know. in the end, the status quo is re-enforced, and Rogers looks pretty bad now for waffling somewhere between back'n'forth, and/or a complete 180. too bad. he cant be counted on to fight the power. that's life. that's business. that's architecture. and i am rambling.
good luck and good night!
I wonder where cameron stands on this issue?
there's a landmine to step on.
Well...If you know a 17 year old Innocent Israeli kid that blew up on a bus because terrorists smuggled in a 'martyr' from the territories you may also have mixed feelings about the wall.
There is a fine line where our profession and politics mix and I think it is good that we cross it and engage it (especially on this great site) but one needs to be aware that there are two sides to the wall - even though one may seem much more important (to you).
As someone who has been living this conflict since I was 9 years old, I will share with you that there are good innocent victims and bad guys on both sides...
Those who discuss these issues representing only one side are not doing all of us (and themselves) justice.
I would not be surprised if Richard Rogers has/had a relationship with an innocent victim of such a bombing, that may change your perception as easily as money can.
Also, going as far as a botcott on ALL Israeli architects (rather than those for instance who are building the wall, and/or who build within the territories 'On their land' is also not the only way to go.
You may be surprised how many moderate and left wing architects and designers in Israel oppose the wall and urge for peace on every occasion..should they also be punished?
My two bits.
Good point, but should the state government of new york tell someone that the position they have taken on a subject which has many muddy issues, decide that they can't have a job they have already been awarded because they believe something is wrong there?
I think that is the real question. At least for me.
and another thing I can start that story with an other perspective and make it sound just as bad. So let's despense with the terrorist rhetoric, huh. I think there has been equal amounts injustice and terrorism...
he should have dumped the project, or taken it to court. since his political views should have no bearing whatsoever on this project, that's a civil issue ready to be fleshed out in a proper legal context. why is he not willing to fight them there then? isnt that unwillingness equally harmful to the dismantling of extoriton power as the NYC dudes usurping their power over him? thats my point. we'll go on fighting this type of institutional power from a legal standpoint, but its going to take a revision of the types of business practices architects follow a well. we cant sit back and be whores and expect the institutional level to just fall in place to one day protect us, so we dont have to go on being whores. cant have your cake and eat it too.
I agree with John Jourden. It's awful that NY politicians tried to clamp-down on Rogers' beliefs.
NYC politicians have a long history of bowing to Israel for fear of criticizing Israel will give the appearance of anti-semitism.
I agree. But then again it may very well be legal.
John, Making a point about stories on victims on 'the Palestinian side' are just as appropriate.
Real stories about life and personal loss like these are the ones that determine why the situation there is so hopeless and full of hatred on both sides.
I would not advocate for you to refrain from posting any further articles or comments on these issues, just the same - please don't imply that I should hold my own two bits when you post these.
You should not be the only one to voice what injustice and terrorism is.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply. But I think starting a statement with the story you suggest gives the rest of your statement a certain lean. I'm sure you have some real knowledge on this subject and I respect what you said. I just don't agree with the use of such vivid imagary to describe a position which is suppose to be neutral.
I understand your point John.
As I mentioned before, there are MANY MANY moderate and left wing people, architects and designers in Israel.
Best regards,
L
I know, I'm a BIG fan of Eyal Weizman!
More follow up: read.
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.