Architecture waxes Political

After what Hassan Fathy did for Egypt by reintroducing local building materials and techniques – re-establishing the use of the local adobe brick as a fundamental building material – Universiti Teknologi Malaysia lecturer Professor Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin asks, “(Does Malaysia) have an architectural identity? Yes! But it reflects a top-down feudal culture that tries too hard to copy past nostalgia or foreign grandeur. Can (Malaysia’s) buildings become more democratic, people-friendly and multi-cultural? What future does a Malaysian architectural identity have?“

A tough question to answer, but one that isn’t too far fetched, as Dr. Tajuddin takes the argument to the political battlefield, questioning the Malaysian powers that be, and suggesting that it is a matter of leadership, and not entirely a matter of architectural design, that will shape the identity of the country.

As with present reality in all cities, the real-time identity of Malaysia is juxtaposed with an idealized identity; something which every city – and perhaps most in booming, developing Asia – has grappled with in the not-too-distant past.

Dr. Tajuddin’s somewhat melancholic diatribe calls to mind elements of architectural journalist and critic Dejan Sudjic’s discussion in his book, The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World, which also received mention in a recent article by the International Herald Tribune’s Robin Pogrebin, entitled, “Are Architects above Politics?”

All this looks towards the conversation surrounding architecture and the role it plays within dominions of power and leadership, and how it is being wielded on today’s global construction sites, where iconic just so happens to be the overused word of the day; a phenomenon undeniably launched by the advent of Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim museum in Bilbao.

Alas, it appears the world seems to be wising up to the idea of the icon. With every city branding itself with a spanking new, glossy image – that is topped off by a new museum, library, government building, stadium, or concert hall – it appears we might see something of an icon overload in the very near future. Hugh Pearman echoes this very succinctly in a recent article for London’s Sunday Times, Zaha Superstar! And the Relentless Growth of Global Architectural Branding, where he comments on the Global Cities Exhibition at London’s Tate Modern, and a concurrent exhibition the Design Museum. What particularly catches his eye, isn’t so much of the superstar bravura of the star-chitecture on show; but rather an installation of Nigel Coates‘ Mixtacity :

“Slyly, Coates has imagined a whole megalopolis where every building is a landmark of one kind or other. Impossibly, there is nothing average to be found. Every little bit of it contrives to be special. Now that really is clever. And disturbing. Because when every object you see around you, stretching to the horizon, is special, then what on earth happens to the notion of the ordinary?”

It seems that a large majority of politicians these days appear more enamoured with image and cosmetics rather than the real fabric of the cities they govern. With more than half of the world’s population set to occupy the cities around the globe in years to come, it is without a doubt that what matters aren’t the fabulous buildings that will put a city on the world map; but rather the manner in which the new citizens of the world’s ever-growing metropolises will be accommodated.

[Image Courtesy of the American Geographical Society]