Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work through Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.

Zaha Hadid passed away in 2016. But her company, Zaha Hadid Architects, lives on. Clients who want to commission one of her trademark gravity-defying curvilinear buildings are still free to do so. It won’t be a “real” Hadid, of course, but then again, isn’t this a question of semantics? Does any building ever really have one sole author anyway? And one cannot say that ZHA’s recent projects don’t bear the mark of her influence.

In any case, ZHA believes that its founder’s name is very valuable. In fact, they pay a great deal in order to use it. In a recent case settled by the UK’s High Court, it was revealed that the architecture firm pays six percent of its revenue each year to the Zaha Hadid Foundation for permission to use its founder’s name. Since 2018, this has resulted in £21.4 million in fees.

MAXXI by Zaha Hadid Architects, Rome, Italy (circa 2010) | Photo by Konstrukt Photo 

The court case was brought by ZHA, which sought to be released from this licensing agreement. They argued that it places an unsustainable burden on their business. The court ruled, however, that the licensing agreement was valid. It was Hadid herself, after all, who set up this arrangement before her death. The Foundation, not the firm, was to be the guardian of her legacy as an artist. For the firm, the name primarily has marketing value and so — the court argued — it has to pay for it.

“The company’s economic activity has not been sterilized,” wrote Judge Adam Johnson. “In fact, it has achieved considerable financial success in the period since the licence agreement was entered into.”

Tom Ravenscroft, writing for Dezeen, reports that “According to figures in the judgement, Zaha Hadid Architects revenue was over £60 million in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The figures showed that revenues had almost doubled since the agreement was signed in 2013.”

Heydar Aliyev Center by Zaha Hadid Architects, Baku, Azerbaijan

The firm’s continued success after its founder’s passing is evidence of the value of Hadid’s name as a brand. Interestingly, this is the fact that most irked commenters on Ravenscroft’s Dezeen article — the idea of Hadid’s aesthetic as a packaged commodity, like a signature. And while I usually hold with the conventional wisdom that one should “never read the comments,” this comments section was actually quite interesting. Posters debated how the proper names of architects, while valuable in helping us categorize styles and movements, can often result in stylistic stasis, as architecture becomes a matter of different stars and their trademark “looks.”

A poster named Milton Welch wrote, “keeping the Zaha’s [sic] name is, apparently, way to have a client willing to pay as-if-paying-her, for the ‘signature curves’ that, by now, everybody should be tired of.” Milton was jumped on by another poster, Michael Leonard, who defended the curve over “orthogonal construction.” But Welch explained that curves themselves are not what he takes issue with. Welch argued that Hadid’s early innovations were stunning, but seeing the same motifs over and over gets “tiresome.” Seeing “Hadid buildings” pop up like pre-fab constructions is not true to the spirit of her legacy or really to what modern architecture should be about.

Port House by Zaha Hadid Architects, Antwerp, Belgium

And this really is the issue with the starchitect system. Key creative visionaries like Hadid made their name by designing buildings that were truly distinctive, structures that expanded the language of architecture. And yet, many of these stars fell into a rut later on, producing what was expected of them rather than venturing into new territory. Clients want to commission “a Gehry” or “a Hadid” rather than just an innovative building. Like a Louis Vuitton handbag, they are paying for the name, not the design integrity.

I wouldn’t totally blame the famous architects for this. The same thing happened to Picasso in his final decades, when collectors would pay huge sums for anything he produced — even when it was derivative junk. The problem isn’t really about fault. It is about the way branding stifles innovation. No actor likes to be typecast; architects should feel the same way.

Perhaps the best thing ZHA could do is let go of the Hadid name and reinvent themselves for a new century. The world needs more original architects like Zaha Hadid — not more “Hadid” buildings.

Architects: Want to have your project featured? Showcase your work through Architizer and sign up for our inspirational newsletters.

Cover Image: Guangzhou Opera House by Zaha Hadid Architects, Guangzhou, China (circa. 2010) 

The post What’s in a Name: Zaha Hadid’s Legacy and the Business of Branding Architecture appeared first on Journal.

Calling all architects, landscape architects and interior designers: Architizer's A+Awards allows firms of all sizes to showcase their practice and vie for the title of “World’s Best Architecture Firm.” Start an A+Firm Award Application today. 

