On October 9-10 and 16-17, 2021, the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin will host an international online conference on the power and duty of architectural criticism.
[tcl-gallery id = “1”]
Should architectural criticism be enlightening? Should it help in the creation of a better built environment? Is there a factual basis to it? Does it have a duty to present evidence in the evaluation of a building? Or should it take on what architects say about their designs?
In the context of a flat internet, should architectural criticism be able to define best practices? Does it wield the power over who is in and who is out?
Architectural criticism is at a crucial juncture
Architectural criticism, like all human endeavors, is at a crucial juncture. While serious architecture struggles for recognition, much so-called architectural criticism is merely a poorly paid, decorative legitimation for hyperbolic practice. Incisive architectural criticism is rare, while the definition of criticism itself has become opaque.
The conference organisation team has been seeking contributions that define the goals and methods of architectural criticism: What should be the ethical basis of architectural criticism? Can it be objective in the context of paid content? Should it outline ideal practices? July 30 is the deadline for submission of draft papers.
Conference Format
The online format of the two-day conference will allow active debate between audience and lecturers. The Keynote Lecturers are:
- Kenneth Frampton, New York City, USA
- Philippa Tumubweinee, Cape Town, South Africa
- Ruth Verde Zein, São Paulo, Brazil
- Zheng Shiling, Shanghai, China
Presentations will be concentrated to allow for ample discussion time. Besides the four keynotes, there will be a maximum of 16 short papers. The entire conference will be recorded and placed on Youtube. The conference language will be English. Registration for free audience places (max. 300) will open 2 July via icac2021contributions@gmail.com.
Reinier de Graaf from OMA was in charge of an issue of the architecture magazine Baumeister. He dealt with the question of who we build for and created an “architecture magazine without architects that speaks to architects”. A discussion evening was held in Rotterdam to accompany the publication of the magazine. Together with Reinier de Graaf, among others a mayor, a designer, an academic and a banker were represented in the panel.
[tttgallery id=”719″]
The 2008 market crash served as a reality check not only for politicians and bankers, but for architects too. The shockwaves sent rippling through the profession were a shot across the bow that made it incredibly clear how closely linked architectural practice had become to the financial market. As a result, the question of the time, since, has been how did we get here? Is the role of the architect merely to design and create market capital, facilitating economic and urban growth in dense metropolitan cities?
As architects face a quiet but pressing crisis of identity, finding themselves increasingly marginalised in the building industry, the value of our services is once again up for debate. With this, the question of who we build for comes up again and again in conversations about the future of practice. These are the questions that OMA’s Reinier de Graaf chose to address in this issue of Baumeister magazine.
Issues relating to architecture and the built environment
The latest issue of Baumeister follows in the form of the Munich-based magazine’s series of annual special editions in which an architect is invited to curate an entire issue. The invited curators choose and co-ordinate every aspect of the magazine. These issues serve as an architectural monograph, in which usually a pointed question is posed. As such, the curators are given the opportunity to present a unique perspective on issues relating to architecture and the built environment; an opportunity, most notably, previously presented to David Adjaye and David Chipperfield Architects.
The issue sets its sights on questions of who benefits from the architect’s work in the 21st century – questioning for whom we build. Reinier decidedly opted to break with the traditionally inward looking nature of architectural discourse. Declaring at the panel discussion held to mark the launch of this issue, at Het Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam, that this is a publication for architects that does not include any architects. An “architecture magazine without architects that speaks to architects”.
This is perhaps not quite the case, with the inclusion of Jan Benthem (Benthem Crouwel Architects) and Reinier himself in the issue. Nevertheless, the focus of the issue, and by extension the discussion itself, is never explicitly of architectural form. Rather the implications and consequences of building in a post-crisis urban landscape, in which affordable housing is a scarce resource.
Dialogue about the state of the city
By Reinier’s own admission, this was an attempt to try and create a dialogue about the state of the city – going beyond the built form and considering the issues that modern society is facing. The panel discussion sampled a few of the people that contributed to this issue – Mayors, designers, academics and bankers were represented in the hefty 6 person panel.
[tttgallery id=”720″ template=”content-slider”]
Moderated by OMA architect Alexandru Retegan and senior OMA architect Tanner Merkeley, the discussion had a distinctly experienced and policy-focused slant. Joining Alexandru was the curator himself Reinier de Graaf; Erion Veliaj, mayor of the Albanian capital Tirana; Jan Benthem, founding partner of Benthem Crouwel Architects; Jeroen van der Veer, Senior advisor at the Amsterdam Federation of Housing Associations and Patrice Derrington, director of the Centre for Urban Real Estate at the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation (GSAPP).
The sense of a “place”
“When the value of the building rises quicker than the income of people then the rush towards affordability is always inevitable.” – Reinier de Graaf
Throughout the conversation, there were two main themes that the panel kept returning to – the idea of how the sense of a “place” (for lack of a better word) is affected by this current mode of growth, and the alignment of the market and the public sector’s interests in said growth.
In Tirana, a city dealing with rapid urban population growth, Erion’s approach to rooting people through a literal and metaphorical sense of ownership (adopting schools and planting trees etc) offered up a positive outlook on where policy and design could combine forces – all the while helping combat anti-social behaviour passively. This style of urban acupuncture demonstrates an example of an awareness of the social value of buildings and urban interventions that architects seemed to have shied away from in recent years.
“I often joke that the biggest infrastructure project to change in the city is not a boulevard or a big building – we know how to do those. It’s the 10cm between your ears that is the biggest challenge.” – Erion Veliaj
Architects have to face complexity
On the other hand, such an approach to the management of urban growth can only be effective when backed up with a progressive, forward thinking and robust policy framework. In this instance, measures for accountability and public scrutiny were highlighted by Jeroen van der Veer and Patrice Derrington. These systems of accountability, whether they are at the hands of housing associations, architects, local authorities or the developers themselves are only effective when priorities of the market and the public sector are divergent. As pointed out by Reinier, if the local authority is only interested in the value of new development as a commodity, in the same vein as the developer, both parties are working towards the same goal that ultimately renders the market inaccessible.
There is not one solution, because there is not one issue. For architects, the first step would perhaps be to consider how we build, alongside reminding ourselves who we build for.
