CCTV tower under fire once again

• Source: Global Times
• [01:47 August 26 2009]
• Comments

Poll: What do you reckon the joke about CCTV Mansion?

By Zhang Han

Online comments and criticism in Chinese media suggesting Beijing's ill-fated landmark CCTV tower symbolizes male and female genitalia seemingly reached a peak after the architect ruled out “any hidden meaning of the building” last week.

The CCTV main tower (left) and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, gutted by a fire. Photo: Wu Gang

Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas published a statement on oma.nl, the website of his company, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), saying, “The glorious CCTV building stands as the shining symbol for the ever-changing world order, and that's the exact intent of our design.”

The statement also denies that pictures portraying the tower as human genitalia were produced by OMA, indicating that the pictures were circulated on the Internet in 2005 and are not connected to the company.

An online poll conducted by huanqiu.com yesterday revealed that 47 percent of participants believe there were pornographic incentives in the design of the CCTV building, and “felt very angry,” while 35 percent believe the incentive “might be true but they couldn't care less. The other 18 percent didn't believe the rumor.

The CCTV headquarters has been in the news for some time. A huge fire gutted the north building – the Mandarin Oriental Hotel – on February 9, caused by fireworks during the Spring Festival holiday. CCTV has said it still intends to move to its headquarters in time for the celebrations of the state broadcaster's half-century anniversary and the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, known as National Day.

Koolhaas' statement is a response to a new round of heated debate in Chinese media over the past half-month. Reports included one alleging that, in a recently published book, Content, the CCTV tower was said to have been inspired by sexual connotations, accompanied by several pictures, allegedly published in the book.

Some reports circulated with headlines such as “Designer fools 1.3 billion Chinese,” and “the building should be pulled down as a national disgrace.”

Although the issue drew fierce discussions in China, reports or debate were seldom seen in other countries. As G. Pascal, a professor at University Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle, said, “Architecture is culture, we'd better talk about it with humor.”