Cool Modern Architecture

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

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.

example: iirc the designers of that Svalbard Science Centre (replies #685 & 840) designed the building around the wind & snowfall in the area

The insulated copper-clad skin is wrapped around the program demanded, creating an outer shell adjusted to the flows of wind and snow passing through the site. Climatic 3D simulations has been undertaken to assure that the accumulation of snow would not create undesired conditions in front of doors and windows. In the process, the skin has been flexible to adjustments, both geometrical changes answering to the climatic studies and alterations of program. The building is elevated on poles to prevent the melting of the permanent frost - the only thing fixating the construction. The main structure is in timber, to facilitate on-site adjustments and avoid cold bridges. The outer copper cladding retains its workability even at low temperatures, thereby extending the construction period further into the cold season.

http://www.archdaily.com/3506/svalba...ce-centre-jva/
(& it even looks good, in an Aalto/Scarpa sort of way)

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

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.

I agree Adrian, calling people naive and ignorant really advances your argument and opinion!

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?

First of all explain how this building's crazy curves represent the way people occupy space at all.

Second, the moment you show me what this shape is solving and how the ridiculously higher construction costs in any way justify the consideration of those issues, I will agree with you. But until then, I will continue to find it ironic that you defend this building by saying "its about how people occupy space" when most of the "space" enclosed by this building was in the form of an atrium, which obviously cannot be occupied. I don't know, seems week to say "well people need a gigantic atrium so that they can co-exist with this space"...

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.

It seems to me that most people accept these ridiculous exhibitionist buildings like the other CCTV tower as "cool" and really like them. The average person seems to respond to CCTV, for example, with a "wow that's cool". Compare this to rational modernist towers which most people despise. I have heard very few people who are not learned in architecture point out how stupid these towers are.

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.

Cultural relevance? What do you mean by that? How is a giant skewed rectangle in any way culturally relevant to China? The problem with your argument is that the moment you admit that these shapes and forms are entirely aesthetic then it fails. You are trying to argue that they are more than aesthetic by saying "oh there were other considerations like how people relate to space and culture, and habitat". The problem with that is how does this form solve these supposed problems? It solves them by aesthetics. If you are trying to improve a plaza space or something, building a funky tower nearby doesn't physically improve the space, it is a separate entity. Therefore the only way a user of the plaza gains from the nearby tower is through sight, i.e. a judgment of aesthetics, nothing more nothing less. Therefore these architects are using exhibitionist aesthetics to solve the "problem" how people relate to space. So essentially I don't even care if you are right and it is some contrived ideas about space and habitat, it is still exhibitionism and purely aesthetic considerations being used to solve practical problems.

[honte]

^ For the most part, I agree.

In design, usually when you first start trying to solve a "programmatic response" (which any good architect has to do, by the way), what you end up with is really crazy looking and complex. Part of the architect's job is to truly investigate these situations and arrive at a refined solution. There is very little refined about the work of Koolhaas.

I still maintain that his primary success is in the field of showmanship, not architecture. Even more frustrating, I can't give him a pass via the sculpture card, because I find his "sculptures" rather ugly.

That said, I'd love for him to do a tower in Chicago. He is irreverent and brash, but his buildings generate dialogue.

[natelox]

I do not hold Koolhaus' work in high regard, but his work is rational, extremely rational. OMA's architecture is diagrammatic, that is, its form is derived from the diagram (in this case, the diagram is based on program, that is, function). Joshua Prince Ramus said, of the Seattle Public Library, "A truely rational building will not look rational." What OMA did with that building was separate all the programmatic elements, stacked them on top of one another with the criteria of programmatic clarity (read: ease of use), then wrapped them in a glass skin. OMA is not the only firm designing by manifesting diagrams. Sanaa comes to mind as another firm.

Nowhereman1280, you are ignorant to OMA's design process and intention, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It certainly isn't grounds for an argument. I think this is one of the many problems with architecture today, and with OMA's work. OMA is radically altering how we design, yet, at the same time, they found a profoundly rational means for selling 'abstract' forms and spaces. In a sense, you can read their work as either progressive, or you can be cynical about their apparent duplicity. Only OMA knows why they're doing what they're doing. Architecture which is 'cool,' is not the right approach to architecture, and, as architects (or future architects), we should consider designing to avoid it. I feel like it objectifies, and repels, rather than integrates and engrosses. And its not because its new ("the new is always ugly" -Clement Greenburg) that it repels, but it is for some other reason, which I have not yet come across. Where I disagree with AdrianXSands' argument, is in the relation to how people use space. In an abstract sense, this may be true (as in, how space functionally relates to its use by humans), but not in a more concrete sense. I think of Aalto or Wright as architects more concerned with human experience of space. OMA makes statements first, spaces second.

