SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Buildings & Architecture (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=397)
-   -   ‘Starchitects’ Aren’t the Problem, Architecture Is (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212594)

M II A II R II K Jul 31, 2014 3:35 PM

‘Starchitects’ Aren’t the Problem, Architecture Is
 
‘Starchitects’ Aren’t the Problem, Architecture Is


JULY 29, 2014

By Allison Arieff

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...chitecuture-is

Quote:

.....

While there’s no question that there are a lot of terrible buildings emerging across the globe, we can’t place the blame for that on a handful of international superstars.

- For one, there’s no skyscraper without a client – who presumably has presented a program to his architect that asked for impossible heights and singular architectural moves. Second, Rybczynki’s framing of a small handful of architects as a ruinous cabal ascribes to a pretty outdated idea of the architect as a solitary genius.

- Architecture doesn’t really work that way anymore, if it ever did. The number of people involved on projects of this scale is staggering and runs the gamut from facade consultants to finance guys. The collective actions of these inextricably intertwined groups determine the end result, whether the name at the top is Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas or Zaha Hadid.

- Further, Rybczynki's argument about “locatecture” is very nostalgic and not reflective of the global realities of the last several decades. It’s nearly impossible to define a “local” architect anymore. Communities of architects exist within -- but also far beyond -- local boundaries.

- Focusing on the "starchitect" misses a more important point: Are buildings being designed as unique sculptural objects or do they work symbiotically with what surrounds them? --- I agree with Rybczynki that there is not enough attention paid to how a building works within a neighborhood. That, however, tends to be a problem for architecture generally. While we’re going through what I think it’s fair to say is a wacky building phase, I can be more tolerant of that if architects are concerning themselves with how their buildings meet the street.

- The people who inhabit a city, who walk its streets — they’re deserving of buildings that create vibrant streets for walking and interacting, enhancements that are welcoming. If this happens, and if everyone can get over their ridiculous obsessions with being the tallest and/or most eccentric, I’m fine with more Gherkins and Shards.

.....



The Franchising of Architecture - By WITOLD RYBCZYNSKI:

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2...f-architecture

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...magArticle.jpg

pdxstreetcar Aug 12, 2014 3:20 AM

heres another question, what would architecture critics like arieff do without starchitects? its a perpetual cycle of starchitects feeding architecture critics and critics feeding starchitects

Jasonhouse Aug 12, 2014 3:50 AM

^Which is why we (The Internet Commentariat™) exist to bash both and knock them down to size. :haha:

mdiederi Oct 24, 2014 4:15 PM

Frank Gehry Gives Spanish Critics the Finger
http://news.artnet.com/in-brief/fran...m_medium=email


http://res.artnet.com/news-upload/20...ehryfinger.jpg

ThatOneGuy Dec 8, 2014 6:40 AM

New Urbanist propaganda. Jeez, these guys are starting to sound just as dogmatic as the modernists back in the day.

There's more to architecture than just making it lovey dovey and cutesy wootsey.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.