With titanium facades swinging like jiving skirts and windows staggered like towers of toppling coins, the chaotic energy of the latest apartment designs for Battersea power station can only mean one thing: Frank Gehry is in town.
As the 85-year-old visionary architect behind the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao outlined plans for 700 apartments in London – his first English buildings – he walked straight into a raging debate about the capital's affordable housing crisis.
— theguardian.com
61 Comments
The idea that we now have to sneer at every project not aimed at social welfare is crazy. If you read economic theory, more buildings are needed to keep up with demand. Places like London and New York are so expensive because supply cannot keep up.
More building equals lower cost per. Simple.
As soon as you start building 'social housing,' immediately you get a stigma of cheap, crap. See: Pruitt-Igoe. At least quality building has some value to it, and stands to be more sustainable in the long run, no matter who lives there. And remember, today's high class living is tomorrow's affordable...
Darkman, imagine how much supply we would actually need to meet the demand in NYC and London. It just isn't going to happen.
from the article:
Gehry said: "As an architect, I have a social responsibility.
he sure does sound different than ZHA
The world desperately needs more unsustainable starchitect-designed top-dollar luxury apartments.
that is unfeasibly one dimensional what you say, Darkman. the reality is very likely that you are not a historian of economical systems and what you post above most likely is an expression of belief limited by the blinkers around your scope of knowledge which you confuse with -what you conceive of being a- probable divination. its good to be honest about not knowing enough and bypassing the triviality of trying to pass off a passing thought-belief as a probable truth.
anyway, i've observed there are two ways of thinking...and they need not contradict each other and yet, they are used here on archinect - very often, tediously too often- to brandish animosity and not communication.
on one hand, there is the tendancy to gawk and to celebrate architectura pornography. ok. im being cynical, sorry - this decription fits many here. however, there is, more demurely (and i have a few individuals in mind - very very few) who approach the projects/posts with a supremely aesthetically based intellect. they show that rarely do they have any concern with the moral implication, the economical implication..and so on. they accept the state of the world as it is and from that, they construe their context. to them, i have two questions:
1- why do you choose to accept the state of the world as it is knowing that the state of the world was altered at points by cultures and peoples who cared enough to change the state of the world? why do you choose to accept it knowing that the state of the world, currently (and in my belief it is a dire miserable state), is a result of the intended greed of particular groups of people. which is to say, the world is not a given but is in the process of being made...therefore, why do you accept it as a given, why do you accept what is the seeming future trajectory of the present as the given trajectory of the future? your rejection might well find a context that, en masse, might offer an actualising swerve in the seeming trajectory. this question I would specifically address to some here and amongst them, especially to Quondam - who has always cared to discuss and be generous with his thoughts- on Patrick Schumacher who, in my point of view has amoralized himself to the point of being immoral.
2- simpler still, why do you, in the first place, advance aesthetics ahead of economical-political-social concerns. and by aesthetics, I do not refer to stylism or contingent features of aesthetic but rather the aesthetization of the object/architecture to the point where discourse is defined by its development and presence solely within an aesthetically rhetorical discourse: in relation to art/architecture history, history of ideas...and phrased in an insular vocabulary that defines a domain that can only associate itself externally and internally through the virtualities, the abstractions lying elsewere while bypassing, completely, all socio-politico-economical matters that would ensue and that actually have always defined that domain. while criticizing the miserable conditions of the world, we as architects, should be able to discern where our involvement as architects indeed belongs to this system of perpetuating and advancing this misery - in terms of labour conditions (abroad), in terms of perpetuating the neoliberal model which kills of indigenous sustainable economies and indeed architectures and which have led to the impoverishment of a huge percentage of the world population, the worsening of our climates....etc etc.
so, the questions to them above is not so much that they do interest themselves in the aesthetical matters...but why do they choose to ignore that which has a tangible, real and even an eschotalogical role to play? why prod the world with this virtual stick when the real counterpart of this stick is pushing the world to a worsening state?
I have other questions to the other side, I just dont have the time now and I'm more interested in the feedback on the above questions (especially that they would be addressed to indviduals who, by their nature and tendencies towards aesthetization (and - for those who may be deceived- criticality may well fit within the mould of aesthetization, aesthetization is not at all acquiescent within its own world) are pensive.
