All the great architects—every one of them—says 'It represents...' I say to students, 'Don't you think it would be great if architecture started doing again? Why are we representing? Do—it's much more powerful. I've never seen a client give a s**t about my personal vision. I had to figure out how to piggyback what my vision was on their issues.I like architect with language as bad as mine. What I like even more is an architect who understands the role of architecture in its proper proportion to the rest of the things a building has to accomplish.
I have to admit I'm pretty surprised that this architect sees himself as or is portrayed as standing against starchitects. Most of his buildings seem to me to have the sort of grandiose designs I rail against. I mean, I can certainly appreciate these buildings aesthetically, but I'm not sure what differentiates them from most 'starchitect' works:
I've been to some great cities - Paris, New York, Chicago, Dublin, London - and they all share some fundamental principles regarding urban design and building architecture. The same basic building blocks seem to hold true for the small towns that I like, such as Ann Arbor. I also have strong opinions on aesthetics, and truth be told I'm probably not always successful at differentiating the two when I pass judgment.
So are there any architects who read this blog who can illuminate me on why Prince-Ramus' designs don't qualify him as a starchitect?