How the Recession Has Changed Architecture
Paul Goldberger:\r\n Well I think the recession is doing two things. First, it cuts the \r\nvolume of building hugely. You know, the first thing you give up in bad \r\ntimes is building a new building. I mean, you've got to eat, you’ve got\r\n to do certain other essential things, but building a building for most \r\npeople, for most businesses, most institutions, is an optional thing. \r\nAnd so when times are tough, you give it up. It's both optional and \r\nunbelievably expensive. So therefore, it’s the first thing to go. \r\nThat’s the bad effect, obviously, of the recession.
The good \r\neffect, though, is that it can kind of can cleanse a lot of the crap out\r\n of the system. I mean, we’ve just come through a period of enormous \r\nand, in some ways excessive, prosperity. A lot of what we’ve built has \r\nbeen excessive and more than a little vulgar. So if the recession puts \r\nan end to the McMansion, it will have been a social good in some way \r\nactually. That’s not to—I don’t mean to be flippant about it, obviously\r\n there is more social ill to a recession than social good, but somewhere\r\n within all the awful stuff, there’ll be a modest silver lining and that\r\n might be that we will begin to understand that, you know, an \r\nupper-middle class prosperous family of four does not require 15,000 \r\nsquare feet of living space as a bare minimum, which is the way a lot of\r\n the country's been operating in the age of the McMansion.
\r\nQuestion: Has the recession affected certain types of architecture disproportionately?
Paul Goldberger: The recession’s affected architecture at\r\n all levels, I think, because there’s not much money to build. \r\nRemember, commercial building, nobody builds with their own money. It’s\r\n all money that gets lent by financial institutions. And they’re not \r\ndoing it right now, in this climate. So buildings at all levels have \r\nbeen affected. The government is not building much, commercial \r\ndevelopers are not building much. About the only amount of building you\r\n do see is some institutional building; academic institutions, cultural \r\ninstitutions, perhaps that had been planning projects for a long time, \r\nhave raised a lot of the money they need through private philanthropy \r\nand are also figuring that, with construction way down this is actually a\r\n good time because they can build it at a cheaper price then they might \r\nif things come back in a couple of years. So they’re going ahead with a \r\ncertain number of projects, but an awful lot of stuff is not \r\nhappening—in that category as well as other categories. So, it’s way \r\ndown at all levels.
We’re coming out of this period when \r\narchitecture’s been incredibly ambitious and sometimes too ambitious \r\neven. Although far be it from me as an architecture critic to say \r\nthere’s such a thing as architecture being too ambitious, but in fact, \r\nsometimes it has been. It’s tried to hard; it’s sort of acted as if it \r\nwas going to solve all the world’s ills by a bunch of fancy buildings.
In\r\n any case, I think we are pulling back on a lot of that stuff and there,\r\n there is both a good and a bad side also. The good side is sometimes \r\nthings are being done just in a more simple, clear, basic way without a \r\nlot of unnecessary frills and fuss. You know, it kind of... maybe we’ll\r\n get back to a respect for a kind of modernist purity sometimes. And \r\nthat's all to the good.
On the other hand, if things are just \r\ndone more cheaply with crappy, junky materials, that’s not to the good. \r\n And I think we’re seeing some of both of those things right now.
Recorded on June 22, 2010
Interviewed by David Hirschman
The economic downturn has drastically cut the volume of new buildings. But the pause may "cleanse a lot of the crap out of the system."
- Unfortunately, many disparate factors are erasing the traditional Bajau way of life.
Here's the first evidence to challenge the "fastest sperm" narrative.
An innovation may lead to lifelike evolving machines.
- Scientists at Cornell University devise a material with 3 key traits of life.
- The goal for the researchers is not to create life but lifelike machines.
- The researchers were able to program metabolism into the material's DNA.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.