Why we don’t need Starchitects anymore

The term ‘Starchitect’ became popular in the 1980s to describe a new generation of architects who were gaining popularity for their bold and experimental designs. It has become synonymous with fame, ambition, and designs which are considered iconic today.

The phenomenon of the starchitect coincided with a growing fascination with architecture and design among the general public. The bold and experimental designs of Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid gracing magazine covers inspired awe in those both within and outside the architectural profession. In India, Starchitecture was pioneered by the likes of Le Corbusier and BV Doshi, whose buildings were to become pilgrimage centres for future generations of Architects.

In a time when any form of Marketing for architects was frowned upon, these distinctive buildings served as powerful marketing tools. They stood tall like billboards, screaming the Architect’s name to everyone around, helping the Architects attract clients and cementing their reputation. Starchitects became the rockstars of the design world, their projects often accompanied by a media frenzy and public fascination.

The deep, deep problems of the Starchitect idea

The rise of the starchitect has not been without its problems. The pursuit of iconic status led to a focus on form over function through design philosophies like Deconstructivism, with some starchitect-designed buildings prioritising aesthetics over practicality and sustainability. The focus on creating unique and eye-catching designs resulted in buildings that consume excessive resources, generate waste, and contribute to environmental degradation.

Walt Disney Concert Hall, an example of Deconstructivism philosophy, has a stainless steel exterior which  reflects sunlight into surrounding buildings, causing glare and heat problems. Starchitecture also manifested itself via highly-controversial styles like Brutalism which involved excessive use of exposed concrete. The harshness of the materials used in Brutalist buildings and their alien-like forms ignite the feelings of hostility, repression and aggression in many people.

The Professional Code of Conduct for Architects, laid down in 1989, in its capacity to restrict the usage of an Architect’s name, was indicative of an effort to curb Starchitects. The forefathers of the industry wanted architects to prioritise public safety, health, and welfare above individual fame. Pursuit of flashy designs and prioritising media attention over the project's functional and social needs was exactly what the code was against.

The biggest damage done by the notion of the Starchitect is entrenchment of the idea into Architects’ psyche that design is paramount. Architects today value design over everything else, forgetting that in any project, design is less than a fifth of the total scope of work. Principles of marketing, developing a unique value proposition, getting and converting leads get lost in the sea of design discussions. Magazines continue to celebrate designs, and the “celebrities” who created them.

Over time, Starchitects have become demi gods in their own right. Critiquing their designs is considered heresy. Ironically, students of Architecture who’re so used to getting their designs reviewed during their college education don’t even think about having a critically examining “iconic” buildings designed by Starchitects. On the contrary, students do anything it takes to work for them – even if it entails sacrificing all forms of remuneration.

The phenomenon of Starchitect also led to lack of collaboration and unhealthy competition among Architects. Instead of cooperating for the advancement of Architects and Architecture, Architects today severely undercut others’ prices, sometimes even working for free just to get (or steal) a project, eroding whatever little margins they had in the first place. It should be no surprise that most of the Architecture firms are struggling for survival.

What we actually need

In today's world, the challenges faced by society are vast and complex. Our cities are plagued with problems of pollution, unpredictable climates and crumbling facilities. Our villages continue to lack even the most basic infrastructure like clean drinking water supply and clean sanitation.

It’s time that the Architecture community gave up the pursuit of iconic designs and started carving the future of Indian architecture, keeping frugality and sustainability at the centre. As we face the challenges of global climate change, resource scarcity, and social inequality, we need Architects who can design buildings that promote harmony between people and the planet. We need buildings that are energy-efficient, low-carbon, and resilient to natural disasters. We need buildings that foster social interaction, promote well-being, and enhance the quality of life for all.

Architects need firms that can invest in research and development, enabling the exploration of new materials, construction methods, and technologies. This can only happen when firms’ free cash flows are potent and consistent enough. Only firms with solid business fundamentals can provide fair compensation and supportive work environments to their employees.

Starchitects have played their part in the past. It’s time for firms to take the front seat and drive frugal, inclusive and sustainable innovation. 

It’s time we stop worshipping Starchitects and start valuing problem-solving and collaboration so that we can create a better future for everyone.