The news that a practicing architect is sending a critique to the editors of Építézforum is gratifying. A long-term discourse based on professional foundations is important in order to reconcile our concepts and illuminate perceived or real differences of opinion in a new light. Bálint Gulyás’ criticism is answered by Levente Borenich from the editorial office.
It is an absolutely realistic insight that the architectural discourse is organized on the basis of a world view (along political fault lines) and on the basis of sectarian logic instead of well-founded, critical aspects. (Another phenomenon is reasoning along vague, abstract ideas instead of concrete ones, but more on that later.) However, it is not clear how it would be possible (or even desirable) to talk about architecture without ideology – in this case, we could make such objective statements about the tower in connection, such as: “the building is 29 stories high” or “the building is heated by 310 ground probes and a 33 km long pipe system”, perhaps we could mention that its windows are curved. (Perhaps the architectural discourse should be placed on orthodox Marxist foundations?) Any quality question – for example, whether a building taller than the Saint Stephen’s Basilica and the Parliament can be built in Budapest – is a political question. Of course, not “party political” in the vulgar, everyday sense of the word, but in the true meaning of the word, the Budapest community is POLITICAL! it’s a matter of what kind of city and built environment you want to live in together.
The apolitical, liberal doxa is reflected in the thought process expressed at several points in the text, in which the “it’s never a good idea if politics intervenes to such an extent in matters of architecture or urban planning(…)” statement as well as “[a] The Danube bank has always been a field of political representation, it would be nice to rise above this again and notice the architectural achievement.” his thought. At the same time, the writer considers the political representation project of the government and the MOL interest alliance tasteless, and wants to rise above it, business as usual – there is nothing to see here, please, just like it. It wouldn’t be more obvious to say that: the Danube bank has always been a field of political representation, so let’s analyze the complex political-economic-social situation, why these buildings were realized in the given form, draw the consequences, and fight for a political system where the whole of the city’s community can have a say in architectural matters, so that not only the interests of the privileged prevail? But I will go on, how could an architectural achievement that is brighter than mediocre be born, when the MOL tower was realized during the bureaucratic planning that is familiar to many, as superficial as possible – disguised as participatory workshops – following managerial panels, including the development of an application that continuously stores data and regulates the behavior of the workers there in the space.
In addition, the article’s basic premise is that architectural criticism and the public discourse on architecture in general fail to talk about the quality of contemporary architecture – instead, political expert camps are decisive when forming opinions. Meanwhile, there are unfortunately few essential statements in the text regarding the overwhelming architectural performance of the MOL tower (meaning: what makes it beautiful, how it relates to the city, what cultural references it uses, what kind of intellectual project it is embedded in, what opportunities it offers to the users of the space, etc.) – that is, beyond the fact that it is 143 meters long and even its windows are curved. I’m not cynical. I would really be interested in why someone considers the MOL tower a good building. In my previous article, I explained in detail why I consider it less good. However, it is not necessary to hold radical anti-capitalist views or view the world as a theorist sitting in an ivory tower in order to formulate the obvious question: “It’s not that these spaces are [a MOL Campus terei] do they always generate the same conversations and thoughts? How are these spaces good enough to prevent something unexpected from happening?” – these precious passages are cut by Tillatilla himself for the designers of Minusplus [a videó alább beágyazva, a kérdés 11:12-nél]who respond to this with an evasive template, that although the spaces are the same, the people are diverse, and the view as well as the height give a sparkling space experience – which of course is true anyway.
In the next two paragraphs, I will respond to specific suggestions and explain the self-contradictions of politics- and ideology-free architecture.
“It’s quite sad that, just as people are unable to think about film, music, or urban transport regardless of their political beliefs, neither can architecture.” I assume that the goal would be to shed party political dogmas. Still, taking the thought further, this sentence reminds me of the almost schizophrenic (masochistic?) state of alienation. Would it really be desirable to give up our subjective worldview, ignore our own and common interests, and, like amoebas, gaze in awe at the phallus towering towards our city, and sing hymns of praise from the giant glass panels of its raised foreskin, architecturally indeed expertly and precisely carved out? Are we ashamed to problematize that the capital logic and representational intention of the politicians and companies ruling over the fate of millions is in irreconcilable contradiction with the public interest?
“Examining the other high-rise buildings in Europe – even the aforementioned “neighbors” – and especially the general standard of Hungarian architecture, only worse could have happened to the view on the Danube than the MOL Campus.” The first and most important step is to look at the international trend of high-rise building not as a natural phenomenon, but as a tool of political and ideological programs. (This does not mean that high-rise buildings are devilish to build under all circumstances, but that in contemporary practice their use and aesthetic, spatial quality do not have a liberating effect at all, rather it binds them in a knot, is not accessible, but expropriating, to which even the natural resources exploited during construction and social resources, as well as the problem of sustainability issues related to them – of course, these are not necessarily skyscraper-specific issues, but their importance and responsibility are magnified in terms of their scale.) In the absence of an argument, it is not clear to me what would make the MOL tower a better building in the at Bálna or MÜPA mentioned in the article – the National is really a farce, a different category.
Instead of the mirage of politics/ideology-free architectural public discourse, we need to cultivate a critique that is a navel-gazing celebration of “architectural achievement”, and instead of completely renouncing political action – our right to have a say in the public affairs that affect us – precisely the politics, culture and professional dimensions it is able to frame its close, complex, obscure, opaque superimposition in a new light through specific statements, show and point out how and according to which ideology the “political representations” of the city are built, as well as the significance of this for the architects, the users of the space and the public state.
Levente Borenich
[1] Aureli, Pier Vittorio [ford. Monti Elvira]: Base and Superstructure: A Vulgar Review of Western Architecture.
Tags: opaque surface Danube response criticism MOL Campus critics
