Showing posts with label Architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Architecture. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2015

ICE @ HK

We have put our focus back to the territory of Hong Kong. Currently working on six projects, that vary in scale, scope and stage, we are glad to bring back our expertise to our home base. Being a smaller design firm, we are always picky about our selected projects, balancing the interest we have for the site and the business potential of the project. Together with our JV partner from L&N Architects, we have currently taken on small to tiny sites with highly complex site constraints, ranging from topographical challenges to construction challenges.


With our hotel project in Shenyang still ongoing, we have stopped bidding for China jobs for over a year now. It has been a slow process of change in the way architecture is done in the PRC. With the current reconfiguration of power in China, architecture is also subject to change.

Architecture being a small potato in the bigger context of things, it is however a visual representation of the willingness of the 'power' to express the ideological direction, it is willing to take. Throughout the last two years, we have been working with clients in China, who may or may not haven't been reached yet by this new agenda. Still they have been pushing us into design territories, we already could anticipate, will cause problems within a short period of time.

Even more, being a commercial firm from abroad, our projects were sooner or later to collide between the healthy and needed correction in the market of architecture and the still existing vanity of certain clients to pursue their dreams of iconography and spectacle.

Being back to Hong Kong is a healthy process of humbling down, dealing with the local regulations and high construction costs only, complying with mandatory requirements of sustainability and insurances and health care for co-workers and even us unrelated construction staff. Solutions have to be found within a holistic understanding of a building. We are architects after all and not designers of dreams any longer.




Saturday, January 21, 2012

2012 - Enter the Dragon

2011 has ended rather busy and hectic. Consequently the blog has been fairly quiet also. As our operations are running on the East Asian Calendar, we wish a Happy New Year to all our readers, friends, colleagues and clients.

We are closing on an extremely successful year with a lot of groundbreaking developments.

Foremost we have hit 30,000 readers of this blog within the first two years of posting. Thank you so much for all the support and encouragement in our work.

Additionally we won the five star AsiaPacific Property Award this year, beating other peers of the profession. Currently we are designing the latest high rise in Hanoi, working on several master plans in Vietnam, a groundbreaking high rise in Hong Kong and multiple large scale interior projects for multinational companies in China. And on top of it we diversified into product design with a revamp of COATS product displays worldwide.

We are proud to do all this with an extremely flexible, yet small task force, defining the agenda for the office in 2012: Small is successful!


Thursday, March 10, 2011

West Kowloon Cultural District - Oops, he did it again!

It is official, that Foster won again the West Kowloon Cultural District - after the victory in the 2004 competition over hist competitors OMA and Rocco. While in 2004 it was the giant bris soleil, which wetted the eyes of the jury, now it is the the giant water front park.


The others won't be too sorry over the loss, I guess, as they walk away with a HKD 50 Million concept design fee each, a sum, unbelievable these days for a concept master plan only.

Although there lie seven years between the two competitions, nothing has changed much in terms of the content of that project: In 2004, hopes were high. The design brief for that competition was talking about a 'world-class' cultural center, the involvement of Centre Pompidou, Guggenheim and all big players in the cultural industry. Shortly after the announcement of the winning entry, both, Centre Pompidou and Guggenheim renounced their engagement, as it was culturally and commercially not feasible. The project was shelved. The government had to realize, that Hong Kong did not have any major art collection, nor any major art collectors, which would put the project on solid ground.

Hence, it took them another six years, to rethink the strategy. Eventually, they had to react to the cultural defeat in 2004. In the meantime, planning and construction for a major train station just next to the site is underway. The high speed train will connect Hong Kong with Guangzhou, Wuhan and other Chinese cities. It will be most likely the biggest singular arrival points for tourists, coming to Hong Kong. And they come with a lot of cash, which the city is trying to get out of them.

And here lies also the dilemma of the entire project: As the train stops in the middle of nowhere, the government was forced, to develop this land concurrently, not to let millions of visitors flood into barren land and get a bad start with the city. The idea of 'Hong Kong Culture welcomes you' was born: A shopping paradise for Bruce Lee action figures, dim sum restaurants, action movies and a beautiful view over the harbor. To upgrade the sentimental shopping mall, to fit into the self proclaimed image of 'Hong Kong - Asia's World City', western high culture should give a good alibi.

As culture did not succeed so well in 2004, the 2010 competition was putting emphasis on the 'people', trying to get support from the local community. It should be a place for people, for the Hong Kongers to enjoy and celebrate their hometown. For the same people, who have seen a steep rise in property prizes in recent years with an actual decrease in living area, yet a decline in income and salaries. They should enjoy the water front and a gigantic park in a fairly inaccessible part of a city, which lies in sub tropical climate with a heavy rainy season, typhoons from May to September, burning sun throughout most of the year. Usually people gather here closer to shelter and buildings, as the safety of a dry place can be a benefit here. And as (affordable) housing is still the main problem of the city, the need for culture is fairly insignificant, compared to that. Yet, what the city does lack is an urbanized waterfront, highly mixed use, programmatically dense and a larger portion of housing.

As the winning scheme puts this park at the waterfront, it certainly upgrades the value for the adjacent buildings, which we can imagine with very expensive flats, overlooking an empty park towards Hong Kong side. Yet, the scheme stays on the level of low density, which creates a rather smaller amount of built area. What a stunning view of course, and what a possible price tag attached...It is a scheme, which reveals the true intention of the project. To transform a disadvantaged site into a luxury property heaven. And for that, the scheme does it quite well.

I forgot to mention the aspect of culture: Shortly before announcement of the final results of the 2011 competition, the chairman of the West Kowloon Cultural District resigned. Maybe him too, could not really find a good cultural reason for the project and gave up.

I personally think, the OMA entry is the best of the three projects. But it is also the most naive, trying to create an urban fabric, which in fact is really for the people, urban fragmentation, variety, scalar and programmatic change. Despite its naivety, it reminds me positively of a quote by Niemeyer, I read, when I started studying architecture. When Niemeyer was asked about his membership in the communist party, he said it is a duty for an architect to be communist, because his foremost responsibility is for the user, for the people. Unfortunately, naivety is a high value, most of the architects have lost in the last 20 years of accelerated property activities.


To conclude, I need to refer to developer client of ours, who had a brilliant idea at a conference, we attended about the West Kowloon Cultural District. He said, instead of giving the project to three firms to design only, the government should let ALL the architecture firms in Hong Kong, big or small, participate and design and build at least one building each.

We'll second that. And this would truly be a concept, worth HKD 50 Mil. And who knows, maybe we will see a third competition within the next few years and then, the winner hopefully is someone else.

© 2011, ice - ideas for contemporary environments

Sunday, August 1, 2010

InCityvism

'You know, it’s life that’s always right and the architect who’s wrong' le Corbusier


Meet the Boss

Time? he asks. He has time, he has no time. What is my business?

Architect? He flicks his cigarette. You looking for loan? he asks. No? His sharks told him a lot of new customers are architects. Bad economy, no jobs. Don't worry, he pats me on the shoulder, if I can't pay, he has karaokes, massage and mahjong parlors for me to renovate. I owe money, I work for him. He doesn't cut off hands. That is my rice bowl.

I give you tip when next Bubble coming, ok? he offers helpfully. You no idea how much hot money we help important people launder, people in high places.

Oh.

So you want only talk? You not some tricky reporter? I believe. You don't have guts to lie to me. He laughs.

I explain I want to understand his side of the City.

To him, it was obvious enough. See, you design the buildings but I own the streets, he says. Life begins at the street where the buildings end. But no buildings, no streets. So I thank you for your buildings and you thank me for bringing life to your buildings. He gestures in the air between us.

The man has a point. Hong Kong is a vertiginous, postcard perfect conglomerate of diamond-cut towers - a Darwinian experiment in overdrive that bloomed a thousand architecture species.

This is clearest from the heights of Victoria Peak miles above the city. In the clarified air, the unfamiliar blast of ozonic oxygen induces hallucinatory headiness. Below, the traffic of humans and machines resemble ants in a clockwork maze of proto structures - a wonderland of edifice unfolds where architecture periods are shuffled like the cards of a deck and then exponentially multiplied to apparent infinity. En masse, the result careens towards psychotropic chaos than Euclidian geometry, a fantastical, wild, impenetrable labyrinthian fractal garden both realistic and artificial, perfumed by acid.

But it is also the spaces in between the buildings and the relationships between them that reconfigure the city. With organized complexity emerge urban webs and social intelligence.Although buildings, roads and topography crystallize a city’s image, they are not all of its constitution. It is the inhabitants who rapidly and unapologetically appropriate it, redrawing, remaking, reclaiming, in acts that contribute most significantly to the meaning of the place. The City cannot be conceived in separation from its events, both scarred by its past and to be carved by its future.

Architects big ego. The Boss grins in mocking humor, teasing. You think you make nice buildings, it makes nice City? No Life, no City! You better think more about Life!

You want to learn Life? Watch me.

Big banks, big companies, big shopping, they own the buildings, they run the economy up there. Me, I own the streets, I protect the newspaper stands, the illegal vendors, the prostitutes, the mini-buses, the entertainment industry.

See how I make sure they get handsome guys to play me in movies.

Entertainment? There is no entertainment like street life. Watch people, or show off yourself. It is free. Everyone can afford. Hungry? Eat for $10 (€1) at my street stalls.

Protect the streets from what? From corrupt cops, stupid.

Everyone has to make a living. Everyone has his place. This is a friendly evolution. There is plenty of room for losers. Everything that exists tends to find space for its existence - the drop-outs of society will be accommodated in the cracks that make the structure meta-stable.

We are bad guys, he continues, we admit. But we are not worst guys. Some big business are more ruthless. They are our biggest customers. They pay some of our cold-blooded guys to do things they don't want to dirty their hands with. They own the government, they own everything. But they don’t own us.

Does he know that architects aren't always helpless spectators, that Hong Kong once existed in the dream of an architect? There was someone prescient, who foresaw a radiant towering city like Hong Kong, almost a century ago. To know where we are, we've got to understand how we got here.

Le Corbusier? The Crow? You also give yourselves names? He is amused. One of my best fighters, everyone calls him The Swallow.

Among architects and fighters, in assuming the identity of a bird, is there a desire to take flight, to wander alone, to leave earth-bound companions, a yearning to understand the larger universe, to transcend like Icarius, to commute with vast skies and higher ideals, to risk burning by the sun? Overcoming the mind to allow the heart to soar?

Perhaps our best ideas are like birds, they remain caged until we choose liberty. Early in his career, Le Corbusier knew he had to think in solitude, to act alone in pursuit of new knowledge - he was traveling, stunned by Berlin, Vienna, and most of all the metropolis of Paris which he described as “the crack of the whip at every moment, death for dreamers.” (Note 1, Pg. 41)

“Time spent in Paris is time well spent, to reap a harvest of strength. Paris the immense city of ideas - where you are lost unless you remain severe with yourself.” Le Corbusier wrote in letters. (Pg41)

“My concept is now clear - further on I will give you details of its instigations and basis. To draw it up, I lost no time in daydreaming. It is broad, I am enthusiastic about it, it punishes me, carries me away on wings, when my inner strength shouts:”You can.” (Pg. 42)

Anchored and reassured in the fraternity, there must be moments of lucid awakening and acute alienation when one is seized by pure and authentic impulses to break away, to take off in a self-imposed exile, to face difficult new truths alone, for it takes a different kind of courage. It isn’t so much about the journey to other cities than to go to a faraway place within oneself.

“One speaks of an art of tomorrow. This art will be, because humanity has changed its way of living and thinking. The program is new.” (Pg. 45)

Yes, The Crow, he saw a shiny city similar to Hong Kong, the vast population secured in airy towers, with Nature flourishing below. I showed him images of Ville Radieuse, a century old. A neat rectilinear network of skyscrapers crosshatched with wide highways for automobiles, freeing the podium for manicured parks. He holds them up and frowns.

We don't make parks below the towers, he snorts, what waste. We make urban jungle for “yan lau”, people flow, lifeblood of cities. Jungle is more exciting, more unpredictable, more dangerous, more dirty, more real. More human.

After you get mobbed by our jungle you will appreciate Nature. He adds, laughing sarcastically.

