And when I say this, I also have in mind other kinds of design, from cars, furniture, shampoo plastic bottles, fonts and GUIs. If any shape is possible, aesthetics usually goes down the drain.
In the particular case of buildings, these are made to last and have an imposing quality of their own, given their size and location. And famous architects have an visionary aura that only adds to the disappointment and dismay of the common citizens that will have to live in the shadow of those behemoths, whether they like it or not.
Exactly. It feels like a complete void.
I was trying to find examples of a kind or architecture that is the complete opposite, thought of F. L. Wright, and found this:
Now of course its not the same and the practice can support itself at least to some extent, but whether it can do this over the long run is still a question.
Her treatment of young staff which varies from exploitative to abusive to helpful depending who you ask, is not very different to other Starchitects.
She was by all accounts from the time, and in retrospect, a star student during her time at Architectural Association. Not just a top student but an exceptional student. She was also fierce in her determination to succeed, something still difficult for a woman at that time in a male dominated industry full of egos. She persevered, and like a lot of women of that time who did, were punished for it.
As well, I've heard plenty of stories about her treatment of staff which is inexcusable behavior, however that's immaterial to her artistic vision and capability.
Her connections certainly helped her career, yes, they always do in business. She wasn't exceptional because of her wealth.
I'm not sure where you get your info that she was a star student - by all accounts I know of she struggled at times at the AA, and often didn't get great grades. She was quite headstrong (which is kind of what they teach you) and got on with some people and not with others.
There's other great women in the world of Architecture too like Sejima or Carme Pigem (both themselves Pritzker prize winners) who get much less attention by non-architects. And run their practices in a much less exploitative way
In architecture, this is the rule rather than the exception.
Its not uncommon at Starchitects to be like this, but Zaha to my knowledge was one of the worst.
It is not walkable, it is not human-scale, it does not integrate with surroundings. I love how they do advertisement renders where their buildings stand in an empty field. As if the rest of the city never existed and should not be cared for!
You can't walk past these buildings every day and enjoy it. First of all, they are too large and far apart. It will be boring and long not to mention wind, rain and snow to which it offers no protection.
Moreover, it's a legitimization of awful 70s architecture with slightly more effort. Even her New York building looks like something people from 70s would build when they dismantle some beautiful neoclassical or moderne building.
It also looks like a side of any cruise ship. Last time I have checked cruise ships were not considered masterpieces of architecture, and they also float.
Having that coffin to the left does not help. It wants to dominate the landscape but it's dwarfed by a messy box.
Google: zaha hadid haus wien
Such an atrocity!
But if you compare them to the turn of XX century, they don't look so nice. People may smile when zipping along her creations, but you can walk along some of Art Nouveau buildings every day for years and never stop smiling.
It's true, and the most important takeaway of why she was such a good leader.
But the fact that her savvy treatment of young people is newsworthy does not bode well for the architecture profession.