. . . and it’s not envy – or is it? The general Australian response is that the critic has the problem – seen as a ‘whinger’: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-pounding-critic.html
The article in The Conversation that tells us that it is Hadid’s ‘mind’ that has left its mark on the world, continues with the restructuring of the hagiography; apparently, even after her passing she holds power through the vagaries of ‘her mind’: https://theconversation.com/zaha-hadid-even-more-than-her-buildings-its-her-mind-that-left-its-mark-158004 Without trying to gauge the difference between her ‘mind,’ her ‘ideas,’ and her ‘buildings,’ even though we think we know which is the more tangible, we can consider the subsequent statement that suggests that Hadid was ‘green,’ that she foreshadowed the world’s environmental problems by promoting, ‘highlighting,’ the idea of ‘sustainability’ - she memorably highlighted sustainability as a defining challenge of her generation and stated that “architects had solutions”. “Memorably”? When? Where? Which “architects had solutions”? Other ones? Is the author now attempting to reclassify Hadid, her thinking, ‘her mind,’ and her work as ‘environmentally sensitive’ rather than brashly slick, clever, and bespoke - curvaceous; or does one look on these published words as some vague ambition for others to worry about, recording only that Zaha Hadid had been aware of such issues, but, without noting this, did little about them? Then there is another question: does this ‘mindfulness’ apply to the office that puts out work in her name today? It is difficult to say.
One has to wonder if this suggestion of some serious concern for sustainability can be true, even in the later works that all appear to strive for the extremes of a bespoke, yes curvaceously different, bold expression with as much enthusiasm as the early projects. The Hadid Aquatic Centre for the ‘green’ London Olympics has already been reviewed: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html The building was said to be ‘at the other end of the sustainability spectrum’ - the unsustainable end. Here, in PAIRS 5, it is noted that the steel framing for the main roof of this centre has almost the same weight as a battleship (3,000 tonnes c.f. 3,500 tonnes). The analogy might sound fitting in one way, what with the shared relationship between steel and water, but it is worrying in another: that so much steel was needed for such a ‘green’ building is a concern. Is this report in The Conversation just spin; an attempt to try to reposition Hadid’s work, or maybe her ‘mind’? It is difficult to see the mind that apparently thought about a sustainable, green world, expressed in what is known as ‘Hadid’s work,’ either early or late, or posthumous.
Now we find ourselves burdened with the question: what does ‘green’ mean; what does ‘sustainable’ mean? ‘Green’ is obviously a colour, but in the context of the Olympics, in this London case, one senses that ‘green’ means environmentally responsive and sensitive, sustainable – responsible; suggesting a minimal impact on the earth, involving efficiency, reuse; a minimal waste, and effective use of time, energy, materials, miles, power, etc. - allowing replication without ultimate loss or deprivation. The proposition seems to deny the first law of thermodynamics, but not so if one brings change into the concept. So it seems that things ‘green’ have to do with the nature of change, and its impact on the earth. What the Hadid Aquatic building appears to suggest is that its unique styling has meant that a surplus of steel has been needed, that beyond necessity for basic shelter – that things might have been different if the ‘green’ matters had been taken seriously rather than just given what seems to have been lip-service, or just being ignored by concentrating on the ambitions seeking bespoke form alone.
One can also look at Hadid’s Tokyo Olympics project where the grand ‘spaceship’ proposal was scrapped because it was so expensive. This suggests that it not only used a surplus of money, but possibly an excess of everything else too just to achieve the vision: see - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35158004 It is difficult to see the ‘sustainable’ in the thinking involved here. What is obvious is the determination of the fluid, interwoven expression that appears to delight in its own sinuous frolics, making it look not unlike a cyclist’s safety helmet. The similarity between Hadid’s work and motor car design has been noted: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2015/09/zahas-architectural-car-design-strategy.html
One has to be wary of language and how it is used. ‘Sustainability’ easily becomes ‘Green’ that gets adopted as a just too obvious a theme for ordinary buildings when they get covered with plants – said to have been ‘greened’ - or have some solar gizmo involved, be this a sunlight reflector or solar panels, all to make claim to be uniquely ‘sustainable.’ Jean Nouvel’s Sydney building looks like a typical Meisian project covered with green walls and topped with a solar reflector, all for the claim of being more ‘green’ - more responsible and sustainable - when the things ‘green’ appear to be a charade, an applique, something of a theatre set. Heatherwick has schemes with trees on concrete stems holding swelling pods, all labelled ‘green’ - it’s the leaves - when the task of supporting the plants seems to involve a supreme, exaggerated effort that looks to be ‘over the top.’ Why not use the ground for plants instead of working hard to elevate them? What might the plants prefer? This labelling of projects is all too obvious a manipulation of the generic colour of plants, adopting the hue as the face of sustainability with a literal, hollow identity. The sense of exhibitionism involved in the hype of these projects looks to be at odds with the attitude that wants to be caring and responsive to our environment; gentle with it. Even the act of the recognition of the issue seems to need something different from the attitude revealed in these pompous works.
