CalArts two-day symposium on “The Politics of Parametricism” opened last Friday with a conversation between Reinhold Martin, associate professor at Columbia University’s GSAPP, and Patrik Schumacher, partner at Zaha Hadid Architects. Their debate, while at times tending more towards dysfunctional improv theater than academic discussion, revolved around the relationship between architecture and politics -- generally speaking, Martin sees the two as indelibly linked, while Schumacher idealizes their explicit separation. Their debate didn’t concern the visual aesthetics of parametric design, so much as argue about its utility in political systems.
Patrik Schumacher
As an event presented by CalArts’ MA Aesthetics & Politics program, the Martin-Schumacher debate did not explicitly discuss individual architecture projects, but tended more on the side of critical architectural theory. To introduce their debate, both Martin and Schumacher presented papers on their approach to parametric design, which I will try my darndest to make accessible. Martin took an intellectual historical angle, relating parametricism to linguistic theory and our construction of grammatical systems that determine “right” and “wrong” communication. Considering design based on the grammar of scripted parameters, the aesthetic outcome is simply an expression of that procedure, what Martin referred to as the “performativity of procedure”. The power to have a written code dictate the aesthetic terms of the architecture completely, and come to wholly define the architecture, is to Martin a “legitimation of power”. So if politics can generally be understood as a network of power systems, then parametricism is certainly in the political pocket.
Schumacher, who coined the term parametricism and has certainly taken flak for it before, took a much more divisive approach to defining the genre. He saw politics as best left to the “professionals”, and certainly not appropriate for architectural intervention, which could only make things worse. Because architecture has no power to affect political realities, it can only reinforce hegemony and can’t be counted on to resolve anything. When architecture is allowed to float on the whims of a liberal democracy, it produces a “garbage spill” of varied forms and styles within a city, leading to a dissonant and illegible, “white noise” urbanism. To fix this, Schumacher argues for a “private planning” city-building system: a free-market-driven collaboration between private development corporations and architects. These collaborators can then consistently apply their parametric designs to the city texture, increasing order and therefore, legibility.
Reinhold Martin
Even while discussing systems of legibility, the conversation that followed was pretty muddled. Initiated by co-organizer Manuel Shvartzberg’s prompt, “What makes a good city?”, the conversation devolved into that dysfunctional improv, where neither party said “yes” to the other long enough to establish any argumentative threads. By the Q&A period, the only clearly established trend was a public shaming of Schumacher’s parametricism as a totalitarian design method. It seemed as if many people had showed up to the conference only to (eloquently) bash Schumacher, leaving a good-humored Martin to try and pick up the pieces.
Maybe Day 2’s round of speakers brought more clarity, with lectures from Teddy Cruz, Phil Bernstein, Neil Leach, Christina Cogdell, Peggy Deamer, Laura Kurgan, Benjamin Bratton and Andrés Jaque. More information on the conference can be found here, courtesy of CalArts:
167 Comments
It would be rather difficult to prove that parametricism is JUST a tool. We're not talking parametrically assisted design but as an actual style. There is certainly an ideological prerequisite here...ooops, again...asking...extrinsic or intrinsic politicking?
Sorry Donna, I'll keep my comments out, especially since you can appreciate what they'd be.
To be honest though, the same could be said to you when the discussion revolves around more terrestrial things like style, beauty, and ornament. But point taken.
No Tammuz I never said that I didn't understand your rhetoric. Your critique is very clear I even agree with some of it. Your position on the other hand is very vague. You are not offering any solutions. You seem opposed to everything. What do you support? How should architects position themselves?
Thayer I really do enjoy and agree with many of the things you post. This specific instance the snark seemed counter-productive to what the conversation might be able to be.
tammuz, I realized I had mis-used the word parametricism in my post. I realized this while walking the dog in the sunshine and wondering if parametricism would help my neighbors make their houses less ugly. Then I realized while parametrics could help them be more energy efficient etc., parametricism as a STYLE is not something they would be interested in. Parametric calculations are a tool, parametricism is a style.
But understanding the nomenclature isn't helping me understand any better how increasing production makes a computer-form-generated building any better for the environment or the quality of life of those who build it or live with it, and I believe improvements in those areas *are* within the responsibility of the architecture profession. Patickschumacher, many here are interested in what you have to say.
Jla-x, perhaps these previously stated parts will help:
About the apolitico-pro-parametric (schumacher):he is an honest opportunist - even if his opportunism, and what it carries with it, is distateful and has negative consequences. many of you, however, are dishonest opportunists. yes, of course he is more dangerous but there are many more of you building bland office buildings or houses, perfecting details that rely on mass produced parts that are in turn produced by factories owned by rich people who are in turn helping prop up the system.
the apara-pro-political :about those who speak of a political architecture, an architecture that carries with it a political valour, although the sentiment always has more chaleur to it, more warmth, i tend to find that there is another kind of fetishism, an easy relaxed leftist intellectualizing that has little to do with reality, that has little to do with an appreciation of how entrenched architecture within the system and how devious power is.
Then later on, this :. So perhaps both schumacher and rheinhold were wrong and foucault was right.
So, in fact i have stated a clear position. I think both sides are advancing ideologies - both, while they might have the best interests in mind (perhaps..as we still say in our part of the world, only God knows) , they both are being dishonest in (i almost used the word 'enforce' subconsciously,but quondam pointed to that previously- and i think the pro-political is also guilty of the same) in enforcing their virtualities ahead of reality. Again, this goes to the point i was trying to address that the system, the neoliberal one, cannabilizes any resistance, any sign of resistance, and will turn it to its profitable advantage. I think this is the same blindspot for both, patricknschumacher and rheinhold martin. In reality, they are forming their theories within that blindspot- the former encourages an illusory encouragement of the system that would not have suffered had it lacked that encouragement in the least bit..the latter (martin) encvourages an illusory resistance, ie a virtual political affrontation that isnothing more than a cheweing gum for neoliberalism, an excercise in virtual mastication.
