Bring back the 70s buildings!!!!

This was adapted from something I have written four years ago when I was in grad school in Boston. I developed my love for 70's buildings by hatred. It was a love-hate relationship at first. And it developed and grows in me like a Thai soap where the girl at first hated the guy and later realised that she's falling head to heels with him. And if you have got a curious mind and thought "why would someone build such ugly building? What were they thinking?". Yes! Exactly, that question was so sticky in my mind to the point that I had to find out why. I did some research and the more I learn the motivation behind it, the more I am in love with it.

The idea behind it was because it was the turning point in time, the road to modernization. People realised that the WWII was a loose-loose situation that no country would want to engage in the war again. It was a childish game. But tension among leading worlds with different ideologies still existed and lingered after the war ended. So two ideologies competed with each other in form of technology and social development - a more civilized way. And that very sense had influenced the whole inspiration of that era. People aspired to the life in the space (in the light of space science at that time), people aspired to living in the futuristic dream, where plastic, the discovery that hailed as the revolution of the century, would help makes everyday life easier and cheaper... Much of that very aspiration goes into architectural design. Cold concrete, round big beam, UFO-inspired buildings are main elements of the 70s design. This design also was influenced by the urbanisation and government's housing attempts across Europe that result in today's remnant of 70s glorious ideological past. People of the 70s was so convinced in their version of the modern world the way we are convinced in whatever dream we believe in nowadays.

"Urban movement" was the trend in late 60's expanded to the 70's. It focuses on parallelism and symmetrical forms. I love the feel it gives out - very inhumane, cold, tyrannical and futuristic. It uses a lot of full concrete. Some stories of full concrete building goes as far as this - getting out from the 60's, the time when there was Vietnam war, there were lots of freedom expressions and riots against the war in the third world by people in the first world, the government were afraid that riots were going to grow bigger so they have to build buildings that can withstand riots. This version sounds all too simplistic but I believe there's some element of truth.

I love Barbican Center building and Royal National Theatre in London.

Barbican Center














Royal National Theatre




A couple of the pictures there are from Terminal 1 of Paris' national airport Charles-de-Gaulle from 1967 -1974. It was said to be highly inefficient and confusing for passenger but from artistic point view, I think it's architecturally brilliant!

Charles-de-Gaulle








Futuro house is probably the best example of people who believes in this ideal so much that they bet on the futuristic dream by building an UFO-like portable house made entirely of plastic. The idea was also a speculation of the cheaper plastic. The house can be moved around like a nomad. It made out of a light-weighted plastic so that the helicopter could carry it. But the oil crisis spoiled this idea. Mass-production couldn't happen so there were only 20 Futuro houses constructed! Very extreme idea they had.










I personally think that it is right that these buildings should be listed and preserved - who would want to build such thing again anyway? If you destroy one, that means that you are destroying the link between the past and the present - it is part of our history, just like the pyramids and Victorian buildings! With the advance in today's engineer and architecture knowledge, there's always room to renovate those buildings to look nicer, sturdier and more contemporary. So much better than destroying them entirely.

Sometimes in hate, you find love.

"There's Always an Opportunity in Every Crisis" is coming back to haunt someone

The recent red-shirt protest that has been splashing the headlines lately must be perplexing to outsiders of Thailand and foreigners alike. How can one country be so divided? How can this much-loved ex-PM be ousted and victimized? It sends out the extreme conflict signal about Thailand to the world. And indeed, Thailand is a divided and conflicting country.

Mr. Thaksin is demonized by my circle of friends and relatives because I was born and raised in Bangkok – the center of the crème-de-la-crème of Thailand. Most Bangkokian is of course yellow-shirted; highly educated, probably more critical and more aristocratic than people from somewhere else in the country. That doesn’t mean that some are not and also doesn’t mean that some just want to disassociate themselves from the rural image of the red-shirt’s portrayal.

