The Italian government has 20 days in which to decide the fate of the country's national contemporary art museum, the Maxxi, which opened in Rome just two years ago and was designed by the Anglo-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid.
— The Guardian
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
I'm sure the Italian politicians aren't going after creativity in their budget decisions, but focing the museum to adopt a different, out-of-the-box programming strategy to meet funding goals wouldn't necessarily be a terrible turn of events. I'd actually find it fascinating to see how the government or private investors could utilize the space inside to generate more revenue.
Why drop so much money on a building if you can make the museum iconic via its collection or program? This sounds like a lack of creativity on behalf of the developers. Too bad it's not working out.
This building type that Zaha seems to prefer – the long extrusions that bend and curve – are very difficult to repurpose. Look at the LF1. It was abandoned years ago.
Mies was onto something when he created "universal" space. It can be repurposed quite easily because the enclosure and the structure are two separate things. Also, the foot prints are square and regular. It's much easier a building like that.
cortezcortez, i did visit the maxxi once, about a year before it opened.
i'm not saying the building isn't interesting or well designed. but i do think that these types of needlessly expensive buildings might be seeing an end to their legitimacy as the world's definition of good design shifts to cost-mindful innovation in this new world of scarce resources and austerity. just observing. some people might benefit from living in a cardboard box for a week or so.
Apr 26, 12 1:14 pm ·
·
They should re-adapt it and sell it off as residential condominiums. Who wouldn't want a Maxxi Pad, yo?
if there aren't the funds to design and construct buildings like this in the first place, governments won't even be in the position to say "fuck that" and build them anyway. that's just an observation. my personal opinion is that architecture will absolutely destroy itself from the inside if we continue to consider super-expensive, unsustainable, extravagant architecture to be the status-quo of respectable design. unless we alter the way money flows in this world, this kind of architecture is in its twilight stages.
This is a huge flaw in the discourse of architecture. Ultimately it's a governmental spending problem rather than a flaw in the architecture. Just as NOLA wasn't an architectural problem to begin with. It was a geo-political one. While architecture has lofty aims of addressing society's ills, we also can't always assume that it can. Nor can we point the finger at it for causing Italy's economic situation. One building isn't to blame.
You would be as equally justified to wag your finger at the Italians wasting their time building Ferraris and Lamborghinis or for spending so much time making such ridiculous clothing, shoes and handbags.
W. Huchting, conversely you can argue that Mies and Corbu are responsible for the absolute failure of the housing projects. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Architecture has lofty aims sometimes that should be lauded for their attempts rather than merely their financial or social impacts. The day we stop trying to accomplish something grand, whether formal or social, is really the saddest day of all.
Micah,
Believe it or not technology is still trying to catch up with Zaha. Retracting economies should not justify a lack of research or imagination.
my personal opinion is that architecture will absolutely destroy itself from the inside if we continue to consider super-expensive, unsustainable, extravagant architecture to be the status-quo of respectable design. unless we alter the way money flows in this world, this kind of architecture is in its twilight stages.
So architecture should stop being funded by the rich? It won't crumble from within due to that trust me. If anything, the rich will end up funding lefty ideas 20 years after the fact.
I agree with some of what your saying, this kind of architecture is reaching its peak but not because of the economy. Go work for Architecture for Humanity or Rural Studio(which did an amazing job of using high design for the underprivileged) if your advocating architecture for the poor
If one wants to alter money flows they go into politics. Because all I can picture from your rhetoric is cheap shelter.
Architecture has always been for and by the rich or the empire. Empires fall and rise, and still that paradigm never changes. It will not be different this time. Good design for the poor, middle, and working class is possible, but "for" is the key word...it will never be by them.
some would argue that the mid-century modernist movement was an architecture developed strictly for the middle class. but again, not saying zaha hadid is a bad architect here. the world is clearly changing, just speculating that architecture might have to change with it.
however i do wonder why anytime someone says something that might somehow be construed into mentioning the poor on this website, it draws so much immediate criticism. why do some people hate poor people so much?
the world is clearly changing, just speculating that architecture might have to change with it.
