50 People Who Matter 2010 | 42. Zaha Hadid

Olympic starchitect.

By New Statesman Published 27 September 2010

The Baghdad-born architect and designer has pushed the possibilities of architecture and the horizons of architectural practice throughout her 33-year career.

From Abu Dhabi to Zaragoza, manifestations of her daring, fluid deconstructivism are an antidote to the ever-present boxy, austere steel and glass of her lesser contemporaries.

The world will watch Rebecca Adlington go for gold in 2012 under the breathtaking, wave-like roof of Hadid's Olympic Aquatics Centre.

Away from her practice, she designs furniture and other products of dazzling beauty, and is at the leading edge of architectural teaching and research.

Awe-inspiring cities of our future are in her head.

 

Previous: 41. Simon Cowell

Next: 43. Amartya Sen

Back to list

 
 

2 comments

theurbanglow's picture

Mon, 2010-10-11 14:06 — theurbanglow (not verified)

I saw Zaha Hadid's building win the Sterling prize and must say that I am constantly disappointed that egotistical architects are still seducing people into believing that their buildings are great for any longer than the first two years. After that they deteriorate badly and often have fundamental flaws in terms of townscape and materiality. There is no difference in my opinion between what Ms Hadid does and the brutalist 'town-wrecker' architects of the 1960s and 70s. We should not be encouraging these people! Their philosophy on Architecture has been tried, tested and has spectacularly failed, to the detriment of us all!

adamblanerichards's picture

Mon, 2010-09-27 16:31 — adamblanerichards (not verified)

I know these lists are intended to provoke response but from a personal and professional point of view I'd just like to say:

ZAHA. HAHA.

The term 'starchitect' makes me sick in my mouth.

She designs pretty buildings, but she definitely DOES NOT have the 42nd greatest world-changing potential.

You have previously featured a lot of articles by Eyal Weizman [written in a very positive tone] who has shown in his work that architecture remains the most politicized and potentially dangerous of all the arts, a point you have celebrated at much length.

You have of course missed the true lesson of his work, which is not only about the evil banality of Israeli architecture, but also about the potential evil banality of any architecture.

I would have hoped that his writings would remind your editorial team that Zaha Hadid's inclusion is just another celebration of the idiosyncratic and narcissistic approach that characterises a great deal of the contemporary architectural discourse, either through its spectacular expressions [Liebeskind, Gehry] or its pro-capitalistic ideologies [Koolhaas] or through its pseudo-avant-garde strategies [Tschumi, Eisenman] etc. etc. etc.

Today, at this time of austerity it is a luxury that very few can afford.

The contradictions of your left wing editorial stance in the arts and culture are very amusing, but equally very, very frustrating.

Latest tweets