Le Corbusier wrote, “I have been very careful not to depart from the technical side of my problem. I am an architect: no one is going to make a politician of me. “A Contemporary City” has no label, it is not dedicated to our existing Bourgeois-Capitalist society nor to the Third International. It is a Technical work....”

“Things are not revolutionized by making revolutions. The real Revolution lies in the solution of existing problems.” (Pg.141)

To Le Corbusier, his visionary plans weren’t about politics but solutions, yet the consequences are nothing less than revolutionary.

Among his critics, Gaston Bardet warned the shadows cast by the towers of the Ville Radieuse would create a ville ombreuse and a
climat de cave. This unfortunate effect is most felt in the highrise projects of the suburbs of Europe, the banlieues, where the jagged wind whips through the desolate ravines between towering blocks, concrete schisms and social vacuums, where it echoes the inner turbulence of unemployed youths and percolates with the tumult of violent gangs and the collisons with steel-jawed police.

This Le Corbusian tale, however, is spun into two cities. The late 20C urban environments in hot, humid tropical Asia thrive as a result of these microclimatic consequences. Streets and alleys are cooled by the towering shadows, enough to encourage pedestrians to abandon the air-conditioned cocoons of the buildings and the chilled belly of the subway. In Hong Kong, the furrows between edifices, the “terrain vague” at the podium and street level, the voids of Ville Radieuse/Ombreuse hold promise of the possible, of transformation and expectations of human energy.

Parasitical connections, walkways and linkages copulate, fuse and fall in together until the point is reached when everything coalesces into a perfervid web. Relationships intensify in parallel - the escalation of traffic attract free-wheeling commerce and nuclei of mercantilism spring up by the thousands.

As an urban rhizome, connected from its skybridges to the bowels of its subway, networked to near territorial infinity by intricate metro systems and trains, they weave a matrix upon which the prosperous metropolis thrives, by-passing some of the most spectacular nature of South China, mountains, sand and sea, leaving them pristine. Its staggering monumental density belies the fact that this is an unexpectedly sustainable model for millions. (Note 2)

Le Corbusier did not foresee that the humanity stacked up in his immaculate cruciforests will burst from their fortresses into the free-flowing ground below, hungry for the liberation from the immobility of their vertical lives, luxuriating in the flux of the streets. The towers are scalar fields, the pent-up energy in them disperses by the millions into the podium and streets where fertile mercantile imagination found thousands of ways to capture their fleeting attention, if not their wallets, stomachs, hearts and minds.

The walks brim over with fake and real merchandise, delights from a thousand and one nights, of ambrosial aromas, torrid flavors and €1 gourmets, of rats the size of shoes, of hectic markets larger than many small cities where the intrepid vendor of sundry goods shrieks his wares with the fury of a street prophet.

The result of the inverse relation of the towers and the streets, the Ville Ombreuse, allows a bewildering number of shadier, tenacious, adventurous lifeforms to flourish and multiply in micro-economies and macroecologies.

What would Le Corbusier make of this? At the end of his life, Le Corbusier made a remark of utmost humility and philosophical irony, “You know, it’s life that’s always right and the architect who’s wrong.” (Pg.144) It can be surmised he would have been thrilled at the wild, abundant Life that is unleashed in Hong Kong by architecture, if not architects.

As the lights dim in the business towers towards the night, the power switches over to ignite the overflowing podium malls and streets where swarms of homo economicus brush up rapturously against homo volatilis in the neon crucible of Hong Kong.

The streets are vectors, lines of flight for homo volatilis, a street fugitive on the run, not so much as escape routes but as a diffused conurbation of refuge, until fortunes are overturned, which they will in the yin and yang of things.

Flight or fight, his violent strategies are rooted in ancient codes of honor. In the embrace of a fatal, existential conundrum, he finds philosophical euphoria in a centuries old brotherhood and unknowingly plucks a page from Camus. He thus transcends the futile fight for the ever-elusive material and social success that signal insider status and the path to respectability.

But what makes some fly while others fall? Movies are an odd place to look for clues to the psyche of cities, yet they compress and unravel in relentless motion frames both the inescapable angst of societies and at times, point to their salvation. The spirit of Hong Kong is especially manifested in the most popular of its exports - its movies.