I agree, but for architecture to ever have a real chance of being for the masses we must first change the business model. A socially conscious architect/developer may have a realistic chance, but then again they will need to be wealthy.
the paradigm will never change. I don't care about any great awakening that may be going on out there. The rich and powerfull will always be in control of the environment because they own the environment.
why do some people hate poor people so much?
I don't think that is true on here. Maybe the neo-cons do, but that is another issue. I think architects may dismiss design for the poor because the task is soooo overwhelming and difficult. It is also an impossible feat within the typical arch business model. I would love to do this kind of work. If I ever become rich I will, but to design for the poor you have to be in a position to invest money. The poor cannot be the catalyst because they have no capital...They may be able to pay a rent or morgage, but not finance projects.
I would argue that the best chance for donig this kind of work is engaging the "good rich" brad pitt types. Engaging the poor to solve the problems of the poor is like engaging the hungry to feed the hungry.
You would be as equally justified to wag your finger at the Italians wasting their time building Ferraris and Lamborghinis or for spending so much time making such ridiculous clothing, shoes and handbags.
Except those things actually make money and the Maxxi does not.
A beautifully-designed museum may only increase the likelihood of someone visiting it. And that's a really stupid business model to bank on, public or private.
You could probably relocate the Mona Lisa to a warehouse building in Blackpool, England and that museum would still get millions of visitors a year.
"we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them." +100,000
Hahaha Epic! I like that.
@Micah
That is absolutely true. Most of architects and designers are more willing to wine and dine with the rich and the affluent than the poor. They would rather talk to rich developers than poor community leaders. It is the most feasible or easiest way to realize the projects which is the ultimate aim of many architects. Do I like it? No. But is it true? Hell Yes!
If you want to blame, you must start with architecture education. We should also start denouncing people like Medici and Michelangelo. Because these 1% of their time did exactly the same thing like Zaha Hadid did. They didn't even have to think about the poor at that time. The biggest difference might be Michelangelo wasn't building every where like Zaha Hadid is doing right now. I would like to see Zaha Hadid slow down a bit and do something for the poor, that will be great. But who am I to say?
The other thing is the poor doesn't care about architecture. They tend to do one thing most of architects dislike. It is vandalism . I still don't fucking get it. How on earth you would want to make the place you live like a garbage pile. Is it a way to channel their anger? Is it too expensive to take care a modest house or apartment? Whatever the reason, it is very irritating to see that.
yes lets make architecture school forget research and innovation and focus on housing for the poorfolk. What a funny opinion from someone who thinks the US is full of irresponsible borrowers.
I always assume that educated people are supposed to be at near the last of the line who are in need of help.
@ valet
Why are you so desperately needing help? You're privileged enough to have college education. May be even master degree which is still a remarkable achievement itself.
It is responsible of the educated and the affluent ones to look after the poor. Now you're just trying to help the educated and the affluent. I'm not sure which one is funnier. Yours or mine?
Why are you so desperately needing help? You're privileged enough to have college education. May be even master degree which is still a remarkable achievement itself.
It is responsible of the educated and the affluent ones to look after the poor. Now you're just trying to help the educated and the affluent. I'm not sure which one is funnier. Yours or mine?
Well now.....I grew up poor as dirt but got an M-arch. Don't think that one has to be affluent to be educated in this country, you just have to take loans.
we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them
Seriously? This is why we have ghetto enclaves in this country. This is why sustainability is not possible. This attitude is destructive and leads to a stratified urbanism. How can we design areas for living and working if those working there cant live there? Localization is not possible with this ignorant attitude. People are people, and I grew up with straight up brilliant poor people. Weath does not = smarts.
I'm not saying that being affluent and educated are inclusive. I mean if you're educated or If you're affluent, you should be in position to support the unfortunate ones. Now you're saying help me, help me more, and more and more.When will you be able to help the poor? After you, and you and you?
Is that too difficult to balance between what you need and what other people need?