From what I see, they are proposing to build a 700 unit wall around the power station. Somebody who is not that familiar with London I am not sure what it really means. Can anybody speak of this iconic building's blockage, if so blocked? I know it from Pink Floyd album Animals. Aren't these group of new buildings opportunity to make real estate money? How is this architecture, regardless of the star architect, but not an invasive real estate development for the luxury housing market? Are these the determined steps to eventually demolish the power station and build more luxury housing?
I see your pink floyd animals and raise you a morrissey
you're the one for me, fatty!
@t a m m u z
Where did u learn your elements of style?
I think Gehry's idea of social responsibility is different from the common view. It is that you should make buildings that are valued to the city. There is too much architecture that claims to be socially responsible, sustainable, etc, but it is all talk. If people want to pay a million to live there, who cares? Just opens up more space in other places, since you all hate Gehry buildings so much.
For those that question the economics of what I said previously, read Triumph of the City by Edward Glaeser, which oversimplifies a bit but correlates to the supply and demand model of housing economics. One should remember the reason everyone wants to live in certain cities and not the suburbs--the craft and quality of building in the early 1900s surpasses the shit-show of todays crap.
It looks like that power station will surely be torn down, who would live next to it.
"One should remember the reason everyone wants to live in certain cities and not the suburbs--the craft and quality of building in the early 1900s surpasses the shit-show of todays crap."
I don't think suburbanites are as aware of the craft and quality of a building as you might assume. It might have more to do with the more humane qualities of pre-WWII environments assuming housing ammenities and densities being equal. The automobile domminated sterility of the modern suburb with the lack of public spaces that aren't under the perviwe of some large corporation also play into the older cities revival.
hi Quondam;
to begin with your last expression, yes exactly. I put forward this enquiry in completely good faith and with genuine respect - indeed I hope you assume this as a matter of principal, I have learned quite a bit from your entries and i appreciate the generosity of your thoughtful participation here.
Quite simply, it is because I am interested in how you approach - whether by incorporation in a manner I cannot yet decipher or by dismissing in a way i can- the matter above delineated. Yes, I am definitely assuming a critical stance - after all, you were being represented as a model of intellectual aesthetization that precludes or seems to preclude and ignore politico-socio-econimical matters and the manner by which they relate to architecture pragmacally where such and such architecture is a literal reification of neoliberalism - and here one MUST have an opinion on the matter, one cannot simply accept things as they are as one accepts the flow of the river where the river's trajectory is being engineered by members of one's own species....as well as the manner by which neoliberalism relates figuratively to such and such architecture (i brought up patrick schumacher but in reality patrick schumacher is a self-professed prophet of neoliberalism and thus this does not contradict that this religion is being practiced by many if not most other architects of whatnots).
I will be more blunt; I found your 29 March post , pertaining to Patrick Schumacher, a bit disturbing, in the sense clarified by reading it against my post above. I did not interject back then perhaps because I needed some time for it to sink in and surface within a more comprehensive enquiry. There is a lot that can be said about Schumacher's architecture in relation to its complete oblivion to the systems that it serves, tangibly, and to the systems that it associates itself to as a figurative practice (the abstraction of the 'process' and its elevation to a neo-functionalism that inherits functionalism's cardinal sin of dismissing everything but its own self engrossed obsession and its delusion in an objectivity that firstly is mythomanic, secondly is reductive to its mythomania and thirdly turns out to be nothing, as a figurative practice, but a process of secularization that even banishes -or pretends to banish, and it is therefore culpable of hypocricicy- the realm of the imagination.
I'm not saying what your position should be like apropos Schumacher but i don;t understand the silence on the above issues. would appreciate if you kindly read this in tandem with my previious post if it starts to make sense now.
lastly, please do not read my omission to engage elsewhere as due to your posts having left me cold. sometimes, i am not always in the right place to answer (in different shades of 'place') and sometimes, perhaps on placid lakes rather than volatile seas, my mind lacks perseverance. :0) so its my (un)doing and you has nought to do with your contribution. I hope that you did find me offensive or dismissive.