Reducing the argument to cost is silly. Clients have budgets, and as an architect the goal is to reach that budget, not to go as low as you can, or as high as you can. Architecture is not about efficiency. That is the realm of economics, of shelter (not that architecture and shelter should ever be separated, but they are). Architecture is about effectiveness. China wants to make a statement about its new found role in the world. CCTV could not have been built in any Western nation, nor could have the Olympic Stadium, or Watercube. These buildings are political statements of power, wealth, innovation, strength, intelligence, technology and modernity. China will pay whatever it takes to sell this to the world. Buildings are big, bold and (usually) stable ways of making this statement.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'll respond to the second half first, actually it does come down to cost. I see Koolhass' design as no more than an architectural form of oppressive government. It symbolizes how the government overrides the individuals decision making in China and wastes money on things that China doesn't really need. What do you think the private sector would have done with the extra money? They probably would have invested it into several more projects in China instead of wasting it on one big obnoxious one. That would have been invariably better for the people of China, but the government doesn't care, they want pride for themselves. So to say "they paid for it because of other gains" is ridiculous because it was outside the public realm, there was no real demand for these buildings...

Also I don't get why you guy's keep bringing up the ""the new is always ugly"" argument. I am not arguing it is ugly (which I think it is anyhow) I am arguing that it is completely devoid of any philosophical meaning and therefore is an artistic dead end. Also, if the new is always ugly, then why do most people (common folk) find these buildings to look "awesome" or "cool"? Oh I know why! Because regular people love things that go out of their way to be showy. Why do you think regular people like Second Empire style so much? Because it goes out of its way to show off and project feelings of wealth and power. That is exactly why I hate this architecture, it is just philosophical crap, imperialism and statism and nationalism in its worst form. This is no better than the Second Louvre.

Again, if I am ignorant to OMA's design process then why don't you explain it to me? Again, you say these are "rational" reasons for the abstract forms, but the only way an abstract form can positively contribute to solving a problem is through aestetics. Thing about it for the second, the word abstraction. That word implies a disconnect with the real word. That means that it is not representative of physical constraints but rather of aesthetic ones. Therefore Abstract forms in architecture are inherently aesthetic and therefore inherently irrational, no matter how much you claim I don't know their theory its guaranteed that it is in no way linked to reason because artistic abstraction is not linked to reality!

[natelox]

"That is exactly why I hate this architecture, it is just philosophical crap, imperialism and statism and nationalism in its worst form." That, I like. But, be careful, as you are contradicting yourself... "I am arguing that it is completely devoid of any philosophical meaning and therefore is an artistic dead end" (If it is philosophical, then it is crap, if it isn't, it's pointless...)

I did try to explain OMA's design process, but either it wasn't well written, or you didn't read it (or maybe its a combination of the two). I don't think OMA's work is devoid of philosophical meaning. The whole idea of the manifest diagram is to present architectural abstraction in a rational manner which best caters to our society's obsession with logic and rationality. You seem bent on logic and rationality, which is what Dadaism responded to. Dadaism was made to be illogical and irrational, chaotic, to make a comment about society. Actually, the Dadaists thought that it was the logical and rational thinking which caused WW2.

At the risk of going off topic, all art is abstraction. And, your comment "the only way an abstract form can positively contribute to solving a problem is through aestetics [sic]" sounds ahistorical. Artists have, at least in modern times, relied on abstraction to solve problems of representation, or experience. Kandinsky's colourful paintings, devoid of subject matter (read: abstraction?), sought purely psychological responses to colours and forms. The Cubists (Picasso), tried to reconcile a conflict of pattern and solidity (according to Gombrich). Even the apparently non-abstract paintings, are in fact, abstract. A landscape in which every detail is visible ignores the nature of human sight which can only focus on a single object at one time. This formed part of the inspiration for Impressionism.

I want to try an experiment (if you will indulge me ). How abstract do you think this building is:


Patkau Architects
Actually, it's a bit of a trick question (open to argument though). The form of the building is derived from:

"The exterior form of the house is shaped by the intersection of two principal considerations: the first is the allowable building footprint and height, and the second is the need to shed snow from the roof into appropriate storage areas within the site. The sculptural volume that emerges from this intersection of extruded building footprint and folding snow-shed roof is occupied in a manner that maintains the inherent plastic properties of the building form" Canadian Architect.