I feel sick to say people are more willing to make politically correct statements. But not many of them are willing to behave as they said.
we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them
It is true statement. A reality! What can you say? Is it politically and intellectually right to say? NO! But it s a FACT! It is how real estate price works. jla-x you're living in a society which is full of ignorants and opportunists.
Are you spending more time with the poor or the clients who can pay you to work? I would love to see every architect as Samuel Mockbee.
All I'm saying is just try to be a designer who can help others if you can. Should not be a burden for society. That include the financial responsibility as well. I still can't believe that it is such a difficult thing to do for many people. I ain't come from ritzy family. I also didn't take a penny from my folks since 20. I'm doing fine.
The other thing is the poor doesn't care about architecture. They tend to do one thing most of architects dislike. It is vandalism . I still don't fucking get it. How on earth you would want to make the place you live like a garbage pile.
people vandalize the built environment because they are disenfranchised, not because they "don't care about architecture." Often buildings can be physical representations of this inequality and are attacked. People care about "place" if they feel like the they are part of the community and have input (i.e power). You see trash-strewn dilapidated neighborhoods because people have stopped caring or they feel like nothing they do matters and they have no control over their own lives. Has nothing to do with income level. Some of these problems can actually be helped through architecture and the design process, but mostly through participatory government policies and advocacy.
I think this is tough for architects because our approach to design tends to be very ideological and authoritarian instead of more scientific, empathetic, and collaborative.
an aside - the US policy of promoting and subsidizing home-ownership encourages people to buy houses who do not have the resources to able to maintain them. coupled with places spatially built around the car (and forced car ownership) we've created a vast built environment where we've all gone increasingly inward, constantly focused on trying to financially support our individualistic lifestyles, instead of living our lives on the street and in the community.
an aside - the US policy of promoting and subsidizing home-ownership encourages people to buy houses who do not have the resources to able to maintain them. coupled with places spatially built around the car (and forced car ownership) we've created a vast built environment where we've all gone increasingly inward, constantly focused on trying to financially support our individualistic lifestyles, instead of living our lives on the street and in the community
Agree. In doing this we also eradicated alot of small businesses. We cut of the human connection to the market place which is vital to the success of small local business. When I was a kid I felt a sense of loyalty to my local barbershop (even though he fucked up my hair just about everytime, and droped cigarette ashes all over my clothes) I would keep on going because I knew the dude. Same with the local pizza shop, chinese food, bakery, etc....This was in 1980's NY....Now I live in a "vast built environment" called phoenix. I make my shopping decisions based on not having to make left turns...These strip mall's are totally dislocated physically,socially,and culturally from the city. They have no loyalty to the consumer and we have no loyalty to them.
Because of this car oriented landscape and what I like to call the "selfish herd lifestyle" we transfered control over our communities to outside interests, often with their corporate headquaters thousands of miles away. We created a homogenous marketplace with no relevance to the local conditions and culture. Because of this the poor can no longer use the physical city as a means of upward mobility in most places. NY fighting street vendors is a good example of this. Control is being lost. When control is lost exploitation begins.
As far as rich and poor living and working side by side.....check out a terrific documentary about the garment district in NY. (Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags) it was on HBO about a year ago. This film should be shown in every urban studies 101 class. It so clearly illustrates an amazing and sad shift in american cities.
I think this is tough for architects because our approach to design tends to be very ideological and authoritarian instead of more scientific, empathetic, and collaborative.
This thread took a number of left turns. As far as rich vs. poor goes, cultural buildings like museums have their doors open to anyone no?
Problem with this particular museum is that it took 10 years to complete and cost $200M, and now expects to lose millions each year (on account of funding cuts).
While this may be Zaha's finest moment, it sure isn't another shiny Bilbao, and Maxxi is not exactly a tourist destination like most Ghery's droppings are.
So Micah has it right in the first post. Starchitecture bubble is over. At least for publicly funded projects. The risk is too high.
In countries where art is publicly funded and is seen as a SERVICE that the government provides to its citizens, it is absolutely ridiculous whether this project is feasable or not. I am not expecting all you guys to understand this on the other side of the atlantic since cultural projects in your country do not operate that way, but a museum in not a McDonalds. Publicly funded architecture projects are pretty much the most important venues where architects can build for the sake of art, and in most cases build their finest works. And for those of you who claim that this museum does not have the Bilbao effect, how do you know???? It opened only last year. It had budget issues since the very beginning, it was in fact never FULLY open because of budget issues. It is just a very poorly organized public project. It was a sense of idealism to bring contemporary architecture to Rome, but clearly it failed. NOT because the building is poorly designed, NOT because it was overly expensive (it was scheduling that drove the prices up the roof, not the eccentricities in design). Also the value added by a piece of architecture to a city cannot be measured by how much cashflow it generates. If this is how we need to think, then we should close down most museums all over the world immediately. What a douchy point of view.
Also please read the f-ing article before you make presumptuous generalizations about how things really are. "The administrators of the museum said last year's losses were in part due to a 43% cut in government funding and had, in any case, been covered by profits carried over from the previous year. They expressed "surprise and concern" at the minister's decision which "damaged the international credibility" of the museum."
This is why governments shouldn't be left in charge of anything. Can someone remind me why art should be publicly funded? If a museum can't generate its own revenue streams, it shouldn't be, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook. Because it's always what happens in the end.
@Center for ants: Lamborghinis and Ferraris are not publicly subzidized. As long as rich people will buy them, they will be around.
Corporate sponsored art has been a big problem for the politically aware arts community in last few decades. I am not a big proponent of government's preferential sponsorship but leaving arts funding to private corporations and very wealthy individuals makes way to preferential dissemination of particular culture, PR person curated art shows and corporate extravaganzas instead of good art. It makes a way to shiny new museums as money making enterprises and tax escapades for rich collectors, museums programming changes, putting event scheduling at the top, and of course, arts of wealthy pushed down to public's throats.
All in all, I am against institutionalizing any art form by any large corporations including the Guggenheim and any others.
As for the Maxxi Museum, current Italian economy is on the brinks of nearing where Greece went to. The problem with this notable museum designed by a talented architect signifies of that economic downturn. Under those circumstances a big elephant of an architectural nature is most visible.
Arnaud, it seems like you completely missed the point of my post. The art is funded by the government for the same reasons why a highway project is funded by the government. Just like we pay collectively for transportation infrastructure for our own good, we pay for ART infrastructure to create a collective culture that represents us. The reason why Italy is going bankrupt, and please research this if you are curious, is not extravagant cultural spending. It is lack of credit regulation and banking practicing abuses done by the financial sector- just like it is in the US. In fact it is the LACK of government control and excessive deregulation of the financial sector that got us into this mess to begin with. The welfare state existed for many decades in Europe, and it still does in countries like Germany. They still have generous funds for art projects, and I hope they continue to do so. Because if you leave art to populist commercialism, all you will get is Paris Hilton.
OK if your stance is "forget the poor" you can not promote sustainability or cloak your buildings in "green facades". Just stop being full of shit and be real...proudly state that you don't give a shit...you just want to make cool things. No more green roofs no more ecological urbanism. Really no point in building 1% of the buildings sustainable if the other 99% are going to be energy sucking toxic shit. Not gonna stop the ice from melting anyway. You can't exploit sustainability if you are not thinking about 99% of the built environment. Its like being a war mongering christian. It's just bullshit. Make up your minds people. Stop ordering your big-mac meals with diet coke. If your going to be a big fat slob just treat yourself to a regular coke, your not fooling anyone.
May 14, 12 11:11 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.
42 Comments
the starchitect bubble is slowly bursting.
I'm sure the Italian politicians aren't going after creativity in their budget decisions, but focing the museum to adopt a different, out-of-the-box programming strategy to meet funding goals wouldn't necessarily be a terrible turn of events. I'd actually find it fascinating to see how the government or private investors could utilize the space inside to generate more revenue.
Dear Mario Monti,
Thanks for saving money.
