Posts tagged with "Patrik Schumacher":

Placeholder Alt Text

Patrik Schumacher claims limiting work hours could paralyze offices

In an era where work-life balance and workplace culture have become major issues in the design industry, Patrik Schumacher says we have nothing to worry about. During a panel at Dezeen Day in London last week, the principal of Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) clashed with Pratt Institute School of Architecture dean Harriet Harriss, claiming that measures to limit the exploitation of employees could lead to the “paralyzing” of firms like ZHA. "This is a competitive place where people are eager, have passionate and want to succeed and want to do something," said Schumacher. "But you can't do that if you're told that if work beyond eight hours you can observe exploitation, and something is wrong with you." Schumacher’s comments came in response to Harriss’s claim that overtime culture actually curtails productivity. "It's very important to just bust the myth here that longer hours equals productivity," Harriss remarked, adding that “What we are doing, arguably, is making permissible forms of labor exploitation, and creating work-life balance that often triggers mental health [issues]. And we know this is a pretty serious issue in education at the moment.” “I don’t like your philosophy,” responded Schumacher, claiming that it is a slippery slope for a “socialist world of stagnation” that he has observed in European labor culture. The panel discussion, Fixing Education, also included Neil Pinder, architecture and design teacher at Graveney School in London, and Stacie Woolsey, a young designer who came to prominence after creating her own master’s degree program in response to the lack of affordability in institutional programs. The four professionals were brought together to discuss how to better prepare architecture and design students for the demands of the profession. The comments were not Schumacher’s first foray into criticizing the trajectory of design education. Over the summer, he published a Facebook manifesto entitled “13 theses on the crisis of architectural academia,” citing issues such as teachers without sufficient professional experience, generally uninspiring portfolios from graduates, and a sense of detachment between education and the profession. The ZHA principal has also come under fire for his stance on unpaid internships, as he claimed in 2016 that such work is "the result of a well-functioning market." In an agree-to-disagree resolution, Harriss dismissed Schumacher’s views as outdated, adding that the long-hour discussion is only a small piece of a larger the larger problem of accessibility within the industry.
Placeholder Alt Text

Patrik Schumacher claims he was forced to drop Zaha Hadid's name from ZHA

A fuller picture of Patrik Schumacher’s battle with the three other executors of the late Zaha Hadid’s estate has come to light courtesy of a series of legal documents obtained by BDonline. In the 20-page document, Schumacher lays out a series of allegations against his co-trustees, including claims that he was “forced” to drop Hadid’s name from her practice and that he was barred from speaking at her 2016 memorial service. The divisions between Schumacher and the other trustees of Hadid’s $90 million estate—her niece Rana Hadid, friend Brian Clarke, and developer Lord Peter Palumbo—first emerged on November 14 of last year. Schumacher, a principal at Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA), had gone before London’s High Court and issued a claim asking that he be authorized as the estate’s sole trustee. His fellow executors and colleagues penned an open letter in response, claiming that Schumacher was operating in his own interest, not that of the estate. In a follow-up, Schumacher took to AN’s comment section to defend himself, claiming that his detractors weren’t aware of the full story. Now more of his claims have come to light. Schumacher claims that the other three trustees “forced” him to remove Hadid’s name from her eponymous practice. He also alleges that the studio, referred to in the documents as Zaha Hadid Limited (ZHL), was forced to move $9.8 million to a holding company owned by the other executors. Schumacher writes that he was coerced into going along with the will of the executors under the threat of being removed from ZHA. His continued participation in the firm’s business was included in a “letter of wishes” written by Hadid at the same time as her will in April of 2015, although Rana Hadid claims that Schumacher received that concession by barging into a meeting between Zaha Hadid and her lawyers (a claim he denies). In an excerpt from the documents held by BDonline, Schumacher wrote: “ZHL is a major asset of the estate. It is evident from the ‘letter of wishes’ that Dame Zaha intended it to be transferred to Mr Schumacher and its employees as a going concern. Rather than honouring that wish, the defendants have delayed the transfer and have acted and continue to act in a manner detrimental to ZHL. They have transferred cash and other assets to ZHH [ZHL's parent company] and the foundation despite reducing ZHL’s capacity to carry out business. “Further, they have sought to undermine Mr Schumacher’s ability to lead and control ZHL as envisaged by the ‘letter of wishes,’ and have taken steps to control ZHL directly by means of taking control of its sole shareholder ZHH. “Given Mr Schumacher’s role in ZHL, the defendants’ personal animosity towards him has coloured their decision-making with regard to ZHL and has resulted in their taking decisions that have been manifestly to ZHL’s detriment.” For their part, the other executors have claimed that they’re only acting in good faith, writing in November that they were personally chosen by Hadid to represent and further her best interests. A statement from Zaha Hadid Architects on the matter was provided as follows: "We hope this matter can be settled quickly and amicably, to the satisfaction of all parties. After another successful year, the practice goes from strength to strength and our business is unaffected by the subject matter of the dispute. We remain focused on serving our clients and building on the achievements of Dame Zaha."
Placeholder Alt Text

