As an American that has walked in front of the affront we call the American Embassy in Berlin, I cringe at the thought of what we design and build as the 'Face of America' in the countries we deem to be of less political importance than Germany. Needless to say the phrase 'Ugly American' need not just apply to ill-behaved tourists but to many of our embassies as well.

US Consulate in Istanbul

Depressing.

the headline here is nothing new.

what's new in the article is that someone (besides architects - and with more influence, we hope) has taken notice of how increasingly unfriendly our embassies have been and thinks that something should be done to remedy the situation.

so this article is, if anything, good news!

If embassies are like the representation of how a country sees itself in relation to the world and wants to be seen in relation to the world, than those embassies are pretty much spot-on...for the Bush administrations. I'm curious if the Neue Demokratische Welle can also commit to change in the field of architecture of its embassies.
Maybe they can use some inspiration from Holland:

i'm very interested to see what comes out of the competition for the new london embassy. if anyone has seen anything from the competition, please post. i hope it will lead to a step in a better direction.

there doesn't seem to be much of a public architecture concern at home, so why should there be one abroad?

how symbolic of "the land of the free"

- unfortunately security has been valued over freedom and happiness for most of the past decade. security doesn't need to be ugly, but that's the easiest/cheapest path. Maybe london will set the new paradigm for good design and good selection process.

b, london embassy probably will have the stringent security measures. remember al qaeda blowing up the british consulate in istanbul a few years ago and the attack on the public transportation system in london? and, the uk being the most robust combat ally of the us? i would not see the project going up there with open arms.

btw, embassies are different than the consulates. embassies are located in the capitol of the countries, whereas consulates are the ones located in major cities that might have the increased population of the subjects, citizens, cultural activities and the properties of the representing country. trivial but distinct definition and slightly different security measures i assume.

actually embassies are very interesting concept as typologies. they are the sovereign pieces of properties and buildings in a foreign country and no matter how hostile the situation is between the countries, sovereignty of the place is usually respected.

this is very interesting because it means no matter how violent and dire the conflict is, there is always a possibility of dialog and possible agreement between the warring countries. well, that is a human nature too and we must pay attention to it as well.
i think, that idea must play a role in design. i would, if i was designing an embassy or a consulate. we need this type of relevant thinking to develop the influential language of the buildings that can impact the situation on a peaceful note. can architects play a role on pushing these concepts into design and influence the client? i think so. this is directly relating to wider based positioning of the architects' role and the philosophical identity of the profession.

well said, orhan!

Post a new comment: