Cool Modern Architecture - Page 56

Nowhereman1280 · #**1101** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 1:52 AM**

Fischer Building, Chicago
1896
William Le Baron Jenny

Chicagoarchitecture.info

Chicagopictures.net

Nowhereman1280 · #**1102** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 1:56 AM**

Gage Group, Chicago
1899-1900
Louis Sullivan

Adrian may have posted these already, but here they are anyhow...

american-architecture.info

chicagoarchitecture.info

Nowhereman1280 · #**1103** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 1:59 AM**

Wainwright Building 1891
St. Louis, Mo
Louis Sullivan

wikipedia

brynmawr.edu

Nowhereman1280 · #**1104** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 2:02 AM**

These are a just a few examples of what I find to be "Great Buildings" that are examples of "progressive Architecture and Design"... As far as I am concerned 99.5% of the buildings that have been posted in here don't even come close to the radical changes these buildings represent. Hell, 95% of the mutant cubes that have been posted in here don't have a lick of new technology in them, every one of these buildings utilizes at least one brand new technology...

amor de cosmos · #**1105** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 4:14 AM**

William le Baron Jenney is definitely one of the most underrated architects ever. In his day though he was known more for being an engineer or contractor. Even Louis Sullivan (who worked in his office) said he was more of a connoisseur, but that actually helped a lot when he was designing his buildings, since he knew what the state of the art in construction was.

Tom Servo · #**1106** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 6:15 AM**

HOLY.SHIT.

the ENTIRE TVCC building has been destroyed by fire!

videos:
http://vinnyswebsite.com/blog1/video...rters-youtube/

a massive glass and steel skyscraper in flames.
WOW.

full story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...19411020090209

Tom Servo · #**1107** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 6:30 AM**

aftermath:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2755459...7613548591538/

apparently, it was completely destroyed, steel melted and bent all over, sections of the building are said to have collapsed, and the interior was completely gutted. it will have to be torn down because it damaged the structure so badly.
how the hell does an ENTIRE skyscraper go up like a match-box??

Nowhereman1280 · #**1108** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 6:40 AM**

^^^ Because its shoddily built in a country with relatively low construction standards? Never would have happened in Chicago since we've been paranoid about fire since the Great Fire...

I know everyone is going to tell me I'm horrible for saying it, but I'm glad this building burnt down instead of a legitimately revolutionary building that actually contributed something to the field. This building was a gimmick just like 90% of the junk in here and frankly I'm glad this was destroyed and not something of importance like that unfortunate occurrence in Seoul last year...

Tom Servo · #**1109** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 6:45 AM**

god i'm slow the punch...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164817

staff · #**1110** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 11:52 AM**

Nowhereman1280,
It wasn't because of construction standards at all, but because of mis-use of fireworks/crackers and the structure of the building itself (one of the world's largest atriums inside the building created a "smokestack effect" that triggered the huge fire in such a short time.

But interesting to know that you're "glad this building was burnt down"...

Your Chicago boosterism is getting a bit tiresome, btw...

Wrightguy0 · #**1111** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 12:49 PM**

If you really want to think radical, think about the UN General Assembly Building in New York. The tower was a total break from everything else that had been built. Most of the other buildings in Manhattan were some sort of stone, masonry, or brick, in a variety of earthen tones. Then you have this immense glass curtain wall rising above the east river, a total break in tradition from everything else that had come before it. There are only a few examples of progressive architecture, everything else is just imitating, of course the architect adds his or her own flair to each project, but each subsequent Building in a progressive style is generally less progressive than it's predecessors. Of course there are some exceptions, there are buildings in this thread that do break with tradition and pack a real punch, it just depends on the architect.

hammersklavier · #**1112** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 2:11 PM**

Adrian, from the pics I've seen, the building looks surprisingly salvageable.

But hopefully this stops that persistent "giant atriums" trend...

Nowhereman1280 · #**1113** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by staff

Nowhereman1280,
But interesting to know that you're "glad this building was burnt down"...

Oh nice misquote! If you read what I said in context you would know the difference between saying "I'm glad it burnt down" and saying "I'm glad it was a worthless design that burnt down and not something with more cultural value like what happened to that Pagoda in Seoul". Of course I'm not glad there was a fire, its a horrible waste of resources and the one life it took, but am I ever glad that those embers didn't land on the Imeperial Palace or some place that has more thought than "Omg look @ there swt shapes I can has!" behind it.

Quote:

Your Chicago boosterism is getting a bit tiresome, btw...