Since its inception, Morphosis has been an interdisciplinary practice that combines design and research, producing innovative buildings and urban environments. The firm’s projects vary in typology — from residential, institutional and civic buildings to large urban planning projects — responding simultaneously to social, cultural, political and technological urgencies. In 2001, Morphosis launched the NOW Institute, an urban research division within the firm, whose work is dedicated to understanding and improving urban settings worldwide. Throughout the years, the NOW Institute has partnered with local and national governments, universities, social and cultural institutions and industry partners, undertaking key projects that develop impactful strategies for cities.

The word “NOW”, present in both the institute’s name as well as in many of its research publications, underlines the urgency behind the division’s practice. Recording, drawing and acting on contemporary urban scenarios, suggest speculative albeit applicable proposals, based on existing sets of data and even historical overviews, establishing synergy between academic research and professional practice.

L.A. NOW, 2001-2005

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Now Institute (@thenowinstitute)

L.A. NOW 1 is one of the Institute’s earliest research projects. It is an urban cultural almanac of Los Angeles that investigates proposals for housing and urban revitalization. The first volume includes an array of texts, data, graphic design and photography, constructing a snapshot of L.A. in the early 21st century. It exposes the city’s notable heterogeneity and fragmentation and explores narratives between Los Angeles, habitat, people and money.

Volumes 2, 3 & 4 expand on the proposals and speculations within the series, addressing downtown Los Angeles and its future development, underutilized urban sites in the city core and their transformation into alternative schools and urban housing as well as the historically charged Chavez Ravine site. More specifically, the proposition for the relocation of Dodger Stadium to downtown and the infusion of a 30,000 resident community on the site integrates and expands Elysian Park’s potential.

Madrid NOW, 2006-2007

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Now Institute (@thenowinstitute)

The Now Institute acted as a consultant and advisor to the City of Madrid during the years 2006-2007, exploring the possibilities of a Spanish new town model. In an attempt to improve Madrid’s housing PAU (Programa de Actuación Urbanística) or Programs of City-planning Performance, the Institute developed extensive research for five prototype communities, providing opportunities for diversity and the rejuvenation of local identity for future residents.

The critique towards the PAU system was that the current strategy is indifferent to the local context, it limits future integration with future commercial, civic and cultural programs due to its rigid morphology and negates any potential for high rise developments. In response the project investigated three sites (recommended by the city) that presented particular challenges which drove the design strategy, leading to the creation of a transportation hub, an off-grid urban farm community and finally, an alternative high-density residential lifestyle.

Haiti NOW, 2011-2013

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Now Institute (@thenowinstitute)

Following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the Haiti NOW project looks into the question of ‘what is the difference between relief, recovery and planning? The project looks into the three, urging the planers to construct a sustainable vision of the region’s futures. Relief is reaction – immediate, urgent and lifesaving – recovery is a strategy that resurrects local systems, planning, however, is prevention – a long-term vision for development.

Accurately stated, long-term planning seems distant and often operates on assumptions. Consequently, contacting local partners and inquiring about their own future vision for the region offers local knowledge and leadership which is critical for constructing a disaster-resistant city. Haiti becomes a deep case study for developing strategies and processes that stop the reconstruction-post-disaster cycle and rather prove that disaster-resistance urban design has the best potential for dealing with such crises.

South Sea Pearl Eco-Island, 2016

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Now Institute (@thenowinstitute)

Contrary to the previous research projects, the South Sea Pearl Studio begins with a speculative investigation on self-sustaining urbanism that integrates culture, nature and business in an attempt to investigate intelligent ecology. Delving once more into past histories and looking at small, often isolated city-states, the research began by understanding these communities as micro engines of cultural, agricultural and social sustainability.

Addressing the scenario where China constructs a 290 hectare island as a laboratory and demonstration project of urban sustainability in Hainan, the studio develops five different approaches: floating landscape, Archipelago, Infrastructure Urbanism, Extreme man-made urban environment, and the pods, to test possibilities and the potential of future artificial island-making.

What is perhaps the most valuable asset of the Institute’s work is the way the research is developed through rigorous recording and cataloguing, each time pulled from very tangible and contemporary scenarios. Many research practices offer astounding speculative proposals, based on thorough exploration and inquiry, often however being somewhat detached from worldwide urgencies. The NOW Institute stands out by bridging the gap between speculative proposals and actionable strategies that directly address current global challenges. By grounding its research in real-world data and contexts, the Institute ensures that its findings and proposals remain relevant and applicable.

Calling all architects, landscape architects and interior designers: Architizer's A+Awards allows firms of all sizes to showcase their practice and vie for the title of “World’s Best Architecture Firm.” Start an A+Firm Award Application today. 

