Design Thinking | architecture

ARCHITECTURE BRANDING & CELEBRITY STATUS

The whole architectural branding and celebrity status is all started by “Yes Is More” architect Bjarke Ingels. Media have become a vital tool to spread news and promoting new ideas and therefore architects start to design in a way that is going more towards a commercial way of design and packaging. From what I learnt from the lecturer is that he released some kind of a teaser trailer for his conceptual design “The Spiral” to the public, skipping through the part where he need to deal with clients. Is this what future architecture be like? Designing a whole new building and creating architecture based solely on the architect’s thought? Is clients’ opinions insignificant anymore?

Celebrities nowadays tease their music or products before officially releasing it. No matter how their music sucks, people will still love it and accept it eventually because they are the star and the A-list people. Is this the exact thing that’s happening to Bjarke’s project? Yes. We all agreed that he has the look of a star with well-shaped physique and a charming smile, but for your information, the project that he teases was stalled due to its lack of tenants. Well, is this what happens when you design without considering the needs of the clients. I’m not saying that Bjarke’s design is bad or not practical, it’s just that he wanted to create a new way of selling ideas which I think is based merely on his celebrity status or name recognition. Ironically speaking, I’ve never heard of Bjarke Ingels before I attend theories of architecture’s lecture. What if someone who is not as famous as him or Zaha Hadid did the same thing? From what I heard from lecturer, there’s some architects that actually start following Bjarke’s pace by doing the same exact thing but the review ain’t as good as his. I doubt that the design of those architects is worse than Bjarke’s.

Is that all about architectural branding?

It’s undeniable that a recognizable brand depends on more than merely name recognition. Same goes to the architectural branding that I’m talking about earlier. There’s a Dutch architect called Rem Koolhaas has tried to transform his personal celebrity into an international brand, which he calls the Office of Metropolitan Architecture, or OMA. OMA, with offices in Rotterdam, Beijing, and New York, has produced a variety of work, from a big-box convention center in Cordoba to a crystalline library in Seattle and an unusual skyscraper in Beijing. However, not every architects in the world can brand their work as an iconic one and serves well to the community at the same time. Just like Foster, Piano, and Rogers, OMA has avoided architectural style as a branding tool, although its designs are distinctly fashionable, in an edgy sort of way. The buildings are frequently not conventionally attractive, and they often challenge established taste and the way they actually serves the community.

However, architectural branding ain’t all about the bad things and negative reviews. There are people who admire and awed by the iconic building exterior and appearance. For instance, Zaha Haid’s work. She is the goddess of iconic building and organic curvy designs. “Architecture is really about well-being. I think people want to feel good in a space…On one hand it’s about shelter, but it’s also about pleasure.” From what she said, I think that architectural branding and celebrity status work well with Zaha Hadid as she created her own iconic style. At the same time her building serves the people well in a way that the dramatic interior space she creates make people feel happy and real comfortable being inside her building. She is also going to venture more in community design before her demise.

The impact that branding in architecture brings to our era is that people will expect new buildings to be iconic and more bombastic. Luxurious and pleasure will slowly become the main intention of design and this will lead to a larger social gap as compared to now. What if every architects in the world want to follow this trend of branding their own architecture? Client’s needs and site consideration will become insignificant and eventually leads to environmental probems as architects only goal is to create something iconic to represent their so called celebrity status. What about the needy people who require good simple design just to survive?

Architect Alejandro Averana who won the 2016 Pritzker Architecture Prize has done more than enough community projects for people who needs simple and good living condition rather than a luxury lifestyle. I’m not saying that architects like Alejandro who has done more community project is the best architect in the world. I’m saying that architect should have brand themselves with the name of getting involve in changing the world and creating a better living condition for the needy. It’s not the fame that matters afterall.

All in all, I think architectural branding and celebrity status of an architect is not a must-follow trend for future architects. It all depends on what kind of community you serve and what kind of architect you wanna be.

I would rather not brand myself.