Maybe this is 'good' abstraction? But this is what I find disapointing about architectural theory. Unless you read about it, it's difficult to read the generating idea into the building.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by natelox

I did try to explain OMA's design process, but either it wasn't well written, or you didn't read it (or maybe its a combination of the two). I don't think OMA's work is devoid of philosophical meaning. The whole idea of the manifest diagram is to present architectural abstraction in a rational manner which best caters to our society's obsession with logic and rationality. You seem bent on logic and rationality, which is what Dadaism responded to. Dadaism was made to be illogical and irrational, chaotic, to make a comment about society. Actually, the Dadaists thought that it was the logical and rational thinking which caused WW2.

No, I had no idea that you were trying to explain that as their "reason". I'm sorry but architecture =/= art. If someone were to try and make a Dada building it simply would not be able to exist. It would fall down because they would ignore all rules. Now don't get me wrong, Dada is one of my favorite art movement, but like I said, art =/= architecture. Architecture is not about making statements about what society should be, but about creating designs that function. And the statement "presenting architectural abstraction in a rational manner" is contradictory. You cannot have an irrationally rational thing, that does not follow logically. Maybe why I don't like it is because of the very fact that I base my thoughts off of reason while others are ok with ignoring it.

And if Dadists thought that reason caused WWII they were dead wrong seeing as how they all fled to the US which was born of a little thing called "The Age of Reason" and it protected them from all those rationalists devastating Europe...

"the only way an abstract form can positively contribute to solving a problem is through aestetics [sic]" sounds ahistorical. Artists have, at least in modern times, relied on abstraction to solve problems of representation, or experience.

That is where your argument fails. You are assuming Art = Architecture which is not even close to true. You are also ignoring that I am talking about abstract forms trying to solve problems, does art try to solve problems? Or does art pursue aesthetic pleasure? I'm pretty sure art is almost purely Aesthetic while architecture involves the solving of problems due to constraints. Modern Art was born of the breaking or lifting of all constraints. Unless we can defy physics and economics, architecture will always have constraints.

I can't see that picture for some reason or I would answer whether or not its abstract.

You see I don't have a problem with crazy looking things, I love buildings like Aqua where you maintain rationality but use a unique form to hide unappealing parts of the design and allow for things like increased view corridors or solar shading. That is why I am a fan of Jeanne Gang and hate OMA. OMA makes shapes that literally have no meaning other than aesthetics (you have yet to list one practical purpose for the radical CCTV shapes other than "China wants to show off its wealth and power" which is a purely aesthetic purpose).

Some of you might find it funny that my favorite art movements are Dada, Surrealism, and Cubism, while I despise all exhibitionism in architecture. But that is exactly my reasoning, ridiculous aesthetic experimentation belongs in the world of art where you have almost no constraints, reason, engineering, and practical design belong in the world of architecture, where you have many constraints...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by natelox

Where I disagree with AdrianXSands' argument, is in the relation to how people use space. In an abstract sense, this may be true (as in, how space functionally relates to its use by humans), but not in a more concrete sense. I think of Aalto or Wright as architects more concerned with human experience of space.

what about the dutch embassy in berlin? or the iit student center? i was under the impression that the primary concern in oma's work was a building's inhabitants and that the flow of people between spaces was the reason for stacking, arranging, and creating adjacencies in the program diagrams, that the importance of people's interaction with space was the over-riding theme in oma's architecture. but maybe i'm giving koolhaas too much credit... after all, modernism is all about how people inhabit space.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I'll respond to the second half first, actually it does come down to cost. I see Koolhass' design as no more than an architectural form of oppressive government. It symbolizes how the government overrides the individuals decision making in China and wastes money on things that China doesn't really need. What do you think the private sector would have done with the extra money? They probably would have invested it into several more projects in China instead of wasting it on one big obnoxious one. That would have been invariably better for the people of China, but the government doesn't care, they want pride for themselves. So to say "they paid for it because of other gains" is ridiculous because it was outside the public realm, there was no real demand for these buildings...