Ultimately, i believe that against a hegemony of this system, true resistance is violent, stubborn, bloody, non pacifist. I don't think your communities have provided this despite the ultimately aimless ultimately coopted Occupy movement. Its not architecture that plays the role of resistance, its people.
But even then, greed, the very foundation of neoliberalism, the so called free market, can cannibalise violent resistance. But i won't go further, there is ultimately a global problem here, something very wrong. Its like the sweetest tasting poison, a mcflurry for your tastebuds and your health. Wouldnt you all like to encourage production, wealth...profit?
We remember baudrillard with his love of simulacra...it is not simply the simulacra that has taken precedence over the origin, we now are taking simulacra as the origin and building on that another tier of simulacra. Example. What is called now "Real food"...until it becomes corrupted yet again so that it becomes "the food that used to be called Real Food"...or perhaps raised to a third or fourth tier: "Really real food"
Replace Real Food, with Real Democracy, Real Profit...it is the same principle.
Isn't the argument being conducted on the "why don't you design what we(the public) want" at the discursive level, rank or tierr of Real Architecture?
I hope you don't point out to an above contradiction. Is patrick schumacher intellevtually honest or not. As an opportunist, he is honest; as an ideologue, he is not. Its not personal honesty i referr to herer, intellectual dishonesty ie cherry picking what to factor in and wehat to preclude - a monological fabrication.
Now that the thread has been cannibalized by the usual culprits, Schumacher has a perfectly good excuse to avoid addressing any of the serious issues raised here.
The potential for a rich dialogue has been severely compromised due to anonymous chest pounding - proving Patrik correct on at least one point: The problem with comment facilities is that they get polluted with senseless invective.
Nice work, fellas. Keep it going - it's much more productive and enlightening than frank discussion with a noted and influential man in the profession.
addendum: I have posted a note to Patrik politely asking him to rejoin the discussion and would hope that if he were to do so we can all focus on a respectful exchange of ideas and leave the personalities out of it.
concerning the avoidance of ad hominem arguments (=presonalizing arguments): … I just expect the same respect that you all give to each other as participants … I want to be a participant and not the topic of the debate
in any case its an interesting conversation … I would like to come back to some points:
to Thayer-D a.o.:
there is indeed a complexity barrier that stands against all simple answers concerning societal progress … if you find this kind of phrase pretentious offer another term … I am trying to offer a concept (from Luhmann)…
if its simple why don’t “we” just give everybody in the world a decent place to live, healthy food, and a good education? Seems obvious and simple enough … I guess “we” just need to rid ourselves of nasty capitalists/corporations (Bill Gates? Warren Buffett?) and imperialist war-mongers like Obama.
Why are “we” not doing these obvious things? Who are “we” anyway? I guess if you think “the system” stinks and to answer these questions you have to invest yourself in a protracted political discourse to find a perspective, answers, options … I for my part pose questions that are coherent with my career choice, e.g.: what should the next google campus look like? i.e., what kind of space and architecture would facilitate the further progress of google’s culture of communication and creativity, i.e. how can architectural design contribute to the further enhancement of google’s high productivity life process as a momentous factor in all our productivity? … and as I have tried to argue across 2000 pages: the best chance to make such a contribution is with the methodology and repertoire of parametricism. This has nothing directly to do with social justice but a lot with human emancipation … but it also cannot be reduced to or dismissed as “formalism” … innovative formal concepts, compositional (organisational and articulatory) repertoires are the unique architectural way that architects contribute to progress … not by refusing jobs in situations that might not be squeaky clean in all respects of our admirable PC sensibilities …
to jla-x
so can architecture (help to) change society? Yes, but I rather elaborate as follows: architecture can facilitate and contribute (make its own unique contribution via spatial forms) to progressive developments under way via our clients’ initiatives (e.g. clients like google a.o.). New typologies might be delivered by innovative architects facilitating a client’s innovative institutional agenda, e.g. a new type of work space (or art space) for a new type of work organisation (or art organisation). … The fruitfulness of this debate on the politics of parametricism also hinges on the examples one thinks of: I prefer to look at new potential work environments and the productivity of participatory structures in the most advanced R&D sectors of our society rather than e.g. plazas for demonstrating crowds or factories in the developing world where issues of social justice are at stake that cannot be solved by architects: there the architectural solutions are known anyway already.
To Donna: the above already gives hints in the direction of how I would answer you: the working conditions of construction workers are not the architect’s responsibility, even less the arena of his specific contribution to social progress. We are certainly concerned with health and safety and I also like that our focus on digital fabrication implies a world where construction is a more elegant business. But – except in extreme cases of unnecessary abuse and disregard to worker’s health – I feel it is not helpful to withdraw our services from countries and conditions that are as yet insufficiently developed to be able to afford the same level of attention to these issues as we can by now expect in the UK ..
In general: the tactic of expanding the criteria of critique to (extraneous) matters of heavy moral weight leads to paralysis … this is what Reinhold Martin does in his writings and did in his contribution: he alluded to the “dead body count” in our debate about the politics of parametricism.
