Cool Modern Architecture

[Tom Servo]

from studio gang
http://www.studiogang.net/
Brick Weave House
private residential
2009


from booth / hansen
http://www.boothhansen.com/
Dwight Student Residences
student housing
2008

30 W Oak
multi-unit residential tower
2007


from brininstool + lynch
http://www.brininstool-lynch.com/
1620 S. Michigan
multi-unit residential tower
2006

1720 S. Michigan
multi-unit residential tower
2008


[insert here: all the high profile work from perkins + will and valerio dewalt train (hard to find convenient medium sized samples)]

from krueck + sexton
http://www.ksarch.com/
Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies
institution
2007


...but oh, wait...
what anchors this on the south or north, a few blocks along michigan?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Good to see you post it! What about Vetro, 235 van bueren, R&D, and the one off of north that I am forgetting the name of right now?

[Wrightguy0]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

by shit you mean... beautiful, timeless, luxurious, striking, etc ... ?
in the cutting-edge city of chicago, this happens in GREAT abundance. you'd be absolutely appalled to see what passes as townhouses in our neighborhoods. can you imagine that scaled down to 4 flats?

i shit-you-not, i've seen these trash-piles advertised as: LUXURY MODERN LIVING.

ahh, it's nice to relate to people on this website. sometimes i feel like my fellow archi-students and i are insane for our lack of archi-complacency. but then again this website is dedicated to objects, shapes, and skylines.

but yeah, for the most part, this city's 'architecture' is an absolutely joke -- nay, farce.
chicago doesn't understand anything without brick.
this is all NEW architecture in my neighborhood:










and this is 'modern' in chicago:



it's really sad. if we were to walk around the city (which, weren't you just here?), you'd think: really?

some of these buildings (lowrises, not highrises) are probably in a neighborhood with historic restrictions on the buildings, believe me the committees that oversee new construction in historic districts can be pretty anal.

My dad is part of a volunteer theatre group, about five years ago they bought a run down building in Saint John's historic district, it was covered in horrible green and white ceramic paneling, (from the school of rampant 50's modernism) which they had to renovate and restore.

The historic committee was insistent on such small issues as the spindles the had to use in their exterior railings. So yes, some of those look bad, but there is a damn good reason for that. if you want to build new in an old part of town, be prepared to have your modernist designs thrown out in favor of a more laid back historic look. It may not be something you like, but some cities like to leave their historic districts intact, and if a developer finds a large under used parking lot and wants to put something there, then it makes sense that the feel of the neighborhood not be disrupted. you know if I was to build some stark modernist building where that townhouse is, it would look out of place and tacky.

[Cirrus]

if you want to build new in an old part of town, be prepared to have your modernist designs thrown out in favor of a more laid back historic look.

Once again, in case anybody missed it:

Originally Posted by me

If only there were schools out there that taught architects how to actually properly design the sorts of buildings people continue to want... Perhaps instead of insisting that everyone else in the world has bad taste, then taking their ball and going home, architects ought to figure out how to make the things that the majority seems to want in a manner that doesn't totally suck. You know, work with the public instead of against it.

If you're an architect out there and the program demands a building that doesn't fit your exact preferred style, and you can't work a little outside the box and come up with a good design anyway, then sorry - you are a shitty architect.

[hammersklavier]

While you certainly have a point about the ugliness of several of the buildings in your post, I think this one is actually an excellent building for its site:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

It kind of reminds me of the Curtis Building on Independence Mall.

And I also think that modern architecture isn't just about creating the most, uh, exotic building possible, but also about reimagining more traditional trends (this is more important with smaller buildings, btw, else all you'll wind up with is incompetently-designed neo-faux-Tudor-Georgian-Federal-esque suburban dross). Recall Louis Kahn worked from a Neoclassical at the corner of 15th and Walnut.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Wrightguy0

some of these buildings (lowrises, not highrises) are probably in a neighborhood with historic restrictions on the buildings,

No that's the horrible thing about it! Chicago doesn't have any neighborhoods with zoning codes like that at all, at least that I know of! Chicago has a long standing tradition of extremely lose zoning which is partly why we built so many fresh new buildings in the past. Even if there is a height restriction or something in your way, if you are a good developer you'll lobby the community and alderman and they'll have it lifted. Its just that there are a lot of people living in Chicago with disgusting taste (Bros and yuppies primarily) and they want to live in a shitty faux-olde 3 flat since the real old ones usually don't have balconies on which to grill and drink Naty Ice.