what does this have to do with architecture? the building was designed according to the needs of a massive cctv headquarters. how can you blame oma for designing a massive complex? no matter who the architect was, this would have always been 'an architectural form of oppressive government' simply because of who the cctv is. beef with china, is beef with china, and that's politics.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Again, if I am ignorant to OMA's design process then why don't you explain it to me? Again, you say these are "rational" reasons for the abstract forms, but the only way an abstract form can positively contribute to solving a problem is through aestetics. Thing about it for the second, the word abstraction. That word implies a disconnect with the real word. That means that it is not representative of physical constraints but rather of aesthetic ones. Therefore Abstract forms in architecture are inherently aesthetic and therefore inherently irrational, no matter how much you claim I don't know their theory its guaranteed that it is in no way linked to reason because artistic abstraction is not linked to reality!

what? do you not read? koolhaas is one of the most prolific writers in the architecture world. he write about his views on architecture. every project on oma's site has a description of the design concept. this movie is a documentation of the oma world.

Originally Posted by natelox

"his work is rational, extremely rational. OMA's architecture is diagrammatic, that is, its form is derived from the diagram (in this case, the diagram is based on program, that is, function). Joshua Prince Ramus said, of the Seattle Public Library, "A truely rational building will not look rational." What OMA did with that building was separate all the programmatic elements, stacked them on top of one another with the criteria of programmatic clarity (read: ease of use), then wrapped them in a glass skin. OMA is not the only firm designing by manifesting diagrams. Sanaa comes to mind as another firm."

the oma design process isn't complicated. form is a result of program. form is a secondary effort. the final form a building takes is the result of an organization and arrangement of the program in a way to best optimize the functions it serves.

that's the best i can try to consolidate what oma... jeanne gang, jds, big, rex, and anyone else who came out of that office.

[amor de cosmos]

OMA is pretty overrated imho. Koolhaas is the quintesential "celebrity architect"

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

OMA makes shapes that literally have no meaning other than aesthetics

wow man... that is so completely not true.

koolhaas has a saying: let accidents happen.

the form of a new building is a total mystery. it doesn't reveal itself till the end.
the first step is making diagrams. from there it's an evolution of how to optimize the program and the functionality of the building.

it is very clear that you don't know anything about oma, jeanne gang, and so on, if that's what you think.

[Tom Servo]

you have yet to list one practical purpose for the radical CCTV shapes other than

from oma:

CCTV will be one among many towers in Beijing's new Central Business District, all striving to be unique - all different expressions of verticality.

Skyscraper
The tragedy of the skyscraper is that it marks a place as significant, which it then occupies and exhausts with banality... This banality is twofold: in spite of their potential to be incubators of new cultures, programs, and ways of life, most towers accommodate merely routine activity, arranged according to predictable patterns. Formally, their expressions of verticality have proven to stunt the imagination: as verticality soars, creativity crashes.

Concept
Instead of competing in the hopeless race for ultimate height - dominance of the skyline can only be achieved for a short period of time, and soon another, even taller building will emerge - the project proposes an iconographic constellation of two high-rise structures that actively engage the city space: CCTV and TVCC.

CCTV combines administration and offices, news and broadcasting, program production and services - the entire process of TV-making - in a loop of interconnected activities. Two structures rise from a common production platform that is partly underground. Each has a different character: one is dedicated to broadcasting, the second to services, research and education; they join at the top to create a cantilevered penthouse for the management. A new icon is formed... not the predictable 2-dimensional tower 'soaring' skyward, but a truly 3-dimensional experience. The consolidation of the TV program in a single building allows each worker to be permanently aware of the nature of the work of his co-workers - a chain of interdependence that promotes solidarity rather than isolation, collaboration instead of opposition. The building itself contributes to the coherence of the organization.

While CCTV is a secured building for staff and technology, public visitors will be admitted to the 'loop', a dedicated path circulating through the building and connecting to all elements of the program and offering spectacular views across the multiple facades towards the CBD, Beijing, and the Forbidden City.

The Television Cultural Center (TVCC) is an open, inviting structure. It accommodates visitors and guests, and will be freely accessible to the public. On the ground floor, a continuous lobby provides access to the 1500-seat theater, a large ballroom, digital cinemas, recording studios and exhibition facilities. The building hosts the international broadcasting centre for the 2008 Olympic Games. The tower accommodates a five-star hotel; guests enter at a dedicated drop-off from the east of the building and ascend to the fifth floor housing the check-in as well as restaurants, lounges, and conference rooms. The hotel rooms are occupying both sides of the tower, forming a spectacular atrium above the landscape of public facilities.

