RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Architecture for the Ninety-nine percent

Print
Written by Larryoltmanns   
Friday, 10 June 2016 19:40


I don't ordinarily pay much attention to architectural critics. In today's world of information overload they tend to be sensational and to over-simplify in order to to be noticed. The recent article by Alex Cocotas, however, so disturbed me that I felt compelled to focus for a few minutes on the words of the critic rather than deeds involved in creating buildings. First of all, let me say that I have no financial interest in responding to his essay. I no longer practice architecture and therefore am not looking for clients. I am not employed by any publications and do not have a weekly quota of words to produce.

In his article, entitled "Architecture for the One Percent", Cocotas suggests that the entire profession today is misguided, but it seems to me that his point of view is a little out of date. The idea that The Architect, in the manner of Howard Rourke, can somehow Unite and single-handedly change the future of the Workers of the World is a mis-guided notion that has been thoroughly discredited, as evidenced by the proliferation of terrible buildings conceived as "machines for living" during the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. This era is without any doubt the bleakest period in architectural history. Many of us who are serious about architecture have spent our lives trying to repair the damage done to our cities by architects trying to be politicians.

Gehry's assertion is characteristically over-stated but essentially true. Whilst ninety-nine percent of the buildings around us are not "shit", it is probably true that most of them make no attempt to be uplifting in any way. For the most part, they have plenty of Commodity, no more Firmness than absolutely necessary, and very little if any Delight.

I am not a great fan of Zaha Hadid's work, but I recognise her value. Perhaps she is more of an artist than an architect, but her buildings, like those of other Starchitects, have helped to set a standard against which other buildings may be judged. We must remember that historically the buildings in the One Percent Club are precisely those we consider to be the core if not the entirety of our architectural heritage. The Parthenon in Athens, the coliseum in Rome, the cathedral in Chartres, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and Grand Central Station in New York were all expensive. Not one of them particularly attempts to dissolve into its context. They are the landmarks on which we tend to focus, allowing the ninety-nine percent to be more utilitarian and less expensive.

I like to believe that most of the projects I designed over the years achieved balance; that they were all economical, fit for purpose, and pleasing to the eye. Whether I am delusional or not is irrelevant. What's important is that apart from the ninety-nine percent of which I am probably a part, there are a few architect/client teams in the world who can afford the luxury of creating architecture that is more purely art. By creating the landmarks, and by raising the quality of the dialogue about what our cities could be like, they set the One Percent example that helps ensure that the ninety-nine percent are not allowed to resemble the apartment blocks surrounding the city of Moscow.

There is no question that there is still too much inequality and injustice in the world, but if we intend to effectively address these issues we need to focus on the ninety-nine percent and avoid being distracted by the one percent. We also need to be clear about who really controls the outcome for the ninety-nine percent. Whilst architects have often been disproportionately influential in government, they will never be the caped crusaders that Mr. Cocotas wishes they could be and they do not make policy.

An interesting example of enlightened government leadership can be found in London, where $1.5 million will barely buy you a minuscule studio apartment (though not necessarily in the best location). Left to its own devices, the so-called Free Market would long ago have pushed the teachers, policemen, and nurses needed to maintain the city out into the distant suburbs. Instead, the City of London has found a simple but ingenious way of spreading the wealth and avoiding gentrification. In every new major residential project the developer is typically required to set aside about 20 to 30% of the space for affordable housing.

We should be able to rely on our government leaders to help us see where the greater public good really lies. An intelligent leader, for example, would explain to Mr. Cocotas that creating the tourist attractions that he pooh-poohs does indeed translate into long-term job creation. The return on investment that all the major cities of the world have spent on convention centres and airports is well-documented, but where the money goes after that is more mysterious. The fact that the millions of additional visitors who come to see the Guggenheim Museum every year has not resulted in prosperity for the average citizen of Bilbao is an issue that should be taken up with the government, not with Gehry. The architect fulfilled his mission, so admirably in fact that city governments everywhere are rushing to achieve their own Bilbao Effect. We might be forgiven for suspecting that where the windfall goes usually has more to do with the next election than about eliminating inequality. Reducing taxes and balancing the budget have much more sex appeal than building affordable housing, and of course the awkward question of where the housing projects might be located is best avoided anyway.

Attacking Zaha Hadid when she is no longer able to defend herself is unfair and is anyway beside the point. Architects do not have the power, unfortunately, to decide how taxes are spent, which individuals need to be relocated to satisfy the greater public interest, or how to eliminate the shortfall of affordable housing in the world. Instead of blaming the Architects, Cocotas would do well to focus on holding accountable the government leaders, who are still alive, and to whom we have given the responsibility of deciding what the ninety-nine percent need. It is probably safe to assume that the One Percent can take care of themselves.




__________

Larry Oltmanns was formerly a Design Partner with SOM before creating Vx3, his own architectural practice based in London. During his 40-year professional career he led the design teams for many large-scale international projects, including the Hong Kong Convention Centre, site of the Handover Ceremony in 1997 and the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, which is scheduled for completion later this year.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN