David Chipperfield on his design for West Bund Art Museum in Shanghai

Rendering of the West Bund Art Museum; view from the northeast
Photo: © David Chipperfield Architects

The West Bund Art Museum in Shanghai, located on a triangle of land between the Huangpu river and Longteng Avenue, is the latest in a long line of museum projects for David Chipperfield Architects. A wing of the 22,000 sq. m iridescent glass building will house an outpost of Pariss Centre Pompidou for a renewable five-year period. Part of a growing “cultural corridor” in the former industrial area, the museum is due to open later this year.

London-born Chipperfield is perhaps best known for his careful reconstruction of the Neues Museum of antiquities on Berlins Museum Island. He has also designed the James Simon Galerie, which serves as a new entrance to the islands museums and is scheduled to open this summer. In an interview in his Berlin offices with The Art Newspaper, Chipperfield spoke about the frustratingly free brief for the West Bund Art Museum, Chinas unstoppable urban development and the ethical questions that arise for architects working in countries with authoritarian regimes.

London-born David Chipperfield is building a museum in Shanghai's West Bund
© Ingrid von Kruse

The Art Newspaper: You have said that the West Bund Art Museum will have a “strong relationship to its surroundings”. What does that mean in concrete terms?

David Chipperfield: The museum is on a piece of territory that has been defined by the city as a recreational strip running along the river. This strip is bound by the river on one side and the road on the other. So does the museum face the road or the river? In this case, the pedestrian route along the river is a surprisingly important infrastructural element, busy with joggers and walkers. That is something to respond to. So the building doesnt have a back and a front.

How was the experience of working with the Shanghai authorities?

When we designed the building it wasnt for the Centre Pompidou. It was for “a museum”. When we asked, “what will be in the museum?”, the answer was: “We dont know yet. But we need three big multi-functional halls that can be used for anything—exhibitions, performances, parties.”

It was incredibly generic, which was a bit frustrating. We were playing tennis with ourselves—there was no one hitting the ball back. Architects always argue that they would like more freedom, but be careful, because sometimes freedom doesnt help you.

It would have been wonderful if the Centre Pompidou had been the client from the beginning, because we could have understood what they wanted. Instead the Pompidou came on after construction began. The building has a more generic feeling, because we didnt have an idea of what the content might be. You could argue that in the long term that might be useful, because it is a looser-fit idea of what a museum might be—three huge spaces which you can just play with.

The challenge for the future is not just architecture, but the built environment in general: schools, streets, squares—the places where we live as opposed to cultural landmarks

Are the Centre Pompidou curators happy with the result?

There have been some fairly substantial modifications to the building for them to occupy it. We had to fit in an atrium. I think we did the best under the circumstances to make a virtue of the generic qualities, and the Centre Pompidou seems comfortable with the conversion of the building to their functionalities.

Has this experience put you off working in China?

No. We have an office [in Shanghai] and we have been working there for 15 years. We are quite convinced about being there. There are opportunities that are different from those in Europe and restrictions that are different. The whole process of permissions and approvals is also very complicated, very opaque. When you ask, “why was this not approved?”, you get five different versions. You dont know if this is a political problem, professional problem, one of regulation or temperament.

China has for many years been viewed as a land of opportunity for architects. Do you see this at risk, given slowing economic growth and increasing authoritarianism?

I would say the narrative about the diminishing expansion of the economy is offset by the slightly more sophisticated environment that is evolving. The Chinese are getting better at building. Clients there are understanding better how to put projects together, being a bit more careful about what they build and increasingly sceptical about doing “funny-shaped architecture”.

That is reminiscent of the criticism Rem Koolhaas received for the CCTV tower in Beijing, when president Xi Jinping called for an end to “weird architecture”. Meanwhile Westerners have questioned his work in China, given its human rights record. What are your thoughts on this?

I dont believe that by building projects in China you are by definition propping up the regime. It depends on the project and how close it is to the regime. Its a bit like sanctions—if you put sanctions on Iran, are you hurting the regime or the people who cant get food? I am fairly sure the political leaders in Iran dont have a problem with access to food. All of us would find it very difficult to build for bad people. What about bad regimes? Where do you draw the line? And that is the difficult one. If you are building the private house of a tyrant, then it is a different thing from building in a community. If you are building a hospital for Syria, are you propping up a regime or are you helping the people?

Setting aside big prestige projects like the West Bund, it seems that urban planning is not a top priority in China, where vast cities have sprouted up very fast.

It is disappointing that at the very point when we are not building cities very well ourselves in Europe, China is expanding and copying formulas that we are using—big masterplans that have no great urban qualities. We dont seem able to use resources in an intelligent and sustainable way. The challenge for the future is not just architecture, but the built environment in general: schools, streets, squares, shopping centres, the places where we live as opposed to the cultural landmarks.

Has Read More – Source

[contf]
[contfnew]