Is ZAHA HADID part of the “dead era of delirious architecture” as proclaimed by Nicolai Ourousoff? by Stephen Alton

In a recent article posted in the Huffington Report the Co-founder of Architecture for Humanity and the Open Architecture Network, Cameron Sinclair opened a debate with the following:

“The Architect's Dilemma: The Architecture of Excess vs. an Architecture of Relevance Click here for Sinclair Article.

Sinclair writes - “For the past twenty years the voice of the architecture profession has mainly been drowned out by the computer generated sky-piercing towers of luxury. Year after year some of the biggest names in architecture tried to out do each other in what is technically feasible with oddly named styles of 'deconstruction', 'blobitecture' and 'ribbon architecture'. This constant craving to create jewels of desire in the urban fabric left the general public wondering what on earth we do. Now, with the global economy in tailspin, these exercises in object making have come to a crashing halt. For many of us, we couldn't be more thankful.”

While Sinclair describes the profession in a state of schism, with some looking for how to build and others looking for what to build. It is true that the culture of architecture and the architectural press has done little of recent to promote or report on practices engaged directly in social policy and infrastructure, they have been keenly involved with practices that are driven by ideas on sustainability. Another way of phrasing the discussion might be “artful - excess” vs. “functional - responsibility”.  Therefore the question is – are projects that are excessive and artful and not aimed at remedying of a social injustice unworthy of societies praise, and probably more to Sinclair’s point should we not consider “responsibility” more importantly than we do at present.  Throughout history our profession has faced these exact questions and it is a good debate, however it is critically important to understand that architects are not usually, at least as individuals, in the position to make social policy or guide the press.  Architects must participate in finding solutions to broader social problems, however let’s not forget the aspirations of the “architect as hero”, and failure of the early modernist movement in that regard.

Unfortunately Sinclair spends much of his time dancing around Zaha Hadid, who is clearly on the excess side of his coin and quotes from Nicolai Ouroussoff (December 2008 NY Times) - 'Who knew a year ago that we were nearing the end of one of the most delirious eras in modern architectural history?'  For the vast majority of design and construction professionals this era ended long ago.” Sinclair equates the “end to delirious eras in modern architectural history” with “excess’ of architects such as Hadid and in effect the end of projects for art without social responsibility.

In The New York Times (article can be found here) Ouroussoff praises the new Hadid Rome project for both artful execution and urbanism- “The idea is to weave her buildings into the network of streets and sidewalks that surround them — into the infrastructure that binds us together. But it is also a way of making architecture — which is about static objects — more dynamic by capturing the energy of bodies charging through space.” Sinclair however might think “ They fight for attention, piercing the fabric of the city instead of weaving it into a stronger and more interconnected environment.” And although we have yet to hear Sinclair discuss the building I am hopeful that he will as it seems he might need to address the earlier Ourousoff proclamation head on and more clearly.

I would ask that my readers take a look at this new building and judge for yourselves.  I would very much like to hear your opinion of the questions raised here.