… I guess if we are willing to expand our account without drawing a line of topical demarcation we all have blood on our hands with every move we make in our lives …
To Orhan:
Our Kartal Pendik project in Istanbul is not planning to bulldoze any residential building, let alone a neighbourhood – working class or otherwise. (Would you be happy if we’d bulldoze a middle class neighbourhood?) You talk about potentially re-usable factories. Do you think these factories are a thriving, most productive use of this land? These factory sites are either idle or are underutilizing land that could be put to much higher valued uses. Ever heard about the process of utilizing brown field sites and large industrial sites for urban development in an expanding, restructuring metropolis? (docklands etc.) I rather participate in this kind of restructuring that addresses urgent needs and demands than engaging in milieu protection that hampers the progress of the city and adds costs rather than revenues to a community. Yes, I suppose some of the remaining workers have to find a different job but progress cannot be stopped just because some find it harder to adapt. And there are social mechanism in place that are congruent with Turkey’s developmental status and again: on what basis should the architect project the pretence to be legitimized to second-guess or deny democratically legitimized decisions that have been made by the respectively local municipalities and the major of Istanbul.
To Quondam:
Thank you for posting my prior writings … in fact I have changed my position about planning and its enforcement. … I now reject planning and enforcement via state power … in general state bureaucrats lack information, knowledge and incentives and are subject to rent-seeking and corruption … I rather trust in entrepreneurs’ ability to allocate land to the most urgent and most productive social uses. I still believe that a higher degree of visual order would facilitate navigation and orientation and thus the societal communication process and thus social productivity. However, I now think that private planning has a better chance to deliver a complex variegated urban order … and beyond private planning I bank on the discipline’s convergence towards the methodologies and values of parametricism – the heuristics of forging affiliations and coherencies across diverse morphologies – to increase the urban order in the face of both increasing societal complexity and in the face of largely market driven development processes. The complex variegated urban order can emerge bottom up - via multiple independent authors sharing methodology and ethos - rather than being imposed top down.
Said tbe hypocrite who had been one of two to dismiss schumers post thusly: Miles Jaffe: his is just a pompous marketing campaign for parametricism (the historical pertinence and societal importance of parametricism We are discussing a topic on a forum; we all have a right to contribute our thoughts and criticisms. If patrick wants to contribute, all the better...but this is not a lecture or a seminar. He is an equal to any of us here. Furthermore, he has books and articles out. Peruse them Iif you're interested. Ive gone through quite a few parts myself as well as litrrature by other parametricist and emergent-ist architects. So its not about chest pounding. But for Miles Jaffe, its l about gum gnashing. Truly a troll, twisting anything because he has a grudge.
btw ... my statement concerning empowered state officials are meant to be purely systemic, sociological (rather than moral or personal).... in any case their power is being progressively eroded and is moving towards market processes ... this is an empirical fact of our progressing world ... so I am trying to understand the rationality of this process rather than taking this to be a part of a class conspiracy or something that should be resisted ... the social world and its development is a total package ... even if the overall package is in toto getting better (productivity gains) that does not mean that all its aspects are beyond criticism ... however, it should make us pause before rejecting too many of its aspects ... I for my part have come to the conclusion that market liberalisation overall has been a positive process (despite of some of the hardship and anxiety that came with it) ... and that the most (perhaps all) societies should take the risk to go further in this direction ... in the last 5 years I have come to believe that the hardship imposing 2008 collapse and stagnation since can be attributed to a phalanx of misguided state-interventions that prevented market self-regulations rather than to the markets themselves, i.e. this could not have happened with a more unhampered market without state money/interest manipulation, the "Greenspan put", endless bail-outs, state subsidized morgage-securitzation, political pressure to lower lending standards etc. ... but this is another discussion ... however, it is important to note that there are serious arguments to favor (and even to radicalize) the neo-liberal project .. and thus - to the extent that the neo-liberal politics continues - I have theoretically re-assured myself that if a radical revolutionary re-orientation of politics after 2008 is mandated it is along capitalist rather than socialist lines ... so 2008 shook me too ... in unexpected ways ... but not enough to shift me away from architecture into politics ... and in any case: parametricsim is the best way forward for post-fordist network society - whether it goes politically back to a (more stagnant) social-democratic path of evelopment or a (more dynamic) liberal path
The woes of neoliberalism has led to a globized situation where wealth is in the hand of very very few; the evidence is in the pudding. Local markets have been destroyed to accomodate the so called free market that in actual fact is inherently non responsive to local production and consumption. Furthermore, deregulation drives prices of the market to match against the dollar thus sometimes multiplying prices of goods by double digit factors while salaries remain the same or plummet downwards. Sorry patrick, you have no clue what youre talking about or you wish to simply justify a position that perhaps you didnt nneed to justify (since you yourself excused yourself as an architect from taking on economic or political concerns). A good read by economist michel chussodovsky on the globalization of poverty in the form of the neoliberalism aka free market http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0973714700
The author also talks about the 'third worldisation' of the first world where similailr tactics of deregulation and market subservience has resulted in an increasingly poor 1st world population.