You said it! Presenting the best reader comments of 2018

Where would we be without you, dear readers? Without you, there’d be no Architect’s Newspaper AN’s most read stories of 2018 had some of the best comments. Even Patrik Schumacher came to defend himself in our comments section. Take a look at some of our favorite comments from the year. Last month, we posted an open letter from friends and colleagues of the late Zaha Hadid against Schumacher. They addressed their concerns about the settlement of her estate, the Zaha Hadid Foundation, and the governance and future of her firm (ZHA). Schumacher swooped in to defend himself, claiming we didn't hear his side of the story. Patrik, dear friend, we're open to talking. Meanwhile, we cackled at Norman McDougall's punny joke about the cancelation of Elon Musk's planned tunnel for L.A. Steve McLaughlin was disappointed with the tracklist on the architect's mixtape.  What he doesn't know is that our executive editor, Matt Shaw, breathes and walks the spirit of the famous quote Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music.” After The Man in the Glass House was released, author Mark Lamster left us wondering just how much of a Nazi was Philip Johnson. But Rhys Philips said that he was surprised people ever believed in all the Johnson propaganda. These readers weren't so impressed with Fentress Architects' design for the U.S. pavilion at Expo 2020 Dubai. On Twitter, Bjarke Ingels Wilder (the love child of Bjarke Ingels and Billy Wilder?) poked fun at Daniel Libeskind's affinity for sharp angles when the architect's design for the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree star was revealed. And according to Brian Mark Camille, getting an Uber might be faster than the Virgin Hyperloop One. Who knows what people will say next year?
Placeholder Alt Text

Weekend edition: Patrik Schumacher takes to the comments to respond to critics

Patrik Schumacher recently took to the comments section of The Architect's Newspaper to respond to critics who published an open letter protesting his suit against the executors of Zaha Hadid's estate. Beneath the letter from "a group of close friends, fellow and former students, and employees of Zaha Hadid," Schumacher wrote:
My dear friends, I wish you had given me a chance to explain to you what is going on before you throw your stones: "Schumacher's ... behavior ... thwarting Zaha's last wishes." Are we no longer on first name terms? Have you seen Zaha's letter of wishes? Let's talk soon.
Rodney Place, one of the signatories of the letter, then responded with the comment:
Dear Patrik, I think, as old friends of Zaha's, we are morally obliged to distinguish (and protect) her "legacy" from her "business". She always tried to make time for her old friends, despite or maybe because of the alienation of fame. Eventually she was everywhere before she arrived; it became exhausting. We need to reciprocate. This might have been an interesting discussion amongst friends and colleagues, including you, about how legacy and inspiration might, in the end, be more important than assets? Unfortunately you took it into the coldness of The High Court, instead of inviting this discussion? Way, way back then, when Zaha had won the Peak competition, but hadn't built a building, I managed through a colleague in New York, to get her as the front of an invited team pitching in the Times Square redevelopment. After she met with the production architect and developer carnivores, she called me. She said, more or less, "Fish, they want me for my body, not my mind". I said, tell them to get f....d. She did. Her mind lives on..... Rodney
The controversy at the heart of the back-and-forth revolves around Schumacher's lawsuit against the three other executors of Hadid's estate. Those executors characterized Schumacher's suit as an attempt by him to take total control of Hadid's property and legacy. Schumacher, however, disagrees with this characterization and said that he is just trying to align the execution of Hadid's estate with her true wishes, known to him. AN reached out to Schumacher for comment, but he did not respond. To catch up on the controversy, check out previous coverage here and here.
Placeholder Alt Text

