Architecture and WE.
An architect can show their superiority, the wealth of his talent can approximate to man in real objects, he/she should just use right style. Depends on which messeage you would like to send. It’s kind of the artist carrying a burden of society and bringing their masterpieces (and ugliness) in real life, the value of which we clearly underestimated because they create our perception of the world as such we know. They are a type of those who are trying to create the world, with the sole proviso, that 9 days they obviously will not be enough, which is why this is a profession that is hardly ever lose the relevance, technology will simplify the calculations, will be allowed to erect glass fools even with more speed replacing gray concrete and ennobling an empty piece of land giving him the opportunity to be seen, but no one will ever replace the genius capable of creating exactly those facilities from which we involuntarily will open our mouth and in our head as in a comic book will be word the WOW. Cars bring shell, spirit comes from human.
I’ve been thinking, what dedicate my first long meaningful post. I had dilemma between modern ideologies, they are really modern or evolution of the past, the value of modern art and of course whether the architecture changing our attitude to the world, its influence on the mentality and culture. In the end the choice fell, like you understand, that surrounds us every day. In Toronto modern architecture is increasingly beginning to get over the old under the intense pressure of globalization and capital.
I met up for a cup of coffee with my friend, who was just about to go to the downtown of Toronto, she had her own architecture firm and how many professionals, she is in love with what she is doing, especially of modern architecture. We have tried to deal with the peculiarities of the post-modernistic style buildings, can they change us, how they began to influence the mood of the people and which approach is in different countries. And of course I could not ask about the most important super stars in the architecture, the geniuses who just changed our perception about the country and I also asked what buildings she would be build for Trump, Putin, Merkel and Trudeau.
Who Do you immediately comes to mind when we talk about the contemporary post-modern architecture?
If We talk about Britain, it is certainly Norman Foster and his high-tech architecture, it is very expensive and of course if you want to show their superiority chosen this style. It is very minimalistic, but it is stuffed with all sorts of technical innovations.
Let’s go over a few countries
In the Netherlands and Germany the architecture is quite different, the principle of it revolves around the person that it should comfortable, the scale stopped playing sense, it should be more functional and approximate to human.
How about USA and Canada?
In Canada is the same high tech. Companies compete with each other, the underlying trend is between those who will build higher, bigger and in shortest period of time.
Essentially they are measured in length like boys?
Essentially yes, as before it was with pyramids, but now it’s skyscrapers and everything to be economical. For the skyscrapers most popular style is Art Deco, it is metal and leather inserts, this is a very cool look, the first thing that comes to mind immediately is New York and Trump Tower.
How about Asia, as far as I know, their approach quite different from the West.
Nevertheless most of technologies are coming from the West.
I am rather more interested in Singapore and Hong Kong as the main core Asian capitalism. When I looked projects by Zaha Hadid, she had a lot of orders for China and Hong-Kong.
Zaha Hadid has applied deconstruction, breaking shape how you seems wall became weightless and from a static position turned into a dynamic, creating movement. Asia likes this especially now, showing the dynamics and development, that was why she fell in love over there with her projects. They cried out, breaking the space and attention-grabbing, and also all of her projects are very expensive for the construction, it applied a lot of new technologies, such as inclined columns. Asia loves everything to be stylish and expensive.
That everything should be like a cheap royal style?
Now I look at modern building and I can say that many of my friends who live in downtown, they are beginning to tire of life among just buildings.
You’re right , people began to tire, one of the modern trends in architecture become bio-tech, it is the same only form became more bionic, people cheat by saying that it is eco, but in fact it is the same tech.
Can modern architecture change the attitude to life in post-Soviet countries?
Of Course can, it also organizes the space, the architecture reflects the economic and social life, what economic and social needs of the country, will be faced by architecture. For example, at New York recently was built Calatrava’s transportation hub. It was built more than a year, the amount has increased several times, but it was very impressive.
Really impressive, looks like the wings of a bird.
By the way, after customers said that this project came out very expensive. They said that prefer more simple, but cheaper and this in a rich city like New York!
What can we say, about projects in Europe…
In Europe, this would have never appeared (laughing)
Yeah really, such projects can afford only the countries of Asia and the Middle East.
But Nonetheless of projects such these companies will always pay, as in the case of Zaha Hadid’s studio. They have a style and personality.
Ok, we know that in the case of post-Soviet countries, except some cities such as Lviv, St. Petersburg and Moscow with Kiev, almost all cities of these nations were destroyed after World War II, and after Soviet architecture was almost the same everywhere.
