Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know she's not a Houston architect, but she's undoubtedly one of the hottest architects out there these days. Dare I say she's crossed the line from industry darling to full-fledged "starchitect" status like I.P. Pei.

But I really don't understand the appeal. A lot of the buzz surrounding her seems to be not about her designs, but about the fact that she's a woman. Or even more importantly -- her heritage. I've read that she's from Iran. I've also read that she's from Iraq (Wikipedia lists her birthplace as Baghdad). Either way, it makes her an exotic verboten property in the eyes of many in the West.

Is it all hype, or am I reading the signs wrong? She has lots of designs, but hardly anything that was actually built. And among the highlights of her resume is a ski jump?

I'm not an architect, so maybe I'm out of line being critical. But there are enough architects, architecture students, and architecture observers here to shed some light on this for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know she's not a Houston architect, but she's undoubtedly one of the hottest architects out there these days. Dare I say she's crossed the line from industry darling to full-fledged "starchitect" status like I.P. Pei.

But I really don't understand the appeal. A lot of the buzz surrounding her seems to be not about her designs, but about the fact that she's a woman. Or even more importantly -- her heritage. I've read that she's from Iran. I've also read that she's from Iraq (Wikipedia lists her birthplace as Baghdad). Either way, it makes her an exotic verboten property in the eyes of many in the West.

Is it all hype, or am I reading the signs wrong? She has lots of designs, but hardly anything that was actually built. And among the highlights of her resume is a ski jump?

I'm not an architect, so maybe I'm out of line being critical. But there are enough architects, architecture students, and architecture observers here to shed some light on this for me.

i was a fan of zaha hadid before i knew she was a woman or where she came from. i like buildings that appear to defy gravity. i like buildings that look like a sculpture. many of her designs are unbuilt from what i can tell.

1220_051110_creekview_night.jpg?w=55

1cincinnati3.jpg

Aquatic_Zaha_Hadid.jpg

1162295364_80.177.117.97.jpg

zaha_opus_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I find it hard to get worked up over an architect who mainly designs "conceptual" buildings, especially when the designs are fogged over in academic-speak. And frankly, her built works don't seem all that brilliant. Editor, I think you got it right - the buzz is really because she is a woman and an Arab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pode101

I am a big fan of not passing judgement on buildings (or architects) until I actually visit the building itself. I was able to check out LF One on my last visit to Germany, and was really blown away. Looking forward to someday visiting the new museum in Cincinnati.

1659.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hadid's buildings are quite unique, in my opinion. At a time where we have developed the idea of a "Starchitect", I think that she is a great fit for the title. We have Libeskind, famous for angular geometry. We have Gehry, famous for outlandish flowing form. Why not Hadid, whose buildings appear to be long, lean, linear boxcars in motion? Architecture doesn't have to be pretty. Her buildings are challenging, thought provoking (good or bad), and sexy. Same thing with her furniture. Here in Houston, you can buy some of her furniture at Kuhl-Linscomb. For me, her work is gorgeous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hadid's buildings are quite unique, in my opinion. At a time where we have developed the idea of a "Starchitect", I think that she is a great fit for the title. We have Libeskind, famous for angular geometry. We have Gehry, famous for outlandish flowing form. Why not Hadid, whose buildings appear to be long, lean, linear boxcars in motion? Architecture doesn't have to be pretty. Her buildings are challenging, thought provoking (good or bad), and sexy. Same thing with her furniture. Here in Houston, you can buy some of her furniture at Kuhl-Linscomb. For me, her work is gorgeous.

Which begs the questions: Is it somehow better for architecture to be "challenging" and "thought provoking". And can you explain exactly what are the thoughts that are provoked? Saying something is "thought provoking" is somewhat empty praise. I mean, stepping in sick would be thought provoking, but they wouldn't be nice thoughts.

And if those buildings are sexy, then I'm Alexander the Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Oho!

Or thought provoking in the sense of "stunt architecture".

I think that bachanan beat me to the response, which pretty much sums up what I would have to say as well. Architecture is a matter of opinion. If everyone loved everything, life would be boring.

