Does “Foreclosed” address the actual issue?

Or does it “set design back 10 years?”

Writing in Metropolis Magazine, Bryan Bell (Design Corps) pens an evocative piece critiquing the methods and approaches of the designers and architects involved in MOMA’s Foreclosed: Housing the American Dream. The main thesis of the article is that Foreclosed sways too far into the “starchitect” and “studio-based” realm of design work, failing to actually address any community issues or attempt any form of public engagement. This seems to be a common conflict; a tension between the artistic ideals in which design is the overriding and driving factor, and community-based work in which design is the primary tool used. It’s a subtle difference, but one that can determine whether you have a Le Corbusier failure, or a Curitiba success. 

To be fair, Foreclosed does posit an interesting topic of discussion, namely a rethinking of the single-family style of homeownership that contributed greatly to this recent recession. But the solutions are very much hypothetical; ranging from the acutely rational to the obtusely absurd. I offer forth this article as a probe to rethink the intentions and motives behind a lot of the work being produced as a result of thisexhibit, and to think critically about these things.