What does ‘green’ really mean to be? Do we know what ‘sustainability’ is? Extremes and excess seem to be completely anti-green, unsustainable, if one sees reasonable moderation as a part of the concept of change – humility with ideas, modesty with materials, budgets, energy, effort, etc. Here one recalls the inscription on the temple of Apollo at Delphi: Know Thyself; Nothing in Excess. These issues are difficult to reconcile with the clever and ‘seductive’ approach the text speaks of:
The seductive nature of Hadid’s buildings means that the approach she took to sustainability is often overshadowed. It also wasn’t an explicit aspect of her early works, but rather became so later on in her career, in projects including the Bee’ah Headquarters in Sharjah, and Eco-park stadium in London. In 2015 she memorably highlighted sustainability as a defining challenge of her generation and stated that “architects had solutions”.
The proposition lingers: Nothing in Excess? Truly? Who’s fooling who? One wonders if architects have any vision or understanding of what ‘excess’ really means; Louis Sullivan knew of the essential relationships between forms and functions; we seem to have forgotten.
The timber Eco-park stadium is certainly different; timber is what can be called a ‘renewable,’ but one has to ask about the general applicability of this strategy on a broader basis. Sustainability is not going to be merely be a ‘one off’ situation, now, for publication and adoration. It is for everyone, everywhere, anytime, both now and in the future. There is obviously a limit to the number of trees available for general usage, and re-usage too.# Here one can reference the Earthship ‘feel good’ idea of having a fish pond to feed the family: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/03/earthships-and-bananas.html The calculations to show how limited this idea is, how silly it is in practice, are very simple. One only has to start with the number of fish one has, (the number that can survive well in the small pond); then consider the number one eats every week; and then the rate of natural replacement by way of reproduction, growth, and development into mature fish ready for eating needs review in order to understand that the whole proposition at the scale of a homely pond is ridiculous, even though the nearby fishing rod might look like persuasively convincing, nostalgic fun that promotes the dream. The fish would be eaten in no time at all, with the pond requiring the fish stock to be constantly replenished, as with the tank in the Chinese restaurant. The same calculation can be done with trees too; and with battery vehicles also. These ‘sustainable’ ideas all rely on some natural supply – in these latter examples, with growth in trees, and with extraction for batteries, one has to ask: what change is involved here? How can supply be maintained, and for how long; in what cycles? There are limits to both ambitions – timber and batteries - that need to be included in the great race to be ‘new’ again, with everything, even Hadid, being made ‘sustainable’ and ‘green.’ It appears as though the world is never interested in assessing true, long-term impacts, being happy to delight in ‘eternal visions’ now until they crash. The world still flies pizza, chocolates, and brioche around from Italy, Belgium, and France as if this was reasonable and normal, delivering the products as far afield as Scotland and Australia.
What rigour is expressed in Hadid’s works that one might recognise as ‘green’ other than colour; or ‘sustainable’ other than as text? In the Hadid New York apartment building, one sees a raw, rather crude, unresolved Corbusian column and slab scheme, (as in the Dom-ino house concept), with tortured, stepped planning, stylised with a very expensive, slick skin that ignores the function being enclosed, be this kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, or living room, but gives the Hadid complex its curvaceous, ‘seductive’ effect. It is as if the brand demands this – the Hadid signature: (her signature was indeed used to promote sales of this project, as if she might have been alive). Can one consider this ‘sustainable,’ even as a matter of simple function? Can sustainability be turned on and off with reputations being maintained? The answer to this is simply ‘No,’ since there is some organic coherence and essential necessity in sustainability – some depth and rigour in things ‘green’ beyond style and texts. What we see in Hadid’s work – well, that of the office – is an apparent over-excitement, a keenness to maintain the extremes of curvaceous difference that the name ‘Hadid’ has come to be known as - aka the Queen of the Curve. Anything less appears to be a concern for the reputation that seems to want to be maintained at all costs – even that of the environment. So words that talk of sustainability and things ‘green’ with the style remaining unchanged, seemingly unflappable in its intent to imagine revolutionary forms . . and . . to bring them to life, appear weak, fake, foolish: a pretence.