A Zaha Hadid building certainly isn't boring, otherwise this conversation wouldn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the self-conscious specialness of out-there architecture really just serves to reinforce the dichotomy between Architecture and the way everybody lives. I mean, don't all of us here, surprisingly enough, agree that having thoughtful new [design innovation] details incorporated throughout the buildings in which we conduct our regular business and residential life would be a situation infinitely better than living in a world with a side dish of some poster-worthy or infamy-worthy buildings, which advertise their experimental separateness, and a main course of conceptually humdrum structures? Of course, for this kind of unseparateness, there aren't enough practitioners of Architecture or architecture to go around. So, if we are to experience such a neat world, millions of people will have to be able to modify their own built environments in little ways or big until they find better fits for the patterns of living which the original architect or engineer did not envision before the fact. Are architects willing to loosen their grip on architecture for the sake of healthy experimentation and truly humane inhabitation? Well, years of professional training to appreciate the complexities of the job of designing and building effectively prohibit them from believing that letting architectural duties go to the untrained can possibly be something that happens for the good of architecture. Architects understand themselves to be indispensable to the good of architecture in the world even more than pastors and priests understand themselves and their embedded theology to be indispensable to the good of truth in the world: if you tell an architect that we got by just fine into the Twentieth Century without architecture being the responsibility of accredited technicians, he or she is liable to tell you that things are just that much more complex, now, than in all the milennia of beautiful buildings before. Maybe they are, in the age of technocracy and credentials; maybe they are.* But if what we want is a terrific built environment, then ongoing design interaction with is going to have to be just as much a community undertaking and individual brain trust as religion is. Find this thought-provoking? Now what's the first step?

*notwithstanding Hadid treating buildings like sculptural manifolds - which most artists can do - and then presumably having people on staff to remember what gauge of wire meets code and how to run the plumbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unfortunately, us common folk as architects have created the cookie cutter subdivisions, uninspired office buildings and strip centers. you may see an architect's stamp on those plans, but a builder or "designer" created the plans. the mighty dollar rules. seldom do we see inspired architecture in the realm of do it yourselfers. one can dream (in a perfect world) that everyone had the opportunity to manipulate their own environment in a way which was best suited for the way they live. the way things are, reality, is that we have to enjoy what comes from "on high"; hadid, piano, gehry and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true (laughing). very few are willing to pay an extra 15% or so for a house far better than your average builder can produce. but i digress. hadid is designing trophy architecture. her practice really doesn't apply to architecture for common folk does it? or does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
true (laughing). very few are willing to pay an extra 15% or so for a house far better than your average builder can produce. but i digress. hadid is designing trophy architecture. her practice really doesn't apply to architecture for common folk does it? or does it?

Having seen some of her early work (in Strasbourg, France - transit station) I can't say I was overly impressed. I like a few of her recent designs, especially the art museum in Cincinnati - at least I like the form.

I agree that few of the so called "starchitects" produce architecture that appeals or is understood and relates well to the general public. I believe it is the curse of making a big name for yourself, once you produce a Centre Pompidou (Rogers/Piano) or East Wing of the National Gallery (Pei) you are expected by those that hire you to produce something equally unique. I am not comparing Hadid to Piano, though she is more along the lines of a Rogers, good, not great - generally overrated. I think the big deal of course is she is the first noteworthy woman who has broken into the "big boys" league in the top echelon of architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying her Arab heritage had anything to do with her fame. The fact that she is one of the first women to really make a name for herself - alone - not like Elizabeth Diller of Diller, Scofidio+Renfro or others...

I don't like the fact she won the Pritzker - I think there are more deserving firms out there - but she did and because of it she has been catapulted to world-wide fame in the architectural world.

link to her confusing and poorly designed website: http://www.zaha-hadid.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeanne Gang is another woman architect who deserves more attention than she gets. Maybe she should pretend she's American in order to get more widely recognized.

Here's her Aqua tower now under construction:

c1_3.jpg

Remarkably, the building is actually starting to look like the renderings. Here's a construction photo:

c1_1.jpg

I guess the difference between Jeanne Gang and Zaha Hadid is that Gang is busy building architecture while Hadid is busy collecting architecture awards for things never built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeanne Gang is another woman architect who deserves more attention than she gets. Maybe she should pretend she's American in order to get more widely recognized.