Yep it was, because there was an ideology of family and built simple apartment complexes, it was all about ideology. Many people in Kiev complain that the styles are mixed steel, but the problem is that there is no master plan. Many people believe that the architect restrictions are not necessary, but it is not quite true, the conditions should be born to a stunning design. And they are born, when there is a country with a typical way of life, and these projects are well fit for it.
Ok, how to make instead of huge squares, that have always been a symbol of dictatorship (hey were built Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and so on), how to push people towards for more democracy?
There are a lot of nuances, from which it will depend on. If it is a historical city, it is necessary to do like in Paris with their area La Défense.
Ok, but I am not talking about that, what should be the concept? I know that in your native Kharkiv (Kharkiv is the first capital of Soviet Ukraine) is one of the largest squares in the world, the aim of which was to gather and manage people.
I would make a place for public entertainment.
Instead of squares?
Yes, it’s just a wasteland, it’s just a concrete area, from which there is no benefit.
-Even Lenin’s monument destroyed.
Yes! We have square, but we don’t have just simple green zone, where you can connect to wifi and just sit and relax!
-Kind of social hub?
Yes, we don’t have that. It’s enough in Toronto, and no single place in Kharkiv.
Look, now many people complain that there is a lack of historical architecture. It is happening in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai, even in Toronto you feel this, it has only a couple of areas that resemble the Europe…
Yes, but these cities are taking different in case Toronto, there are a lot of museums and performances, exhibitions various.
You’re right, but for people is still not enough, and they are moving to Montreal.
But you must also understand, can not all be the same type.
I do not even think about that. I’m going to tell that don’t you think that simply clones of each other will be the city of the future?
I don’t think so.
But concept will be the same?
Concept may be, but cities are not. The concept does not specify the form.
But will not it lead us to films that shows the Hollywood today, recalling a sort of Soviet Union with more modern buildings, but similar to each other?
I think it will be similar transportation hubs, hiking and biking paths, but the shape and design this will not affect, everything will depend on the architect, but that’s okay, you can take as an example of Europe is convenient when you cross the border, but you do not feel another quality of the same road.
Could be happened that we will go back to the Baroque from Postmodern?
Baroque definitely not, it is not functional and very expensive, and a lot of small details.
Imagine that you received an order in your company. It is a new palace of Vladimir Putin, how it will look like?
All over the wealthy like in China?
No, this is a classic, high-quality, chic.
So he is a sort of Russian classics?
Yep, he is like St. Petersburg.
How about Trump?
This is a high-tech, art deco, and a skyscraper, a dominant and a flag that you will see from any point of the city with the name of Trump.
Ok, and what about Justin Trudeau?
Hmm, he does not show the character, so there will be a building closer to the man, functionality, practicality, a youth, but certainly not dominant and not garish, there probably will be the focus what is inside.
And the last one, Angela Merkel.
There all likewise simple and functional, not tacky…
Even simpler, but not like Putin’s classicism that would be a modern building, and most importantly a simple German-style contemporary architecture will be dominated by metal and glass.
Do you think architecture can lead to change an ideology?
Nope, it is just only display, changing ideology and architecture will be changed...
Can architects change it on their own?
An architect can not be outside of society, but the architecture can dictate the rules and to obey them, or even now we see the emphasis on environmental friendliness, as well as the person starts to divide garbage and care more about the environment, with solar panels and begin to be reoriented.
All fields have their own superstars. I know just Zaha Hadid, Norman Foster…
Also Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, Jean Nouvel .
Is There from Russia someone?
(laughing) They attracting people from the West.
Import substitution apparently failed.
Soviet School of Architecture simply will not allow to create even a new style, as well as people can fit into the style but because of the eternal framework you can’t create something new.
How do you think how will be modern architecture in the future?
The Company will seek to thrust us into the skyscrapers and that we are not going out, but people are tired of high-tech, constantly office atmosphere, people want join to the nature.It will happen with majority cities like Toronto, New York and even London. For elite it will be something not high and eco-friendly, country houses etc…
As far as I know, due to the fact that in Asia, little space, they build entire skyscrapers in parks, all in one building.
That’s right, from shopping to parks, is already there, my brother’s friends worked in Hong Kong , he did not go outside the whole month!
Will you not have a depression after that?
It depends on the person, but of course will begin, so architects also start to make the bio-tech to remain person in the conglomerate, but change the visual environment to allegedly become closer to nature, because it has already begun an outflow of people from the cities.
Urbanization is no longer working, even in Canada, you can feel that, but at least there is no problem with space.
People are all different as well as buildings that surround them from all shapes and reliefs, ending stickers with logos of companies who owns them. And how we always want to look for ourselfe unique from the adolescence we hope that the building will always be different and showing our common variation in a society for our eternal benefit.