We need better than this if we are to become more responsible with, and responsive to our environment: we need to bring life into forms in every possible way – forms that can let the planet and life itself blossom – be enriched rather than surprised, entertained, and mesmerised by cleverly curvaceous visions.
THE CONVERSATION
In the five years since Zaha Hadid’s passing, much has been written about the glorious and towering legacy the fabled British-Iraqi architect left behind. Thinking about what she started, though, is more instructive.
Born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1950, Hadid – aka the Queen of Curve – fundamentally altered the contours of modern architecture and design. She shattered gender stereotypes too by, in 2004, becoming the first woman to receive the Pritzker prize – the highest award in her field.
As the world grapples with how to respond to the climate crisis, architecture is in the spotlight. The built environment is responsible for almost 36% of global energy consumption. Cement alone causes 8% of global emissions.
In this context, Hadid’s most valuable contribution is the inspiration she represented and the innovation she embodied. She conceived of modernity as an incomplete project, to be tackled. And she demonstrated to students not just how to imagine revolutionary forms but, crucially, how to bring them to life.
The seductive nature of Hadid’s buildings means that the approach she took to sustainability is often overshadowed. It also wasn’t an explicit aspect of her early works, but rather became so later on in her career, in projects including the Bee’ah Headquarters in Sharjah, and Eco-park stadium in London. In 2015 she memorably highlighted sustainability as a defining challenge of her generation and stated that “architects had solutions”.
For the full text, see: https://theconversation.com/zaha-hadid-even-more-than-her-buildings-its-her-mind-that-left-its-mark-158004
#
One has to remember how the forests of England and France were decimated by the demands for oak that came with the construction of the cathedrals.
12 JAN 22
One has to wonder if only the materials have to change:
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/01/11/bjarke-ingels-interview-nabr-housing/
This Nabr project reproduces all of the elements in apartment building that need to be questioned even though The Nabr housing block in San José will be the first to be built with a cross-laminated timber structural frame that will be adapted for future planned developments.
6 Jan 2022
NOTE:
Google is keeping an eye on matters and has suggested:
https://www.iloboyou.com/zaha-hadid-design-studios-greatest-architecture-art-projects/
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/01/04/1000-trees-development-comments-update/
and
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/zaha-hadid-architects-posts-9-million-profit
12 JAN 22
Google suggestions for the day:
Hadid’s Revolutionary Oeuvre -
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/see-inside-zaha-hadids-revolutionary-oeuvre
One has to wonder: ‘revolutionary’? This caravan dates from 1961:
13 JAN 2022
Architecture as jewellery; jewellery as architecture:
http://lazarvero.com/en/blog/zaha-hadid-star-architects-and-their-jewelleries-part-1
Can architecture, like jewellery, be anything fanciful?
13 JAN 22
There is more:
The ‘green’ Heatherwick 1000 trees project seems to require several thousand lights to declare the ‘green’ credentials of the project:
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/01/12/thomas-heatherwick-1000-trees-shopping-centre-shanghai/
Then we see the new Heatherwick towers proposed for Vancouver. Where is the ‘green’ apart from colour? Here form seems to be core theme:
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/01/12/1700-alberni-vancouver-heatherwick-studio/
The hopes for ‘form’ appear to be misguided:
The new design maximises outside living space
and
Heatherwick Studio hopes it will better connect the towers to the landscape
- if only!
One sees the same ‘unless’ balconies – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/05/why-have-balconies.html As for the idea that the forms will relate better to the landscape – this notion seems to be a pure journalistic fantasy endorsed by the illustrations showing distance.
But the ‘green’ theme lingers as a necessity:
They will also feature potted plants – so what?
18 JAN 22
What's in a name?:
The story of the name: https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/zaha-hadid-architects-12m-bill-to-use-founders-name/5115600.article Hadid has really become just a brand for a company that could have been Studio 9.
Heatherwick tells us where to plant trees:
With Thomas Heatherwick’s controversial 1,000 Trees project recently opening in Shanghai, the British designer told Dezeen why he believes the top of structural columns is "the best possible place" to plant trees in this exclusive interview.
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/01/13/thomas-heatherwick-interview-1000-trees-shanghai/
Why does Heatherwick not think that the answer might merely be 'in the ground'? Given the problems with The Vessel in New York, one might have thought Heatherwick might be a little more contrite.
30 JAN 22
More detailed images of the 1,000 Trees project to peruse and wonder if trees are best on top of structural columns:
https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/1000-trees-heatherwick-studio-shanghai-china
One wonders about the special relationship between trees and people when the trees are perched high as a collection of display items, remote from touch or any intimacy; see -
https://www.thelivingurn.com/blogs/news/the-special-relationship-between-people-and-trees
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.