Zaha Hadid's friends and colleagues pen open letter against Patrik Schumacher

To the Editor: We are a group of close friends, fellow and former students, and employees of Zaha Hadid. We wish to express our utmost concern at the recent legal action by Patrik Schumacher against Zaha’s fellow executors. We strongly support Lord Peter Palumbo, Brian Clarke, and Rana Hadid’s efforts to fulfill Zaha’s wishes regarding the settlement of her estate, determining conclusively the future structure and governance of her office (ZHA), and the development of the Zaha Hadid Foundation, all as stipulated in her will. Schumacher’s public behavior and proclamations since Zaha’s passing are well known and they speak for themselves. What is not publicly known is the extent to which he has been attempting to thwart Zaha’s last wishes. Zaha’s unique legacy must be protected. It is of paramount importance that the Zaha Hadid Foundation is established and fully endowed to fulfill the promulgation of her educational vision. Hadid’s internationally acclaimed status is based on her oeuvre. The Foundation must be an autonomous body responsible for this unique archive comprising drawings, models, sketches and project-related material from her student days until her untimely death. The Foundation’s role is twofold: to safeguard the material and to make it the foundation of any future academic inquiry both of her contributions and equally, academic investigations inspired by it. Signed by: Mya Manakides Nicholas Boyarsky Lisette Khalastchi Robert Cole Sand Helsel Michael Wolfson David Gommersal Brian Ma Siy Alastair Standing Graham Modlen Kathleen Peacock Ban Shubber Rodney Place Miska Lovegrove
Placeholder Alt Text

Patrik Schumacher sues to become sole executor of Zaha Hadid's estate

Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) principal Patrik Schumacher issued a claim in London’s High Court earlier today in an attempt to remove the other three executors of Dame Zaha Hadid's will from her $90 million estate. Those executors include Zaha’s niece, Rana Hadid, artist and friend Brian Clarke, and developer and current Pritzker Prize jury chairman Lord Peter Palumbo. The three executors, all trustees of the Zaha Hadid Foundation, immediately released a joint statement slamming Schumacher’s decision. It was stressed that before her death, Hadid chose the three executors to oversee her estate based on the closeness of her relationship to each. A lawyer representing the three issued the following statement:
The attempt to remove these three executors is totally unjustified and misconceived. Unlike Mr Schumacher (who is seeking to gain financially from the estate), the three executors have no personal financial interest. They have at all times acted properly and in good faith with the desire to do their best for the estate given their friendship with Zaha Hadid.
Rana Hadid was more pointed in her rebuttal, adding: “My aunt, Zaha, would have been devastated to learn what Schumacher is doing and we feel obliged to resist his claims in order to defend her great name and legacy.” A spokesperson for Zaha Hadid Architects told the Architect’s Journal that “this is a matter relating solely to the executors of Zaha Hadid’s estate.” This isn’t the first time Schumacher and the executors have butted heads, as the three took the ZHA partner to task after a speech at the World Architecture Forum in Berlin in 2016. In that speech, Schumacher called for the abolition of all social and affordable housing and getting rid of government land use policies. The executors and the rest of ZHA weren’t amused with Schumacher professing his libertarian views on a world stage while representing the firm, and they spoke out afterwards, saying his views were completely at odds with Hadid’s legacy. AN will update this story as more information becomes available.
Placeholder Alt Text

Zaha Hadid Architects faces criticism over newly revealed London skyscrapers

Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) is facing community backlash over recently unveiled plans to bring a double-pronged, mixed-use tower to Vauxhall, South London. As reported by the Architect’s Journal, the building was submitted for local council approval in December, but has caught the public’s ire over the 53-story and 42-story towers that would rise right on the bank of the River Thames. Linked by an 11-story base, the Vauxhall scheme would hold 257 apartments and 618 hotel rooms across the two towers, as well as seven floors of office space in the base and retail at the ground level. Both the towers and the base will feature a glass curtain wall overlain with a unifying exoskeleton-like façade that stretches and decompresses as the building rises, exposing uninterrupted glass near the top. It would also become the tallest building in the emerging Vauxhall area, with the taller tower potentially topping out at about 607 feet. It would be ZHA’s first major mixed-use residential building in the United Kingdom, and the studio sees it as a “breakthrough project,” according to the Architect’s Journal. Local critics see the development as a “two-fingered salute.” The site had previously won permission for a pair of 41- and 31-story towers designed by London’s Squire & Partners, and residents, as well as non-profit groups, are gearing up to contest the development. “Although these buildings are better ­designed than the Squires ones, this application is attempting to add more height by stealth,” architect Barbara Weiss told the Architect’s Journal. ‘The River Thames is becoming a canyon and the price to the skyline of Boris Johnson’s liberal approach to tall buildings is becoming increasingly clear.” Other than the project’s height, advocates are also outraged over the lack of specific affordable housing promises, the decrease in residential units from the prior Squires plan, and the projected traffic congestion the project would cause. Compounding the controversy is that the ZHA towers would rise next to the iconic Vauxhall bus station, which was designed by ARUP in 2005 and now faces demolition only 13 years later. ZHA has for their part, pushed back against the controversy and claimed that fears of congestion or shadows were without merit. Jim Heverin, ZHA’s director, told the AJ that the studio was still in talks with the project’s developer over finalizing the number of affordable housing units. ‘When we came onto this scheme, it was right that we looked at the heights,’ said Heverin. “We evolved the scheme to create a new public square. Our scheme takes less land on the ground but is higher. There is a lot more density coming into this area. Our project fits within a master plan that has been looked at by Transport for London.” The soaring Vauxhall towers plan would seem to fit well with ZHA head Patrick Schumacher’s fondness for density and what the Guardian has called a propensity for “neoliberal privatization schemes.”
Placeholder Alt Text

"Come out Patrik, come out from under that table!" cry protesters at Zaha Hadid Architects' London office

After Patrik Schumacher voiced his desire for public and affordable housing to be abolished, protesters have today targeted the office of Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) in Clerkenwell, London. In Schumacher's speech, made earlier this month in Berlin, he argued that state regulations stifle architectural creativity and development while giving tenants of public housing unfair access to city centers. Schumacher also called for 80 percent of Hyde Park to be built upon and for the privatization of all public space, all of which was part of his "urban policy manifesto." This has not gone down well with activists from Class War and the London Anarchist Federation who protested at around midday (U.K. time) and into the late afternoon outside ZHA's Clerkenwell studio. According to The Architects' Journal (AJ), numbers swelled to around 20 and demonstrators accused Schumacher of "driving the working class out of London." The AJ also reported that shouts of: "Come out Patrik, come out from under that table" were heard. Schumacher, however, is believed to currently be out the country. Speaking to The Architect's Newspaper (AN), Jamie Wilson, an architecture student who works nearby ZHA's office recounted the affair: "Under police surveillance, a few representatives [from the London Anarchist Federation] were speaking on a megaphone. They commented on the ideas raised in P.S.'s World Architecture Festival keynote and their potential outcomes for citizens of London. Following this they addressed the office directly, pointing out that his views should not be taken lightly by his colleagues (who have since issued an open letter distancing themselves from the matter). Issues of their publication "RESISTANCE" were being handed out to passers by." "What Patrik Schumacher has said is social fascism. If it’s not opposed early on, it will grow and grow […] we as working class people want to stop it right at the beginning," told founder of Class War, Ian Bone (no relation to Ken Bone) to the AJ. "We hope Schumacher will retract his vile views, apologize and get out of the country."

A photo posted by Maarten Mutters (@mmutters) on

  The anger from the protesters is directed at Patrik Schumacher and already ZHA in an open letter rebuked his words, saying: "Patrik Schumacher’s ‘urban policy manifesto’ does not reflect Zaha Hadid Architects’ past—and will not be our future." Olly Wainwright also tweeted a screenshot of an email detailing Rana Hadid, Lord Palumbo, and Brian Clarke's essential disavowal of Schumacher's remarks. (The three are trustees of the Zaha Hadid Foundation and executors of Hadid's estate). Schumacher himself has also responded to the furore. "I was hoping to stir a discussion and got much more than what I had bargained for," he said on his Facebook page in an apologetic statement according to Dezeen. "The topics I touched upon turned out to be too touchy to touch at all in any direct or straightforward way, or so it seems." He continued, going on to say: "Like all of us, I dream of a caring, inclusive, diverse society where everybody can flourish and realise his/her potential and nobody is left behind. All I say is inspired by this longing."
Despite ZHA's open letter, according to CLAD Global, a ZHA spokesperson reaffirmed Schumacher's position in the company. They said: “Patrik’s position is certainly not under any threat; he remains our principal. Patrik is currently in Asia, along with other senior members of the practice, for a topping out ceremony.” Current London Mayor Sadiq Khan however, has not been impressed by Schumacher's comments. "One of our biggest strengths as a city is our diversity, with Londoners from different backgrounds living side by side," he said speaking in London newspaper, the Evening Standard. "So whether these out-of-touch comments were designed to shock or not, anyone who thinks abolishing affordable housing altogether, supporting 'buy-to-leave' empty properties, and building on Hyde Park is the answer to London's housing crisis doesn't understand the first thing about our great city."
Placeholder Alt Text

