Should western architects be taking on work in China?

28 March 2008

'Yes'

Scott Findley

RMJM director of design, Asia & the Middle East

Is this question political, ethical or professional?/ 정치적인 고려,직업의 윤리적인 문제,아니면 전문적 직업인으로서,...? 

Either way, China represents opportunity — for architects and anyone influenced by the design process, construction work and the resulting environments.

Architecture is a — if not the — pre-eminent way to help countries to exploit global opportunities. Architecture speaks volumes about a country’s intentions for its culture and commerce. Architecture can enhance the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people.

Globalisation is inevitable. At its front line is the need for development. Governments, developers and private interests know this, and want the best and brightest designers to provide lucid and evocative ideas to meet the needs of this ever-shifting new world order.

Architects have an extraordinary opportunity as ambassadors of cultural and intellectual exchange. Not since the post-war reinvention of America has there been such a sweeping undertaking.

We have missed Europe’s renaissances, and it is too late to redirect America’s Levittown-styled suburbs, but we are living a new renaissance. We have the opportunity as a global profession to learn from our mistakes and contribute to city building and sustainability, and to create enduring human environments which raise quality of life.

We have a social and moral obligation to be part of a global solution; to have the wisdom to rise above any other agendas. Politically, ethically and professionally, is this not simply the opportunity of a lifetime?

'No'

William Menking

Editor, The Architect’s Newspaper, New York

The US economy is on the verge of recession and architects are terrified. The chance to do something like Steven Holl’s Linked Hybrid project, wending its way through Beijing, would be very hard to turn down. We have an expression in America: fish or cut bait.

China invaded Tibet in 1951, and it might have to get out at some point. Now is an opportunity to help that.

There is an argument that by working for these regimes, you help to promote openness and democracy. I don’t buy that. I wouldn’t build for American contractor Halliburton in Iraq.

To suggest that providing high quality design justifies working there is slippery ethics. Albert Speer designing for Hitler might have said the same thing. His building itself is not political, but the act of building it, for a regime like that, is a political act.

Daniel Libeskind raised a point about property rights in China. Who owns the land? It’s murky.

I recognise the irony of an American saying this. I wouldn’t expect American or foreign architects to not work in America, but you can’t work in Iraq in good conscience.

It’s a difficult moment for architects to take this position in China. You may be cutting yourself off from a huge commission in this dynamic and expanding economy.

Organisations such as Public Architecture and Architecture for Humanity promote professional ethics in America, for example, in rebuilding New Orleans. But taking a stand not to build, now that’s more difficult.

What do you think?

너무 심각할 필요는 없겠지요. 하지만,옛말에,"비록 선비도 굶주린 배가 채워진 후에야 예절을 챙기더라"라는 구절이 있습니다.
글쎄요, 어려운 일이네요.