From Berlin with frugality
Angela Merkel
Buildings change their use all the time don't they.
oh god the lefty thinks we should all live in cardboard boxes, way to go Micah
Why drop so much money on a building if you can make the museum iconic via its collection or program? This sounds like a lack of creativity on behalf of the developers. Too bad it's not working out.
This building type that Zaha seems to prefer – the long extrusions that bend and curve – are very difficult to repurpose. Look at the LF1. It was abandoned years ago.
Mies was onto something when he created "universal" space. It can be repurposed quite easily because the enclosure and the structure are two separate things. Also, the foot prints are square and regular. It's much easier a building like that.
We'll see what happens...
Micah, I think I saw you at the Maxxi once.
cortezcortez, i did visit the maxxi once, about a year before it opened.
i'm not saying the building isn't interesting or well designed. but i do think that these types of needlessly expensive buildings might be seeing an end to their legitimacy as the world's definition of good design shifts to cost-mindful innovation in this new world of scarce resources and austerity. just observing. some people might benefit from living in a cardboard box for a week or so.
They should re-adapt it and sell it off as residential condominiums. Who wouldn't want a Maxxi Pad, yo?
These kinds of buildings will never end. Holding a preservationist and contractible world view is not a way forward.
"oh were so poor, lets just go cheap and easy"
fuck that.
blame the money not the architecture
ugh.
if there aren't the funds to design and construct buildings like this in the first place, governments won't even be in the position to say "fuck that" and build them anyway. that's just an observation. my personal opinion is that architecture will absolutely destroy itself from the inside if we continue to consider super-expensive, unsustainable, extravagant architecture to be the status-quo of respectable design. unless we alter the way money flows in this world, this kind of architecture is in its twilight stages.
This is a huge flaw in the discourse of architecture. Ultimately it's a governmental spending problem rather than a flaw in the architecture. Just as NOLA wasn't an architectural problem to begin with. It was a geo-political one. While architecture has lofty aims of addressing society's ills, we also can't always assume that it can. Nor can we point the finger at it for causing Italy's economic situation. One building isn't to blame.
You would be as equally justified to wag your finger at the Italians wasting their time building Ferraris and Lamborghinis or for spending so much time making such ridiculous clothing, shoes and handbags.
W. Huchting, conversely you can argue that Mies and Corbu are responsible for the absolute failure of the housing projects. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Architecture has lofty aims sometimes that should be lauded for their attempts rather than merely their financial or social impacts. The day we stop trying to accomplish something grand, whether formal or social, is really the saddest day of all.
Micah,
Believe it or not technology is still trying to catch up with Zaha. Retracting economies should not justify a lack of research or imagination.
my personal opinion is that architecture will absolutely destroy itself from the inside if we continue to consider super-expensive, unsustainable, extravagant architecture to be the status-quo of respectable design. unless we alter the way money flows in this world, this kind of architecture is in its twilight stages.
So architecture should stop being funded by the rich? It won't crumble from within due to that trust me. If anything, the rich will end up funding lefty ideas 20 years after the fact.
I agree with some of what your saying, this kind of architecture is reaching its peak but not because of the economy. Go work for Architecture for Humanity or Rural Studio(which did an amazing job of using high design for the underprivileged) if your advocating architecture for the poor
If one wants to alter money flows they go into politics. Because all I can picture from your rhetoric is cheap shelter.
Architecture has always been for and by the rich or the empire. Empires fall and rise, and still that paradigm never changes. It will not be different this time. Good design for the poor, middle, and working class is possible, but "for" is the key word...it will never be by them.
some would argue that the mid-century modernist movement was an architecture developed strictly for the middle class. but again, not saying zaha hadid is a bad architect here. the world is clearly changing, just speculating that architecture might have to change with it.
however i do wonder why anytime someone says something that might somehow be construed into mentioning the poor on this website, it draws so much immediate criticism. why do some people hate poor people so much?
edit: for and by the middle class. my bad.
the world is clearly changing, just speculating that architecture might have to change with it.
I agree, but for architecture to ever have a real chance of being for the masses we must first change the business model. A socially conscious architect/developer may have a realistic chance, but then again they will need to be wealthy.
the paradigm will never change. I don't care about any great awakening that may be going on out there. The rich and powerfull will always be in control of the environment because they own the environment.
why do some people hate poor people so much?