Zaha Hadid Architects and Patrik Schumacher openly feud over public housing and privatizing public space

One of the world's top architecture firms has entered a public row with one of its partners. On November 17, Patrik Schumacher, a partner at Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) and renowned proponent of parametricism, took the stage at the World Architecture Forum in Berlin to deliver a speech that shocked some: Attacking government regulation and bureaucracy, he described an eight-point plan that called for the privatization of public space, the elimination of government-issued land use policies, and the abolishment of all social, affordable, and public housing, among other similar goals. In the speech, he decried how such laws, regulations, and practices stifle architectural creativity and development while giving tenants of public housing unfair access to city centers. "All top-down bureaucratic attempts to order the built environment via land use plans are pragmatically and intellectually bankrupt," he said, according to Dezeen. Schumacher has made similar statements in the past, though with less forcefulness. Last August, he told The Architect's Newspaper (AN) that "We at ZHA see society’s development differently and I’m willing to talk about my optimism for more market-based organization processes and entrepreneurial solutions to societal problems. Solutions to maybe what we can perceive to be certain economic statements and stagnation in recent years." Earlier this morning, ZHA published this letter, which AN has reproduced below:
Open letter from Zaha Hadid Architects November 29, 2016 Patrik Schumacher’s ‘urban policy manifesto’ does not reflect Zaha Hadid Architects’ past—and will not be our future. Zaha Hadid did not write manifestos. She built them. Zaha Hadid Architects has delivered 56 projects for all members of the community in 45 cities around the world. Refusing to be confined by limitations or boundaries, Zaha did not reserve her ideology for the lecture hall. She lived it. She deeply believed in the strongest international collaboration and we are very proud to have a hugely talented team of 50 different nationalities in our London office, including those from almost every EU country. 43% of architects at ZHA are of an ethnic minority and 40% of our architects are women. Zaha Hadid didn’t just break glass ceilings and pull down barriers; she shattered them—inviting everyone of any race, gender, creed or orientation to join her on the journey. Embedding a collective research culture into every aspect of our work, Zaha has built a team of many diverse talents and disciplines—and we will continue to innovate towards an architecture of inclusivity. Architects around the world are calling for the profession to become more inclusive. The national and international press have also done a very good job highlighting the critical issues of housing and the threats to vital public spaces. Through determination and sheer hard work, Zaha showed us all that architecture can be diverse and democratic. She inspired a whole new generation around the world to engage with their environment, to never stop questioning and never—ever—stop imagining. Collaborating with clients, communities and specialists around the world who share this vision, everyone at Zaha Hadid Architects is dedicated to honouring Zaha’s legacy, working with passion and commitment to design and deliver the most transformational projects for all. Zaha Hadid Architects  (Copyright © Zaha Hadid Architects)
It remains unclear exactly who authored the piece, or who among the firm's members, trustees, partners, etc. pushed for its publication. AN  will continue to cover this story as it evolves. UPDATE: Oliver Wainwright of the The Guardian has tweeted this:   UPDATE: “Come out Patrik, come out from under that table!” cry protesters at Zaha Hadid Architects’ London office
Placeholder Alt Text

Patrik Schumacher on starchitecture: "It's just not helpful... We don't want to be stars"

When Zaha Hadid passed away this March, many questioned the future of her practice, Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA). As its leader, the Iraq-born British architect had played a starring role in the international design scene. Since her passing, ZHA has continued with Patrik Schumacher, the firm's only former partner, at its helm. Schumacher spoke with AN's Senior Editor Matt Shaw about what the future holds for ZHA, the impact of starchitecture, progressive urbanism, and more.

The Architect's Newspaper: How will ZHA continue? Do you feel like you have a good team behind you? 