...so I do like the new archinect format...as you stroll thru forum posts about advise and complaints you can see where the critics and contributors are hanging out. I could also read multiple Tammuz posts that were on an agenda. Tammuz - I am trying to imagine a practical in the flesh version of this role the architect might play in society, more like a low level recent grad on a salary or a more senior architect with a family. How in this version of life could this architect who is most do anything you suggest as worth doing and maintain occupation status as architect? Its easy to talk about religion, politics, and God all day with no resolve just like imagining ourselves in the position of schumacher or gehry...its all speculative bull shit. Maybe that is your point Tammuz? If we are going to talk about bull shit it should be moral and ethical bull shit over aesthetic and autonomous architecture theory bull shit? I prefer the latter and I imagine most practical architects would as well...
Sorry...hope you did NOT find me offensive is what I meant to say.
A bromance, how sweet.
I never really understood why architects feel they have such a moral imperative to save the world. No other profession seems to be as obsessed about helping society beyond the scope of their profession. Engineers sure don't, even doctors don't - even though they are arguably one of the most socially necessary professions. Everyone else takes responsibility for their job, does it, then goes home.
Architects are never content for buildings to be just buildings. A condo development isn't just housing, it's some sort of panacea which will somehow miraculously cure the inequalities of capitalism. I mean, a building which includes social housing is obviously beneficial, but in no way does that have anything to do with what an architect has control over. The client is the one who decides this, not the professionals they hire to design their projects.
Sure, a building which gives back by way of street-level generosity, context-sensitive aesthetics, etc. is great, but that never seems to be enough for most architects. I don't get it personally, it seems illogical. I wonder if the profession has never quite escaped the legacy of the narcissistic self-righteousness of the old guard of Le Corbusier, Mies, FLW, etc.
Quondam enjoys slinging insults (the Eisenhower article) but can't take some gentle ribbing in return. A fragile ego trumpeting? Who cares. He's nothing more than an anonymous fart in a hurricane.
By the way Quondrum, as far as bitter and jealous goes, I'd be happy to compare my portfolio of completed work with yours any time. Assuming you have any, of course. Have a nice day.
thwoomp, I couldn't agree more. I think it has something to do with architects designing huge objects which some equate with monuments to their genius. There's a wonderful feeling one gets from creating something, especially when it's beautiful that can easily morf in to grandiosity. I'm not religious, but I think it has something to do with the icarus myth.
In that context, the profession will never get over the narcissism, because it is a human trait. What might be helpful is to stress the role of the architect as a servant of society, while they design for whomever. In other words, teach them that they have a certain responsability to create buildings that should address the needs of the street, city, and environment they are built in, while fulfilling the specific programatic requirements.
Thwoomp, no one is neutral. The decision to design what the developer wants is a Position. Not being political or ideological is impossible unless you completely drop out of society. If you work with or for some dictatorship for instance you are taking a political stance by aligning with them unless under duress of course. I partially agree that some architects do take things to a different level by making weak connections between form and ideology or by exaggerating the power of not too powerful things, but overall inaction is a stance. Complacency and acceptance is ultimately an alignment with whatever structure is in power. What if you disagree with that structure? Should you then just drop out?
The "MORALS " and stances are all misaligned here, especially those of you who speak of dropping a client because they are part of a disagreeable organization. Your only "moral" obligation is the built environment and not social and political environment in which the architecture is built. This stance you speak of is strictly personal well beyond the realm of occupation. If you don't like the social structure in which you practice architecture then go practice where you like the social structure. Stop telling everyone to go to church on sundays, its a work day - get down from your soap box and go be productive.
jla-x, i agree.
there is a lot to be said about the extent to which societies in the western/ized world are becoming apoliticized, after the heydays of student revolutions up to the early sixties and extending into the seventies. realistic opposition to neoliberalism, to rampant capitalism has been decimated though many means, chief amongst them is bribery by whatever means and under whatever guise.
