On the text 'The First Great Female Architect' by Jonathan Meades (on Zaha Hadid)

'You know, it's those buildings that always look like a UFO has landed in the neighbourhood.' This is how I describe Zaha Hadids' work to my non architecture friends whenever there is a moment that I  talk about buildings, architecture and other interesting things that go on in my life. As you can probably sense from that statement, I am not a big fan of Zahas' work. Although I must admit that I admire her and think she deserves to be, and is, a famous architect, not a 'starchitect' (what a horrible word indeed), but I will come back to that later. First of all, I don't actually know what to make of the Meades's text. On one hand I find it quite amusing in what way he is articulating his views on Zaha, on the other hand I find it somewhat strange that he attacks her by saying that she cannot express herself and then writes a text himself in which he uses phrases like 'verruca-like jargon'. For me the text was very hard to read and I caught myself reading every other paragraph twice and then realised I did not memorise what I just read. I think he tries too hard to sound eloquent which makes it annoying. I also think that he very clearly had prejudice against her from the beginning, he had a preconceived opinion and in fact tells us very little about her views on things, either because she really did not say anything and was failing to express her thoughts or because he did not want to understand her and just took those sentences and gestures of Zaha that suited his arguments. I'd say it was probably the latter. In that sense it is not written particularly well but I do agree with a lot of things he says (this is, if I understood him right).
My impression on Zahas' buildings associates well with Meades' description of the factory-like atmosphere in her office. I read somewhere that no one actually speaks to each other and I can only assume how it must be to work for her in this cold Zaha world. Just like her buildings do not communicate with their surrounding in the sense that they are often completely misplaced. I think of them as cold and despressing objects to work/live in. He mentioned that Zaha has

                                             ' style all right, but not a style' .

Now having said that I do not particularly like Zahas' work , I still disagree with Meades on this point. Although her buildings are all different in a way, her style is distinctive to me. It always looks futuristic and sort of left in the sun for too long, hence the structure melted. Zahas' buildings lack corners in general, everything is rounded,everything! (I mean seriously, is she affraid of the devil or something? Because as we all know since Goethes' 'Faust' the devil can only enter through corners...)
In the text Meades asks the question why Zaha still does not have any buildings in London although her office is situated there. I think it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman but because she does not care the slightest about history and context. And this is just simply impossible in a city like London (fortunately!!!). How can someone just be so ignorant? She clearly has an attitude there. I absolutely loved how Meades talks about her view on this and how he describes

                                        'Hadidopolis' (I love this, ha! Genius!)

and how a whole city with her buidlings would be less disturbing than a single one in an

'already established environment where the clash of idioms is potentially deafening'. 

I agree with that, although I think it would be a very unaccommodating,cold,weird place to live in. He then says that

'no matter what she says, each of her buildings is sensitive to ist context. Being sensitive does not mean being passive. It is not a question of taking a cue from the immediate surroundings, but of making an appropriate intervention that changes those surroundings, which creates a new place and better space.'

Now, I do not agree with Meades on this last bit. I honestly do not see how the majority of her buildings create either new places nor better spaces.
I think the main thing about Zaha, the thing that makes her famous, is that she wants to show off at all cost. No one would notice her work if it was not this displaced in its environment. But sometimes this is just what gets you famous in the end: just scream the loudest so everyone notices you.
As I said in the beginning, I do think she deserves to be famous and to some extend I do admire her because I really give her credit for standing by her design when others changed theirs according to a specific style that was popular during the time (like Leon Krier who Meades mentions in his text), and for being an inspiration for all female architects out there. Meades is right, there are not that many female architects around, particularly famous ones. But she does have a name and I have seen some of her work in an exhibition from when she was still a student at the AA and I must admit, being a student myself, it looks increadible. As much as I do not like her style, she does have one and as we all know: There is no accounting for taste.