To know what Hong Kong is, one must understand what Hong Kong isn’t.

No other movie provides a contrasting frame of highrise reference than the brilliant, shattering film “La Haine” by Mathieu Kassovitz, a film about the banlieues of Paris. In the introduction, a ghostly, dismembered voice recounts a terrifying Falling, juxtaposed against grainy images of angry protestors, clashing riot police and uncompromising barricades. The character described the feeling of someone plunging from a tower of 50 floors, muttering on his way down past each floor,

"So far so good...

"so far so good..."

“How you fall doesn't matter. It's how you land!”

Falling, like a blazing comet, through slivers of glass shards, hurtling towards the bull’s eye of infinity in a shower of light, to burn out at the point of impact.

The towering projects of the banlieues speak of a division that isn’t mathematical, of a life trapped in cages up in the air, perfecting parkour at knife’s edge, overlooking the violence and the void of existence below, peering at the gathering storm of riot police and youths in the streets, of the recurring nightmare of the apocalypse.

A skyscraper city of nothingness is one that pulls vulnerable souls with the full gravitational force towards its spinning vitreous vortex.

In the eye of the concrete and steel maelstrom, Hong Kong seems to have defied gravity. People do fall in equally spectacular fashion in Hong Kong movies, but before they crash, invisible wires seem to yank them buoyantly into the air, levitating into fantastical aerial flips, leaping across roofs and soaring over the streams of traffic. From above the rise and fall of the cityscape, one is struck by the deluge of abundance, of a million scintillating possibilities. Violence is subverted by grace, the long arc of action, the flight of the psyche at escape velocity, for nothing is more central to its beauty and coherence than this lucidity.

The mark of Hong Kong action movies, the realization of their breathtaking choreography is inspired by the redemption found in the city, understanding that in the liquid torrents of the city, we are in perpetual motion, that we are headed somewhere, that there is a future unfolding, that transition is a state of polymorphic freedom.

We triads run but we do not hide. We have our codes of “yi hei” - honor, loyalty, justice, he intones dourly. We swear in blood before Lord Kwan (a historic general renowned for his integrity and valor, the god of the triads,) to protect the brotherhood. Or Kwan Kong will come slit our throat when we dream. What about you architects?"

Nodding, I explained in the affirmative.

You honor humanity? You serve society?! Really?

He laughs so hard he spits out his toothpick, his chair falls precariously backwards, his spittle flies over my laptop. Wiping tears from his eyes, he snorts, you honor HSBC, you slave to Li Ka Shing (the richest man in HK) and you kiss-ass to the government!

Indignant, I protest. Most of us in Hong Kong are but bread and butter wage peons bending to the mighty winds of influential men, and we're not without concerns and an incremental sense of responsibility for...the Earth.

Green? Sustainability? Grow vegetables on walls? He asks incredulously. You so funny, poor people have been living "sustainable" for all of human history, and then the rich and the government toxic dump in their backyard.

Even a bad man like me don't poison poor people. No morals. He shakes his head.

Now a lot more middle class people are joining the poor, so of course you have to prepare them for "sustainable living,” he adds sarcastically.

Turning hot and red at the glib facetiousness, I challenged him with a catalogue of crimes.

He lights up his cigarette with a fake $100 note afire. Counterfeiting? Look, a bowl of noodles costs $10 a dozen years ago. Today, it is $30. Inflation is more paper money chasing the same goods. You are right, it is a type of robbery of people who save every cent. Somebody has been printing lots of money, my friend, and it is not me."

Whoring? You want to blame me for running the oldest profession in the world? Let me tell you some of my best customers are police officers and politicians.

He turns defensive. I run mahjong parlors, they run a bigger casino, the stock market. People win or lose a few hundred dollars at my game, they lose their life savings in the finance market. They think they are "investing", not gaming. Now that is daylight robbery.

Such is Life.


