Vitreous cities

I never quite realized how much architecture affects our lives. For me, architecture was always something to admire especially when looking at a particular structure’s history. I never quite dissected how much of a part it plays in areas related to our health, the economy, and even government. In this week’s readings, I was intrigued with Simpson’s article and his ideas on glass and its relationship with capitalism. Glass first became a commodity. Venetian artists took this material and created beautiful, fine hand-blown glass to be sold to the richest aristocrats. Only those with money could afford such things. According to Simpson, thus began the role of glass in what he deems capitalist development. With the technological advancements made in during the Industrial Revolution, glass than became a building material, soon replacing brick in newly built buildings. Glass architecture became a metaphor for transparency and honesty. There is no hiding behind glass! Call me cynical, but I find this a bit ironic given that many of the corporations that occupy many transparent buildings have engaged in dishonest deeds that almost destroyed an economy.

Looking at the skyline of some major cities today, it is impossible to not find at least one building wrapped in glass. These buildings reflect the city back to itself, perhaps providing a brutal honest look at its congested streets and its disparate cultures and making it nearly impossible to bear witness to what goes on behind that glass. Yet many of these buildings have helped to rebuild and rebrand cities. As we have seen with Dubai, New York, Shanghai and now Macau, just to name a few, the construction of an iconic building made of glass, and the buzz created, can help create new identities for their cities. This brings capital in the form of rental income from the individuals and corporations, tourism, etc. Yes, architecture builds cities, not only in the sense of the built environment, but also in the economic sense. 

        In the Jones article, we also see how architecture is used to rebrand a government and push its ideology. Sometimes this involves stripping the original identity in order to create a new one. I wonder how feasible and moral this is in a region with many different cultures and steeped in various histories. How do you begin formulating this new identity under the guise of diversity and inclusion? And how honest would it be? Can a single architecture truly reflect a nation of various cultures living together under one flag? We have architects selling us a vision, one that may be dictated by those who hold the purse strings and we are left to accept it without much discourse. As Rem Koolhaas said, “the architect was expected to do things for the public benefit. Now we are expected to broadcast the interests of individuals and corporations.”