In J. G. Ballard’s High Rise - soon to grace the big screen - the architect of the eponymous tower, Anthony Royal, resides in his creation’s penthouse, a vantage point from which he can watch his new concept for living unfold beneath him. However distorted and unethical Royal’s ambitions for social experimentation, he wilfully takes part in - and is eventually destroyed - by it: Royal’s tower stands in an ethical void, but he proudly goes down as the captain of his brutalist ship.
Currently, the prevalent idea regarding architectural ethics seems to be that architects throw their ethical hats out of the window when designing, only to have them picked up, dusted off and forcefully replaced by the critic and the journalist - by now we have all read endlessly about the latest example: Radio 4’s ‘Zahagate’. The line of questioning in Sarah Montague’s Radio 4 interview was understandable, but perseverance based on poor research only led to a reinforcement of Hadid’s unfortunate public image when she put an abrupt end to the questioning.
For Reinier de Graaf, writing this month in Dezeen, it is the architect’s charisma that permits deft movement between ideological claims and unpleasant economic, social and ethical realities: Hadid herself seems to be increasingly lumbered with the latter while Schumacher revels in the former. In a further muddying of the waters surrounding ZHA’s ethical stance, just days after Hadid’s interview Schumacher took to the Royal Academy’s Architecture and Freedom pulpit to extol the virtues of an apolitical architecture. ‘What is the alternative?’ conceded Schumacher, presenting contentious projects in Azerbaijan and Gadaffi’s Libya, alongside a faintly ridiculous hit-list of ‘politicising and moralising critics of ZHA’, to which I suppose Montague should be added for good measure.