On the block in the south-east, the Media Park is conceived as an extension of the proposed green axis of the CBD. It is open to the public for events and entertainment, and can be used for outdoor filming.

[natelox]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Architecture is not about making statements about what society should be, but about creating designs that function. And the statement "presenting architectural abstraction in a rational manner" is contradictory. You cannot have an irrationally rational thing, that does not follow logically.

I think you just disagreed with every architect and architectural historian that ever lived. Le Corbusier (and many other modernists) sought light and nature as responses to dirty, polluted cities created by the Industrial Revolution. This is both a statement about what society should be, and is a function of the building. Subjective spatial experience is a function of architecture. Many have argued, as you are, that architecture is not art (I think this was Hegel's position). But art has an ambiguous definition, and could essentially stand for anything artificial (human made). I don't think that architecture is art, in an absolute sense, but it certainly incorporates elements of art.

Regarding the irrational/rational dilemma, I think it was misinterpreted. The form is seemingly irrational, though it arrises defacto out of the apparently rational organization of program. But what I was trying to get across was that OMA has devised a way to present their idea in a rational way.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

You are also ignoring that I am talking about abstract forms trying to solve problems

I love what AdrianXSands posted. The description of the skyscraper is beautiful. I think though, that it could also come from the realm of spatial experience (or maybe this is implicit in the OMA quote).

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by natelox

I love what AdrianXSands posted. The description of the skyscraper is beautiful. I think though, that it could also come from the realm of spatial experience (or maybe this is implicit in the OMA quote).

that's from oma.

fixed the post.

[Wrightguy0]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

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?

That comment is flawed, an architect is supposed to make a full analysis of the building site, they often design buildings based on the culture of the area to make them flow with the city, and if you don't think about who's going to inhabit the building than no one can comfortably inhabit the building.

Not thinking is how cities end up with monstrosities that everyone dislikes. If you don't think a little forethought is important I implore you to visit some threads in the never built/completed forum. If you still want to say thought is unimportant to an architect, then take a look at the crap designed by Eugene Tsui.

[muppet]

found this pic of Oslo Opera

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

from oma:

Again Adrian, I have read these things about these buildings, but you continue to prove my point, all of these "rationals" are purely aesthetic, not based upon anything more than a desire to make art out of architecture. For example:

- Right off they bat they talk about how verticallity is boring so they are looking for a different form. That is saying "we don't like how this looks so we are going to make it look different". In other words they are saying that they have an object that is taller than it is wide, a naturally vertical shape, and for no other reason than "as verticality soars, creativity crashes" they are attempting to override that shape.

-Then they talk about how they are specifically designing these buildings to be "icons". How more clear do you want it? They are admitting that the main purpose of these designs is to be "iconic". If they decide form starting from "we want an icon" that means the design is aesthetic and not based at all off of it true function or constraints. They literally admit the exhibitionism I have been accusing them of right there...

-Then they talk about how they wanted it to look 3D because 2D is boring, again, "we don't like how this looks, so we'll make it look different" AESTHETIC.

-They talk about how the buildings connect at the top to bring all of the people in the two parts of CCTV together. Sounds legitimate right? I dunno I think there are much much cheaper ways of linking two buildings than building one of the largest cantilevers in the world.

-They hardly say anything at all about TVCC, but they do throw this little tidbit: "forming a spectacular atrium above the landscape of public facilities". That seems to suggest that the only purpose of the atrium is to be "spectacular" which is a completely BS reason to build something.

So what you posted really just hits home my point, their "rational" is not rational at all. Its all based upon how the building will look, not how that look could in any way benefit the users of the structure. To sum that description up "we don't like how traditional skyscrapers look, so we built these crazy ass ones to show y'all a good time!"...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by natelox

I think you just disagreed with every architect and architectural historian that ever lived. Le Corbusier (and many other modernists) sought light and nature as responses to dirty, polluted cities created by the Industrial Revolution. This is both a statement about what society should be, and is a function of the building. Subjective spatial experience is a function of architecture. Many have argued, as you are, that architecture is not art (I think this was Hegel's position). But art has an ambiguous definition, and could essentially stand for anything artificial (human made). I don't think that architecture is art, in an absolute sense, but it certainly incorporates elements of art.

