Seven Leading Architects Defend the World’s Most Hated Buildings

0
Seven Leading Architects Defend the World’s Most Hated Buildings
When the nearly 700-foot Tour Montparnasse (center) was completed in 1973, it was considered such a blight on Paris’s historic skyline that the city instated height restrictions on all future buildings.
Seven Leading Architects Defend the World’s Most Hated Buildings
When the nearly 700-foot Tour Montparnasse (center) was completed in 1973, it was considered such a blight on Paris’s historic skyline that the city instated height restrictions on all future buildings.

DANIEL LIBESKIND

ON THE TOUR MONTPARNASSE, PARIS

“It’s legendary for being the most hated building in Paris. I want to defend it not because it’s a particularly beautiful tower, but because of the idea it represents. Parisians panicked when they saw it, and when they abandoned the tower they also abandoned the idea of a high-density sustainable city. Because they exiled all future high rises to some far neighborhood like La Défense, they were segregating growth. Parisians reacted aesthetically, as they are wont to do, but they failed to consider the consequences of what it means to be a vital, living city versus a museum city. People sentimentalize their notions of the city, but with the carbon footprint, the waste of resources, our shrinking capacity, we have no choice but to build good high-rise buildings that are affordable. It’s not by coincidence that people are going to London now not just for work but for the available space. No young company can afford Paris. Maybe Tour Montparnasse is not a work of genius, but it signified a notion of what the city of the future will have to be.”

ZAHA HADID
ON THE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, GOSHEN, N.Y.
“The 1960s were a remarkable moment of social reform. The ideas of change, liberation and freedom were critical. Now people think public buildings should be more flowery, but these were times when people did tough projects. The complex is arranged as a sequence of interconnected indoor and outdoor public spaces that flow into each other. There is an integrity within the design that displays a commitment to engagement and connectivity. As a center for civic governance, it enacted democracy through spatial integration, not through the separation of elected representatives from their constituents. Many similar projects around the world have also suffered neglect; yet sensitive renovation and new programming reveal a profound lightness and generosity, creating exciting and popular spaces where people can connect. Rudolph’s work is pure, but the beauty is in its austerity. There are no additions to make it polite or cute. It is what it is.” []

Continue Reading – Source: NYT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here