Reflections on Starchitecture and its Implications on City Life

The Vdara Hotel & Spa at City Center by Rafael Viñoly Architecture

The end of the year is usually a time of reflection. Looking back, 2009 has been particularly difficult across all sectors given the continued lackadaisical state of the world economy. Although the root of the crisis lies with the questionable practices of the banking and finance industries, the physical manifestation of our troubles is most apparent in the built environment. From the abandoned exurban communities of foreclosed McMansions to half-built luxury skyscrapers in the central cities, our hungover neighborhoods tell the story of a wild credit party of yesteryear.

Just over a year ago, I wrote a piece for NewGeography about 'Architecture in an Age of Austerity'. My intention was to put a spotlight on the connection between built form and economic exuberance in our secular era. Certainly this is a connection made by the media when it mentions large-scale building projects that were planned and designed during the height of the boom only to finish construction during the free fall. Not only is this another reminder of the lagging pace of the design and construction industry, it also provides a glimpse into the recent past.

One such project worth mentioning is the Burj Dubai-the world's tallest skyscraper which is scheduled to open early in January. The design and execution of this building is no small feat-and regardless of the negative social implications, this tower is sure to inspire awe for many years to come. Yet, at a time when more of the general public is becoming concerned with issues like sustainability and allocation of financial resources, the Burj Dubai is bound to stir up controversy. No doubt this will be a pivot journalists use to wag their finger at economic exuberance.

Another project that provides a snapshot of the recent past is the newly opened 'City Center' complex in Las Vegas. Situated on a large super-block prominently on the Strip between the Bellagio and the Monte Carlo, City Center lacks the requisite Vegas-style theatrics of its neighbors. That is not to say City Center does not have a theme, though-it just happens that its theme is 'starchitecture'.

The roster of marquee level architects who contributed building designs to the project is quite impressive: Norman Foster, Rafael Viñoly, KPF, Cesar Pelli, Helmut Jahn, and Daniel Libeskind-not to mention an art installation by Maya Lin. From the view of a pure aesthetic critique, each of the buildings looks beautiful: sleek, modern, and tectonically sound. From the view of an urban critique, the implications of City Center are quite troubling.

Nate Berg, one of the editors at Planetizen, has written an overly sardonic piece criticizing City Center for its phony urbanism. While the approach of the article is not subtle, Berg's frustration with the new development is understandable.

For better or worse, we have reached a point in the history of urbanism where the concept of modern urban life is being used to market private mega-developments. This hijacks what was once sacred about the randomness of civic life and repackages it as a consumer good. Years from now, City Center may represent a turning point where cities have transformed to become mere simulacra of their former selves.

Dubai's Demise: No Big Surprise

With all the recent media hullabaloo surrounding the Dubai debt crisis, the one thing that I keep asking myself is 'Why is anyone surprised by this?' Long before the global recession came hurling at us like a fastball to the jugular, the seeds were already sown for what would inevitably turn out to be a nosedive for the world's most famous Emirate.

As a general rule, anything that is hyped up as much as Dubai was during the past decade is usually too good to be true. Like Las Vegas on steroids, Dubai was trying to bankroll on the mythical 'tourism and services' industry at a time when it seemed like the credit party would never end. By building the world's largest mall/man-made island/skyscraper, Dubai was able to grab international headlines, yet the novelty of these accomplishments quickly wore off.

Marketing itself as a 'luxury destination' for the global elite was another asinine idea. I am not part of the global wealthy class, but if I were I could imagine countless other places more suitable for a lavish vacation than a sweltering desert prone to sandstorms-try Paris or Hawaii. Even the Saudi sheiks already have the option of party-hearty Bahrain nearby.

Appealing to such a narrow demographic proved to be unsustainable for Dubai as is physically apparent by the scores of unsold residential property sitting empty-not to mention the financial struggles of Dubai World. Yet not everyone is as pessimistic about Dubai's sense of place (or lack thereof) as I am. Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser takes a more sensible tone in a recent blog post for the New York Times about The Ascent and Fall of Dubai.

Glaeser understands that Dubai's growth over the past decade has been a gamble and acknowledges the fact that is has been sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum's intention to steer the city's development towards that of consumption in order to make it a place worth staying. At the conclusion of Glaeser's entry he states that, "Even if Dubai’s real estate prices continue to drop, which is certainly quite possible, there will remain a strong incentive to fill its buildings. If the structures remain occupied, then Dubai, and its sheik’s dream of a great metropolis, will survive."

I disagree that this will be the case if Dubai continues on it's path towards being a city solely based on 'luxury consumption'. Instead, if Dubai can assert itself as a bastion of economic freedom and social tolerance in an otherwise ultra conservative Middle East, my feeling is that this will better aid the future chances of long terms success.

Le Corbusier the Fascist

It could be argued that famous historical figures remain in memory not only for their contributions to the world but also for the notoriety stemming from controversial aspects of their work. This is especially true of artists. Le Corbusier, the French/Swiss architect and painter, was one of those artists whose mysterious aura has led to prolonged inquiry into the significance of his legacy.

In most architecture schools, Le Corbusier is regarded as the most important architect of the 20th Century. Based on the vast number of books and articles written about the influential man, this may very well be true. But to claim that his influence was ultimately positive for architecture and urbanism remains a point of contention throughout architecture and planning circles.

Aware of this ongoing debate, the autumn issue of the Manhattan Institute’s quarterly publication, City Journal, takes Le Corbusier to task in an article titled ‘The Architect as Totalitarian’. The author, Theodore Dalrymple, compares Le Corbusier to Pol Pot, the former dictator of Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia). Now, to make this comparison is a bit on the extreme side as Le Corbusier was merely an architect, not a military leader responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Upon further investigation, it becomes clear that the comparison is meant to take aim at Le Corbusier’s urban planning proposals, which in a sense, were designed to commit ‘genocide’ on the historic fabric of cities and start over anew.

Le Corbusier’s famous urban planning concept, misleadingly called the ‘Radiant City’, aimed to rebuild cities from nothing. Even though the Radiant City is most often associated with Corbusier’s plan to rebuild Paris (Plan Voisin), it was his intention that this model of regimented ‘towers in the park’ could be applied internationally to any city, devoid of reference to local context.


There is no doubt that this 'tabula rasa’ approach to urban development reeks of fascism. Corbusier was not subtle about his desire to wipe the slate clean of history and start all over again (Cultural Revolution anyone?). His rationale stemmed from his disgust with the dirty and messy urbanism that plagued cities during the Industrial Revolution. Yet, like the 20th Century authoritarian dictators, he was intellectually lazy and naive in his solutions to the problems posed by industrial development.

Stringent ideology predicated on radical and swift transformation will almost always inevitably lead to chaos. Le Corbusier’s planning ideas have influenced everything from the hideous communist housing blocks of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the abject failure known as the housing projects of inner-city America. Even though he might not have been involved in any bloody revolutions, Le Corbusier’s dangerous legacy has left a permanent scar on the history of urbanism.