Here's her Aqua tower now under construction:

c1_3.jpg

Remarkably, the building is actually starting to look like the renderings. Here's a construction photo:

c1_1.jpg

I guess the difference between Jeanne Gang and Zaha Hadid is that Gang is busy building architecture while Hadid is busy collecting architecture awards for things never built.

Now THAT is a good looking building. I'm anxious to see how this one works out. Almost reminds me if a building trying to escape of a verticle sea of glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now THAT is a good looking building. I'm anxious to see how this one works out. Almost reminds me if a building trying to escape of a verticle sea of glass.

The development where it's going up has something of a nautical theme. The buildings have names like The Tides, The Shoreham, The Regata, etc... This is the only one that's actually incorporated water into its form, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pode101
I guess the difference between Jeanne Gang and Zaha Hadid is that Gang is busy building architecture while Hadid is busy collecting architecture awards for things never built.

This statement is way off the mark as Studio Gang is suitably getting plenty of recognition for their work; and while Hadid might have a relatively small built portfolio, her practice certainly deserves all the praise that has come their way. Quantity is by no means a measure of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now THAT is a good looking building. I'm anxious to see how this one works out. Almost reminds me if a building trying to escape of a verticle sea of glass.

And thereby reveals itself for what it is (a developer's-standard-issue glazed curtain wall shoebox which, thanks to inexpensive wavy floor slabs waving to distract your gaze from the envelope, is marketed away from its stiff Chicago competition among standard-issue boring curtain wall shoeboxes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thereby reveals itself for what it is (a developer's-standard-issue glazed curtain wall shoebox which, thanks to inexpensive wavy floor slabs waving to distract your gaze from the envelope, is marketed away from its stiff Chicago competition among standard-issue boring curtain wall shoeboxes).

i call that "reinventing the box". it's simple, interesting and attractive. if it's no more expensive than you're average box.........then all the better.

i like the rendering. hope the finished product is more attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

some feel she is overrated for several reasons, some politically incorrect (who cares right); some of her buildings appear on paper to be inspired and well thought out; highly sophisticated and progressive.  i've heard that some of her buildings have not been well-received or implemented with the best workmanship.

 

personally, i enjoy looking at them but have yet to experience one in person.  yes, i too think she is a genius; however, creative genius isn't always suited for practical buildings.  i think that buildings as art/sculpture seldom make good business sense. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'm completely out of touch with regards to modern architecture, but I don't really get inspired by Hadid's or any other modern or post-modern designs.  The boxy, clean lines approach seems like it's been de rigueur for the last 80 years or so.  Personally, I'd like to see a revival of palladian or art deco.

 

I do have to give her credit for the use of curves, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bachanon, that is very interesting because when I did my literary gig as a high school teacher in LA, one of the the essays my students had to write involved critiquing museums as art themselves. We would tour The Getty, Malibu and the Hill, as well as Disney Concert Hall and Huntington Gardens. Must respectfully disagree. A building, tower or complex as a work of art, IMO, establishes the structure and draws more interest, as well as increased business. But I do like what you said regarding renderings verses reality. I too, haven't visited any of her creations, so in all fairness, I must temper my opinion until then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

August948 and any others; I think the more organic, feminine approach to architecture which has curves and such is awesome. I am bored with straight lines and right angles, and want something different. And YES, I would love to have the luxury of fast forwarding 100 or so years to see what NEO style resurrects it's stylish head. I would love to see a marriage between post modernism with the attention to detail like Baroque/ Art Deco Nouveau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaha Hadid is currently one of my favorite architects right now. She has a sensibility that is far ahead of many of her contemporaries in relation to aesthetics and form. When you look at her architecture you see the future. It's also a perfect parallel to current contemporary culture. Zaha's buildings play off elements of sensationalism which is an element that is very strong in media and everyday life. I mean each one of us in a since wants to live some sort of sensationalist life and we even want to portray to others through social media and the like that we do have a fabulous lives. If this is the sentiment of our time why can't our architecture be the same way! There is also something to be said with just how uncompromising her architecture is. It is very in your face, and is uncompromising to structure, but what's cool is that the buildings will always praise structure and materials, yet its the architecture that is in control.