I don't think that is true on here. Maybe the neo-cons do, but that is another issue. I think architects may dismiss design for the poor because the task is soooo overwhelming and difficult. It is also an impossible feat within the typical arch business model. I would love to do this kind of work. If I ever become rich I will, but to design for the poor you have to be in a position to invest money. The poor cannot be the catalyst because they have no capital...They may be able to pay a rent or morgage, but not finance projects.
I would argue that the best chance for donig this kind of work is engaging the "good rich" brad pitt types. Engaging the poor to solve the problems of the poor is like engaging the hungry to feed the hungry.
"...like engaging the hungry to feed the hungry."
Cannibalism, yes! Now we are talking, yo!
why do some people hate poor people so much?
we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them.
You would be as equally justified to wag your finger at the Italians wasting their time building Ferraris and Lamborghinis or for spending so much time making such ridiculous clothing, shoes and handbags.
Except those things actually make money and the Maxxi does not.
A beautifully-designed museum may only increase the likelihood of someone visiting it. And that's a really stupid business model to bank on, public or private.
You could probably relocate the Mona Lisa to a warehouse building in Blackpool, England and that museum would still get millions of visitors a year.
@toasteroven
"we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them." +100,000
Hahaha Epic! I like that.
@Micah
That is absolutely true. Most of architects and designers are more willing to wine and dine with the rich and the affluent than the poor. They would rather talk to rich developers than poor community leaders. It is the most feasible or easiest way to realize the projects which is the ultimate aim of many architects. Do I like it? No. But is it true? Hell Yes!
If you want to blame, you must start with architecture education. We should also start denouncing people like Medici and Michelangelo. Because these 1% of their time did exactly the same thing like Zaha Hadid did. They didn't even have to think about the poor at that time. The biggest difference might be Michelangelo wasn't building every where like Zaha Hadid is doing right now. I would like to see Zaha Hadid slow down a bit and do something for the poor, that will be great. But who am I to say?
The other thing is the poor doesn't care about architecture. They tend to do one thing most of architects dislike. It is vandalism . I still don't fucking get it. How on earth you would want to make the place you live like a garbage pile. Is it a way to channel their anger? Is it too expensive to take care a modest house or apartment? Whatever the reason, it is very irritating to see that.
yes lets make architecture school forget research and innovation and focus on housing for the poorfolk. What a funny opinion from someone who thinks the US is full of irresponsible borrowers.
I always assume that educated people are supposed to be at near the last of the line who are in need of help.
@ valet
Why are you so desperately needing help? You're privileged enough to have college education. May be even master degree which is still a remarkable achievement itself.
It is responsible of the educated and the affluent ones to look after the poor. Now you're just trying to help the educated and the affluent. I'm not sure which one is funnier. Yours or mine?
not true Tee
just not true
Why are you so desperately needing help? You're privileged enough to have college education. May be even master degree which is still a remarkable achievement itself.
It is responsible of the educated and the affluent ones to look after the poor. Now you're just trying to help the educated and the affluent. I'm not sure which one is funnier. Yours or mine?
Well now.....I grew up poor as dirt but got an M-arch. Don't think that one has to be affluent to be educated in this country, you just have to take loans.
we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them
Seriously? This is why we have ghetto enclaves in this country. This is why sustainability is not possible. This attitude is destructive and leads to a stratified urbanism. How can we design areas for living and working if those working there cant live there? Localization is not possible with this ignorant attitude. People are people, and I grew up with straight up brilliant poor people. Weath does not = smarts.
i'm really hoping toasteroven's comment is purposefully erroneous, otherwise i have nothing else to say.
@jla-x
I'm not saying that being affluent and educated are inclusive. I mean if you're educated or If you're affluent, you should be in position to support the unfortunate ones. Now you're saying help me, help me more, and more and more.When will you be able to help the poor? After you, and you and you?
Is that too difficult to balance between what you need and what other people need?