The lights are out as I leave. I slowly climb the pedestrian bridge and momentarily pause at a point where the streets of Causeway Bay converged like mighty rivers below me in between towering canyons, where an expressway swerves dangerously at eye level close to where I stand, startled by the rush of warm diesel-smoked air, the blinding psychotropic flares of the on-coming headlights and the deafening roar of unstoppable traffic. The ebb and flow of cars, trucks, buses and swarms of crowds resemble stampeding herds of elephants, zebras and wildebeests - marauding tribes and charging metallic beasts under a neon-lit sky, illuminating the ferocious truths behind the glittery promises of modern post-industrial societies, subverting its false optimism. This societal vertigo, this material abyss, this adamantine poetry. My adrenaline pumped, in a state of simultaneous disorientation, exhilaration and clarity, I am returned to a primordial self - a hunter and gatherer of a jungle terrifying in its radiance.


(Note 1) The quotes of Le Corbusier are excerpted from “Le Corbusier and the Continual Revolution in Architecture” by Charles Jencks, published in year 2000 by The Monacelli Press

(Note 2) Hong Kong’s 2009 per capita carbon footprint (29 tonnes) may be among the highest in the world, yet it is due mainly to its voracious consumption of imports. The actual domestic per capita footprint (17% of its total carbon footprint) generated as a result of this living model is among the lowest for developed countries, at 6.7 tonnes.

Team: Louise Low

© 2010, ice - ideas for contemporary environments

Monday, July 19, 2010

Can You Do Classical?


One of the biggest nightmares for a contemporary architect is a client, who, after seeing your work, asks: Interesting work, but we have a big project here and we need it to be more in European Classical Style. Can you do it?

After the first shock, we usually start feeling deeply insulted, because we have spend so much time, explaining why we do design the way it is, in order to end up with a simple stylistic question. Then we weigh the balance of economic situation of the office (which obviously is always bad) and the interest in the project from a the perspective of a challenge (which is obviously always great). In that case, the client likes our contemporary designs ad has hired us several times already, but the government, who posed this question to both of us, leaving us shattered in ruins with a beautiful design, we have worked on for two months.

To start with, the site was located in Hue, the old imperial city and a UNESCO world heritage site. The Perfume River divides the city into two parts. North of its banks lies the huge palace and the old town, while south of it lies our site. It should have become a hotel with an urban village below. We put a lot of effort into programming the site, relating it to the context, in order to avoid a hermetically sealed podium, which only serves itself. Yet we had the vision to design an open structure, which incorporates patios, courtyards, lanes and other public spaces. The hotel should not act as a divider between, but as an integrator from above.

After having nailed a satisfactory sketch, we approached the government for some pre discussions on approval. Unfortunately, they did not care for public space or program, but only for the image of the cityscape and then they posed the dangerous question: Can you give us a (European) classical building? Having invested so much time and effort already, we agreed to give it one more try, not understanding what classical means and even less so, what european classical means in the context of a country, which has kicked out all of its invaders since the Chinese in 1300.

Back in the office, we tried to find excitement over the new task, evaluating if we should just hire a draftsman, who should be skilled to give us a classical facade or looking for another way, trying to understand first, why we do not like to design classical:

The difference between classical design and contemporary design lies in a different understanding of the design strategies. Classical design is about the elements of a building (window, door, column, beam) and its relationship to each other through the understanding of construction and material behavior (joints, etc.). With the introduction of casting concrete, all this was not needed anymore and we entered the contemporary phase of architecture. Modernism was still based on construction and technology. Yet with the introduction of virtual tools and the reduction of the role of the architect (from master of the entire building to just designer of the building), construction disappeared in our architect's mindset and technology is reduced to what the computer can do for me. We have entered the phase of operational design: Buildings are boolean operations, gradients, twists and everything, Rhino, Cinema4D or Maya can offer. All poured in concrete means, all is possible.

Was there a way to combine the two principles? Can we do a classical contemporary without faking one or the other? We were in search of the combination of elemental and operational strategies:





To our surprise, we actually liked what we saw. Not that we favor stylistic architecture, yet it seemed to please the client and suit the need of the city's representatives. Unfortunately, soon after, the government took the site away from the client, due to the long construction delay...

