On Zaha Hadid

Jonathan Meades on Zaha Hadid culled from Intelligent Life Magazine, Summer 2008

Another fascinating read and very funny in places too – the back handed swipes Meades was taking at her! But on a more serious note, this article cum interview lays bare some topical issues of architecture schools and architecture profession today.

One that comes up early in the article is that of unnecessary agglomeration of language which Meades describes as ‘a sort of Esperantist pidgin’. We are all slowly indoctrinated to indulge in this  ‘bag of tricks’ in architecture schools and Meades was not forgiving of Zaha for dipping into this bag when she talks about architecture.  He aptly points out some syntactical errors suggesting that Zaha (or anyone else that uses it) might sound like an empty barrel. 

Another one is the issue of how new buildings should relate to their context. I think Zaha’s approach to this question should be a model for the serious student. Showing sensitivity to context should not become a limitation on any project but to prompt new ways of addressing issues thrown up by the site that will forge better architectural responses.

But when Meades pushes further on how she has become successful at creating architecture that is not easily recognised as by the same hand it is clear she is evasive and gives a rather vague explanation. Meades pointed out that this is not a new tactic and that the discovery or revelation of the ‘how’ would be to destroy them. It begs the question why we (students) are constantly nailed to the wall at crits and bombarded with a litany of questions; ‘where is the process work?’, ‘what is the theory behind your proposal?’, ‘what is the program?’ etc but to be evasive or not have an answer will only prompt critics to go on to the next level of investigation that could pull the rug from under  your project; ‘but it could be this’ and ‘it could be that’ – questions which made a colleague of mine reply with; ‘ yeah it could be anything but it’s not exactly mickey mouse, is it?’. She has since gained a higher level of respect from me, my hero!

Further we see the irony of practising architecture in London. A city rich with interesting juxtapositions and an architect who is ‘enthusiastic about this sort of dissonance’ not having a proper accomplishment to her name in the capital? But her continued attraction to the city is another question she scatted helter-skelter about. 

Also, we are confronted with the question of why the profession is and always has been dominated by men? The reasons are put down to low salaries, long hours, office machismo and lack of opportunities for progression. But Meades goes further and tries to spread the bias evenly between men and women architects as a disease that only afflicts architects in Britain irrespective of sex. He posits that architects having squandered the peoples’ reposed confidence in them in the 70s and mid 70s, now have to establish a name for themselves in foreign countries before they regain any confidence in Britian. I am not entirely convinced that that answers the initial question.

However, imbued in this attitude to architects is a limiting factor equally as powerful as taking ‘context’ literally as already discussed. If architecture, in the capital or Britain in the larger sense, is subject to public opinion then we end up with an architecture that tries to be all inclusive and consequently creates a fertile breeding ground for the profit minded capitalist. I agree with both Zaha and Meades on this point that the paramouncy of the architect/ artist should be first place but I would not go as far as pigeon-holing any particular style of architecture as good or bad but whether individual products of such endeavours are. 

The expendability or short-termism of buildings in Britain is another worrying subject brought up by Meades in this reading. This sounds a gentle reminder of the responsibility of architects in creating spaces that are beautiful, fit for purpose, and durable to avoid falling victim to the for-profit capitalist. I think that in the crucial triangle of time, money and quality, we find ourselves in a precarious position where time and money are winning the day. I feel there must be more we can do to bring quality back in popular demand rather than oblige to that architecture should not be daring, beautiful, striking or marvellous.

In the final part of the article, Meades evaluates Zaha’s refrain from talking about her work or architecture and the transformation when she talks about anything else. He makes an interesting point about a different part of the brain being activated. I am not quite sure if dyslexia and being left handed are qualities one is born with or that one develops in the very early stages of cognitive development. It seems common knowledge that most gifted architects have both or either of these conditions but Zaha has neither of them. It makes me ponder; are architects born or made? Or perhaps there are both kinds of architects?