I feel sick to say people are more willing to make politically correct statements. But not many of them are willing to behave as they said.
we don't hate poor people - we just don't want to live next to them
It is true statement. A reality! What can you say? Is it politically and intellectually right to say? NO! But it s a FACT! It is how real estate price works. jla-x you're living in a society which is full of ignorants and opportunists.
Are you spending more time with the poor or the clients who can pay you to work? I would love to see every architect as Samuel Mockbee.
All I'm saying is just try to be a designer who can help others if you can. Should not be a burden for society. That include the financial responsibility as well. I still can't believe that it is such a difficult thing to do for many people. I ain't come from ritzy family. I also didn't take a penny from my folks since 20. I'm doing fine.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
The other thing is the poor doesn't care about architecture. They tend to do one thing most of architects dislike. It is vandalism . I still don't fucking get it. How on earth you would want to make the place you live like a garbage pile.
people vandalize the built environment because they are disenfranchised, not because they "don't care about architecture." Often buildings can be physical representations of this inequality and are attacked. People care about "place" if they feel like the they are part of the community and have input (i.e power). You see trash-strewn dilapidated neighborhoods because people have stopped caring or they feel like nothing they do matters and they have no control over their own lives. Has nothing to do with income level. Some of these problems can actually be helped through architecture and the design process, but mostly through participatory government policies and advocacy.
I think this is tough for architects because our approach to design tends to be very ideological and authoritarian instead of more scientific, empathetic, and collaborative.
an aside - the US policy of promoting and subsidizing home-ownership encourages people to buy houses who do not have the resources to able to maintain them. coupled with places spatially built around the car (and forced car ownership) we've created a vast built environment where we've all gone increasingly inward, constantly focused on trying to financially support our individualistic lifestyles, instead of living our lives on the street and in the community.
an aside - the US policy of promoting and subsidizing home-ownership encourages people to buy houses who do not have the resources to able to maintain them. coupled with places spatially built around the car (and forced car ownership) we've created a vast built environment where we've all gone increasingly inward, constantly focused on trying to financially support our individualistic lifestyles, instead of living our lives on the street and in the community
Agree. In doing this we also eradicated alot of small businesses. We cut of the human connection to the market place which is vital to the success of small local business. When I was a kid I felt a sense of loyalty to my local barbershop (even though he fucked up my hair just about everytime, and droped cigarette ashes all over my clothes) I would keep on going because I knew the dude. Same with the local pizza shop, chinese food, bakery, etc....This was in 1980's NY....Now I live in a "vast built environment" called phoenix. I make my shopping decisions based on not having to make left turns...These strip mall's are totally dislocated physically,socially,and culturally from the city. They have no loyalty to the consumer and we have no loyalty to them.
Because of this car oriented landscape and what I like to call the "selfish herd lifestyle" we transfered control over our communities to outside interests, often with their corporate headquaters thousands of miles away. We created a homogenous marketplace with no relevance to the local conditions and culture. Because of this the poor can no longer use the physical city as a means of upward mobility in most places. NY fighting street vendors is a good example of this. Control is being lost. When control is lost exploitation begins.
As far as rich and poor living and working side by side.....check out a terrific documentary about the garment district in NY. (Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags) it was on HBO about a year ago. This film should be shown in every urban studies 101 class. It so clearly illustrates an amazing and sad shift in american cities.
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/schmatta-rags-to-riches-to-rags/index.html
My comment was tongue-in-cheek.
thought so! whew!
I think this is tough for architects because our approach to design tends to be very ideological and authoritarian instead of more scientific, empathetic, and collaborative.
yes!
This thread took a number of left turns. As far as rich vs. poor goes, cultural buildings like museums have their doors open to anyone no? Problem with this particular museum is that it took 10 years to complete and cost $200M, and now expects to lose millions each year (on account of funding cuts). While this may be Zaha's finest moment, it sure isn't another shiny Bilbao, and Maxxi is not exactly a tourist destination like most Ghery's droppings are. So Micah has it right in the first post. Starchitecture bubble is over. At least for publicly funded projects. The risk is too high.