To Patrick, the same mayor is on the side of chemical spraying on the protestors in Gezi. He is a mayor of AK Party who is parcelling Istanbul one luxury development after another, opening water source and agricultural areas for profit development in the form of gated and isolated communities who work and earn their income elsewhere in urban centers. What ZHA proposing is not necessarily progress but a death sentence to many small industries and their workers who live in nearby neighborhoods. Have you guys ever read civil societies' reactions to your proposal? Do you know already disastrous actions and development, as it is called urban transformation in Istanbul and other major cities in Turkey? They have dislocated people and those people could not return to their neighborhoods instead they were pushed out to distant places they could not relate to. You sound determined but also like an opportunist who will believe in the unjust actions of the local politicians. I really don't believe you are apolitical but just the opposite, You are an extreme tool for the local powers that be and you know the consequences. But you will go in lengths to defend their decisions because you know well they have the power to even slightly entertain these kind of large urban transformation projects which you are seeking to prove the workability of your parametric design method. That is fine but do it in Germany. Not in Istanbul. Istanbul will take care of itself not through these kind of foreign projects (yes there are many others) but through its own urban solutions and through its own algorithms. Your project looks out of scale boring place to live and too unsustainable with huge bad carbon foot print. Why can't you ponder that a little. Why the industry always has to be pushed out in exchange for non producing service industries providing non sustainable jobs?
Anyway, what happened to the project? Is Suha still pushing it or is it dead? I even was briefly fooled for the allure of a beautiful plan image but immediately brought down to earth by some local Turkish architects whose opinion I value.
Have you watch Ekümenopolis yet? In Istanbul, it is more complex than Parametric patternation.
Nothing like this in Istanbul?
Privatization in the United States has only very rarely led to a better social and economic situation for anyone who is not a high level stockholder in the private entity. It's been an absolute disaster for the prison and educational systems (which these days are clearly connected systems, tragically).
I can understand how some countries could be able to benefit from freer market forces. But the US isn't, at this point in our history, one of them. I suppose I can count myself fortunate that the projects I take on don't have to grapple, directly at least, with appalling working conditions, because I can't accept (because I'm an American liberal? Because in the US the architecture field is really a subset of the construction industry?) that architects don't have responsibility beyond the building itself to the entire impact of the project.
Yes we all have blood on our hands in this case - for example, most construction steel in the US comes from China. But I do think humans can design our way out of ANY challenge, so again, parametrics becomes another tool for doing that. Examples: stick a heart monitor on every construction laborer when the heat goes above 85F and monitor them from the job trailer; stick an RFID tag on every piece of wood to ensure it isn't a product of clear cutting. Personally, I don't have any faith that the market will demand these sorts of innovations. I could naively hope that the expanded use of the tools to make pretty forms would lead to wider use of them to monitor the entire construction process.
Most likely SHoP is the only firm getting at all close to this kind of larger scope of responsibility.
And I'll add that SHoP's approach is market-driven: they have been financial partners in many of their projects.
Donna:I can understand how some countries could be able to benefit from freer market forces Evidence points to the contrary. Neoliberalism is da shitz. People will point out to corrupt governance being the problem when in fact neoliberalism can only infiltrate local systems through corrupt and despotic means. IMF enforced restructuration, covert and overt external pressure to subjugate dissent, actual intelligence and military action.
Patrik, thanks for rejoining the discussion.
I'll take Donna's point a step farther. In my travels, and certainly in events around the globe, it is apparent that market forces dominate the political process. But it is critically important in these discussions - which rely entirely on the written word - to establish clear meaning by agreement on the definition of terms used. When I say "market forces" I am not talking about free markets because they essentially do not exist, as markets are dominated by the wealthy, who then use that wealth to manipulate the political process for their own benefit. The misguided state interventions you cite are a direct example of this.
We depend on the political process to serve the public, but instead it serves the elite, those who have accumulated vast amounts of wealth at the expense of everyone else. So depending on politics to correct the underlying condition - from which they too benefit - seems futile. To this extent I understand what appears to be your retreat from politics, but it is completely contrary to my experience - as well as history and current events - to place the well-being of society at large on the good-will of market forces. In my experience (largely luxury residential) wealth isolates people from society and reality.
Thus, beyond a benevolent dictator, politics in one form or another is our only hope. Those with some recognized degree of influence are critical in this battle, and I would urge you to reconsider your position. The replacement of those who serve artifical markets for thier own benefit with people of intelligence, foresight and creativity are critical to our future. And not necessarily in the development new technologies, but rather in the search for knowledge, much of which has been lost via conquest, industrialization and other forms of "progress".
Human emancipation is not information-rich 360 degree layered interfaces but rather the release from abject poverty, starvation and abuse at the hands of political and market forces. prosperity, freedom, charity, emancipation, life quality and the realization of more peaceful and caring forms of sociality are not the result of productivity gains that directly imply amplification of consumer culutre that is well on it's way to exhausting the resources of this planet we share (tuna sushi, anyone?). Not that we should go back to the stone age, but we should be aware that every bulldozer unemploys thousands of people, and that there are many different ways to define productivity.
If you care to take the time I would be interested in a response to my earlier critical comments on your original post here. Without trying to make you the subject of the debate, it remains that this thread is based on your statements at CalArts and in this forum.
there is indeed a complexity barrier that stands against all simple answers concerning societal progress … if you find this kind of phrase pretentious offer another term … I am trying to offer a concept (from Luhmann)…
Knock yourself out Patrik, just your phraseology itself is a complexity barrier, but being pretentious is the least of your problems.