Patrik Schumacher: Oh absolutely we have a great team [and] many layers of people who have been with us for many, many years. A lot of them are former students of mine. There’s a...much-shared sensibility and set of values—let’s say the DNA of the firm—deeply embedded in everybody’s way of working. It's also not just about being ambitious about ZHA, but being ambitious about giving leadership to the discipline as a whole. This is something I’ve been doing through my writings and attempting to do. There’s also the effort to overcome some of the prejudice, which the firm has faced through some of its critics.

What do you make of ZHA's criticisms?

I think this is based on a lack of understanding of our motivations. I’m trying to address this and I want to be more open to engagement with critics [by] explaining what we’re really about. We don’t want to be stars. We don’t want to become rich quick. We’re not insensitive to social and political issues. We actually share a lot with those critical of our work, critics who sometimes seem to take the moral high ground. What we all share, and should be expected to share as a basis for conversation, is a commitment to societal development, progress, emancipation, freedom, prosperity, and attempt to make architecture relevant to [the] development of the city and society. These kinds of shared motivations should be a basis for a conversation, [one that] also respects that maybe we see clients differently. We at ZHA see society's development differently and I’m willing to talk about my optimism for more market-based organization processes and entrepreneurial solutions to societal problems. Solutions to maybe what we can perceive to be certain economic statements and stagnation in recent years. 

Do you think that as the discussion around Zaha Architects changes from one of a star to a system there will be a change?

I think it’s very important because the starchitecture discourse, when the phrase comes up, always has negative connotations of superficiality, celebrity cult, etc. It was very unhelpful to us and certainly not something we or even Zaha was ever aiming for. It’s just not helpful. People become well-known because of a certain merit, because of an inspirational flavor and input of their work into the field. It is generated initially within the discipline through a form of peer recognition before being carried out into the public at large. At that point, some of the reasons why a person became well known get lost and you just have a free floating celebrity. That’s not helping. I don’t think that I’m aspiring to this, nor would I achieve this. At ZHA, we want to focus more on the ideas, principles, and, of course, with respect to society at large and the clients [with whom] we had established a reputation. Colleagues and critics should be able to realize that this is not only a superficial reputation, but a reputation which has reasons to back it up.

I’ve been saying that the discourse on icons is misguided in many ways. Iconography, in a positive sense, is something that becomes conspicuous because it’s innovative and has been rigorously developed from principles. Conspicuity, recognizability, and strangeness can be seen as side-effects even when the act of being iconic is not the driver or the original motif. Instead, it’s a temporary inevitability.

If you look at the Seagram building in New York when it arrived on the scene in the 1950s, it had the shock of a different form of "new." It was incredibly iconic and of a totally new civilization. However, this is only a temporary condition. Now the city has been remade in its image and you hardly notice it. Only architects who are aware of this notice. That is the way we should look at some of our work. As temporarily conspicuous and not necessarily something which we are craving for. Our work is not meant to be a spectacle and this is important to realize because it can very easily become a target for icon and star bashing. This is incredibly unhelpful because it’s no longer talking about the merit and demerit the of the work, its arguments, and the innovative thrust of a project, but rather its superficial celebrity status.  

Do you see the parametricism as being the "next modernism?"

Yes, though they have very different technological social paradigms. This civilization has evolved into a new condition and, as a result, the built environment is bound to change with it. In fact, it has been continuously changing but in ways which the discipline so far hasn’t impacted it sufficiently. If parametricism does not become hegemonic like modernism was in the 1960s, then it means that the discipline has become impotent. Currently, we have retro styles like neo-rationalism dominating construction in London and that simply means that the last 50 years of architectural research development made no impact at all. You might as well have shut down all organs of architectural criticism or schools of architecture or biennials because they came to zero. 

Placeholder Alt Text

Letter to the Editor> Francois Roche responds to Patrik Schumacher's reproach of the Chicago Architecture Biennial

[Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions or sentiments of the newspaper. AN welcomes reader letters, which could appear in our regional print editions. To share your opinion, please email editor@archpaper.com] The Architect's Newspaper recently published an excerpt from Patrik Schumacher’s now-infamous Facebook post which he also sent to AN. In response, Thailand-based architect Francois Roche sent us the following letter from his Facebook page; an edited version was also posted on Dezeen. For context, here is part of Schumacher’s text, and Roche’s unedited response. Read Schumacher's full statement here.

