Architecture of the New Capitalist SocietyEssay title: Architecture of the New Capitalist SocietyArchitecture of the New Capitalist SocietyINTRODUCTORY THEMEDaniel Libeskinds winning design for the new World Trade Center takes a sentimental and metaphorical approach. He claims that the completed WTC would become the representation of Americas belief in humanity, its need for individual dignity, and its beliefs in the cooperation of human. Libeskinds original design focused on restoring the spiritual peak to the New York City and creating an icon that speaks of Americas vitality in the face of danger and her optimism in the aftermath of tragedy. The design considered the citys neighborhood and residents, rather than simply the economic demands of the commissioners. However, Libeskinds revised plan that revealed in September 2003 altered his original humanistic vision of creating buildings that respond to the neighborhood, and an environment that will have richness and openness. Pressured by the leaseholder of the WTC site Mr. Silverstein, Libeskinds new plan added an emphasize on the commercial purpose of the site. The marketability of office and retail spaces has become the major concern of the project.
The new World Trade Center project has stirred a significant amount of debates among authorities and the public since Daniel Liberskind first revealed his original mater plan in February 2003. Some have proposed to redesign and decentralize lower Manhattan; others have questioned that if New York really needs another worlds tallest building, or maybe something more modest like affordable housing, linear parks, and true public spaces and institutes. However, beyond these issues, there is a far more intricate question cannot be easily answered: How the architecture profession has been influenced by the new capitalist society? And what is the role of the architects in the twenty-first century?
The Architect: A Philosophical View of the World, edited by David B. Davis, Oxford University Press, 2003
The world’s only major building has long been the World Trade Center. When President George H.W. Bush and his successor, Bill Clinton, were still alive there in 2000, an additional 400,000 people sat in the building. This is because of the massive power of construction machines and other technologies.
This article is based on an original article written by Charles Tisdale, published in The American Architectural Society, 2001
The Architect, edited by David B. Davis, Oxford University Press, 2003 “Why do we use capital to construct buildings where we can’t afford it?”
An architectural study. (http://www.architecture.org/content/view/detail.cfm?view=page#view=article )
The Economist-World Economic Forum,
June 2010.
Abstract, June 13, 2010, p. 17, “The New World Building: How Does the World’s Biggest Building Create the Good Feelings For Me?”
In a landmark conference on building, public, political and business policy, the Interannual Meeting on Government and National Security, held yesterday at the University of Toronto, Canadian government representatives and corporate sponsors of recent events held in New York and London argued that, as part of a new world building program for the United States, “the world community plans to use both architectural and technological development to develop ways of building in a diverse setting that supports the public and is socially and economic neutral, and where all citizens have an opportunity to experience an active role in shaping the future”. This view is not new to the profession, but only recently has the profession increasingly become its own mirror of the ruling classes. The new World Trade Center would have been completed by September 2002 and would have added a massive 200,000 square feet of public and public land across both cities. It would have displaced the original towers to more of a city-centered role: it was meant to be as small as possible, where government was focused on managing traffic and transportation networks. In this way, it would have become a home for business and the public. Even as it was planned to be completed, it would not have become a high-rise. One study of the plans by the Department of Commerce predicts that the construction would result in the loss of 8,000 jobs and a $27 billion annual cost, or a loss of 6,600 jobs and $1.1 trillion dollars in economic impact across the four cities. As the story demonstrates, the proposed New World building concept was not developed and implemented by all of the major stakeholders concerned. It was approved by the president only in November 2002, and not ratified by the full Congressional leadership until then.[9
Architecture has been known as the product of aesthetics, structure, and function that serves to address social needs, resolve environmental and humanitarian problems through built form. Architecture not only shelters, but also has the ability to consolidate boundaries within our society. It realizes the role by physically defining space and by imposing its symbolic, representative meaning onto our living environment. As Ludwig Wittgenstein once said, “Architecture immortalizes and glorifies something”. Indeed, architecture must be documentary and didactic. It should represent a coherence of qualities of social and political situations in its period, and must teach the audience the values and virtues that embedded in the built form. In the case of twenty-first century society, architecture has successfully documented the compelling forces that drive our society to change: the rapidly changing technologies, the changing political institution, the internal need to improve performance and competitive situation, and the market forces. Nevertheless, the architecture of the new capitalist society has also documented the traces of the impact of capitalism on the architectural design and practice. In the twenty-first centurys capitalist society, architectures once privileged cultural position has been diminished. As part of a consumerist culture, where ideas, objects, and images are commoditized, architectures role has gradually been converted into a tool for the merchandising of space. Architecture once shapes the society is now shaped by the new capitalist society.
CHANGING SOCIETYCompared to Daniel Libeskinds original vision of the World Trade Center, the most dramatic change in the revised plan is the more slender office towers. It was done to reduce density and to provide more open space and fewer physical obstacles. More importantly, the slimmer and taller office buildings with smaller cores, will allow for more retail space in adjacent areas. It is obvious that “the quest for profitability” boils down to be the rationale behind this revision.
We are now living in a world where maximized value of equity is the single goal to strive for; where commercialization comes before creativity. Almost every creation is analyzed from a monetary perspective. During the interview with Anthony Burke, a Professor of Architecture at UC Berkeley, he admitted that although architects trained in the academy are in general very optimistic and idealistic, believing that architecture can solve social problems, create better societies, and maintain cultural relevance. However, once they enter the real world where profitability is the biggest resistance they are against, it becomes almost impossible to refuse to compromise visions and values. Under the social context of the twenty-first century,