¿Debe continuar el show?

Torre Dubai (foto de Marco Saraceno en FLICKR)

(...) el espectáculo, inseparable de la opulencia, contamina la arquitectura con una exhibición circense de formas insólitas, difíciles de reconciliar con la necesaria permanencia física y simbólica de [las] construcciones (...)
Luis Fernández Galiano, El País 08/03/2010

!The Show must go on¡ es el grito de guerra del mundo del espectáculo para mantener el ánimo. Las contaminaciones entre espectáculo y arquitectura, que han acabado por adulterar a esta última, se pone ahora en entredicho desde los mismos mass-media. Ya comentabamos en posts anteriores que en el New York Times, Ouroussoff, su crítico de arquitectura, fue uno de los primeros en desmarcarse al comenzar la crisis financiera ("era de vulgaridad y ambición", decía).

Ahora en ámbitos españoles empieza a cundir cierto arrepentimiento por las complicidades con los excesos de los felices 1990. Hay arquitectos como Chipperfield que nunca se prestaron al "branding through architecture" ( "Hoy lo icónico se asocia a los excesos del Mercado", dice), y aún así es muy prudente en sus críticas: hace bien, ya que no habrá rectificación, e incluso la arquitectura espectáculo se incrementará en ciertas partes del mundo.

La desglobalización incluirá partes en las que la euforia neoliberal continuará como si nada y su arquitectura seguirá saturando los media. Por lo tanto la respuesta a la pregunta Must the Show go on? es: It's up to you.

Mirar para otro lado

The newspaper of Segovia has published and article of mine (in Spanish) that relates the financial and the architectural crisis. The main idea is that the utopia did not started with Fukuyama's "end of the history" but with the oil embargo of the OPEC in 1973. There are two more articles on the subject that are specially interesting: Joe Nocera points out in The New York Times the fallacy of the rationality of markets and Ignacio Sotelo, in El Pais, explains (in Spanish too) the differences between current crisis and the 1929's crack.

Paris vaut bien une messe

I was so impressed by Niemeyer's building in Paris that I did not recommend anything but the best in december. But, I have to say that it is one of the cities that offers more if you are really interested in architecture today. Of course there is Le Corbusier, etc., and the city itself, but L'Arsenal and la Cité de l'Architecture are instruments to better understanding and enjoying the city, its architecture and modernity in general. I realized all this reading and watching an excelent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14paris-t.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=paris+ouroussoff&st=nyt) and video in the New York Times about Paris plans, by Nicolai Ouroussoff (to read the article copy the address in your browser directly, otherwise it sends you to the video). At L'Arsenal there is a huge exhibition on the new plans reported in the NYT.

The Roaring Nineties in Architecture

In his book The Roaring Nineties professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize of Economy 2001, compares current situation (in 2003) to the time that drove the world into the Great Depression. Those days produced excesses in the economy and in architecture. It is true that at the same time the best modern architecture was built then (for example the Barcelona Pavilion and the Villa Savoye). In our times some virtual architecture is going to be considered an example of an "era of vulgarity and ambition" (read this article in the New York Times). Arup, the company that has built almost everyone of the frivolous and scandalous building of the recent “starchitecture” considers a rectification is on its way because of the financial crisis:

“One thing that has slightly disappointed me in the broad architectural world of late, and I think the difficult financial situation we all find ourselves in is going to improve this, is that I think some architecture became quite frivolous, it was doing things that were slightly crazy, just because we could.”

Philip Dilley, Chairman Arup

Nevertheless, there are some other critics who do defend the Star System leaning on a sort of architectural version of the "Trickle-down" theory of the neoliberal economy: Spectacle-Architecture supposedly benefits everybody as "it has opened up possibilities for the young and lesser known". Isn't that interesting?

¿Cuanto vale una casa de Kahn?

Con este titular encabeza el New YorK Times (What Price an Authentic Louis Kahn House?) la noticia de que la casa Esherick (1959) de Louis Kahn ha sido tasada en 3 millones de dolares. No es de extrañar que sea noticia porque sus actuales propietarios pagaron por ella 152.500 dolares en 1981. La casa está situada en Chestnut Hill en Philadelphia, la misma zona en la que Robert Venturi (su aventajado alumno) construyó la casa de su madre y de la cual hablaremos la próxima conferencia. Lo que son las cosas de la vida, Kahn hizo dos o tres casas en toda su carrera, y su despacho estuvo casi siempre al borde de la quiebra. De todas formas con Kahn pasa como con Woody Allen, se le aprecia más en Europa que en los propios EEUU: el precio que pagó el señor Gallagher por esa casa en los años ochenta denota que esa liebre estaba agazapada entre los muchos gatos de Chestnut Hill.