Report comment

Given the headline to the article, it's not hard to see that a hatchet job of journalism is coming along. But my surprise in the article was how little there was of any real criticism of the work of ZHA. Rather it is about all the aspect of the project that lie beyond the responsibility (or control) of the architect. Ellis Woodman begins by elucidating the failings of the project, beginning with the location. How the selection of the site is the fault of ZHA is hard to discern. Zaha may well be influential, but this was the site chosen by the museum. Even his analysis of the faults of the chosen site are suspect, given that while this is not necessarily on the historic Roman holiday itinerary, it is not really that far (or that difficult to reach) from the main centre of Rome. Woodman goes on to voice lack of confidence in the agenda of the museum - assembling a collection of 21st century art. Again, a legitimate concern - but one that should be directed at the museum board, not the architect. If it is a failing, it is not a failing of architecture. Clearly the decision to choose ZHA for this project 10 years ago was based on a belief and aspiration that doesn't follow the more calculated, more conventional route of assembling a collection and then commissioning a space in which to fit it all in. Having given a preamble that essentially dismisses ZHA's sense of tectonic rigour (although the project is one of the most consistent and formally coherent of the practice), urban decorum, and understanding of locale, Woodman then notes its "invisibility", as it retreats behind retained facades, etc. From my visit to the site, the first impression was the generous quality of the urban and public realm created by the courtyard and external landscaping - particularly within the context of Rome. Woodman goes on to suggest that in fact the context doesn't support the "gesturalism", when in fact the project is both discrete and forceful - but calibrated in relation to different frontages and for different purposes. Woodman offers an assessment of potential curatorial problem in terms of display and exhibition, but he does so with references to artworks bound deeply to the 20th century. ZHA has clearly proposed and produced a set of gallery "suites" in line with the ambitions of the museum itself. How this could possibly be read as "cynicism" is to demand conformity to a different question, to a different museum and institution.