Featured Image: Orange County Museum of Art by Morphosis Architects, Costa Mesa, California

The post NOW and Next: Morphosis’ Urban Research Division Tackles Today and Tomorrow’s Challenges appeared first on Journal.

Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!

‘Vertical farms’ is a topic widely discussed in the past couple of years. It is one of those cases where architecture provides an actionable solution to wider issues that go beyond sustainability challenges, touching upon economic, political and societal aspects. Lack of sufficient food due to overpopulation, water scarcity and unexpected environmental factors are only a few of the matters vertical farms can allegedly solve.

Before discussing farming, however, let’s talk about pigs. One radical project, which addresses the wider issue of food production in cities, is Pig City by MVRDV. Conducting extensive research regarding the pork industry within the Netherlands as well as meticulous calculations on pork production in wider Europe and the grains and water necessary to support the livestock, the proposal sought to design alternative, more humane pig farms. Just for reference, in the year 2000, the average area required for each pig in organic farming was approximately 1,726 meters squared. If this standard were applied across the Netherlands, it would result in 75% of the country’s land being dedicated to such farms. In response, the proposal combines organic farming with all the associating production activities, creating an intensive concentration of farms and eliminating the need for costly and polluting transportation and distribution.

As the T?F (The Why Factory) researchers very accurately stated, “Either we become vegetarians, or we change production methods and demand humane farming procedures.” Even though Pig City examines the economic viability of biological farming, I wonder whether the answer to food scarcity and negative environmental impact, is further construction. Architecturally, the concept of a vertical farm implies “stacking”, i.e., designing a building that occupies less footprint, while at the same time houses activities that would otherwise take up a lot more space. Additionally, vertical farms are usually controlled environments, where conditions that influence food production are effectively regulated.

However, even though these new “agricultural typologies” provide an impactful solution to food challenges, they also serve and even encourage the ever-growing need for consumerism that plagues our planet. Perhaps, instead of trying to answer the question of how we can produce more food more sustainably,  we need to evaluate this approach and turn towards a different paradigm.

Asian Cairns – Sustainable Farmscrapers for Rural Urbanity by Vincent Callebaut Architectures, Shenzhen, China

GEA by Taller Proyectual

Food City is a book written by architect and academic C.J. Lim, originally published in 2014, that examines the reinstatement of food at the core of national and local governance. The book is split into nine chapters: Food + Business, Food + Community, Food + Culture, Food + Education, Food + Employment, Food + Energy, Food + Health, Food + Law, and Food + Transport. It provides an insight on 25 international cities, whose governance is described through the medium of food and re-evaluates the way in which cities can function spatially as well as politically. Through the book, C.J. Lim presents a speculative research study situated in the city of London. In a series of drawings, models and texts, the architect explores how a secondary infrastructure built over London can function as a living environment and a new food system.

The Food Parliament is a fictional supreme food legislation body for London and its territories, which functions as a holistic ecology that is self-perpetuating, while engaging in dialogue with traditional London. It operates under three pledges: (a) it stands as an international center of excellence for food security, (b) it encourages local communities and individuals to participate in food cultivation, processing and distribution and finally, (c) it disseminates the new notion of health, which includes food security, good health, green space and fresh air.

Through humorous illustrations and narratives, the book redefines governing bodies and political figures in an attempt to accentuate the polemic impact food has in politics and society. Some of the most notable speculative scenarios include a Ministry of Defense comprised of geese (farm animals known for their protective nature) as well as “fences” made of landscape, whose scent can keep specific insects and pesticides away. Additionally, an urban fish farm characterized as the Blue Carpet reintroduces “dreamy” traditional fishing practices, while Mr. Speaker — the figure that shouts “order, order” within the London Parliament — is tasked with cleaning the space using massive sprinkler systems that soar over the landscape. Finally, massive pyramidal structures, inspired from Westminster Hall and the coronation ceremony, become the new cultivation farms which gather seeds and water from the air, producing enough food for all the London burrows.

From the moment humans practiced agriculture and settled on land, their relationship with food became increasingly complicated, intertwining with cultural, economic and political frameworks that define societies. Food transitioned from a basic necessity to a commodity, a symbol of power, and a driver of urban development. This evolution underscores the need to rethink how food systems are integrated into the fabric of our cities and governance structures in such a way that not only sustain human life but also respect the environment and foster community resilience.

Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!

Featured Image: GEA by Taller Proyectual

The post Vertical Farms and Food Futures: Architecture’s Response to a Hungry Planet appeared first on Journal.

Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!

In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes predicted in an essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” that by 2030, we would be working just three hours a day, with the rest of our time devoted to leisure, cultural pursuits and civic engagement. Unsurprisingly, experts at the time laughed.

