Archive for the ‘02 Interviews’ Category

Liane Lefaivre interviews Saskia Sassen

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

Liane Lefaivre: What was your role in the Biennale? The theme of the main exhibition of Richard Burdett’s at the Arsenale was global cities, an area of expertise which your work pioneered in so many ways.

Saskia Sassen: Several of us (Ricky Burdett, Richard Sennett, the whole Urban Age tribe) met frequently for intense discussions about what it meant to do a Architecture Biennale on cities. The challenges is how to connect architecture with cities as key places for major new social, political, environmental challenges. Further, and I relaly cared about this, how do you bring “art” (film, photography, sculpture, and the foundational meaning of the artistic as a non-paradigmatic way of seeing, of “theoria”) into a discussion on cities.

I also had my own idiosyncratic take on it all. Beyond the generic issue of cities and why architects and designers should be focusing on them, there was a politco-technical question about global cities and architecture. As I say in the Biennale catalogue essay, architecture and engineering have played critical roles in reshaping vast stretches of global cities into platforms for the new economy. Two features become legible in this process. One of them is that. What is usually interpreted today as the homogenizing of the built environment of cities is partly a mis-interpretation. The new hyperspace for global firms and the new transnational professionals is actually a kind of infrastructure for global business, rather than being about cities. In that sense I speak of architecture as “inhabited infrastructure”. Secondly, in building that platform for global capital, architecgture and engineering, urban planning become political, whether they want it or not. Why? Because that platform reprsents and expanded terrain, that you can measure in kilometers in all these cities. That expanded terrain inevitably wil mean the displacement of others –low-profit firms and low-income households are the most dramatic cases. In this process, the city moves from a civic space to a politicized space. Politics is wired into urban space.

Liane Lefaivre: Sounds like this is an attempt to, if you’ll pardon the term, “urbanize architecture.” And, frankly, to architectural ears it sounds very foreign. It strikes me that you too would have trouble figuring out what a lot of architects have to say about the city. Urbanists and architects are apparently both talking about the city, but in totally different terms. I think this is what is so interesting about this Biennale. It is jumpstarting a discussion that was cut off about 30 years ago.

Liane Lefairve questions America Zabala-Vera

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

Liane Lefairve: Do you think this Biennale did much to enhance the world’s awareness of the kind of urban issues you are involved in?

America Zabala-Vera: Exhibitions lead in rare occassions to revolutions and I think Ricky Burdett was well aware of that but I think the exhibition on cities did a good thing to start the discussion. The conflict of space that exist in cities existed at the Biennale this year as well and made everyone ask themselves what the space is for. I think the exhibition showed the complex problems but provided no answers. And I missed the issue of participatory democracy.

Interview of Liane Lefaivre with Alain de Botton

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

Liane Lefaivre: The question I would like to ask you is: How did this Biennale, which for the overwhelming part was anything but beautiful, dealing as it did with ugly, sprawling, messy side of cities like Mumbai, Mexico City, Shanghai, Caracas and so forth, strike you, as someone who has definite views about the architecture of beauty. (I am assuming you had time to have a look at the main exhibition at the Arsenale) How do things look from your standpoint? Have architects gone round the bend and perhaps off the deep end? Should the situation be redressed?

Alain de Botton: ‘This was my first trip to the Biennale and my overwhelming impression was of the difficulties of reporting on architecture in an exhibition format. Shows such as these are uneasily poised between the pleasures of witnessing real buildings - and of reading books about them. They are often in danger of missing out on the pleasures of both. The Arsenale exhibition was very well done in its genre, but it was essentially a book on walls and I myself would have loved to sit in a comfortable armchair and read the book version, rather than walking down the eerie and endless corridor. This said, it’s good to see architects considering the problem of the city, though intellectually all the arguments are by now extremely familiar and have been well formulated by people like Jan Gehl. In a sense, most thinking about urban design could be termed ‘What Le Corbusier forgot and Jan Gehl remembered.’ Nowadays, everyone from Richard Rogers to Prince Charles agree on what needs to be done to make cities habitable. No one is proposing schemes as mistaken as those urban designers put forward in the 20th century. Good urban design has become common-sense. So the real challenges lie in the area of delivery: and it would have been good for the show to concentrate a little more on the politics and economics of getting good urban design. This is in a sense much trickier than the architecture. Then again, perhaps these themes are best left to the World Economic Forum or some such body to debate. My most joyful architectural experience of the Biennale came from looking around the French pavilion: it’s cheap, human, lively and inspiring.’

Q&A: Liane Lefaivre and Paul Finch

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

Liane Lefaivre: Reality is pretty nasty. I think I heard you say something to this effect. Do you think this Biennale brought architecture any closer to the real world?

Paul Finch: Architecture is intimately concerned with the real world, dealing as it does with individuals and organisations as clients, planning and regulatory regimes, the construction and materials industries and the other professionals who combine to create buildings.

However, this concern, generally speaking, relates only to partial aspects of architecture’s true canvas – the city. I think the 2006 Biennale compels architects to consider the appropriate role for architecture in respect of at least the following:

• Should the future planning of expanding urban areas be a matter for planners and engineers alone?
• How can the demands of demographic change and developing world industrialisation be reconciled with environmental design?
• Are the most signficant housebuilding programmes in human history to be informed/guided/determined by anything other than the ‘ideology-free’ construction industry?
• Is the idea of a city aesthetic an irrelevance?
•Is the city more than the sum of its parts?
• Where do ideas about public space, both hard and soft, find a voice in cities undergoing uprecedneted growth?
• What conversation needs to take place without the particpants being accued of megalomania on the one hand, or impotence on the other?

Liane Lefaivre interviews Jean Francois Drevon, rédacteur en chef, AMC - Le Moniteur Architecture

Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

Liane Lefaivre: Je voulais te demander ton avis a propos du pavillion francais. Et aussi du pavillion anglais. D’en faire la comparaison.
Jean-Francois Drevon: je suis retourné, dimanche au pavillon français. la baraque à frite était comble, encore une fois l’escalier était impraticable; difficile d’acceder au sommet quand on est pas ministre. Avec le petit embouteillage on aurait pu croire qu’il y avait foule. Bouchain nous avait pourtant promis “le pavillon sera une grande maison de la France, dans laquelle nous pourrons accueillir, offrir le gîte et le couvert et tranmettre.”
Or c’était payant et la transmission se limitait à la projection des projets de PB. Cela fait la troisième fois fois que la France inonde la lagune d’un flôt de discours sans acte : les vaporrettos littéraires de Nouvel ont pris l’eau et le sommet de Kyoto de Jourda était en carton. Alors je suis allé en face, au pavillon de l’Allemagne. On pouvait facilement se rendre sur une large terrasse, perchée sur le toit, pour admirer les alpes. Le pavillon anglais: il s’agissait aussi d’activisme de salon? décidemment Venise est un joli village…

Aaron Betsky Interview

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Aaron_betsky_cover

photo from archinet.com

Michael Najjar

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Michael_najjer

Antonio Sans Interview

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Antonio_sans_2

Giacomo Costa Interview

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Giacomo_costa_2

ROSS LOVEGROVE

Wednesday, September 20th, 2006

Rossl

Ross Lovegrove speaks. Just moments after Richard Rogers had been presented with his Golden Lion, and the public let into the Giardini..