ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?
  • Currently 1.0
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2

(2)
Big Thinker
Uploaded on 01/03/2008
Like any other new product, having a name-brand attached to a new building guarantees certain amounts of attention. It also can bring risk as the faculty at MIT's Stata center will attest to. Still, cities, universities and museums are wooing "star-chitect's" with millions of dollars and promises of autonomy to design new buildings for them. What are the benefits and risks?
5
1
1
Response
SORT BY
Re: Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?
This discussion shouldn't be staged in this terms because those are the media premises, who has little interest in developing coherent arguments (rather they choose to apply eye catching slogans, that sometimes have nothing to do with the point in question). The problem with contemporary architecture, mainly in expensive buildings, is that the client is not qualified enough to write a coherent brief, giving too much autonomy to architects. The starchitect is as old as architecture, as the cases of Imhotep, Phidias, Vitruvius, Michelangelo, Palladio, Bernini, and many others show. To every project, be it a huge museum or a small house, there should be an architect from the start, along with all the other technical disciplines, and above all with a client that should be interested, interventive and have a strong belief in the final purpose of the building (not in its form!)
1
0
PAGE
1