Architectural Record reports that an income gap is widening in China, due in part to the rich megastructures going up that only profit the upper class. It seems every day there’s another report of thousands brutally kicked out of their homes to make way for skyscrapers. Here’s an example of a woman tortured in Chinese jails because she dared complain after being evicted to make way for the Olympic village.
Daniel Libeskind was slammed by our bought media when he recently refuse to work for China or any other oppressive regimes. He said, “I won’t work for totalitarian regimes. Architects should take a more ethical stance.” Clearly money is the mover in this dilemna and those who want to get great commisions in China will find any kind of justification. Libeskind has championed human rights causes before, and I’m completely on his side on this one. Our media is invested with China (like NBC’s multbillion dollar investment in the Olympics) so we can’t expect any criticism on TV. Are architects also bought?
As I noted concerning China’s television media building, it’s all about show, grand monuments to an empire’s might and power. This has historically been a big part of architecture, but it would be nice if we can use this function for good. Compare the CCTV building (China’s media monument) with Liebeskind’s (Hong Kong Media Center). Which one is self-aggrandizing and which is honest?
Originally published 7/14/08
