"Any work of architecture that has with it some discussion, some polemic, I think is good. It shows that people are interested, people are involved"
About this Quote
Good architecture, Meier suggests, is the kind that starts an argument and refuses to apologize for it. The line reads like a defense of controversy, but the subtext is sharper: attention is a currency, and the built environment is one of the few cultural products you can’t swipe past. If people are debating a building, it has already done something rare in contemporary life - it has forced a public to notice its surroundings.
Meier’s intent is partly self-justification, and partly manifesto. As a signature modernist, he’s spent decades making bright, geometric buildings that can look pristine, even aloof, against messy cities and historical contexts. Those projects often arrive with instant friction: preservationists versus patrons, locals versus global taste, “icon” versus neighborhood. By framing polemic as proof of value, he flips the usual critique - that contentious architecture is narcissistic or disruptive - into a claim of civic vitality. The fight becomes the evidence.
There’s also a strategic narrowing here. “Discussion” is treated as an inherent good, but discussion can be fueled by exclusion, cost overruns, private power, or a building that performs badly for the people who actually use it. Meier’s quote quietly privileges architecture as cultural spectacle, where engagement is measured in noise rather than in long-term care, comfort, or equity.
Still, the statement works because it’s an architect insisting that buildings are not neutral containers. They are public propositions. A city that can argue about its architecture is, at minimum, a city that hasn’t given up on the idea that design matters.
Meier’s intent is partly self-justification, and partly manifesto. As a signature modernist, he’s spent decades making bright, geometric buildings that can look pristine, even aloof, against messy cities and historical contexts. Those projects often arrive with instant friction: preservationists versus patrons, locals versus global taste, “icon” versus neighborhood. By framing polemic as proof of value, he flips the usual critique - that contentious architecture is narcissistic or disruptive - into a claim of civic vitality. The fight becomes the evidence.
There’s also a strategic narrowing here. “Discussion” is treated as an inherent good, but discussion can be fueled by exclusion, cost overruns, private power, or a building that performs badly for the people who actually use it. Meier’s quote quietly privileges architecture as cultural spectacle, where engagement is measured in noise rather than in long-term care, comfort, or equity.
Still, the statement works because it’s an architect insisting that buildings are not neutral containers. They are public propositions. A city that can argue about its architecture is, at minimum, a city that hasn’t given up on the idea that design matters.
Quote Details
| Topic | Art |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Richard
Add to List