 

The only thing I don't really care for in her practice is her business ethics. Because she pushes a lot of buildings in the Middle East and Asia it means that a lot of her buildings are built with the cheapest labor possible. Zaha has already made a very damaging comment where she responded to workers dying on the site of the Qatar World Cup stadium and essentially she didn't really give a crap.

 

She is this generations architect though and because she is so far ahead in terms of her theories on aesthetics, she will be around for a very long time. Not to mention she was a protegee of Rem Koolhaas! How awesome is that?! One of the greatest architects of the last 20-30 years instructing the next dominate figure in architecture. I have so much other stuff I would say about her and go into specific examples of her incredible architecture, but she is definitely not overrated and is here to stay.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that information. I love her boldness, and the fact that she is a woman in definitely a mans world, makes me love here even more. I also do lament her nonchalance regarding fallen workers. Don't get too BouRgeoisie Madame. Lol. But wonderful bold statements is what we need in the US, especially TX.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bachanon, that is very interesting because when I did my literary gig as a high school teacher in LA, one of the the essays my students had to write involved critiquing museums as art themselves. We would tour The Getty, Malibu and the Hill, as well as Disney Concert Hall and Huntington Gardens. Must respectfully disagree. A building, tower or complex as a work of art, IMO, establishes the structure and draws more interest, as well as increased business. But I do like what you said regarding renderings verses reality. I too, haven't visited any of her creations, so in all fairness, I must temper my opinion until then.

 

i agree.  i think you make my point inadvertently.  seldom, is there a business model (thinking typical investment scenario) that would make a building as art/sculpture viable.  perhaps, i should have stated my point differently.  a concert hall, a museum, a large city library; these uses usually require large donations or trusts in order to be built.  typical investors are not ponying up money for most of the buildings in this category, that i'm aware.  that said, i have seen residential condos with starchitects, but this too is rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only thing I don't really care for in her practice is her business ethics. Because she pushes a lot of buildings in the Middle East and Asia it means that a lot of her buildings are built with the cheapest labor possible. Zaha has already made a very damaging comment where she responded to workers dying on the site of the Qatar World Cup stadium and essentially she didn't really give a crap.

 

I'm not familiar with Hadid or her work so I looked this up.  Holy s**t!  882 workers have died in the preperations for the 2022 world cup in Qatar?

 

http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-in-qatar-it-s-not-my-duty-as-an-architect/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the look of her designs -- very organic, but also kind of the 70's Buck Rogers futuristic style.

 

But she's one of those "theoretical architects" that are such a problem these days.  They put together beautiful designs without much thought to whether they will work or not.  Calatrava is that way, too.  One architect told me about being in a room full of architects and Calatrava presented his big vision for a large building.  All of the "practical" architects in the room started rolling their eyes.  In the end, the building was never built.  It was simply not possible, largely from a plumbing perspective.

 

I've had arguments with some architects about this, too.  Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the sacred cows, is known for his beautiful buildings. But they are maintenance nightmares.  It's my contention that architecture is more about beauty, it's about buildings that work.  IMO, someone who designs buildings for aesthetics only isn't an architect, they're a painter.

 

Back to ZH -- She had an exhibition of outdoor pavilions that she designed.  The whole thing was delayed weeks or months because construction was beyond difficult.  Once they were done and the exhibit opened, I went on the second day, not the first, and they were in terrible condition from people walking, standing, and sitting on them.  For the duration of the exhibition, most of them were roped off (not that people cared anyway), and in a constant state of being repaired.  

 

Pyramids=Good architecture

Pavilion that disintegrates under the weight of a two-year-old's Nikes=Bad architecture

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the look of her designs -- very organic, but also kind of the 70's Buck Rogers futuristic style.

 

But she's one of those "theoretical architects" that are such a problem these days.  They put together beautiful designs without much thought to whether they will work or not.  Calatrava is that way, too.  One architect told me about being in a room full of architects and Calatrava presented his big vision for a large building.  All of the "practical" architects in the room started rolling their eyes.  In the end, the building was never built.  It was simply not possible, largely from a plumbing perspective.

 

I've had arguments with some architects about this, too.  Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the sacred cows, is known for his beautiful buildings. But they are maintenance nightmares.  It's my contention that architecture is more about beauty, it's about buildings that work.  IMO, someone who designs buildings for aesthetics only isn't an architect, they're a painter.