while this decimation might seem to some people to be a result of a natural implosion - and in the history of humanity, nothing is 'natural'- to be accepted and to be acquiescent to....this is far from the case. for example, the US has been lied to, cheated, forced to abide by draconian laws that contravene your liberties...over and over and over again by its own financial-through-political elites. they, the political and financial elites do it gradually, like boiling a lobster starting with cold water so they anaesthetize you - making you think you still live in an democracy, as they strip you away from meaningful effective dissidence, providing you with sham option instead that reinstate the status quo but perhaps with a different skin colour, or sexuality or pedigree...but the substance remains the same. you're allowed to ause yourself with gimmicks that parody meaningful dissidence but are anything but - for example, if you remember quite some time ago, Javier Arbona here on archinect was blogging on "dissident" acts to takeover the city space, cute little trivial pranks that could be tolerated. in reality, it is the political arena that needs to be first taken over. the political arena proper, the political arena of unions and professions, the political arenas of communities - professional, spatial, and so on. the civil society must return back to politics to better the state of things...and not leave affairs to a machine running on money that neither has people's benefit as input nor as output.
in the process of this apoliticizatiion, people turn away from politics and from having a political awareness, from knowing that they as practitioners of their profession have a say in the matter, should be respected for this right and privilege that they gained through hard work..that they have a right to determine the ethics of their practice, an ethics based on egalitarianism not an ethics of kissing the ass of rich people, an ethics of refusing to contribute to the increasing ghetto-ization seperating rich from the poor, of counting on cheap labour and cheaper blood, on sourcing local and sustainable, of building to accomodate communities not to replace them, drive them out...
in the process, these people - as can be seen from some participants here (refer to post immediately above mine, in case no one else has posted since) - have turned this brainwashed status they inculcated or were unfortunate enough to inherit into a proselytizing one - the zombie now has its own morality, since it cannot feel life, liberty, since it has become deathly jaded.
we can also see this in patrick schumacher's rejection of the political role architects - and indeed , by suggested extension, ALL professionals, within outside or within their domain, whether as a group of educated and concerned union of compatriots who care about egalitarian accessibility by way of their profession and its content (provision of housing on an egalitarian basis, egalitarian accessibility to public spaces, etc etc)
that is the voice of the deluded slave who cannot imagine anything else and sees that s/he at least better defend her predicament against criticism from others or it is the voice the profiteering slave runner who would not want to imagine anything else and prefers the slave deceived and subdued. the US abolished racial slavery....and, in the process, perfected economic slavery in inverse proportion to dismantlement of qualitative democracy...leaving quantitative democracy as that last pretense of normality for the poor lobster inside.
correction: perfected economic slavery in inverse proportion to qualitative democracy (therefore dismantling it)
"They never abolished slavery they just included all the races"
-Bukowski
t a m m u z - you write so much and say so little with regard to architecture. the excessive amount of language is a clear indicator of your preference for politics over architecture.
paragraph 3 contains some substance with points that are relevant which will be addressed individually here -
"...that they have a right to determine the ethics of their practice, an (1) ethics based on egalitarianism not an ethics of kissing the ass of rich people, an ethics of (2) refusing to contribute to the increasing ghetto-ization seperating rich from the poor, of counting on (3) cheap labour and cheaper blood, on (4) sourcing local and sustainable, of (5) building to accomodate communities not to replace them, drive them out...
(1) if the big clients weren't rich people it would be a powerful organizations such as governments. The client would be an entity with the authority and means for providing a source for developing the built environment. Find me an entity with authority everyone loves.
(2) Refusing to contribute isn't very productive. Join your local city planning agency or start a local chapter that helps refuse the development, but in short not much a professional can do as of right that is effective. There will always be another zombie to take the commission right? So stay poor with an opinion and little power or influence other than on Archinect forum or get the commission, make some money, and maybe you could interject something that closes the gap, that's what a creative architect would do.
(3) agree, no cheap labor. Architects should run better businesses, but that requires well compensating clients...an entity with authority and the means of providing a source for developing the built environment, you'll have to kiss someone's ass. Now telling your client to spend more money on a part of the project that is of no concern to you as your contract clearly states - good luck. Express your opinion and maybe you can go raise more funds for the client? or again don't take the commission, sit on the sidelines posting political dribble on Archinect forums.
