The comments on Urban Frenzy on Beijing Today

comments 1
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Urban frenzy

There is a story about a Chinese man who dejectedly asked his sons why the Mongols had managed to subjugate China. The two older sons talked about the military prowess of the Mongol hordes, the organisation of their troops, the experience of their commanders, and the determination and cunning of the generals. The man looked at the youngest son, who simply said "Because we let them". Such is the nature of China to first seek to blame others for their own predicaments.

In the December 17th edition of "Beijing Today" top Chinese architect Professor Kongjian Yu suggests that "the first step in city planning education should be an apology from Rem Koolhaas" for his innovative design for the new CCTV headquarters in Beijing's Central Business District. Professor Yu seems to be able to blithely ignore the fact that most Chinese architecture since the beginning of the last century has been insipid, lamely apeing the latest styles in foreign countries, with almost no incorporation of any of the rich earlier traditions of Chinese architecture.

So who should be apologising? Rem Koolhaas or successive generations of domestic architects who have given us a succession of nasty buildings in every city across the nation? Even when good buildings are designed in China, such as I.M. Pei's Xiangshan Hotel in the western suburbs of Beijing, development and management companies quickly allow the architecture and structure to decay.
China and Chinese professionals want to play on the world stage, yet an inability to press their own cause for many years at home has resulted in a "brand" that is weak and ineffective: it has become prestigious and stylish in China to use (or mimic) the brands and strengths developed overseas, and to avoid Chinese brands. This is as true for architects and architecture as it is for cars, electronics, clothing or washing powder.

China has a great tradition in design and manufacturing, but it somehow manages to trumpet both its own superiority while personally shunning anything Chinese when it comes to the crunch. I have a lot of sympathy for Professor Yu's views - mainly on planning rather than architecture - but his attack on foreign architects and even his desire to determine what is inappropriate is unwarranted.

Professor Yu continues "They [Western architects such as Koolhaas and Andrews] must know that a building is inappropriate for China,but they also must come up with the most outrageous design or they won’t win the contract. So they are asked to choose – money and fame or a responsible attitude."

Who is determining what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? What are Chinese architects' views on white tiles, blue glass and poorly fitting window frames and doors? What, exactly, is the Chinese style that he feels lacks in Koolhaas' buildings? Had a foreign architect conducted such an attack on Professor Yu, there would be uproar in China at the insensitivity and arrogance. But in China, national pride makes it perfectly acceptable to insult foreigners.

Koolhaas really doesn't need "the fame" as Professor Yu puts it; Koolhaas is already known and respected throughout the world. Personally, I am no particular fan of the proposed CCTV building nor of Koolhaas' work in general, preferring Paul Andreu and a generation of more "compassionate" architects, but if you want a signature building, then Koolhaas is the man to choose. Does Koolhaas ignore people, as some have criticised? Maybe, but then the developers have a choice to make. Every generation needs its "angry young man" and Koolhaas happens to be the man of the moment: the one that no-one understands.
And I thought it was the developer who chose the design anyway. A Chinese developer in the case of the CCTV building. So if anyone should apologise, then who should it be?

It is interesting to look through the listing of past winners of the Pritzker Architecture Prize: architects from all over the world, including three Japanese architects, but no mention anywhere of a Chinese architect except for Chinese-born I.M. Pei. Perhaps Professor Yu would do well to reflect upon why this would be. It is perhaps revealing that I.M. Pei and foreign architects are able to incorporate Chinese style and architectural elements into buildings, yet this seems to be entirely lacking in the designs I see in the many Chinese architectural magazines available in every coffee-shop in Beijing or Shanghai.
I.M. Pei's recreation of the feel of a southern Chinese garden in both the interior design and exterior landscaping of the Xiangshan Hotel is probably unparalleled in modern Chinese architecture. If you want to see another example of Pei's work, check out the beautiful Miho Museum in Japan and note the strong rural Chinese influence in many aspects of this particular building. The work of a number of Asian architects at the Commune by the Great Wall show how to innovate, while also how incorporating Chinese design and traditions into some stunning architecture. While the good professor mutters in his article about the importance of dragons and marble, Chinese and other Asian architects have shown how to include a more substantive tradition of light and space. Indeed, I.M. Pei's interview by Harvard Asia Pacific Review addresses some of the same issues that Professor Yu does, but with more style, reserve and subtlety.

For all that rich tradition, few architects in China seem able to think of anything more original than a hipped Ming-style roof, usually sitting uneasily on the top of a squat skyscraper, or Chinese motifs incorporated in a slab-sided building. Where is the legacy of the Hakka houses (surely suitable for use in high-density housing), the closed courtyard of northern China, or the interlinked gardens of Suzhou and Hangzhou? Nowhere to be seen, largely because Chinese architects and developers are still fixated on white tiles, gold and marble lobbies, and blue glass. To his credit, Professor Yu's designs and projects are indeed innovative and refreshing, and a bright sign for the future of Chinese architecture and landscape design.

