Me motiva saber porqué los arquitectos hacemos lo que hacemos. Sé que el aporte de muchos ha sido esencial para la arquitectura moderna, pero tal cual como está el mundo hoy en día... ¿Qué es lo que están haciendo los arquitectos con sus recursos para realizar lo que quieran por trasmitir y/o ayudar a los demás a comprender la realidad mundial?. Claro está, si entendemos el cómo el mundo es hoy en día en el sentido de las consecuencias de la sobrepoblación y todo lo que ésta acarrea como por ejemplo los problemas de habitat y la manera de vivir adictos de energías y alimentos tóxicos para el ser humano y para el mundo, entre otros.
Hace unos meses fuí a una exposición de Richard Rogers (excelente exposición en la fundación La Caixa cerca del Pabellón Mies van der Rohe) y recordé algunas cosas buenas como su lejano y juvenil deseo por crear viviendas modulares, transportables, de fácil producción y montaje total kit prefabricado como la casa Zip-Up proyecto de 1968 en Londres. Supongo que ésto por la época (años sesenta) y por las circunstancias de aquel entonces no cuajó y no dió mayores frutos porque a la final terminó dedicandose a proyectos como el famoso Centro Georges Pompidou con su polémico aporte conceptual de estructura, piel, flexibilidad y alto coste de mantenimiento, y por mencionar otro costosisimo conceptual aporte el del Lloyd´s of London.
¿Qué es lo que hace que un talentoso arquitecto pase de propuestas necesarias como las viviendas prefabricadas de los 60´s a propuestas correctamente geniales y conceptualmente novedosos pero innecesarios?.
¿Y que pasa con Las Arenas?, cada vez que paso por la plaza España y me encuentro con el edificio de usos de ocio, parado, sin terminar y además haciendo un esfuerzo enorme por conservar la fachada de una antigua plaza de toros (símbolo repudiado por el común catalán de Barcelona sin nombrar a muchos otros entornos sociales). ¿Vale la pena tanta fuerza para sostener un símbolo contrario a las necesidades de nuestra sociedad?.
Ya no estamos en la época de lo bello y lo feo en conversaciones de pasillo de las escuelas de arquitectura. Yo creo firmemente que estamos en una época crucial, que ya no vale la pena que los grandes arquitectos super estrella hablen después del desastre de que facilmente se veía venir esto de la crisis inmobiliaria mundial, por que se ha hecho poco en materia preventiva respecto a la arquitectura. Los arquitectos han alimentado la explosión inmobiliaria y la especulación porque es la manera de conseguir reconocimientos y medallas a cambio.
Pero es también de vital importancia el papel del arquitecto como el responsable de re-dirigir a la sociedad de consumo en materia habitacional y colaborar con la mejoría en la calidad y confort de la vida cotidiana del ser humano. Por que a la final es un bien común para uno mismo, para todos y para el mundo.
Showing posts with label Richard Rogers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Rogers. Show all posts
August 16, 2009
June 16, 2009
Que pasa con Richard Rogers?
Aqui he copiado textualmente algunos comentarios de personas a un articulo publicado en BD online. Esta interesante... Lean:
"Rogers demands inquiry into Charles's interventions in Chelsea Barracks"
16 June, 2009
Richard Rogers has called for an official inquiry into the constitutional validity of Prince Charles’s interventions into the Chelsea Barracks project.
Ian Simmons 16 June, 2009
What's wrong with Rogers, it was not only the prince who was objecting to the scheme, there are other who didn't like it but he seemed to think he could ride roughshod over these little people. Good on the prince for being prepared to do something, even if it upset the 'star', whats the point of having contacts if you can't use them, I'm sure that Rogers has used his contacts in the past.
Andy 16 June, 2009
Finally an architect willing to stand up for himself. Enough is enough.
Laura Roberts 16 June, 2009
Bryan Scott - good point. This particular issue is not about the quality of the design as such but whether Charles as the right to express his opinion directly to those commissioning the scheme. I would say yes. His "intervention" wasn't a legal/practical block. He expressed his opinion. Rogers' client had 100% freedom of will to ignore said opinion, or take it on board with the 90%+ local opposition, the latter ingredient in their decision-making which Rogers seems to persistently ignore. The 90% opposition of local residents was ignored by the planners. Their opinion didn't matter, Rogers with all his connections, network, privilege and clout didn't care and carried on regardless. In return, the Prince used his to offer his opinion. Not many architects, only those with a considerable position of privilege such as Rogers could have ploughed on disregarding such vehement opposition to those who would have to actually exist among these depressing structures, so completely wrong in terms of everything from massing to facade. And not many people, only those with the considerable position of privilege such as Prince Charles could get their opinion heard by the client. Just heard remember. Not enforced. So, what's the difference?
GS 16 June, 2009
A fantastic architect he is, but Lord Sir Richard Rogers is being a little kettle black with his suggestion that it is wrong for privilege and titles to buy influence.
Bhavnesh Chamdal 16 June, 2009
Finally someone to stand up and speak out
Ian Simmons 16 June, 2009
What's wrong with Rogers, it was not only the prince who was objecting to the scheme, there are other who didn't like it but he seemed to think he could ride roughshod over these little people. Good on the prince for being prepared to do something, even if it upset the 'star', whats the point of having contacts if you can't use them, I'm sure that Rogers has used his contacts in the past.
Andy 16 June, 2009
Finally an architect willing to stand up for himself. Enough is enough.
Laura Roberts 16 June, 2009
Bryan Scott - good point. This particular issue is not about the quality of the design as such but whether Charles as the right to express his opinion directly to those commissioning the scheme. I would say yes. His "intervention" wasn't a legal/practical block. He expressed his opinion. Rogers' client had 100% freedom of will to ignore said opinion, or take it on board with the 90%+ local opposition, the latter ingredient in their decision-making which Rogers seems to persistently ignore. The 90% opposition of local residents was ignored by the planners. Their opinion didn't matter, Rogers with all his connections, network, privilege and clout didn't care and carried on regardless. In return, the Prince used his to offer his opinion. Not many architects, only those with a considerable position of privilege such as Rogers could have ploughed on disregarding such vehement opposition to those who would have to actually exist among these depressing structures, so completely wrong in terms of everything from massing to facade. And not many people, only those with the considerable position of privilege such as Prince Charles could get their opinion heard by the client. Just heard remember. Not enforced. So, what's the difference?
GS 16 June, 2009
A fantastic architect he is, but Lord Sir Richard Rogers is being a little kettle black with his suggestion that it is wrong for privilege and titles to buy influence.
Bhavnesh Chamdal 16 June, 2009
Finally someone to stand up and speak out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