(4) sure on sourcing materials, unless the energy (embodied) involved is higher than sourcing products by means of the available infrastructure. This is your most successful comment on the Architect's role in society, this one has real substance to it and is relevant.
(5) accommodate communities where appropriate. see response 2 above.
On one hand I think you are talking about Starchitect's who through their methods of practice and personal convictions have achieved such success but on the other you may be actually talking about the average architect?
I have a really hard time imagining anything you are saying practically. Like walk me through a day in the life of this very political architect.
OBO, you argue on the basis of bad faith and so its not really worth discussing this with you. how so? by insinuating that i write dribble and "stay poor". If you wish to discuss, then remain respectful, don't get personal and don't be offensive because you need to appease a worm wiggling around your rectum. If what you choose to do is to belittle, then fuck off and kindly don't address me with your dribble especially given that you could have been more productive doing your work and getting richer.
dribbling on my dribble would make you, in your estimation, even more of a waste of a time.
So you can invent a position but can not defend it? You change the subject when challenged - you are a politician a creative architect would provide a diagram at least. A less creative architect would cite some code and laws. A zombie architect would respond as you did. Bad faith, do go on..
Dear t a m m u z I respectfully object to your comments on an architects role in any society. Please clarify if your moral recommendations are for the Starchitect or the average architect. Your thoughtful attention to these matters is much appreciated. I look forward to a rational and reasonable debate among high thinkers.
tammuz, I think he's making very valid points that you might be over personalizing. Plus, I also think you're more into politics than architecture, but that dosen't disqualify you from making your ponits, it's simply an observation. Where's my Che Guevara t-shirt?
Unfortunately, while tammuz does occasionally bring up some good points, he tends to paint with a wide brush, splattering everyone in sight. He also tends to get aggressively defensive over any challenge to ideas, which he takes as an attack on his self-perceived cultural and intellectual superiority.
OBO. May as well just sell crack then, if I don't someone else will anyway. That's basically what you are saying?
So then there are three things you can do
1. Sell crack and be part of the problem
2. Do nothing and be neither part of the problem nor part if the solution
3. Sell something else that is good for society.
Most people in the first category either ignore the evidence that there is a problem or just accept that they are powerless. Either way they are still part of the problem assuming that there is one. Of course there are also those who sell crack to anyone and those who will turn down the pregnant woman and the school kid. Its not all black and white of course.
I would say the second is better than the first but worse than the third.
Famous architect example
category 1, Schumacher
category 2, well you can't be famous if you fall into this one...
category3, Mockebee
selling crack is a different skill-set than practicing architecture. that is not an accurate analogy.
mockbee did some impressive stuff. are you suggesting idealistic architects who want to make the world a better place should drop out of the profession and become teachers instead? not bad advice certainly, but it doesn't leave much room for a person to actually work in the field, does it? suppose those folks in hale county were able to pay him a decent living wage, or do architects have a responsibility to forego paychecks if they don't want to be equated with crack salespersons?
selling crack is a different skill-set than practicing architecture.
Architecture isn't marketed and sold?
that is not an accurate analogy.
You're right - the crack buyer knows exactly what he's getting.
To clarify for those who wish to consider this clarification, the strong response from my part was owing to specifically the dismissive tone (ex calling other people's contribution here 'dribble'). This warranted the blatant 'fuck off'. The second objection is that OBO is arguing from bad faith...I have mentioned categories of concern that link architecture and politics but OBO completely bypasses them because his or her aim is not to entertain each others thoughts but to lash out antipqthetically. This, for me, is intellectually sleazy. I have no issues with being criticized; but bstromping your ego around is not what im interested in. OBO could well have advanced an opposite view and this would have actually been interesting. But that was not his or her interest. Some here find it more interesting to mark a territory antipathetically. There is absolutely no assumption of how my level of cultural whateverness compares to others. I am the least interesting thing in my opinion. OBO, excuse me from responding to your prompts, the honestly dismissive one and the pretentiously polite stylized one. When your content Iinterests me, Ill respond... you may now feel the cheap valourof victory for a withdraal on my part owing to your assholic conduct.
the skill set is quite different lol, but the societal and environmental effects are far more devastating via architecture...not formally necessarily, but with regards to the overall condition and the corporations/power structure being accommodated and further empowered.