As Adrian showed though, its not all bad here, some of the more progressive and artsy neighborhoods are building tons of slick new designs, these are also often some of the most historical neighborhoods as well.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I ... think that modern architecture isn't just about creating the most, uh, exotic building possible, but also about reimagining more traditional trends

oops, my bad. thanks for the insight.

[kool maudit]

the sort of open elitism popular with architecture students is so early-20th. 1911 italian futurists are so what we need in 2009.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Its just that there are a lot of people living in Chicago with disgusting taste (Bros and yuppies primarily) and they want to live in a shitty faux-olde 3 flat since the real old ones usually don't have balconies on which to grill and drink Naty Ice.

Once again, this begs the question: If your client has set the program of a brick building and as an architect you are incapable of designing one that looks good because you think the client set the wrong program, then you have failed as an architect.

So long as people continue to bring up poorly designed buildings, I'm just going to keep making this point.

[samoen313]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Once again, this begs the question: If your client has set the program of a brick building and as an architect you are incapable of designing one that looks good because you think the client set the wrong program, then you have failed as an architect.

So long as people continue to bring up poorly designed buildings, I'm just going to keep making this point.

You're right in many ways. There is plenty that can be done with about any material and program. To force a style upon a client because you think you know better is failing at being an architect. But if you can make a compelling case and do the footwork to prove why brick is not the right material or whatever the issue is and the client is still telling you he or she wants it to look exactly one way and that one way only, obliging every demand without question flushes out any lingering notion of design.

Clients will never say "do whatever you want" and throw an unlimited budget at you. But as designers, it is our role to listen to the client, know where we might have some breathing room, do the research, process it, come up with alternatives, and then work with the clients to strike a balance to their liking. If a client isn't prepared to accept that you might know a thing or two about what you're doing, then cut your losses and drop the commission. Some clients are impossible. Not being able to please them isn't always the failing of the architect. But if the architect isn't prepared to work with the scheme of the client and use their experience and ingenue to improve upon it, all the while providing solid, objective evidence for decisions made along the way, then they should settle in for a career of frustration and misanthropy. No one likes being told that they're wrong simply because they "don't get it."

Real architects are not a vehicle for the manifestation of whatever HGTV or suburban developers tell people they should want.

[Nowhereman1280]

This is one of the first conceptual sketches of one of the most important buildings (pairs of buildings) ever built. I'm sure many of you can guess what building it is and who designed it, but I'm just posting it here for you all to see since I absolutely love it. This was certainly progressive and great:



I pilfered this from a presentation given by a professor of mine.

[Tom Servo]

the astrodome?

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

[mrskyline]

The problem with some of those condo buildings may not be that they look back to more traditional design, but that they look back in such a clunky way. If you look at some of the work of Robert A.M. Stern you will see modern design that echos the past in a beautiful way. I would be interested in hearing opinions on Stern's work.

Take a look at Stern's 15 Central Park West:

www.15cpw.com

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by samoen313

Clients will never say "do whatever you want" and throw an unlimited budget at you. But as designers, it is our role to listen to the client, know where we might have some breathing room, do the research, process it, come up with alternatives, and then work with the clients to strike a balance to their liking. If a client isn't prepared to accept that you might know a thing or two about what you're doing, then cut your losses and drop the commission. Some clients are impossible. Not being able to please them isn't always the failing of the architect. But if the architect isn't prepared to work with the scheme of the client and use their experience and ingenue to improve upon it, all the while providing solid, objective evidence for decisions made along the way, then they should settle in for a career of frustration and misanthropy. No one likes being told that they're wrong simply because they "don't get it."

Sure. I don't disagree. I suppose the point is that your last sentence applies to the general public as well. Given the rather overwhelming public preference for traditional design, the architectural establishment would do well to remember that indeed, no one likes being told that they're wrong simply because they "don't get it."

[Tom Servo]

http://www.spacspac.com/

let's welcome japan... again:

LONG TALL HOUSE
2006
The site is located in a typical Japanese crowded residential area, just middle between two stations near to Shibuya.