On the other hand, the fact that international media fail to understand that the red-shirt’s love for Thaksin, to the extend that they are willing to donate blood (as a symbol of their loyalty) to splash the government building, is actually being paid for, is something that perplexes me. Here’s the link to the video clip of how the money is given in the middle of the day of the street when red-shirt gang came to sign up for the protest event, just like signing up for a sponsored shampoo event with free shampoo samples given away.


http://76.nationchannel.com/playvideo.php?id=84305

I don’t want to aggravate the division. I truly agree that Thailand should be united and be harmonious and not to sell one’s soul away for just bt. 2,000 (£40) per three days. However, I do understand that the central government has never been effective in keeping the promises to the majority of the people in this country. And that is the biggest weak point where Thaksin is the right strategy to exploit. I do sympathize red-shirt’s position and I see where they’re coming from.

Therefore, instead of taking sides, I have a new angle to take on. I’d like to think that this is a natural “karma” process as suggested by the bhudda. Thaksin is not right to have cheated $2 billion off of the country, however, there’s an invisible hand behind this scene here. While Thaksin is rallying and motivating the red-shirts, he’s actually giving back the same money he cheated off of. A two thousand baht per three days probably wouldn’t have been spent any more effectively to trigger this amount down to the grass root level anyway, by a central government. Watching the event unfold, I can't help but thinking that it's actually a natural process that promotes two things 1) Corrupted money coming back to the hands of grass root level that they deserved 2) Seeing the wealth of the ex-MP dwindling right before our eyes only weakens his future position in intervening with the local politics - the bigger he spends now, the lesser he’ll have later.

It’s not such a bad situation we’re in, isn’t it? To put in the perspective (of course, this is such a crude estimates), in late-Feb 2010, it was reported that his total wealth in Thailand was $2.3 billion, and two-thirds of it ($1.4 billion) was confiscated. Leaving him only $900 million left. The first red-shirt protest in 9-Mar-09 lasted 32 days until 11-Apr-09. It was also believed to be funded by Thaksin. If we apply the funding rate (I will call it a “protest burn rate”) of current’s protest (bt. 2000 per three days is equal bt. 667 per day), given the same number of protestors (100,000), it would’ve already cost him around $67m for the whole thing in the first protest, which is account for 3% of his old wealth ($2.3 billion) or 7% of his new wealth after 2/3 was confiscated ($900 million). At this protest burn rate, he can afford up to 14 more protests at this scale ($900 million / $67 million). The thing is he wouldn’t be too crazy to stage 14 protests to reduce his wealth to $0, is he? This is a rough calculation but I think it is a good way to think about it. It’s almost a win-win situation in a way - Thai grassroots have their wealth returned, at the same time Thaksin’s wealth is reduced by 7%!!!!! The more he stage the protest (or in other words, “the higher the turnover”), the less he has and, thus, less power, more peace in the future! Things are not as bad as it sound, isn’t it?

Let’s see if this amount of money ($67 million) is spent by the central government as part of the stimulus package, probably it would have been delayed for 6 months to one year, and there’s a cost of distribution etc. And that very money is spent out of current government’s pocket! No free lunch! Also, if the government plans to spend it on infrastructure, of course, 30% margin of it will mostly go to the concessioner who is a cousin of the wife of some MP, another 30% will probably goes to material margin sourced by, of course, another cousin of the wife of some MP, spare another 20% margin for delays, the wages probably account for 10% of this amount of money left for workers… etc. (of course, these are hypothetical figures and maybe, just maybe, exaggerated, but you probably get the idea suggested here about how things work in Thailand). The point is, the central government with its politics and corruption and all wouldn't be able to trigger down this same amount of money this much, this fast. Other plus side is that we are getting the money we got cheated at the first place back, at the same time, weakens the Thaksin’s position as a Thailand’s distraction to the road of development! I think it’s a great deal, in fact.

So before you throw a fist and be so pissed off with the red-shirts, remember, there’s always an opportunity in every crisis. Sounds familiar, anyone?

PS. Numbers and wealth analysis here is crude and by no mean serve as an academic purpose, but rather, serve as a guidance on the magnitude of the spending - to put things in perspective. Therefore, please don't take figures and calculations literally.