Crack isn't causing the ice caps to melt. Crack is not causing deforestation. Crack is whack! no doubt about that. I just don't think the birds and bears see crack as much of a threat as they do our sprawling toxic habitats.
As for work in the field...This is largely a personal matter. It depends on what you care about. If its the environment then that should be your focus. Not saying that everyone should be involved in housing for the poor or any other specific issue. Its up to you. Just saying that if we do care about something we should be true to that thing and not become cogs for the thing that is in opposition to it. There are several approaches I assume. One would be to be the developer and control the money....That's difficult but possible. The other would be to work within the community and get support from caring members etc...Ban is doing his thing...disaster relief...The other would be to work with developers that share the same values...
so would you then design a North Korean death camp? I mean...your only obligation is to the architecture...All Im saying is that everyone has a line. I would personally feel almost as horrible designing a KFC as a deathcamp...I mean a KFC is a sort of death camp..lol
Im not saying that we should all have the same line, but we should all not cross it whatever it may be...Id that line is too low to meet via conventional means, then we must seek other means.
That said, we cannot judge the character of others based upon our personal line in the sand but we can judge their contributions to society based upon it. We can only judge the character of others based upon their line in the sand and whether or not they cross it.
Architecture is political and philosophical because we are all political and philosophical to some extent. All of us. We are not robotic shape makers.
If one does however get a commission for a gentrifying apartment complex in a working class area, and that individual has strong views against it, they could possibly take the project and try to make it less horrible. I suppose that would be better than having it go to the next guy in line who does not care at all. In that case you would be in the position of the decent crack dealer that will sell crack a bit more selectively...possibly not beating people up as often, turning down the pregnant lady, etc....I suppose the world would be slightly better with decent crack dealers than with ruthless ones...I suppose the old school mafia was better than the street gangs of today that have no code at all....Now im confusing myself....lol
so would you then design a North Korean death camp?
i would not. i am not licensed to practice in north korea. also, i don't have any north korean clients.
as to your gentrification comment, i think it's all good that you have a belief and a line and don't want to cross it an all that. however, as far as your contribution to society, i think you would really need to understand the problem, it's causes, and it's effects before you're really able to design a gentrification apartment that limits the damage to the community. if you see the problem as 'people with beards don't have traditional enough ornament,' your solution isn't fixing the community or addressing the real problem with gentrification. you're just forcing your opinion on other people to make yourself feel better.
of course if you do understand the real problems gentrification causes, and you are able to limit the negative effects, then good for you. better communities are far better than worse communities.
We can only judge the character of others based upon their line in the sand and whether or not they cross it.
If you sell crack, or design death camps ... that's OK because your personal ethics allow you to do that?
But it's only the highest-grade crack. And it's the very best death camp money can buy.
No because they may not have any idea that they are doing anything wrong. If you know you are doing something wrong and do it anyway then you are of bad character. This doesn't mean they are not wrong or that they are innocent it just means that they don't exhibit any moral turpitude. It's why we have an insanity defense. I should have noted that any person capable of practicing architecture is probably smart enough to realize that the death camp or KFC is destructive. My point is that most if not all architects are in fact knowledgable that they are crossing their own moral line. Unless they are mentally retarded most architects take the Schumacher stance and create a bullshit ideology or claim to be apolitical to justify their unethical work.
On the other hand, most developers probably don't know that they are doing anything wrong or at least the extent of wrong. They may in fact be doing wrong but not necessarily acting in bad character. Point is that the architect who knows the consequences of the built environment (hopefully understands better than the developer) is in fact more guilty and of worse character than the developer.
the crack dealer who is 15 and grew up in a crack house is probably of better character than the much smarter and wiser 30 year old that sells crack.