Yet, as we rapidly approach that date, his almost a century-old prediction feels less like a pipe dream and more like a possibility. Artificial intelligence is surging toward a projected $1.3 trillion market value by 2030 and entire categories of human labor are expected to vanish in its wake. As a result, we now see ourselves standing at the threshold of what some are calling a “post-work” society. Unlike in Keynes’s time, many experts are now confident that the spread of AI could mean that human labor is no longer necessary to generate the material wealth required for everyone to live comfortably.

Across Europe, Universal Income is already being explored with generally positive results. It’s radical new territory where economic survival moves away from individual professional contribution to collective state support that evens the playing field. What would be left is societies and communities that have time and mental space for activities that free the human potential.

Skamlingsbanken Visitor Centre by CEBRA, Kolding, Denmark | Photo by Adam Mørk

Of course, these shifts challenge longstanding cultural assumptions. Work has, for most people, always been a matter of survival and, later, an economic imperative. Now, the conversation is evolving to suggest an era that will support self-expression rather than necessity. That possibility, rather than spelling doom, invites us to reconsider not just what we do each day but the way our built environment actually functions. Entirely changing the requirements of the spaces where we live, learn and come together, Ultimately presenting new challenges for the architects of the future.

For decades, architecture has always mirrored an economy that was and is shaped by nine-to-five routines and career hierarchies. Corporate high-rises, business parks and communities that are optimized for the daily commute are the standard. If AI takes over routine tasks — even those requiring interpersonal finesse, eventually — what then becomes of these spaces? Instead of focusing on efficiency and productivity, we might design spaces that support personal development, social bonds and continuous learning.

MASSIMODECARLO Pièce Unique by PiM.studio Architects, Paris, France | Photo by Thomas Lannes

It’s suggested that in a post-work society, cultural pursuits would no longer be confined to evening and weekend hobbies. Without a job-defining identity, creative pursuits and continuous education might fill the day instead. Future architecture would nurture these aspirations with buildings that support co-creation in the form of studios, maker spaces or even mini-amphitheaters. All spaces where residents could present their art, share new culinary experiments or teach each other new skills.

In that vein, our daily lives would not be dictated by the typical eight or more hours-a-day work week. Without dictated schedules, people would be aligned with their circadian rhythm and therefore, each individual could be awake or asleep, productive or resting, whenever their age, hormones or genetics required. In this scenario, facilities would also be less governed by fixed schedules, and 24-hour spaces would become more common. The fact that most spaces would not require human intervention to run them would also support this reality. Architects and designers would need to prioritize safety, longevity of materials and systems automation to allow spaces to be in use all day, every day.

Nunawading Community Hub by fjcstudio, Australia | Photo by John Gollings

Many believe that in a post-work society, individual resource collection would not be the goal, and the idea of collective stewardship would be fundamental. Tool libraries and communal storage areas would be valuable spaces that allowed residents to share resources rather than duplicating them. This sense of collective resilience would aid circular economy loops too, reducing waste of materials and time. The idea of “a library of things” is a practice already adopted by many self-sufficient communities around the world, and should the post-work society become a reality, they would likely become a key element to civilization in the future.

George Street Plaza & Community Building by Adjaye Associates, Sydney, Australia | Photo by Trevor Mein

Another component of society that is already changing is the shift towards understanding the value of health and well-being. Many companies are currently moving to a four-day workweek to provide a better work-life balance and support the mental and physical health of their employees. If completely freed from the grind of career advancement, individuals and communities would be able to invest more time in well-being, both personal and collective. Architecture would be encouraged to support these pursuits, with more investment in outdoor spaces, while longer and healthier lives would need fewer medical facilities and more community centers designed for human experiences.

What Keynes imagined — a time when human labor is obsolete — is now within reach. The post-work society, rather than liberating us into idle spectating, would grant us with time and freedom to deepen our humanity. If adopted correctly, technology could usher in an era where economic survival is decoupled from professional identity and architecture has the power to become a medium for supporting a richer life, where civic rooms are more valuable than corner offices, communal garden rooftops busier than parking lots and sprawling learning hubs would be more common than silent waiting rooms. It is a future that would allow architects to design a world where human potential flourishes more widely than ever before.

Architizer's 13th A+Awards features a suite of sustainability-focused categories recognizing designers that are building a greener industry — and a better future. Start your entry to receive global recognition for your work!

The post Post-Work Society: Architecture for a Future World Without Jobs appeared first on Journal.