Funny. We, excepting schumacher, all are saying pretty much the same thing apropos neoliberalism. Then again, distasteful honest opportunism vs dishonest yet well meaning opportunism. Orhan, you pay taxes to the US, no? You end up supporting the US system, yes? You see the direction im heading towards perhaps... And who is to say that it works in Germany not in Istanbul? There are many unhappy germans and this whole engineeered fiasco of a project they called EU...what a disaster.a prostituted europe. But patrick is ideological; and his ideology is that of apolitical nonideology. Therefore he will profess non-ideology ideologically. Again, extrinsic politicking claiming intrinsic political agnosticism. It is exactly this contradiction one sees in the neoliberal teleological self realization of fukuyama, ie the end of history and the full fruition of history through the generic society, the open society. But this is theory, this is fiction. In reality, the neoliberal system has given free ride and exagerrated destructive and colonial (whether in the so called 1st, 2nd or 3rd world) forces, financial, Iideological and military. It didnt start with the US, it started with eutope.After the banking system bled dry the warring european countries post WW2, they moved on to the new empire and used it as a host ...spreading its poison everywhere.
FYI, tammuz, where I pay taxes is none of your business. Ok? Could you not go there again please. Why would you want to know, do I ask those questions to you? Now what? I said go practice this in Germany as a comment in global cultural colonialism. So, there is that too. I am asking basic questions. Opportunism is just one facet too. Nature is opportunist but I am not talking about that in that context but in real estate commerce sense. Do you know about Istanbul's speculative real estate and construction bubble?
I didnt refer to your toiletry habits, Orhan. Read it contextually. If you live in the US, which I gather you do, you pay taxes there. Correct? therefore prop up the system, right? As Im doing here right now. Therefore, although both of us are not with the propagation of such a system, we are hypocritically supporting it to self propagate, which it does (tax goes to government, part goes to military, part goes to ..yada yada). So in essence, we are being hypocritical a bit. Whereas Schumacher's stance happens to coincide happily, honestly, with the system. Threres no shame in being hypocritical here, it just is what it is.
So calm down, I didn't slap you or insult you or indeed meddle in your business. This is about principles applicable to everyone.
"Do you know about Istanbul's speculative real estate and construction bubble?"
It exists in many places mr Orhan. Its a case, not the only.
Greece and then southern europe generally were ruined owing largely to speculative attacks by hedge funds...thats even worse, its not just a sector, its the whole country. And in the meantime, people talk abut "lazy greeks". How shameful.
http://rense.com/general90/euro.htm
You don't need to prove anything to me from that standpoint. I don't know why you got all irate on me.
We all have to live somewhere and that does not mean we are compliant and hypocritical to criticise. That in Turkey is a system systematically oppresses its own people. If he (Patrik) feels fine with this kind of for profit real estate bonanza collaboration it is fine. You needn't be philosophising this deep tammuz. The faults of Kartal are present and clear.
And, words like toiletry, slap etc.., are condescending and in fact you are using it superior manner I will too. It is called Ottoman slap and it disconnects your feet from the ground.
Donna, you are subservient not only at the level of your practice but at the level of the food you eat, the water you drink, the clothes...etc.
You buy clothes with textiles made in Bengladesh? Then you might remember this?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/news/companies/bangladesh-factory-collapse/
Do you have an ipad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3YFGixp9Jw
Ad infinitum
Orhan, please rest assured that I respect you even if I point something that you may find contrary. You shoud not have been irritated at the tax issue; it was not meddling or touching on your person - rather an issue with how we end up being hypocrites of sorts (although i believe raising hypocrisy to the level of a theory is altogether something else, and this is my feeling towards some people who try to push this politics-in-architecture in very odd ways). Furthermore, I said I was NOT meddling in your toiletry. And I did NOT slap. Therefore I found your action UNwarranted. Yes, its vulgar for me to say this - i agree there- but it was not suave of you to get irate wrongful.y
Ok. Forget it than. Let's go back to subject at hand. We need to look at the real estate bubble.
the above examples are not due to independent faults, and one cannot blame these on sole instances of corruption ...but they are rather direct consequences of the misery that comes with neoliberalism, when the homegrown production of a local economy has been cooptedby way of dirty politicking, by diplomatic and non diplomatic bullying, by seducing the greed and brutal or the weak and the pliable to take on roles of leadership. the result is forcing people out of jobs and societies they have constructed over centuries in order to work as subhuman slaves in factories churning out ipads or textiles for a world market that they did not need to serve in the first place.
(edited to add: thanks Orhan)
Sidestepping a little: In any case, Orhan, I think the AK party has (and therefore unfortunately, turkey), from the foreign policy point of view, been dealt many slaps now, with defeat of Egypt's Muslim brotherhood, the Syrian issue. And internally for those same issues as well as the now exasperated dangers of the next-door-, if not within turkey, al qaeda terrorists. Seriously, your government (therefore unfortunately turkey) has not been hated by its neighbours this much since the Ottoman times. Are you going to get rid of them soon, please? Please no more muslim brotherhood aka AK party next time. We really don't like them. Thank you. (ok the bubble now maybe).
AK Party and its land development schemes have reached to boiling point and the over hyped real estate bubble is about to burst. Speculative construction and selling real estate from architectural models came to a questionable end. I don't have anything against parametric method. But if Kartal project is a spearhead for it, it is extremely rough and crude.
