It seems to many that the "long-awaited" turn from flashy iconic buildings to socially significant and modest structures is about to come in world architecture. That architects, instead of wanting to become famous, by building a landmark building on the scale of a country or even a continent, will think about the needs of society, will try to turn desolate cities into prosperous, troubled areas to make life pleasant, create new jobs and improve the environmental situation. That the decade of “icons” buildings, which began in the fall of 1997 with the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, has come to an end, and now the goals and objectives of architecture will be compared with the harsh reality.
But these highly moral critics, who see the ignoble goal of most architects in the construction of a giant structure in the form of a bubble or crystal in the UAE or China, and best of all in Europe or America, forget that it is often in such projects that many innovative techniques are used for the first time that determine development of architecture in the near future, techniques that most often relate not to the appearance, but to the function and structure of the building. Even Burj Dubai, which looks like nothing more than a monument to developers' infinite self-conceit, has a revolutionary structure that can be used to build a skyscraper much higher than the estimated height of the Dubai Tower (about 900 m) - and the limit of its capabilities has not yet been determined. Now supergiant buildings seem completely non-functional, but perhaps in a few years this scheme will be in great demand.
If you expect that smart, inexpensive and green buildings like AR Awards winners will be erected instead of elegant or flashy office complexes, residential buildings and cultural institutions due to changes in the financial atmosphere, then these expectations will most likely turn out to be completely unfounded.: such projects, finely tuned to a specific situation, are much more difficult to put on stream than the most daring works of the "iconic" type. Most likely, faceless typical buildings will appear instead of them - if something is being built at all. Therefore, the positive impact of the financial crisis on architecture is much more dubious than it seems at first glance. However, one thing can be said for sure: in the coming year, and possibly later, old buildings will be demolished less often (both monuments and buildings that did not have time to become such), more often you can see examples of reconstruction of the existing "fund" - although not as bright as, for example, London's Tate Modern.
At the same time, you can expect that many architects will turn to theoretical work, "paper" creativity, will rely less on CAD, using it only as an aid, but not as a way to create an initial sketch of the project …
At the same time, many architects may leave the profession altogether: Europe has already lost an entire generation due to the economic decline of the early 1990s. Not everyone agrees to sit, like Zaha Hadid during the crisis of the 1970s, at a drawing board by candlelight, in an unheated apartment in winter.
Cities will face special problems as a kind of final architectural product: to maintain them in a stable state, constant financial injections are needed. If they stop, it is possible that some transformations await them (depending on the duration of the current economic situation), going against the established trend - to predict the unstoppable urbanization of the world's population.
Of course, 2009 can bring something completely unexpected, refuting all predictions, but it can also become a rather sluggish continuation of 2008. In any case, a revolutionary type of development in its pure form is not very characteristic of architecture, and even unfavorable external conditions cannot cause significant - especially catastrophic - upheavals. They will present to the architectural community, along with challenges, and new opportunities. Whether to use them - this question should be decided by everyone for himself.