I'm not sure what is boosterism in what I am saying? Is it stating the fact that the city of Chicago has some of the most paranoid fire codes in the world? That's not really a good thing, it adds unnecessary costs to all of our buildings. Or is it posting pictures of many of the important early skyscrapers... Oh wait all but a couple of those ARE in Chicago, I'm sorry that the Chicago School I was highlighting was based in Chicago...

amor de cosmos · #**1114** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 6:23 PM**

weird that it didn't collapse into its own footprint just like WTC7

muppet · #**1115** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 7:20 PM**

Its a wonder the building hasnt collapsed, and structurally it's very sound built to Chinese building laws in earthquake zones, alongside yearly typhoons and floods.

However, as far as fires go, it was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

basically the chimney like design (one of the worlds biggest foyers) by Rem Koolhaas is to blame, alongside the use of zinc in the cladding that fueled the inferno - a tarnish onto Arup Associates fireproofing record. Also CCTV ignored police who tried to stop the 'illegal' fireworks. The sprinkler sysetm hadnt finished being installed, and it was the one building that wasnt hosed down while the fireworks were going off, due to a different contracting company.

If you look at this positively, for this building to go up like that within 20 minutes, its a very very good thing that it did this now when it was still under construction, rather than full of hotel guests later. Koolhaas and Arup could have been very, very much more in trouble.

muppet · #**1116** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 7:34 PM**

.

Koolhaas's 'chimney' design:

Arup Associate's zinc cladding that disinedgrated into embers (boiling point 200C, burning point 900C) and that fell in molten sheets to ignite on the floor, thus sparking off the chimney effect. It also provided the fuel to the inferno:

muppet · #**1117** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 7:43 PM**

- back to thread....

interesting tower redesign in Dalian, China

Quote:

Originally Posted by z0rg

Some news from http://dlskyscrapers.5d6d.com

Dalian Jinzuo Tower set to be transformed into Dalian Diamond Tower. Absolutely amazing project, wow!

Jinzuo Tower nowadays. Stopped construction in 2000, has remained like that for 9 years. Interiors aren't finished.

Transformation project, 1 of the proposals.

Dalian Diamond Tower

210K sqm mixed use high rise refurbishment of former Golden Tower in Dalian, China

invited ideas competition 2008

The existing tower in the centre of Dalian has major design flaws and stands empty for many years. The competition was initiated to explore its adaptation and possible integration into the new World Trade Centre tower next to it.

Our proposal wraps a new skin around the existing floor plates which become partially extended to form a new morphology in balance with the context. The expanded internal volume will assist in a more functional distribution of the various programmes.

The extended floor plates are carved by a tesselated mesh of air shafts for energy-efficient climatisation and social connectivity.

The design strikes the balance between a striking visual appearance and identity on the one hand- and a subtle clean and receptive quality on the other.

staff · #**1118** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 7:53 PM**

Nowhereman,

You're right, maybe I overreacted. Sorry for that...

Nowhereman1280 · #**1119** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 8:34 PM**

Well I didn't have to say anything along those lines in the first place, I had a feeling it could easily be interpreted that I was glad a building burned down!

I like it when people peacefully sort out miscommunications!

Tom Servo · #**1120** Posted **Feb 10, 2009, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

"Omg look @ there swt shapes I can has!" behind it.

it funny how absolutely naive and ignorant you and many others are in bashing oma's work based on what seems to be solely a surface observation of a building's complete appearance.

do people just make the assumption that, if the building has a weird shape, well then it must have been a purposeful and very deliberate attempt at creating a counter-norm sculptural statement, a calculated effort at being edgy? what if the crazy shape of the building were actually a programatic response, a solution whose form has no importance nor prior consideration, rather it is a product of function, optimized and arranged according how space connects and how people occupy that space? what if oma's main consideration when approaching a project is how people and space coexist? and what if this crazy form is a mere byproduct of architectural solutions to a program? what if form follows function, and function follows program?

it seems however, that most people will never understand the efforts of forward thinking architecture because its form is not recognizable and its design methods are based on people and space and not skyscraper recognition. and anything that deviates from what is standard must be a mere concerted effort to go against the grain and create cool shapes whose function is of secondary importance.

i would suggest a documentary called, Rem Koolhaas: A Kind of Architect.

mies always said: don't think, draw. well, what if we did think before we drew? what if we made a full analysis of site, program, culture, and habitat before we drew and developed specific answers to ever problem?
modernism has not changed. it has only adapted to cultural relevance.