Endorsed by

Risk 2015: Architecture and the need for insecurity

Risk avoidance increasingly determines architectural selection. But does that mean that successful architects are risk-averse? In 2006, Ben van Berkel (fellow co-founder of UNStudio) and I wrote: “We like to be lighthearted, but can’t always evade northern heavy-handedness; we like to think that we navigate a smooth space, but we can’t sometimes help sensing that we actually swerve from near-collision to near-collision, with the occasional total wreck thrown in. We like to think that we can be players in the actual world, but we don’t always feel sure it’s the same world. But isn’t this what it really means to believe in the experimental? What we don’t like, and there are no qualifying buts attached to that, is risk-free architecture. In the long run it does not even make a difference if that safe architecture is of the pretension-less commercial variety, or disguised as ‘critical’ architecture, its criticality actually amounting to a recitation of the irony and the received opinions that have been echoing around in media space for thirty years. The meaninglessness of an architecture that avoids risk is most eloquently expressed by the fact that it has recently noiselessly converted from a once staunchly defended modernist formal appearance to a once vehemently opposed expressionist or organic formal appearance. The practice of an experimental approach, entailing the concentration of all your efforts in an uncertain, completely unknown outcome, over and over again, is really the purest form of idealism, utopianism even. Consequently, those of us who embrace this uncertainty, who reject the safe haven of a consensual, long-ago utopia, must address the complex nature of the real.” 1

An engagement with contemporaneity, with reality, is at the basis of our practice. Today, that also entails the awareness that risk is always there – it manifests itself in many forms and is, ultimately, always shared.

1. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Design Models (London: Thames & Hudson, 2006)

Source

Discourse

Published online: 30 Apr 2015
Words: Caroline Bos
Images: Courtesy of UNStudio

Issue

Architecture Australia, March 2015

Related topics

More discourse

See all
Opal Tower. Bring back the Clerk of Works

In light of a number of prominent building failures in Australia, Michael Hegarty explores the role of the Clerk of Works, and the need to …

Baudish House (1964) by Ken Woolley. How the 'Sydney School' changed postwar Australian architecture

Davina Jackson explores the genesis of the Sydney School of architecture that emerged in the 1960s – and attempts to locate it in the broader …

The Lacrosse building in Melbourne’s Docklands. Imagining a continuum of architectural services in building industry reform

Michael Peck, architect and former National President and CEO of the Australian Institute of Architects, reflects on recent high-profile failures in apartment construction.

The sparsely occupied main plaza, except for a group of children on a school outing and some tourists taking photographs. Apple controversy masks the real failures of Federation Square

Jonathan Daly argues that the recent brouhaha over the failed proposal for a Foster and Partners-designed Apple Store at Melbourne’s Federation Square has masked a …

Calendar