• Tweet ^[1]
• Share on Tumblr ^[2]
• Email ^[3]

^[4]

On the western outskirts of Shanghai, China, a dragon is coming to life. Constructed of concrete, steel and glass, the new corporate headquarters of Giant Pharmaceutical Corp ^[5] looks for all the world like something between a sci-fi battleship landing on a highway, and a steampunk dragon frozen in time. L.A.-based architectural firm Morphosis ^[6] is focusing on the building’s sustainability as much as its aesthetics, with a green roof ^[7], generous use of skylights, and advanced insulation materials like cement-fiberboard paneling and a double-layer, fritted-glass curtain wall.

Slated for completion in 2009, the project ^[8] will house executive offices in the cantelievered “head” of the structure, while the remaining elements—additional offices, a boutique hotel, exhibition hall, auditorium, library, gymnasium and swimming pool—will be contained in the “body” which arcs over a four-lane highway. There is no doubt “the dragon” will be a hit, another notch in China’s architectural belt.

The past decade has seen a flurry of ambitious construction projects in China, the most visible of which held the spotlight this year at the Beijing Olympics;the Birds Nest ^[9], the Water Cube ^[9] and the National Center for the Performing Arts ^[9] to name just three. And while the architectural, technological and sustainable design merits of these structures cannot be denied, neither can the fact that they are now a part of China’s insidious self-mythologizing; an architecture of nationalism for a country with an horrific human rights record ^[10].

“In China, you can do things formally you just can’t do in the U.S. — aggressive, uncompromised, out-there ideas” said ^[8] Morphosis principal and Pritzker Prize 2005 winner Thom Mayne ^[8], clearly implying that aesthetic and economic concerns outweigh ethical considerations. Sadly, Mayne’s is the prevailing attitude among today’s brand-name architects.

But last February architect Daniel Libeskind ^[11] (controversial already) stated publicly that he “won’t work for totalitarian regimes,” a remark that reignited a debate as old as architecture itself. Does architecture ultimately transcend politics and ideology or do architects who design high-profile buildings that bolster their client’s international profile implicitly sanction their client’s politics? We think it’s time for architects and designers to take a serious look at the implications of working for clients whose politics and/or ethics are not in alignment with their own. What do you think?

+ Morphosis ^[6]

Via World Architecture News ^[5]