The house of a young married couple is on a strip of land subdivided for sale (about 4m*16m). It adjoins two paths at north and south sides, and locates on a very old retaining wall which runs along the north path and forms 3.5m height cliff. The path were too narrow to comply the current regulations, so we needed removing a part of the wall so that it could be widened.

The old wall was partially to be replaced with a new structure to firm periphery, so we tried to merge the house with it. Our structural adjustment to actual condition brought 2 basement stories which trace old topography older than the wall. The house got a link between two different ground levels and a profound continuity of it and surroundings.

The house has 5 stories. The lower 2 floors are made of RC to resist soil pressure. The upper 3 floors are made of wood for lightness and economy. The 1st floor has bed room, bath room, parking and others compactly. The 2nd floor has terrace, living and dining room and kitchen in a narrow (but airy) space responded distinctive shape of the plot.

This house includes two buildings; one is like a long row house, the other is like a tall tower.

The south and north facades have a large translucent window and a aluminum wall which slide “up and down” manually by counter weight mechanics.

Clients wanted storages to be built-in and memorable, so we give each space a different color to share memory between them.

Site/ Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Completion/ December, 2006
Structure/ RC+wood, 2B+3stories
Site area/ 66.49m2 (about 4m*16m)
Gross floor area/ 102.69m2
Structural engineer/ Nobutaka Kashimoto
Architect/ SPACESPACE (Kagawa Takanori, Tappei Ito)

























SPACESPACE
SPACESPACE
SPACESPACE
SPACESPACE
SPACESPACE
SPACESPACE

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

because it's too seldom and hidden amongst what's become the rule.
but okay, for the next posts it'll be showcasing recent chicago stuff...

It's not the rule, but it still exists. There's even some interesting stuff in the suburbs or far out into IL, if you can find it.


Photo credit




Photo credit

[Tom Servo]

ready for an architectural connection in time?

HABITAT 67
1967 / architect moshe safdie's masterpiece housing complex


WORLD EXPO 2010 SINGAPORE PAVILION
2010 / my dream, our vision / by design act



constructed from 3866 cubes of varying opacity, and serves as a physical manifestation of the intangible: digital information floating above the green landscape.

the singapore pavilion at the world exposition 2010 is driven to present singapore as the perfect example of a city that holds all the possibilities of transforming the lives of everyone who comes in contact with it.

the pavilion's key objective is to offer singapore both as a city of possibilities and a city of dreams and vision. as much as it can transform lives, this city of dreams and vision can embody the idea of possibilities only in as much as lives transform it.

the pavilion shows the sides of a city that is continually driven by progressive change. This is brought under the umbrella of the powerful trans-lingual word that is also representative of the singapore spirit: it includes singapore's human side, its pulse and excitement, opportunities and achievement.

visitors to the pavilion do not merely visit it; they participate in it to make dreams happen. this is very much like the experience of being in singapore itself. the idea of activity emphasises the dynamism and vitality of a unique singaporean experience. here, the emphasis is on human interactions and connections as the city's driving force, and that these are already the fabric of a city very much alive to the rubric of sustainability.

the physical structure of the singapore pavilion stands out from its surrounding by being designed to look like a cloud, which is closely associated with various dream-like qualities.

it has three levels: a sub-level (basement), a ground-level plaza, and a mezzanine level inside the pavilions cloud-crown.

it will contain 8 separate chambers of experience, all of which converge to allow the narrative of the Singapore Story to come alive:
the tunnel / in a journey through the city's hidden side
the dream maker / collective dream-making
transition through cloud / and through a sequence of collected dreams
dream register / multi-media and sensory interpretation of dreams
wishing tunnel / visitors share their dreams with the world
dream harvester / a digital rain experience
space warper / disorientates to transit between dream and reality
green pasture / the green pasture

a city is organic, made alive by its inhabitants. a living city is the cumulative product of the soul, spirit and experience of its participants. a city of possibilities is an extended identity of the collective aspirations, memories, and dreams of all who live in it, work in it and play in it. its vitality is a microcosm of the world.

the city is human. the city is SINGAPORE.

http://www.designact.com.sg/

[CGII]

I don't like the social implications of that building at all...^

[Tom Servo]

meh... it looks really cool though