I would like to thank j-lax for taking a crack at formulating a response that we can agree to disagree on. Thank you t a m m u z for bowing out and not taking a better formulated stance, which afforded this opportunity for j-lax. Gentrification can fall within the practice of architecture and turning down the job even if it smells of complete disdain for the existing community is foolish. If you as an architect are going to participate in providing well designed communities you need to stay in the trenches. , take the commision and look for opportunities. .
And therefore the architect has more responsibility to express their moral and political stance. The architect, by knowing the effects of the built environment, had the responsibility to act morally. Knowledge creates responsibility.
i like kfc. i think their chicken is good. it costs a little more than other fast-food establishments, but that's because their product costs more. sometimes i also eat at taco bell. i like their nachos bell grande.
i do not go to starbucks. like, ever. does it make me a bad person if i don't go to starbucks? hipsters go to starbucks don't they?
Also curt, read what I wrote again about the apartment. You are missing the point. Maybe it's me... I think I really suck at writing especially via iPhone.
Lol. You are hopelessly stubborn. You remind me of my brother. I love the guy but he's so annoying to talk to because he just doesn't want to even try to see anyone else point.
probably should of qualified that last sentence better - if you want to change something take the commission and don't high-tail it up to academia or some other safe haven for holy rhetoric while the world spirals out of control around you because they won't listen to you, as if you know better by being an isolationist...from the practice of architecture in a real society, not some fancy place where KFC is a crime and Schumacher's agenda is the equivalent to crack dealing.
there are several levels to this, jla-x and it does not just stop at choosing a project or dumping it, you are looking at a pathetically small picture -and by pathetically, I don't mean to insult you, it is not you thatis pathetic...I mean that it is pathetic that we have been driven to lose sight of the larger picture to focus on a cosmetic, individualistic scenario of architects individually seeking to stand up to the system. politics does not happen through individualism - even the rich elite corrupt greedy bastards gang up to be able to push the system in their direction. -this is why i don't also believe in anarchism and this is one of my qualms with Occupy. they were so individualistic in their demands, so generalized, so unambitious, they did not have an actual enemy. i don't really blame them. i think the American cancer, the neoliberal model, is more pervasive, more entrenched, more insiduous and brain washing than any identifiable tyrant can be. money has proven to be the supreme tyrant - ironic, given that liberalism sees its liberty in the possession of more and more money. I believe that Occupy was usurped, misrepresented and deflated. it was cannibilized and turned into an expression of a rebellious young identity - a horrible reduction that trivializes the genuine justified concerns in the face of non-society run by inflow and outflow of money and nothing else.
Occupy, the movement contrasts, for instance, with student revolts in Quebec -a place that is much more resistant to neoliberalism than the rest of North America- that were able to mobilize the society against very tangible moves by the liberal party that really fronted the trend to neoliberalize. huge demonstrations that stunted the 'privatization' of education. but i fear that even for them, they might be fighting a losing battle. i hope not though.
now, in reality, while we are meant to understand what is happening as a globalization of individualism, the reality is that it is the globalization of an increasingly rich group of people and an increasingly poor group of people. "individualism" is one of the myths propogated amongst the naive to impoverish them...they can't gang up to protect themselves as impoverished communities: i.e., divide and conquer. therefore, this "individualism" purported by neoliberalism is one of the lies...a lie that infects the architectural profession as well.
now, in terms of how this reflects on architects: i think you should start with the larger picture that implies different levels of viewing architects - as an affiliated part of (currently near-non existent) society (explained below), as a group of affiliated professionals , as safeguards of the built environment, as safeguards of the local production forces in preference to global, as safeguards of local communities and their cultures AND, in their own right, as bearers of intellectual traditions .this was what i was getting at in some of my posts above. it is a sorry sight to see someone brandishing architects around as providers of service only - in my opinion, a reductivist untrue proposition because no matter what an architect does - as you, jla-x, stated and i agree with you on that point- the architect cannot BUT be more than a provider of a service because his actions either further instates status quo or does not...and as such, true, she plays a political role - willingly or unwillingly.
firstly, on the basis of a profession, a reflection of (currently non existent)community, they - like many other professions- have, within the neoliberal system been atomized, individualized. the order of architects is not really an 'order' of architects. it is just a verification bureaucratic gateway and a commercial networking environment. it is, supremely, a normal body of the larger commercial sphere that privileges clout, priviledge, and so on and does in no way form a support system for young architects, graduates and so on. in short, akin to the government, they have removed semblance of responsibility towards its own. it is absurd, to my mind, that there should be an order of architects which takes young american students years and years of hard work to access and yet it affords very little for them aside from the liberty of possessing the title of an architect. in reality what it renders them slaves subservient to its bureaucracy whilst not even providing them with the support system that an equally bureaucratic welfare state model would at least have done! so, its at-your-own-risk slavery...not at-your-own-risk liberty even!