“The State of the Art of Architecture” delivered by the Chicago Architecture Biennial Exhibition must leave lay-visitors bewildered by one overwhelming subliminal message: Contemporary architecture ceased to exist, the discipline’s guilt and bad conscience has sapped its vitality, driven it to self-annihilation and architects have now en masse dedicated themselves to doing good via basic social work. A less charitable interpretation sees the hijacking of the newly created Chicago Architecture Biennial by a marginal but academically entrenched ideological tendency within the discipline that has abandoned their societal remit of innovating the built environment at the world technological frontier and instead pours its allocated resources into concept-art style documentation and agitation of behalf of underdeveloped regions and milieu. —Patrik Schumacher

From inside / a review far away from the Neo-Liberal Jealousy and last Übermensch libertarian Patrik Schumacher jiggering... this past week / but within the ideological and political Tabula rasa that operated on the situation / Chicago Cultural Center was (is) before everything a social center... the last homeless spot in downtown Chicago / With a tacitly organized passive violence, during the Biennial opening days only “members” with authorized badges were admitted / Rejecting the regular “trashy-freak” users / To quote Bourdieu ... Taste is an affair of business, exclusion, and social class... contemporary museums widely betray the emancipating hypothesis of their origin and foundation / At the Biennial all architects were participating to this “hygienist” strategy / But the most absurd ... was to listen to their speeches about bio-politics, greenish-color and bottom-up slummy romanticism, saving Willy and the world with Joseph Grima (the curator in charge of this specific Activism Carnival) on the throne of those selves-complaisance-indulgence... at the spot and the time where the Cultural-Social Center became “bunkerized.” ... Between Patrik and Zaha, who are ignoring with cynicism the workers’ dramatic condition of servitude in Abu Dhabi, and who participated to the biggest brainwashing enterprise of these past ten years: technologies as a strategy of ignorance-arrogance-positivism (pleonasm), and symmetrically the participants of this Biennial who “naively and innocently” excluded the damaged bodies and disordered minds, while wearing their black Penguin suits to moralistically enact political entertainment... WHO are the most criminal? Simply the two faces of the same coin or bitcoin... feeding themselves as a reciprocity simulacrum, as Ping-Pong between the Cynical and the Clown... the history of intellectual Tabula rasa... of architecture discipline... Could we find a crack between the techno-fetishism and at its opposite the techno-regression? It is so comfortable to choose one of these chapels... there are many advantages to reduce or to falsify consciousness and knowledge... Techno-sciences shouldn’t be an Object any more.... but a Subject that we have to re-appropriate in “democratic anthropo-technic” strategies... Francois Roche
Placeholder Alt Text

Letter> State of what art? Patrik Schumacher rails against the Chicago Architecture Biennial

[Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions or sentiments of the newspaper. AN welcomes reader letters, which could appear in our regional print editions. To share your opinion, please email editor@archpaper.com] The State of the Art of Architecture, delivered by the Chicago Architecture Biennial Exhibition, must leave lay-visitors bewildered by one overwhelming subliminal message: Contemporary architecture has ceased to exist, the discipline’s guilt and bad conscience has sapped its vitality, driven it to self-annihilation, and architects have now en masse dedicated themselves to doing good via basic social work. A less charitable interpretation sees the hijacking of the newly created Chicago Architecture Biennial as a marginal but academically entrenched ideological tendency within the discipline that has abandoned its societal remit of innovating the built environment at the world technological frontier, and is instead pouring its allocated resources into concept-art style documentation and agitation on behalf of underdeveloped regions and the milieu. I am rather suspicious of these creative/artistic engagements with poverty. It sometimes risks mutating into a questionable aesthetization of poverty, a questionable romance. Questionable because what the poor of this world most probably (and rightly) aspire to requires little creativity and imagination because it is already plotted out for them by the ladder of development leading up to what has been achieved in the most advanced arenas of world civilization, where—in contrast—true, path-breaking creativity is indeed called for. I rather feel that our discourse has become far too moralizing and politicized. It’s all too familiar by now: Political correctness swamps the discipline and takes over its discursive spaces. For example, why should an ARCHITECTURAL biennial give a huge space to an ART project like Amanda WilliamsColor(ed) Theory when ART has already its own (many more) venues for public display/discourse? How is this more relevant to contemporary architecture than contemporary architecture itself? Patrik Schumacher