To Miles Jaffe:
I guess we both have well elaborated political positions and thus little hope to convince each other …
… just a short clarification: I agree with you that there are no free markets and that the political process is being manipulated by elites and pressure groups in rent-seeking efforts pushing for a misguided interventionism … the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen “put” in general and the current QE program is an ongoing detrimental distortion in the immediate service of Wallstreet speculators … current US and world capitalism is crony capitalism … however the conclusion I draw from this is that it is better to close this route towards market rigging and distortions rather than to keep calling on the state to fix things that cannot be fixed from above … also: I can no longer believe that a grass roots politics can constitute a form of world communism … a democratically centrally planned commonwealth ?? … how can technology and productivity gains not be the key issue?? What else can deliver us from the toil and degradation ?? back to basics??? … I think there is a better chance to launch a political fight that removes politically bought and enforced privileges and insists on the upholding of proper market processes .. my slogan: voluntary exchanges in markets versus power/hierarchy … I have sympathies for anarcho-capitalism … at least I think there might be untried possibilities in this direction .. worth risking to go in this direction … I see no other new route
Anyway … the validity of parametricism does not depend on this outlook .. but it is compatible with it .. beyond these political differences we might discuss questions of architectural innovation: how does architecture gain versatility, a new level of sensitivity with respect to social processes, contexts, environmental conditions etc. ? do you have a proposition ?
to Orhan:
images of wealth contrasts do not shock me ... only the left half of the image is distressing, not its juxtaposition to the right half ... the problem is to understand development mechanisms that are economically inspiring and empowering ... nothing will be achieved by blocking or raiding those who earn more in voluntary exchanges ... nothing will be achieved by redistribution ... by letting those who live on the left side of the pic move into the houses on right half via expropriation ... I would like to hypothesise that 50 years of much less constrained markets would have lifted those on the left into a much better situation by now ... btw further opened borders are another demand in this direction .... nothing can be achieved over night and I am afraid that the political goal/priority of total global equalisation of living standards leads to a form of totalitarianism
To Patrik,
that image does not shock me either but it pisses me off. But your answer does shock me. Do you mean, then, all the North European countries, and other richer nations whose citizens live in better income distribution systems, as one of their sanitary worker can live in a nice place and can take their families to a Mediterranean vacation is literally living under a totalitarian regime? That is so screwed up logic coming from somebody who is trying to have a plausible manifesto. What did you think I am asking, a society where everybody wearing gray pants?
You are also bit of a racist allowing those luxuries and fair living to your European relatives but okay with above picture as long as they are in poorer countries with no relief ahead other than parametricism.
Go ahead and build your parametric whatever in Germany. So the poorer nations can see the real working example before they invest their little money.
And what about you and your firm being a tool for real estate development projects. Parametrics? You are not doing that much different from any other real estate developer and their architects. Luxury homes with valet services. No? I can see how you are empowered and hired by the worst totalitarian entities around the world in Central Asia, Middle East and China. Talk about totalitarianism.
Conversing with you here increasingly turning into a repetitious chat where you are selectively eliminating the real issues and relentlessly repeating same hyperbolic sales pitch.
Ultimately, i believe that against a hegemony of this system, true resistance is violent, stubborn, bloody, non pacifist
Tammuz, while I share some of the same resentment towards the existing "system" and the overall distribution of power and wealth, I think our opinions differ with the above statement that you made. I agree with you on your analysis of Schumacher and Reinhold, I also agree with you on your critique of neo-liberalism, however the idea that violent revolution is the only means of true resistance is somewhat flawed in my opinion. Violent revolution is a reactionary last ditch effort to bring about change, but if that change is left undefined then it is pointless, revolution itself is not a solution. Revolution almost always has its own internal power struggles. These power hungry players rise up and replace whatever system they are rebelling against. In the end, we get just another power structure, one maybe more violent and greedy that the last. We see this is Syria. The extremists exploited a legitimate rebellion against a truly horrid regime. If they win, then the regime that will be next up to bat will be as bad or even worse than the previous because revolution for the sake of revolution is not enough. Revolution only works when it is defensive, when the changing climate is met with resistance from the regime and when that climate is truly more just and more enlightened. True resistance is not about revolution even if revolution in inevitable. I believe that only through cultural and social renaissance/enlightenment can real change ever occur. The individual must first become enlightened or else any system in place will become corrupt. The novel "Lord of the Flies" clearly illustrates this reality of the human condition. Power structure and injustices form out of opportunistic situations. The natural tendency of the human species is towards social order. Social order is almost always achieved through structures of power, and unless the individuals are inherently just and altruistic, the structure that forms will become unjust and corrupt. Power structure is a sort of default for achieving social order. I do not believe that social order requires a power structure, but unless social order can be achieved through some other means then it is the default setting of our species. All forms of government are corruptible, and that which is corruptible will become corrupt as long as the players are corrupt. This story has played over and over throughout history. Revolution is pointless unless it occurs naturally when a positive force of change is met with violent opposition from the established structure of power. Social evolution is the key not revolution. Over all you say that we should revolt against....I say we must revolt towards.... I believe that an enlightenment and renaissance can happen in any system and that we should accept the constraints of the given system and work towards either dismantling it, or improving it. I think this differs from the neo-liberal mentality. I believe that the arts and sciences are the main catalysts for a renaissance. Architects should not be a-political, political, or revolutionary imo. They should be catalysts of whatever counter-culture they support. They should be politically minded agitators. They should be instigators of positive change. What is positive? What are we working towards? This is all within the realm of the architect and the architecture should reflect and facilitate this goal whatever it may be.
Patrik, to clarify, I'm not depending on a top down fix because the top is the problem. But that doesn't mean we should abandon every possible avenue in pursuing beneficial change including politics, and especially by those with the recognition and influence of someone in your position.
As to my proposition, I believe in re/building local sustainable communities employing local people using local materials to produce locally consumed products with decentralization as a primary goal. This runs absolutely counter to globalization and your practice. For example, there is no reason for a museum in Southampton NY to designed by a Swiss firm that is by definition clueless to the local environment in every aspect. Such action directly undermines any idea of local at the expense of community.