I believe that- in tandem with the larger picture of a state that takes care of its own- a union of architects, politicized, engaged on two fronts: professional (which i've touched on in the previous paragraph) and internal.
internal: I repeat from above: as safeguards of the built environment, as safeguards of the local production forces in preference to global, as safeguards of local communities and their cultures AND, in their own right, as bearers of intellectual traditions. this makes architects not just "providers of a service" but a controlling authority (naturally working with an EXISTING government) over the built environment, answerable to a conduct of design ethics that are not a matter of choice and privilege (as for example is the calibre of LEED). Like we have a charter of human rights that we are obliged to follow, there should be a charter of environment rights that we would equally obliged to follow:
- at the social level: ensuring the sanctity and maintaince of local communities, their shared and private spaces over and above commercial benefit of enterprises - this has major design implications and s this crucial role that architects play here cannot be denied . commercial benefits should be seen as a supplement to these communities not a replacement.
-at the commercial level: sourcing local materials, labour over and above global. just like countries allow immigration only when they, these countries, have at least catered to their own citizens first , global trade should only be a supplement to local market - NOT a replacement.
- at the environmental level: in tandem with the two above, sustainability - the more sustainable kind of sustainability - passive energy, local material..etc. not the kind o sustainability manufactured in polluting factories, with a huge energy travel cost simply to create another market.
-intellectually: one of the horrible implications of that stupid phrase "provider of a service" which equates a person, let alone one who spent years learning abstraction-based as well as technical skills and possessing of anthropologically rooted education in relation to how people live and create spaces around them...with toilet paper! the architect carries an intellectual tradition of moulding abstractions into a tangible reality and the other way around. this in itself makes her into a researcher, critic and producer of society by way of being a researcher/critic/producer of its spaces - especially of the one the architect is involved in. thus, the architect has an arsenal of political tools at the level of her knowledge and skills, of crafting space.
this closes the loop that allows the architect - individually and as part of a community of architects- to play the natural role her education prepares her for. a safeguard of the built environment prior to being a safeguard of the client. and as safeguards, they are supremely political...they represent, they stand up for the communities they serve (as opposed to the clients they serve), they have a public duty...etc.
some might respond that my proposal is unrealistic within the bounds of the current system you or someone else lives in. there is no such union, the architect has no such control...etc etc. but that would not be a valid criticism because this has been recognized. the system must change if indeed you want - as a professional and as a citizen- to have an actual say in your city, to actually live in a democracy of equally footed people...rather than in a democracy of toilet roll papers being used to wipe a higher democratic echelon of scat enriched buttocks. the change cannot begin neither at the level of government nor at the level of individual; unions - political, engaged, dynamic- are one very potent solution.
so, finally, if you still see that architects do not have a political role, this is only because you have been programmed to read it this way within a system that benefits from your disengagement and disempowerment - that loses a critic and gains a cog.
Concerning the point to do with locality (materials, production forces), I would like to add an equally important point and is that as a local economy builds itself on its own resources (material and human), so must you respect that of others, that local economy should equally respect the right of others elsewhere to do the same. you cannot strangle that neoliberal monster by applying double standards. one of the detriment of neoliberalism is the abuse of poorer economies at the hand of richer economies. this is the underlying reason for much of the world's artificial miseries..war, famine, political instabilities.
probably should of qualified that last sentence better - if you want to change something take the commission
If you want to change something you won't get the commission. Because that's not what the commission is about.
It's just like politics.
the abuse of poorer economies at the hand of richer economies
prevents
a local economy builds itself on its own resources
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.