Autocracy vs Democracy: Who has the better architecture?

[BTinSF]

Informed Reader
January 25, 2008; Page B6
DESIGN

Autocracies Free Architecture, if Little Else

• CONDÉ NAST TRAVELER -- FEBRUARY

Some of the most interesting building projects in recent years have emerged in autocratic societies, a trend that might make fans of architecture, and democracy, uneasy.

Dictators and sheiks often give architects carte blanche to pursue extravagant, bold projects. In freer societies, on the other hand, architects have to grapple with all sorts of civic constraints -- historical-preservation groups, environmentalists and legislators who question budgets.

Star architects Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Tadao Ando and Jean Nouvel have effused about the ability to work without restraints on their plans for a cultural center in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Shanghai will soon boast the completion of Rem Koolhaas's groundbreaking China Central Television Tower. In New York, meanwhile, Ground Zero's reconstruction has been delayed and aesthetically watered down as factions jockey for position.

As city dwellers in the West observe the creative building boom in the Middle East and Asia, a sense of nostalgia seems to be emerging for the times when architects could build with similar abandon, says critic Christopher Hawthorne. Robert Moses in New York in the 20th century and Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann in Paris in the 19th century once were viewed as villains for their massive urban-renewal projects. Now, their initiatives are celebrated in exhibits and books.

But democratic architecture does have one crucial thing going for it. It allows for the mess and chaos from which the best city neighborhoods around the world draw their energy. Architectural projects developed without public input often lack that energy. Instead, they have the same dreamland quality as Disneyland -- "not a place in which to grapple with the complexities of contemporary cities," says Mr. Hawthorne, "but to leave them behind."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1201...us_marketplace

This kind of sums up my view of places like Dubai very nicely--a view I couldn't quite put into words before. But when I look at photos of such places, they don't look quite like the sort of cities I want to live in--places like New York and London. There are grand avenues and public spaces, devoid of pedestrians for the most part. And the architecture too often does not seem made for human occupation.

[SFUVancouver]

Sculpture gardens.

[Austinlee]

Normally I would say Democracy, however read the history of Paris in mid-1800s when Napoleon III commissioned Haussman to tear down and rebuild large portions of Paris in a grande fashion. It was highly hated at the time but what is the end result? The most beautiful city in the world.

[staff]

Art (architecture) is not politics.

[M II A II R II K]

I suppose a similar debate can take place about transit.

[pablosan]

I believe that any project needs to fit in the context of it's surrounding neighborhoods. It needs to promote a pedestrian-oriented cityscape.

Dubai, to me, looks like a bunch of skyscrapers that were built in the middle of nowhere. It looks static, with very little regard to cohesiveness. Maybe in another fifty years everything will come together.

In saying that, there is more to architecture than a bold statement, which results in towering pieces of art.

[CGII]

I'm actually a fan of the work of Albert Speer, Hitler's architect. He was doing great modernism with traditional materials, and I actually think that if his style weren't so synonymous with Nazism we'd see more of it today because it's just so good.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by staff

Art (architecture) is not politics.

Everything is political. If you think otherwise you are not looking hard enough.

[statler]

Originally Posted by staff

Art (architecture) is not politics.

I think a better stament would be "Art (architecture) shouldn't be political."
That I would agree with.

[staff]

^^
Oops. That's what I meant of course. My English isn't what it should be...

[Coyett]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I suppose a similar debate can take place about transit.

I don't think so. Western European and North-East Asian democracies have better transit than any other country, including autocracies. Funny how the author left countries like Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Burma out of the debate.

[LeftCoaster]

What about Moscow? I thought its transit system was supposed to be among the best in the world?

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by taiwan ren

I don't think so. Western European and North-East Asian democracies have better transit than any other country, including autocracies. Funny how the author left countries like Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Burma out of the debate.

But you can't deny that China in the past few years has put a large emphasis on improving transit in this country, especially in the largest cities and between those same cities. And Moscow's metro was built mainly during the Soviet era.

[Ducov]

One can build a beautiful building in an ugly city, and not improve the city, additionally one can make an economical aggregate of space and not produce a beautiful building.

It would seem that it is not so much a dilemma between autocracy and democracy, but one between, legitimate pragmatical concerns, and artistic inspiration. At what level can these factors be combined to produce the best possible outcome?

I would say it is much easier to achieve this in a democratic society than otherwise, simply because of the concerns people air and the requirements that need to be met for construction in such a system. In a free market democracy these help to curtail the main impulses of profitability, and also help to prevent a building becoming a bellicose statement by egotistical planners and architects, that in the end has little real meaning. Being forced to exist on a similar level as that of the city it is part of both helps to stop a building becoming a purely market friendly massing of space, ultimately alienating and disrupting its environment, but also to stop it becoming a show peace for an autocratic regime which intends it only to be seen from afar, and cares little about those using it and passing near it.

In either case it is the input of the many that mediate the mistakes of a few.

It is unfair to compare the reconstruction of the world trade centre with other projects, it is a category all of it's own. It is better to err on the side of caution than to end up with one person's idea of a memorial. An example where this has ended disastrously it the monument commemorating the battle of Stalingrad. Typical of Stalin's character he used a simple formula to decide upon a memorial, i.e. the biggest battle of all time required the biggest statue of all time. - The result, a grotesque mammoth, with little of the solemnity and quiet dignity enjoyed by the memorials commemorating the dead on the western front in WW1. Ultimately doing a disservice to all those millions of dead.

Another example is that of Haussman Paris. The archetype of Jean-Nicolas Durand's city planning, with it's oblique avenues and radiating roads, is no doubt beautiful, but ultimately demoted the role of the architect to a facade designer (as the plan of any prospective building was already set.) Eventually this lead to an over emphasis on the moribund beaux arts style, whilst ignoring the real changes in architecture that became that century's most important legacy.

So it is my opinion that whilst neither system can enjoy perfection, but the probability of a building becoming a disruptive and ultimately ugly influence on it's city is more likely in a society where ability to lodge complaints is curtailed.

[Coyett]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

But you can't deny that China in the past few years has put a large emphasis on improving transit in this country, especially in the largest cities and between those same cities. And Moscow's metro was built mainly during the Soviet era.

Yes, but China is still playing catch up with it's neighbors in this respect - cities like Seoul and Tokyo have had extensive metro networks for years.

[staff]

^^
Has South Korea been democratic the whole time during the development of Seoul's subway system? I honestly don't know.

[M II A II R II K]

Come to think of it one may not necessarily have better architecture per say bet ween the 2 systems, but maybe how rich the country's are.

But this seems to have more to do with which systems are more likely to cough up supertalls, so long as the country has money of course.

[nomarandlee]

Want to pay construction workers 5-15 dollars per day? Then we could produce a plethora of some astounding buildings and civic projects. All the other issues I think pale in comparison when discussing the discrepancies..

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by staff

Art (architecture) is not politics.

This, to me, is one of the most interesting things about architecture. It is an art form that connects with many people on many levels; it is a confluence of art and politics. So while art is, for the intents and purposes of my discussion here, not political, architecture has to play the role of designing functional, civic creations, and it is, ipso facto, political. Architecture is (to put it very crudely) a mix of function and form, shelter and art. While I would much prefer to have the city that I live in populated with beautiful, aesthetically-minded designs, the functional role of architecture has enough influence to be able to "reason" out some of the beauty of a design. There are complexities and exceptions to this line of reasoning, but it is sufficient enough for my conclusion, which is that democracy produces the best results when all facets of the discipline of architecture are considered.