Decentralized power generation means no reliance on continental grids and corporate conglomerates and easier recovery from disaster. Decentralized government means more response and responsibility to those served (both hypothetically and ideally). Local production of food and other items assures local employment and reduces/eliminates global transport and associated costs including environmental, etc.
Again, this all goes back to definitions, specifically how one defines productivity. To survive as a species we need to turn consumerism on its head and engage people in directly making their living building and maintaining sustainable communities.
http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/cca-recommends/1651-acting-politically-with-reinhold-martin
rheinhold above.
i quote from: http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism#Neoliberalismis
"The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and free markets are incompatible. The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to accumulate—as any player of Monopoly understands—in just a few hands. It deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players.
If governments accept, as they have done, that the “free” market cannot be challenged, they abandon, in effect, their whole raison d'etre. Democracy is then merely a sham. … No amount of cosmetic tinkering at the margins will conceal the fact that power has passed to that handful of people who control the global economy."
Bryan Gould, Who voted for the markets? The economic crisis makes it plain: we surrendered power to wealthy elites and fatally undermined democracy, The Guardian, November 26, 2008
another quote:
In effect, the globalization project, an ideal that sounded appealing for many around the world, was flawed by politics and greed; the inter-connectedness it created meant that as any flaws revealed themselves, the unraveling of such a system would have far greater reach and consequences, especially upon people who had nothing to do with its creation in the first place.
and:
Unfortunately, for most people in the world there has been an increase in poverty and the innovation and growth has not been designed to meet immediate needs for many of the world’s people. Global inequalities on various indicators are sharp. For example,
Some 3 billion people — or half of humanity — live on under 2 dollars a day
86 percent of the world’s resources are consumed by the world’s wealthiest 20 percent
(See this site’s page on poverty facts for many more examples.)
I hope you can respond to my ideas and not my lousy writing/language style. Btw, you are a very good writer. I always had trouble expressing ideas with words. I am much more visual person.
and from the same site:
The underlying assumption then is that the free markets are a good thing. They may well be, but unfortunately, reality seems different from theory. For many economists who believe in it strongly the ideology almost takes on the form of a theology.
Now I'm starting to doubt the true honesty of the term "honest opportunist". Is Patrick Schumacher deliberately looking away from the detrimental effects worldwide justifying them by speculating that things will get better in 50 years time...out of a true honest (religious) belief or out of a will to absolve himself of the negative consequences of participating so willingly, so as to profit without feeling morally soiled?
I prefer schumacher without digressing politically. if one is fatalistically tethered to (sees himself or herself inherently placed to act within) the system, then by all means use that as an alibi. But to actually add to the literature of neoliberal defense is, in my opinion, a mistake that yes, renders Patrick Schumacher a right wing politician of (parametric) architecture.
Apropos the change in ideas, quondam, I do not imagine that parametricist urbanism (rather than architecture) is possible without some form of top-bottom (be it in a disguised private-public venture, be it in the guise of people with connections to people with power, be it in the form of rich people who have been given the right to have their way irrespective of the plurality of poorer folk living in the region - there will always be a hierarchy that, if left unchecked, will flow from the top to the bottom)
All what patrick schumacher is saying, as i understand it, is that either you shape up and get on the wagon or you do not have a place within the scheme of things. Dear Patrick, stick ONLY to architecture. Its less directly unsavoury. Thanks.
Patrik Schumacher, Thank you for taking the time to address my post. Again, I apologize for the name calling, and I think it really speaks for your character that you took the time to write back.
architecture can facilitate and contribute (make its own unique contribution via spatial forms) to progressive developments under way via our clients’ initiatives (e.g. clients like google a.o.). New typologies might be delivered by innovative architects facilitating a client’s innovative institutional agenda, e.g. a new type of work space (or art space) for a new type of work organisation (or art organisation). …
This debate reminds me of a studio project I had in my second year of grad school. We were given a site, asked to do research, and then to design something. That was it. The final projects were all different in form and program. Some were utilitarian and infrastructural, others were more cultural/artistic in nature. The projects were a result of research as well as the students personal ideologies. Some were great, others were flawed. Some made good economic sense and others did not. Overall, the thing that struck me was that the actual site was in fact already being developed into a shopping center. Another shopping center in a sea of shopping centers. A very special site with regard to its natural habitat, history, infrastructural significance, and overall location in the city. So many great ideas with regard to the "what" the "who" and the "why," but the reality was so bleak. Another shopping center with more big box retail. I agree with your position that architects must work within the given system. This is a constraint, and architecture is all about constraints. However, I do not agree that architects must operate within the conventions of the system. With money and power comes opportunity. Not obligation, but opportunity. Opportunity to break free of the conventions of the given system, the conventions of practice, and the conventions of development to take on a more proactive role in bringing about new typologies, useful typologies, economically feasible typologies, ones that empower and improve society and community, ones that challenge the conventions of development rather than simply accept that the wonderful site along the ancient river is destined to be another shopping center.
if less constrained markets allowed people on the left to move towards the right, we would have seen reduced wealth disparity instead of increased wealth disparity over the last 50 years. that's assuming the last 50 years has seen less regulation of financial markets. i would say thatcher and reagan were about at the fulcrum where things went to shit. i also think the market is much freer now to be controlled by private interests that in used to be.
as it is, the people on the left are going to have a very difficult time moving to the right. working harder and improving productivity won't help the worker within the context of the market as it exists today.
