Architizer's Vision Awards spotlights radical architectural concepts and compelling visual storytelling — from renderings and drawings, to photos and videos. The Extended Entry deadline is July 24th. Start your submission today.
Would projects like the Sydney Opera House or Centre Pompidou be approved today? Lately, when walking down the street, I cannot help but notice the absence of uncertainty. Buildings are almost identical, routes are straightforward, and every corner seems vaguely familiar. Every now and then, walkers may be surprised by encountering an interesting form or a complex space. Yet most of these encounters are happening outside the built environment — in Biennales, academic projects and competitions.
It seems that the mechanisms and frameworks developed by the architectural industry to better the built environment have backfired. Planning protocols, safety regulations and sustainability metrics have perhaps improved the material and functional quality of buildings, but they have also encouraged a design practice that is too cautious and safe. Today, there is little room for experimentation, where architects can explore proposals that remain open-ended, without needing to measure, justify and solve every detail.
Into the Void: Fragmented Time, Space, Memory, and Decay in Hiroshima | 2023 Vision Awards Winner
Some may defend contemporary, “non-standardized” architecture projects, specifically, curved forms, parametric designs, unusual façades and materially complex skins. Still, I argue that contemporary architecture is most of the time pseudo-experimental, appearing impressive and future-oriented, while in reality being fundamentally optimized for marketing, branding, sustainability certifications and planning approvals. In truth, what makes architecture “risky” is not form but intent: asking provocative questions, testing unproven ideas, challenging norms and proposing futures that may even end up being more dystopian than utopian.
My hope is that history is repeating itself. In the early 20th century, architects like Le Corbusier, Walter Gorpius, Mies Van Der Rohe, etc., introduced a very radical approach to architecture. Early Modernism was revolutionary, revolting against excessive ornamentation and nostalgic impulses. By the 1950s, however, Modernism had become institutionalized, with architects opting for standardized proposals to survive within a very technocratic context. This is when radical groups, such as Archigram, Superstudio or Archizoom Associati, along with experimental urban thinkers like Cedric Price or Constant Nieuwenhuys, entered. They, in turn, rejected the widely accepted design regime, investigating architectural practices that advocated political upheavals, social restructuring, as well as cultural transformation — all invigorated through a very strong sense of technological optimism.
The Rhapsody by Seong Hyun Leem | 2023 Vision Awards Winner
Despite their revolutionary impact, most of these proposals stayed on paper. Walking City lived through comic strips, the Continuous Monument took the form of collages and drawings, New Babylon was “materialized” via paintings and text and the Fun Palace – perhaps the one closer to being built – was communicated via 275 architectural drawings, models and artifacts, currently housed at the Canadian Center for Architecture in Montreal. All these projects can be found in Biennales, architectural competitions and in academic research, yet never in the corner of 5th Avenue. Why? Perhaps because these architectural ideas — imagined spaces — act as safe containers for architectural experimentation, particularly because they are temporary, do not require maintenance and are entirely detached from liability and profit.
Is there a way to push such projects beyond the threshold of theory and architectural exhibitionism? Drawing a parallel between the previous century and this one, I believe that although we are currently confined within the safety net of our regulations, hiding behind rules and practices that we have deemed necessary for a more sustainable and human-friendly future. We are, once more, experiencing a time of technological upheaval. AI is promising exciting breakthroughs on all fronts, with architecture and construction included. Could this be the engine through which experimental architecture finally turns tangible? If so, what are we missing?
The Stamper Battery by William du Toit | 2023 Vision Awards Winner
At the risk of sounding philosophical, technology is only part of the equation for producing “riskier” architecture. There needs to be a framework that supports the desire to prototype future possibilities, setting up a high tolerance for failure as well as slow production. Innovation in other fields, such as technology or medicine, is primarily achieved via trial and error. However, in architecture, buildings cannot fail because they are too expensive and too legally exposed – thus, optimization becomes the only safe path forward. Similarly, contemporary development thrives on speed and predictable outcomes, where iteration and uncertainty are viewed as threats to the larger procedure, but radical architecture requires temporal generosity.
The question I want to end on is, can we get “riskier” architecture back? Experimentation, albeit pioneering, is becoming ethically harder because it requires the time and flexibility that our ecologically, socially and financially stressed urban environments may not have. It is the reason why it oftentimes remains behind the closed doors of institutions and exhibitions, not daring to step outside to the real world, because it may actually make it worse. The problem, however, lies not in architecture becoming more responsible, but that responsibility may have become indistinguishable from caution.
Architizer's Vision Awards spotlights radical architectural concepts and compelling visual storytelling — from renderings and drawings, to photos and videos. The Extended Entry deadline is July 24th. Start your submission today.
Featured image: Rally Point by Alexander Long | Winner 2023 Vision Awards
