Coop Himmelb(l)au (est. 1968) is a cooperative architectural design firm primarily located in Vienna, Austria and which now also maintains offices in Los Angeles, United States and Guadalajara, Mexico. In German, “coop” has a similar meaning to the English “co-op.” “Himmel” means sky or heaven in German, and “blau” means “blue” while “bau” means “building.” So, the name can be interpreted as “Blue Heaven Cooperative” or “Sky Building Cooperative”
Coop Himmelblau was founded by Wolf Prix, Helmut Swiczinsky and Michael Holzer and gained international acclaim alongside Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry with the 1988 exhibition, “Deconstructivist Architecture” at the Museum of Modern Art. Their work ranges from commercial buildings to residential projects.
Wolf Prix’s List of recommended/ significant architecture:
- Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain by Frank Gehry
- MAXXI Museum, Rome by Zaha Hadid
- CCTV Building, Beijing by Rem Koolhaas/O.M.A.
- Cooper Union Building, New York by Thom Mayne/Morphosis
- Bird’s Nest Olympic Stadium, Beijing by Herzog & de Meuron
- Art Tower, Los Angeles by Eric Owen Moss
- BMW Welt, Munich by COOP Himmelblau
Latest News: September 2012. Wolf D Prix critique of this years Venice Biennale of Architecture.
In a statement sent as a press release entitled The Banal, he says that participating architects are “playing” while the profession is “sinking into powerlessness and irrelevance” at the hands of politicians, investors and bureaucrats who “have been deciding on our built environment for a long time now”.
Here’s the full statement from Wolf D. Prix:
Praise be to Nero’s Neptune.
The Titanic sails at dawn.
And everybody’s shouting
“Which Side Are You on?”
(Bob Dylan: “Desolation Row”, 1966)
If one did not know that the media constantly exaggerates, one could almost conclude – as the Süddeutsche Zeitung has – that the Venice Biennale of Architecture really is the world’s most important architecture exhibition.
However, I believe that the word “exhibition” is not intended to describe an exhibition in this case, rather that the notion only designates the event per se. In other words an industry meeting, like a product fair. Other critics fail to even question the purpose of the exhibition, rather they immediately conclude that the coming together, the meeting, the networking is the key aspect. That’s that!
I would like to maintain at this juncture that the meaning of the Venice Biennale of Architecture for theoretical arguments has been increasingly losing significance since its beginnings with the Strada Novissima by Paolo Portoghesi in 1980. Even the personal significance for the participants is very low when compared to the Art Biennale. So let us not deny the truth. This event is an expensive danse macabre. In a city of plunder (an exhibition of plunder) hordes of tourists (architects) roll along broken infrastructure in order to satisfy their petit bourgeois desire for education (in the case of the architects: vanity, envy, schadenfreude, suspicions). Even the glamour that the visitors are supposed to feel is staid and faked by the media for whom a star architect is like a film star.
In truth it is all hollow, arduous, exhausting, bleak and boring. It is no longer about lively discussion and criticism of topics in contemporary architecture, but rather about empty, conservative and perhaps populist shells that are charged with feigned meaning. What a great Architecture Biennale it would have been had they established forums and put out themes which would have provided a chance to look behind the scenes at the decision-making, instead of boring exhibitions. Take for example the dispute about the train station in Stuttgart. The reasons for the cost explosion for prominent buildings such as, for example, the Elbe Philharmonic Hall. The political arguments about mosques and minarets, in other words the disputes about the localisation of an idea. Why the market for single-family homes in the USA has collapsed and how power politics is conducted through settlement architecture. These topics would be worthy of discussion – not who is and who is not a star architect.
However, instead of that we face: “People Meet in Architecture” and now “Common Ground”. In other words: compromise. It cannot get any worse!
This situation conjures an image of the Venetian carnival – one can imagine all the architects in Pierrot costumes surrounded by masked critics and dancing the Dance Banale, or, even better, the architects are playing on a sinking gondola like erstwhile the orchestra on the Titanic playing their last song, while outside in the real world our leaky trade is sinking into powerlessness and irrelevance. This is because politicians and project managers, investors and bureaucrats have been deciding on our built environment for a long time now. Not the architects.
While in Russia artists are stubbornly resisting the authoritarian regime, the current director of the Architecture Biennale considers these characteristics to be obstacles for our profession and he explains in an interview that space must be taken from the genius. One would have to show him Pussy Riots in order for him to finally understand our society.
Furthermore, I consider that the Venice Biennale of Architecture needs to be reorganised.
Wolf D. Prix / COOP HIMMELB(L)AU