 

Back to ZH -- She had an exhibition of outdoor pavilions that she designed.  The whole thing was delayed weeks or months because construction was beyond difficult.  Once they were done and the exhibit opened, I went on the second day, not the first, and they were in terrible condition from people walking, standing, and sitting on them.  For the duration of the exhibition, most of them were roped off (not that people cared anyway), and in a constant state of being repaired.  

 

Pyramids=Good architecture

Pavilion that disintegrates under the weight of a two-year-old's Nikes=Bad architecture

 

That kind of dovetails into an experience I had recently.  One of my sons is considering either architecture or civil engineering.  So we visited with both schools at UH.  The civil engineering prof we met with mentioned that the difference between the two is that the architecture school was more about the art than the practicality of actually putting up a real, working building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the look of her designs -- very organic, but also kind of the 70's Buck Rogers futuristic style.

 

But she's one of those "theoretical architects" that are such a problem these days.  They put together beautiful designs without much thought to whether they will work or not.  Calatrava is that way, too.  One architect told me about being in a room full of architects and Calatrava presented his big vision for a large building.  All of the "practical" architects in the room started rolling their eyes.  In the end, the building was never built.  It was simply not possible, largely from a plumbing perspective.

 

I've had arguments with some architects about this, too.  Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the sacred cows, is known for his beautiful buildings. But they are maintenance nightmares.  It's my contention that architecture is more about beauty, it's about buildings that work.  IMO, someone who designs buildings for aesthetics only isn't an architect, they're a painter.

 

Back to ZH -- She had an exhibition of outdoor pavilions that she designed.  The whole thing was delayed weeks or months because construction was beyond difficult.  Once they were done and the exhibit opened, I went on the second day, not the first, and they were in terrible condition from people walking, standing, and sitting on them.  For the duration of the exhibition, most of them were roped off (not that people cared anyway), and in a constant state of being repaired.  

 

Pyramids=Good architecture

Pavilion that disintegrates under the weight of a two-year-old's Nikes=Bad architecture

 

Oh lord lol me and you are bound to have a few mexican stand offs then! I fully respect your option btw. It's very sound and is in line with many both who are in the profession and out of the profession.....I'm going to really hold back right now because that's not the aim of this at all. In fact I forced myself to start as a draftsman and not a designer so I can learn exactly what goes into a building so it can reinforce my designs later because I have at least a baseline knowledge of how it works.

 

That being said EVERY building is a maintenance nightmare whether designed by a starchitect or an intern over seen by a licensed architect. You are hinting at a subject of contention that has raged for hundreds of years! Is architecture in the realm of high art or does it only exist in the realm of the mundane, function for function sake, and program first above all others. Are architects suppose to be bold or safe. If a building is merely one created through a process of program being thrown together with a skin over it....is it even architecture? Same could be said if it is just a building created from some wild abstract concept or its just there to be pretty...is this architecture? Architecture, and what you were saying about "aesthetics" is really about Form! Form and how that form interacts with space. That is it. Form and space. Everything else is secondary in the hierarchy of "what is architecture?" If a building is very functional but the form is crisp and pure......architecture. If it is a sculpted work of art, but it's because the form says it should be and it meets every expectation.....architecture.

 

Now about Zaha's pavilions you were stating. If the construction was beyond difficult is that the fault of the contractor, who probably had every tool necessary and knowledge to build it, or is it the architect who designed and not only had to figure out the human weight necessary to hold it up, but also choose the materials, how it could be constructed, how it would stand up to weather and pressure? If something is hard to build does that make it bad architecture? if it is easy to build is this good architecture? Do we want everything to be by the book or do we want to shoot for the stars, push the boundaries, and seek what could be possible?

 

I'm simply putting out there questions. Not all of these have to be answered because these questions will continue to be pondered long after we are gone from this earth. If it's anything I have learned so far in my short life is that it's not all black and white.....just gray. A very murky gray.

 

Btw if you would like to know more about the questions I'm talking about I'm starting a wonderful book on "Aesthetic Theory". Pretty interesting so far and it deals with exactly where this is going.....but hopefully not for that would be way off topic lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I fall distinctly into the practical side of this.  The lifespan of the building should get as much consideration as the aesthetics.  If you subordinate maintainability for aesthetics then you are creating temporary installation art.  If superhuman efforts need to be made to keep it up, eventially it won't be or it will succumb to the elements.  Then it will be a cool building with only a foundation and pictures left for it's memorial.

 

I suspect some architects don't really care as long as they can make a name for themselves in the here and now.  A building really only has to last as long as their career does.

 

Interestingly, we get some parallels to this in the IT community where cool systems with all the bells and whistles get built in order to turn a buck and then become maintenance nightmares afterwards.  I've found IT consultants in particular can be pretty bad about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's hitting below the belt with your middle passage there....seriously if that is where you want to take this then don't even bother replying and just get it back to Zaha. There was absolutely no need to bring that into this discussion. The maintainability was just fine...the other two parts.....no. Take those cheap shots elsewhere.

Edited by Luminare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's hitting below the belt with your middle passage there....seriously if that is where you want to take this then don't even bother replying and just get it back to Zaha. There was absolutely no need to bring that into this discussion. The maintainability was just fine...the other two parts.....no. Take those cheap shots elsewhere.

 

If you disagee, that's fine. But let's not pretend that all architects, engineers, or even database developers (me) have hearts of gold.  Otherwise wouldn't Hadid care enough about the 882 workers that have died working on her project and others in Qatar to try to do something about it, given her international standing?

 

 

When The Guardian recently asked Zaha Hadid about the 500 Indians and 382 Nepalese migrant workers who have reportedly died in preparations for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the architect behind the al-Wakrah stadium responded:

“I have nothing to do with the workers. I think that’s an issue the government – if there’s a problem – should pick up. Hopefully, these things will be resolved.”

Asked whether she was concerned, she then added:

“Yes, but I’m more concerned about the deaths in Iraq as well, so what do I do about that? I’m not taking it lightly but I think it’s for the government to look to take care of. It’s not my duty as an architect to look at it. I cannot do anything about it because I have no power to do anything about it. I think it’s a problem anywhere in the world. But, as I said, I think there are discrepancies all over the world.”

http://www.archdaily.com/480990/zaha-hadid-on-worker-deaths-in-qatar-it-s-not-my-duty-as-an-architect/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets not be naive here and say that there aren't people in both cases in every kind of industry. You are exactly looking at this in a way which i said isn't. This isn't a black and white thing and neither is what happened in her case. Were we there? No. Do we know the circumstances of all this? No. Of course what I said earlier is that I don't care for her ethics, but that wasn't shoot at the profession as a whole that was a shoot at what she expressly conveyed on the subject and that circumstance. You simply took a cheap shot at not ONE, but several professions which is just lame. Certainly that didn't need to be handled in such a way. I mean this is about her architecture not her ethics which is why i made it clear that I wanted to move back to her architecture. But....No, clearly that was too much distraction for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her phrasing was inartful (to say the least), but apparently accurate.  The structures are actually put up by building contractors, not architects, and in most places the government does set out minimum safety requirements.  

 

We used to have far more construction deaths on large projects here in the US, as well.  Roughly 100 died putting up the Hoover Dam, a dozen on the Empire State Building, and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets not be naive here and say that there aren't people in both cases in every kind of industry. You are exactly looking at this in a way which i said isn't. This isn't a black and white thing and neither is what happened in her case. Were we there? No. Do we know the circumstances of all this? No. Of course what I said earlier is that I don't care for her ethics, but that wasn't shoot at the profession as a whole that was a shoot at what she expressly conveyed on the subject and that circumstance. You simply took a cheap shot at not ONE, but several professions which is just lame. Certainly that didn't need to be handled in such a way. I mean this is about her architecture not her ethics which is why i made it clear that I wanted to move back to her architecture. But....No, clearly that was too much distraction for this thread.

 

I think you have misread what I said.  I'm not placing a blanket accusation on architects or engineers.  I'm saying that, as you've noted with regards to Hadid, some aren't going to have sterling ethics and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some, not all, but some, are going to be more concerned with their paychecks and next projects more than whether their work stands the test of time.  That's neither unusual nor unexpected given human nature.

 

I do stand by my blanket accusations against IT consultants, having been one and having to clean up after many.  I consider them guilty until proven innocent, much like I regard politicians.  :P

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Zaha Hadid Architects

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...