Team: Ulrich Kirchhoff, Claudia Wigger, Louise Low, Hugo Ma, Tim Mao Yiqing

© 2010, ice - ideas for contemporary environments

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Kaohsiung Maritime Cultural & Popular Music Center International Competition or how the Silly Clown pretends to be smart

As many of you, who have been interested in the Kaohsiung Maritime Cultural & Popular Music Center International Competition, might already know, the competition has been cancelled just the day after the submission deadline. An outrage has wiped through the web community with a lot of angry and disappointed feedback:


http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=99137_0_24_0_C&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+archinect+%28Archinect.com+Feed%29&utm_content=Netvibes


http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/3217/call-to-action/#more-3217


http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/kaohsiung_maritime_competition_-_canceled_after_submisssion_deadline/


We are obviously equally upset, as we also submitted an entry. But I would like to give this incident a slightly different direction, not being in rage but looking at it from a broader perspective about architecture itself: Interestingly, the feedback in the web has revealed time and effort, offices really put into open, not paid competitions, such as this one: Most of the comments point to a period of about 5 weeks with 5-15 colleagues involved. It is a huge amount of money and effort put into a chance, which usually stands at 1:150. What does this tell us about the state of architecture, the role of the architects or the role of the client? Are we really the Don Quichottes, who through every little bit of what they have free willingly into the fight against windmills?


To start with the last, it has been the tendency over the past 10 years, that clients get exponentially greedier by the year. What used to be an idea competition (which is supposed to be about ideas), has evolved into a near tender competition with very specific and way too detailed requirements. In the end the client will receive 100+ ideas, from which he can freely choose and combine. Architects are willing to supply to this toyshop, giving ideas away for free. And even more, the architect supplies for free a level of detail, where the client does not need much more to pull it off as a built project. It might not be enough for the critical and judgmental eye of the royal architect's circle, but usually more than good enough for anybody else, who actually uses the project in the end.


The role of the architect and the architecture practice is equally problematic. We tend to accept uncritically not only any offer to show off our great design ideas; but even more we have entered the phase of an architectural arms race, producing much more in shorter time, burning even more resources and money to come up with the most extravagant visuals (Crystal CG and other Viz-Firms profit more from that than us), because we are afraid and suspicious, that other architects might be as wise as ourselves.


As in any arms race, we upgrade preemptively, tapping into the willing resources (staff with professional Rhino and V-Ray skills), bred at Universities nowadays. The show off results in a reduction of ideas and concepts to a single, clearly readable image/icon. Instead of showing our expertise and authority as the leader of the building industry, we love to be the clown, who does everything to entertain everyone else for free.


Architecture is equally in a bad shape, offering a field of endless competition, individuality and ideas, yet no common goal or agenda. We all want to be most creative, most new, most avantgarde and forget the basics along this way of what architecture should serve as in the first place. Architecture seems driven by the project, it does not drive.


The same organizer, who just now suspended the competition, will organize another one. And everybody will submit their work again, being the masochistic hunted, who says: Nevermind, I have done the job already. I got cheated, I got burned, but that's life and I cannot change it.


I am convinced, that no architects will unite against such treatment. Clients know too well, that architecture is a profession, which lacks unity. And suppliers of our tools know that as well. Otherwise, why should be software for architecture so expensive, while software for financing is so cheap (and yet, they make so much more money with so much less resources).


As we in the office are also submitting open competition entries all the time (and never win), we have developed our own attitude towards an idea competition: We see those as an opportunity to research and application of our office agenda. Usually, we do not take longer than 1-2 weeks to accomplish the project with not more than 2-4 people involved, focussing on the core idea we want to explore. Rather than wanting to win, we use the competition to quickly test ideas in a slightly different condition, than where we have developed it for. This investigation will then feedback onto our professional projects. We see competitions as a field of experimentation, serving our practice, rather than the other way around. Obviously we will not win something with such a speedy workshop attitude, yet, the competition entry is used as an integral research column, upon which our projects rely on.


To conclude, of course I would love to show our project here, but stupid as I am, I am holding back to wait if the organizer resumes and we can resubmit our work - Silly Clown wants to be smart...


Team: Ulrich Kirchhoff, Claudia Wigger, Louise Low, Tim Mao Yiqing, Christopher Tan, Keith Chung