In countries where art is publicly funded and is seen as a SERVICE that the government provides to its citizens, it is absolutely ridiculous whether this project is feasable or not. I am not expecting all you guys to understand this on the other side of the atlantic since cultural projects in your country do not operate that way, but a museum in not a McDonalds. Publicly funded architecture projects are pretty much the most important venues where architects can build for the sake of art, and in most cases build their finest works. And for those of you who claim that this museum does not have the Bilbao effect, how do you know???? It opened only last year. It had budget issues since the very beginning, it was in fact never FULLY open because of budget issues. It is just a very poorly organized public project. It was a sense of idealism to bring contemporary architecture to Rome, but clearly it failed. NOT because the building is poorly designed, NOT because it was overly expensive (it was scheduling that drove the prices up the roof, not the eccentricities in design). Also the value added by a piece of architecture to a city cannot be measured by how much cashflow it generates. If this is how we need to think, then we should close down most museums all over the world immediately. What a douchy point of view.
Also please read the f-ing article before you make presumptuous generalizations about how things really are. "The administrators of the museum said last year's losses were in part due to a 43% cut in government funding and had, in any case, been covered by profits carried over from the previous year. They expressed "surprise and concern" at the minister's decision which "damaged the international credibility" of the museum."
ah and also
The museum was visited 450,000 times in 2011.
This is why governments shouldn't be left in charge of anything. Can someone remind me why art should be publicly funded? If a museum can't generate its own revenue streams, it shouldn't be, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook. Because it's always what happens in the end.
@Center for ants: Lamborghinis and Ferraris are not publicly subzidized. As long as rich people will buy them, they will be around.
Corporate sponsored art has been a big problem for the politically aware arts community in last few decades. I am not a big proponent of government's preferential sponsorship but leaving arts funding to private corporations and very wealthy individuals makes way to preferential dissemination of particular culture, PR person curated art shows and corporate extravaganzas instead of good art. It makes a way to shiny new museums as money making enterprises and tax escapades for rich collectors, museums programming changes, putting event scheduling at the top, and of course, arts of wealthy pushed down to public's throats.
All in all, I am against institutionalizing any art form by any large corporations including the Guggenheim and any others.
As for the Maxxi Museum, current Italian economy is on the brinks of nearing where Greece went to. The problem with this notable museum designed by a talented architect signifies of that economic downturn. Under those circumstances a big elephant of an architectural nature is most visible.
Arnaud, it seems like you completely missed the point of my post. The art is funded by the government for the same reasons why a highway project is funded by the government. Just like we pay collectively for transportation infrastructure for our own good, we pay for ART infrastructure to create a collective culture that represents us. The reason why Italy is going bankrupt, and please research this if you are curious, is not extravagant cultural spending. It is lack of credit regulation and banking practicing abuses done by the financial sector- just like it is in the US. In fact it is the LACK of government control and excessive deregulation of the financial sector that got us into this mess to begin with. The welfare state existed for many decades in Europe, and it still does in countries like Germany. They still have generous funds for art projects, and I hope they continue to do so. Because if you leave art to populist commercialism, all you will get is Paris Hilton.
The only productive thing left to do is to hold a 'maxxi-mum repurposing' competition.
No starchitects are allowed to enter.
starchitecture is not over, it had no bubble to burst.
GO ARCHITECTS! points are spot on.
forget the poor, they crap over whatever you give them
OK if your stance is "forget the poor" you can not promote sustainability or cloak your buildings in "green facades". Just stop being full of shit and be real...proudly state that you don't give a shit...you just want to make cool things. No more green roofs no more ecological urbanism. Really no point in building 1% of the buildings sustainable if the other 99% are going to be energy sucking toxic shit. Not gonna stop the ice from melting anyway. You can't exploit sustainability if you are not thinking about 99% of the built environment. Its like being a war mongering christian. It's just bullshit. Make up your minds people. Stop ordering your big-mac meals with diet coke. If your going to be a big fat slob just treat yourself to a regular coke, your not fooling anyone.
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.