when someone hires you to design a building that is going to be built, you're really only operating within the scope of that building. it would be hard to turn down a project where you're hired to bulldoze a working class community and build luxury condos. designing buildings like that is how we, as architects, put food on the table. there should probably be at least a little recognition that it's the wrong thing to do, but we have to eat. you could turn the project down on moral principle, but that's not going to slow the progress. as you said before, you have the political and legal right to design those condos. the organization set to profit off the condo sales adequately placed themselves within government to to see to it the regulations were in place to allow you to do your job. your job isn't to regulate, it's to design the condos. your ability to influence your client's decision to mow down the neighborhood is likely quite limited.
at an urban scale, when talking about community development or zoning, i think it is a political discussion, and has to be government instead of private forces that direct the regulations. private interests are going to look out for their own profit, with little consideration for the expense of others. there needs to be some sort of organizing body that coordinates the varied interests of different private entities, so they don't hurt each other and can work together as a cohesive unit. government is about the only organization that can do that. granted, government is largely corrupted by private interest, but saying we should get rid of government and give that control over to those same private interests that are causing the corruption seems self-defeating.
governments are able to direct the sustainable growth of cities when private influence is limited. they can operate sewer systems and services like that with little undo influence, because those interfering with reasonable management know they benefit from those systems. i guess the trick is to convince those people that a cohesive regulation preventing them from mowing down working class neighborhoods is in their interest.
also, at a community level, it shouldn't be about private industry's productivity. it should be about everyone's quality of life.
Again, this all goes back to definitions, specifically how one defines productivity. To survive as a species we need to turn consumerism on its head and engage people in directly making their living building and maintaining sustainable communities.
+++Miles, I second that post.
I couldn't agree more about what Miles said about consumerism, but what I struggle with is how that can happen in light of the 24/7 information age media blitz. Everything must be digitized and made available instantly, or else your a ludite. How to best learn from one's mistakes without throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another tought nut. And while I think the market is responding around the edges to the less tangible costs of our consumer society, I think only necessity will bring about a fundamental change. Only many more enviroinmental disasters and similarly devastating geo-political events like the arab spring will awaken us from our globalized x-box lethargy. In the mean time, vote with your feet.
Jla-x
"In the end, we get just another power structure, one maybe more violent and greedy that the last. We see this is Syria. The extremists exploited a legitimate rebellion against a truly horrid regime."
This is/was not resistance. This is a really huge topic that I can't wade now because it takes a lot of explanation about the role of neighbouring and global powers in manufacturing an externally subsidized dissent in the middle east region masquerading behind the form of resistance. So your choice is very very wrong. The Syrian regime is not a truly horrid regime, its a pretty bad regime - due to rampant corruption mainly - but an extraordinary projection has been thrown onto it to allow devious plans to pass through (and have so far faltered, thanks to involvement of other significant players) - remember the iraqi weapons of mass destruction? remember the exaggerated paranoia manufactured against communist russia? remember the fake alibis for the wars in vietnam and so on? the funny thing is you people are chronically vulnerable to media manipulation, you roll from one lie to the next. Violent, yes...for you and for them. As long as you wish to be in a comfortable position, there is no chance you be able to oppose.
You want a really really bad middle eastern regime? Saudi Arabia is the worse. I look forward to seeing the minorities in Saudi rise up- violently, to bring the monarchy to its knees..because they arent being allowed to do so peacefully to date. Same goes for Bahrain where the regional minority is the country's majority.
Yes, I believe a viable resistance should be what i said it should be, totally. i think the demise of the radical left - a deliberated violent plan undertaken by the proponents of neoliberalism that included assassinations in different countries, subversive meddling and bullying in other countries' affairs, the actual encouragement of religious or bandit terrorism to subject the leftist leaning tendencies of nations across the world ...all these have been part of the arsenal in opening up the so called free market.
its easy for a squeaky clean german architect who likes nice suits to talk abut how good neoliberalism has been good (to him) acting like a prophet forseeing better times in 50 years, completely dimissing the mass miseries that the world was and is going through owing to this ideology of greed and only greed - but i do seriously believe that something truly grave should happen to the people who are running the show.
is this realistic? unlike mr patrick schumacher, i think that answering this question is needless. he sees a huge tide and, since he can't resist it, he might as well profit from it. it might imply the misery of many other people, but so what? who cares, the tide will write its history and prove him right - that is the foundation of his logic. I see that it is more important that people stand up to those bullies.
Miles/jla-x, if your way forward - localism over globalisation - is generalized, then most of us will starve as the planet can not support the current numbers with localized production systems ... also: I find the notion of consumerism highly problematic as it presumes that the mass of our populations consume too much ... i.e. are too rich ... at the same time some of you are lamenting widespread poverty ...
... with money and power come opportunities ... that's clients ... but they work usually with borrowed money that they need to pay back with interest to the banks/savers ... this disciplines them not to waste resources according to their or their architect's fancy but to invest in facilities that people appreciate enough to pay for them with their hard earned money or savings ... do not believe that you have the moral high-ground or right and capacity to second guess the market ! ... to work within market logics means to serve your fellow men according to their preferences ... you would want to be served in turn according to your preferences ... money is a certificate of service ...
tammuz, aren't you just mr. sunshine.
but i believe mr. schumacher was trying to relate what architects can do, within the realm of those hired to design buildings that get built. assassinations and such are within the scope of a different profession, especially if we accept mr. schumacher's suggestion that architecture is not a political profession. we don't legislate or assassinate. we design buildings.
I don't buy into any of the media bs. I know the situation was manipulated but the point was that revolution is a waste of time unless you have a clear and well planned objective and unless the people replacing the replaced are less greedy and more enlightened and have a plan for a new and better way forward.
^tammuz
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.