Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?

Bigthink — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:16:50 +0100

The problem with "Brand Names" is that they are foreign to the Human Body.

Nobody has ever found a "Coca-Cola" symbol or cube, octagon, triangle, etc. in the Human Body. These are all theoretical forms foreign to the Human Organs and therefore most people will always find them "UGLY" !

Humanity has only ONE thing in common - The Human Body and its Natural Environment.

Please visit my idea: "World Peace will be created by Architects"

Thank you :-)

Comment on: Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:52:17 +0100

I think the term "star-chitect" conveys the central idea of the question quite well. The problem isn't with the architect who has achieved the celebrity, but with the public's perception of the service being provided as being within the same context as an haute couture fashion designer. Yet while haute couture doesn't even have to function as clothing, a public edifice involves an enduring multi-decade investment that at the very least is expected to comply with local building codes (structural integrity, fire safety, all the mundane details). The star-chitect would be derided for malpractice if they merely proposed a wonderfully innovative design as opposed to a sculptural circus. I think there is an open question here as to how the work of the "star-chitects" are really appreciated? Is there any perception of the qualities of the
designs below the level of the post card image?
I think that it is quite correct that these architects are derided when their buildings present problems, as it is part of their teams responsibility and a great part of the design challenge, but I think that it would also be wrong to then write off their body of work as "fluff" rather than understand that they have to work within the context of what is expected of them.
Interestingly, in the city of Toronto there are several examples of tasteful, conservative designs from the '80s being tor n down and replaced by radical, trendy designs. The older designs didn't present any functional problems, were probably energy efficient even by present standards and probably would have provided many more years of low cost maintenance. Unfortunately, even when they were built, as public institutions they appeared to be quite... I don't want to be the one to say it! And these too were the products of those deemed at the time to be "star-chitects", producing to the demands of that era.

Comment on: Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:03:35 +0100

the last post was very poetic. And in practical terms, titles or lables do not design buildings. There is a cliche though, "clients deserve their architects and architects deserve their clients". Possibly the more verbous version of the 'double edge' previously spoken of. I can't think of a more evident example than the Cleveland Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, by I.M. Pei. A great architect, forced into the wrong project because of his "star quality". He told them he doesn't even like rock and roll, and that he was not the architect for the job.... UNfortunately, he was pursuaded to design it anyway.

And everyone got what they deserved.

Comment on: Is it wise to hire a “star-chitect”?

Bigthink — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:00:02 +0100

Wisdom comes in the hiring of an architect who best achieves the rapport between practical and aesthetic. But why use the loaded word "star-chitect"? Such a derogatory connotation implies that we should deny recognition (and work) to architects who win the Pritzker Prize or that we should not award such a prize. Our obsession with celebrity carries that old sword, the one with the double edges.