People who live in white tiled buildings shouldn't throw stones, as the saying goes. Professor Yu has many valid points, but they are lost in his petulant and sneering criticism of architects who have developed a worldwide reputation for a good reason. If Professor Yu is looking for the cause of the woeful state of Chinese architecture and planning, he should perhaps examine the Chinese psyche and recent history rather than stridently criticise reputed architects of any nationality - domestic or foreign. Architecture is about people, space and life and this goes beyond national boundaries and superiority complexes into the livestyles and livelihoods of the final users. I look forward to the day when Chinese architects can fully contribute to Chinese architectural future beyond making it an issue of cultural understanding; Rem Koolhaas' connections with China and Chinese architecture and planning stand up to scrutiny. Professor Yu and his Turenscape company are making notable strides in developing a better Chinese urban landscape, particularly in the field of landscape design and architecture at heritage sites - and he is working on a number of international projects - but he would have considerably higher credibility if he didn't appear to be so petty. Which is a pity, because I don't believe he is.
Image of Hakka houses by kind permission of Nick Mayo.
15:31 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Comments 2

I agree. I haven't actually been in a Hakka house, but have seen plans, and they seem - on the fac of it - idealy suited for many urban applications. Have any modern versions ever been created anywhere?
I'd be interested to know if any serious architectural or planning studies have been made of these buildings...in China or anywhere else.
- Mark
Posted by: Mark | February 1, 2005 10:19 PM

The round Hakka homes would be a great starting point for a more planet friendly high density urban design. To integrate them into the "modern" pattern, one could choose a common diameter, manufacture tooling and forms, layout the rings on a hexagonal pattern, allowing for roads and greenspace. With a four or five story ring, the population density per unit surface area can surpass the most overpopulated cities on the planet. Yet the amount of reserved greenspace is far greater than any other urban design.
A ring city composed of a network of ring villages would multiply the human habitat surface area while preserving wildlife habitat and reserved agricultural land.

The synergetic benefits of common walls, reduced energy consumption, and enhanced structural integrity are also desirable.
Compared to the "needle in the sky" model of high density urban design, a modernized Hakka ring offers more safety, utility, and less visual pollution - especially if the occupants have a nature park or garden in the central courtyard.

The Hakka rings may well be the best model for a properous future, in China, as well as the rest of the planet.
Posted by: J Ganaposki | January 31, 2005 04:51 AM

I think the article plays up the "blame the foreigner" angle, but as I said in the original post, I empathise with Professor Yu's views. Saying a building is 'unsuitable' for Beijing, would surely require a definition of what he or anyone considers to be 'appropriate'?

The designs of Professor Yu and Turenscape are original and bold, which is why my post is more one of disappointment. However, I am not sure I would specifically categorise some of his/their designs as "more" or "less" Chinese than those of many contemporary Western or other Asian architects.

There is so much rich Chinese architectural and planning legacy, yet it seems so easy for authorities and developers to use American or European ideals and forms. Perhaps Professor Yu and other top Chinese architects would influence more people by looking for creative ways to showcase the best of that Chinese tradition.

Oh.....and the furthest from the elevator? You mean Koolhaas is including elevators for the same price?
Posted by: Mark | January 10, 2005 09:21 PM

I read the article and I don't get the impression that Professor Yu is playing "blame the foreigner". As he is quoted towards the end of the article:
“Of course, Kohlhaas was asked to build this, and I don’t want to criticize his talent – if he hadn’t taken the contract, maybe some worse architect would have. But when Einstein developed nuclear power, he sent out a message when he admitted his regret. I would like to see Kohlhaas set this example to other architects and planners in China and admit the building is unsuitable for Beijing.”

I like the Einstein analogy - he sent a letter to Roosevelt pleading for him not to build a functioning nuclear weapon, even though he was one of the first to know it was possible. He didn't invent nuclear power, as Yu says, but I see what he's getting at. He's talking about Kohlhaas' responsibility as an architect, and an influential one at that, to urge people in Beijing or frankly anywhere else to focus more on planning and function and less on the building just being a gigantic monument to the developers' ego. He basically saying Kohlhaas and every other architect should become an activist for proper planning, esp. when they have the know-how but the developer is clueless to the issue.

Also, you say that Yu "mutters in his article about the importance of dragons and marble" but that's not what he says. He says "many want to rebuild the imperial image of China – that’s why so many buildings feature marble and dragons... and none of these three schools [the other two being classical European and Modern] represent what Yu sees as “the true identity of the modern Chinese.”" Obviously he doesn't see white tile as actually being a style or identity either, since dragons don't cut it.

One other thing: I've always wondered about the CCTV building... who gets the office in the corner farthest from the elevators? Cuz that's a long walk.
Posted by: Dave | January 10, 2005 08:31 PM