Pig City Discussion - conclusion July 31 2001 Since last May the ArchiNed site has been the platform for a discussion about ethics and architecture, this in response to the Pig City proposal from the Rotterdam firm of architects MVRDV. Many people took the opportunity to contribute their views. A short summary of the responses brings this discussion to a close. Babe finds the city overwhelming What was it all about again? This spring saw the presentation of the Pig City project, financed in part by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries. Pig City comprised 76 towers, each 622 metres high and with floors measuring 87 by 87 metres on which pigs are to be kept. These 'pig flats' were proposed as a possible means of optimising the production process in the intensive pig sector. Animal welfare and economic land use were important factors in developing the concept. Though the Pig City project was just a concept, MVRDV stressed that it was feasible and that they would readily implement it. The project elicited many responses and heated discussions, and so ArchiNed decided to canvass the views of its readers: A number of respondents found Pig City an hilariously funny idea but not something to be taken seriously, prompting jovial responses like: 'HAHA i like PIGS PIGTOPIA !!! nice and practical MVRDV rules !!!' The majority of respondents did take the proposal seriously and, not unexpectedly, their views were mixed. The problems in the pig sector are very real and some see in the Pig City concept genuine possibilities for tackling them. A discussion about the ethical aspects was deemed irrelevant, or as one respondent put it: 'Ethics is not a luxury for architects; ethics is a speciality for architects. And too many specialists are simply choking the world. So just take on that unethical commission, make the most of it, demand the market rate for your services. And should you suffer from conscientious objections, just buy some ethics from me.' Some doubts were raised about how the assignment was interpreted: 'MVRDV adopts an uncritical stance vis-à-vis its assignment and client; like Hilberseimer, they allow the assigned task determine the limits of their project; anyone stepping beyond those limits can hardly take Pig City seriously.' and about the practical feasibility of the project: 'The wind can be strong and the temperature low at 600 metres, and there is a chance that a pig might fall off. So how can animals just rummage around at that height?' But most respondents were simply angered. Some thought that Pig City was no way to treat animals: 'Why we like people (and without any doubt a "superior" being) should treat animals like "bags of meat"? Can't we find another solution for this?' Others stated that architects should concern themselves with more important and pressing matters than accommodation for pigs: 'A project is not pretty images. I'm not totally against it, has some valid points, but not for animals, nowadays the problem is not space, but what the pigs eat and this is not a question for architects we have so much problems to resolve connected to people. Architects have to be able to influence the future, he have to decide not here pigs are going to live but how people cant live, there's a entire world with problems for us, modernism in over we are lost we need a path.' And, according to a number of responses, herein lies the responsibility of the architect: 'Coming from South Africa, I am all too aware of the far-reaching consequences the social suggestions of over-zealous designers (of Dutch decent in our case) can have. Our country's past is littered with the misdirected suggestions of architects and planners. […] Some things are just WRONG. Even if they are architecturally profound or extremely creative.' ArchiNed would like to thank all those who offered their views on the subject. All contributions can be found on the discussion page.   translation: Billy Nolan