Global Breaking News - Sunday, May 19, 2024

Are the ‘Star’ Architects Ruining Cities?
Witold Rybczynski, the architect and emeritus professor of urbanism at the University of Pennsylvania, complained recently about “starchitects” who often work in cities they are unfamiliar with, creating buildings that are out of sync with their surroundings. In an interview, he argued in favor of local architectural talent, or “locatecture.” Are superstar architects ruining city skylines?
* architect = 건축가; 설계자/ emeritus professor = 명예 교수/ urbanism = 도시 계획; 도시화(성)/ be familiar with ~ = ~을 잘(익히) 알다/ out of sync (with ~) = (~와) 맞지 않는(않게)/ surroundings(pl) = 환경/ in favor of ~ = ~에  찬성(지지)하여/ skyline = (건물, 언덕 등이) 하늘과 맞닿은 윤곽선   

 유명한 건축가들이 도시의 스카이라인을 망치고 있나요?

1. ‘Starchitects’ Aren’t the Problem
That there is not enough attention paid to how a building works for a neighborhood is a problem for architecture generally.

2. International Input Improves Design
The global circulation of building methods and architectural talent should outweigh any retreat to the allure of parochialism.

3. For New York, What’s Local Is Global
Manhattan shows that a fair amount of foreign pollution and contamination is healthy in architecture. It is up to the client to sniff around and choose well.

4. Here’s to the Demise of the Star Architects
Anyone involved in building — from its design, environmental site, its engineering to its construction — knows that architecture is a collaborative process.

Sample Essay

‘Starchitects’ Aren’t the Problem, Architecture Is

Are "starchitects" ruining the skyline? Probably not anymore than a dearth of architects has ruined the suburban landscape. Witold Rybczynki likes Norman Foster’s London Gherkin but what of his utterly context-averse Apple campus in Cupertino, Calif.?

While there’s no question that there are a lot of terrible buildings emerging across the globe, we can’t place the blame for that on a handful of international superstars.

For one, there’s no skyscraper without a client – who presumably has presented a program to his architect that asked for impossible heights and singular architectural moves. Second, Rybczynki’s framing of a small handful of architects as a ruinous cabal ascribes to a pretty outdated idea of the architect as a solitary genius.

Architecture doesn’t really work that way anymore, if it ever did. The number of people involved on projects of this scale is staggering and runs the gamut from facade consultants to finance guys. The collective actions of these inextricably intertwined groups determine the end result, whether the name at the top is Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas or Zaha Hadid.

Further, Rybczynki's argument about “locatecture” is very nostalgic and not reflective of the global realities of the last several decades. It’s nearly impossible to define a “local” architect anymore. Communities of architects exist within -- but also far beyond -- local boundaries.

Focusing on the "starchitect" misses a more important point: Are buildings being designed as unique sculptural objects or do they work symbiotically with what surrounds them?

I agree with Rybczynki that there is not enough attention paid to how a building works within a neighborhood. That, however, tends to be a problem for architecture generally. While we’re going through what I think it’s fair to say is a wacky building phase, I can be more tolerant of that if architects are concerning themselves with how their buildings meet the street.

The people who inhabit a city, who walk its streets — they’re deserving of buildings that create vibrant streets for walking and interacting, enhancements that are welcoming. If this happens, and if everyone can get over their ridiculous obsessions with being the tallest and/or most eccentric, I’m fine with more Gherkins and Shards.