I disagree. I hate Le Corbusier for exactly that reason, he tried to fight economic karma just like Koolhaas does by trying to force society to behave in ways it does not want to behave. Just like Koolhaas the only way 80% his crap got built was when the government stepped in and overrode the will of the economy. Look what resulted from the Corbusian mindset of "people can't be trusted to build in the way that is best for them so its up to us to do it for them". We just ended up with huge swaths of what was a healthy urban neighborhood razed for huge towers in the park that were an ultimate failure. If we take Le Corbusier as an example then many of Koolhaas' designs and those inspired by him will have to be torn down in 30 years because they'll be full of drug lords...

Now take the architects that I like. For example Mies. Mies did not approach architecture from a "something is wrong with society and I am going to change it" angle, but from a "I see a demand in society that is not being met and I'm going to supply a solution". He saw that out building styles did not match the technology and methods of their production and decided to create forms that did. This is exactly why Mies designs and designs inspired by his philosophy were embraced by corporate America. They were the filling of a demand for simple forms that reflected their construction. There never was a demand for towers in the park, the government had to force it.

Look at the early revolutionaries in skyscraper construction like Jenny, Sullivan, Root, and Burnham. You saw this entire group collectively realize that there was a problem in large cities. There was huge demand to build higher, yet no way of doing it with traditional construction without potentially disastrous results (see Monadnock building north half). So what did they do? They filled that demand with new types of engineering and allowed the forms of their buildings to be determined by the natural evolution of those technologies and used that technology to fill the previously unfillable demands of their clients. For example, the Carson Pirie Scott building, before the use of steel the first floor windows on a tall building would have to be tiny (ala Monadnock north) which is not very conducive to selling merchandise. So what did Sullivan do? He made the largest windows possible to display the merchandise as much as possible and let in as much light as possible. Sullivan didn't use large windows or a steel frame because he thought "that's how society should be" he used those elements because they made sense and filled the demands of his clients and the unfilled demands of the economy.

That is precisely what I am saying here, OMA is just building things that have no real demand, these structures wouldn't have been built anywhere else because no other governments (that have had a long history of experimenting with these ideas) are willing to just override the natural demands of the economy. The United States sure has learned that you can't force society to do things it doesn't want to do, and that's probably why you see so little of this crap around here...

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

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?

Then...we'd be making better, more context- and place-sensitive buildings?

Seriously, this modernist "don't think, draw" mindset has produced some of the worst abominations in architecture. Completely disregarding context, history, location, place, and any and all traditions has created buildings that are loathed and places that are decimated.

And no, a randomly curved & faceted leaning tower isn't any sort of real thought about how people inhabit buildings. Two leaning towers sitting in a giant plaza connected at the top by a giant cantilever isn't "progressive," it's pointless. It might look "cool" (which is debatable), but it isn't going to make a worthwhile place.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by natelox

I think you just disagreed with every architect and architectural historian that ever lived. Le Corbusier (and many other modernists) sought light and nature as responses to dirty, polluted cities created by the Industrial Revolution. This is both a statement about what society should be, and is a function of the building.

And guess what? Corbu was wrong. He was wrong in so many ways. He was wrong when he proposed Radiant City. His followers were wrong every time they built a tower-in-the-park or similar piece of excrement. The problems of cities weren't solved by Corbu & company's towers in the park and similar projects - they were made worse. They failed again and again and again, which makes it even more baffling that so many of the lauded "progressive" designs in this thread are at their core rehashes of these same failed ideas - I can't count the number of towers-in-the-park in this thread, despite the fact that that form has been an abject failure every time it's been applied. For as much as new traditional architecture gets called "pastiche" (as if that's a bad word in itself), today's Modernism is little more than pastiche itself - but often, it's a pastiche of bad ideas. Taking a Corbusier-style tower-in-the-park, making it a million feet tall, and twisting it/making it lean/giving it curvy pieces/covering it with grass-covered concrete dodecahedrons isn't doing squat to fix the inherent problems in the ideas of Corbu & friends.

Every time one of these twisted rehashes of Corbu's isolated park-surrounded towers gets posted in this thread, a little part of me dies. This is called "progressive" today? Please. They've been pulling this crap for decades and decades and it isn't working any better now than it did before.

(And this is putting aside all the other examples of warmed-over old Modernist ideas presented as new and different and progressive just because they've got a green roof or some swoopy walls. Towers-in-the-park are just a good example of the larger problem.)

[muppet]

Museo del Acero (Steel Museum), Monterrey, Mexico.
Conversion by Nicholas Grimshaw Architects


www.photobucket.com




Gabriel Bahena










sarx 07