Archinect : Views : 2009, it’s going to be ugly.

It is hard to believe, even harder to explain, that there are architects and architecture critics that welcome the worldwide economic crisis. In their view the recession could move the focus of architecture from luxury condominiums and iconic architecture to areas where architecture can actually ‘make a difference’. The architecture critic of the New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff, ceases the moment to suggest that all top architects should shift their interest to “...infrastructure, including schools, parks, bridges and public housing.”

One of these ’top architects’ has already announced to set up a new office that would distribute plans without copyright or ego around the world. Next to the OMA and AMO brands, this altruistic agency might be called MAO. Rem Koolhaas doesn’t stand alone in this. The widespread anger with the decadent excesses in architecture leaves many trendwatchers to believe that the return of a more modest architecture is right around the corner.

That is nonsense of course. We cannot simply retreat from starchitecture and pretend it never happened. Nor do we actually want to. Iconic buildings are not popular because of nothing. They are popular, because they are innovative.

Some might find it hard to admit it, but in the end all architects want to build iconic buildings. The painful part for a lot of architects is that everybody simultaneously strives for the stars. The result is a cacophony. OMA therefore claims that adding a new icon has become pointless. In response they designed the anti-icon: an innovative exception to the now banal ‘iconic’ architecture. But don’t be fooled. An anti-icon is an icon too.

The total disgust with the ‘iconic’ pretentions of his fellow architects brought architect Willem Jan Neutelings to the statement that all architects should again strive for normal, neutral architecture. All architects, except for himself. While admitting his hypocritical position, he argued he just loved to work on iconic buildings. He couldn’t help it. It is not the iconic building that seems to be the problem, but the amount of iconic buildings. It is a lot to take.

In the late nineteenth century in Amsterdam there was one lecture on architecture that caused a massive applause. It was a plea to flush all contemporary architecture ‘down the drain’. The cacophony of styles and opinions had reached a boiling point. It would still take a couple of decades before Modernism entered into the discussion. And even about that, the discussion never came to a hold. On the contrary, with the expansion of the number of architects, the discussion diversified ever more.

Now, a century later, the architecture of the nineteenth century is widely appreciated and protected everywhere. That is good news for iconic buildings too. Within a century we will love them anyway.

In 2009 again new icons will emerge. The economic downturn might delay or cancel some new projects, it will not undo our current practice. Eventually we will pick up the pace and build more iconic than ever. In 2009 architectural practice will only diversify further, with new offices being set up in Asia and the Middle-East. If there is one thing for sure, it will be that we will definitely not all like it. 2009? It’s going to be ugly!

Excellent essay with a killer last sentence, Michiel!

For a view on making the non-icon buildings, I'll direct everyone to Steven Ward's submission to the $100 Manifesto contest:

Toward a quiet architecture.

Modern architecture has often privileged the programmatic object-figure over considerations for continuity of the environment-field. The field remains unconsidered, underdeveloped, or ancillary to the disengaged and attention-grabbing object-figure.

In contrast, pre-modern urban forms evolved with a normative environment-field as the primary condition of urban engagement and cohesiveness which, once established, could then accommodate complementary incidental figures.

Architects' desire for recognition has prompted us to take every opportunity to draw attention to our projects, thereby continually adding to the visual clamor and chaos that defines the contemporary cityscape.

Why can't we just be quiet for a change?

Mr. Van Raaij

You don't seem to distinguish property from style. Can you tell the difference between say, a plastic CD and the music that is on it?

In your next-to-last paragraph, you state:

Now, a century later, the architecture of the nineteenth century is widely appreciated and protected everywhere. That is good news for iconic buildings too. Within a century we will love them anyway.

While building may be destroyed, the architecture can be preserved in samples, drawings and photographs. You seem to confuse the architecture with the building, no?

I don't think I get your point, eje. Do you mean architecture can be preserved - and live on - in many ways, such as in a medium like photography?

I can only fully agree with that. Beatriz Colomina has written a great essay in the little book 'Architecture between spectacle and use'. She argues that the fame of Mies van der Rohe is mainly based on photographs of his work. A medium in that sense can be architecture too.

There is an interesting discussion on a similar subject on the work of SANAA here: http://www.eikongraphia.com/?p=2647

To get back to your point, I do believe architectural history is based on selection. We constantly decide what we value and what not, we constantly decide what to preserve and what not. What we value in nineteenth century architecture (and in iconic buildings alike) is not the physical buildings, but the architecture of it. And that is what we will preserve. And personally I think we should try to preserve the actual buildings, not just the photography.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the drive for iconic buildings (even if there is, there's nothing we can really do about it), but I do think that there needs to be a push towards interaction and contextual consideration when it comes to the relationships between all these icons. Part of the problem is the selfishness and aloofness inherent in iconic buildings; architects might want to be a bit more humble in the future, not in paring down their designs into so-called "anti-icons" (which like you pointed out is a misleading term), but in considering their context so that these icons create a sense of cohesion and harmony rather than clash like schoolgirls in a popularity contest.

Not that it really matters though. No matter how iconic architecture gets, people become habituated so easily that you can be sure that even the most outrageous blobitecture will be tuned out after you've walked past/through it for the hundredth time.