lately ive been doing a study into the history of SOM and ive been looking through all the designs they've produced since 1936,though to my surprise i havnt found a single design i havnt liked. so now i turn it over to you,are there any designs that SOM has produced which you havnt liked or does SOM just never go wrong?
SOM has a very diverse group of talented professionals who have a hand in the projects. I'm thinking projects pass beneath the critical eyes many different people of various backgrounds and interests who play a role in shaping the final product.
One thing I really like about the buildings you've posted, are they are very engaging at street level. Skyscrapers can be difficult because they are incredibly supersized and can be harsh at street level. But you can see their bases are visually interesting to the pedestrian and open themselves up to alot of activity.
SOM has a very diverse group of talented professionals who have a hand in the projects. I'm thinking projects pass beneath the critical eyes many different people of various backgrounds and interests who play a role in shaping the final product.
One thing I really like about the buildings you've posted, are they are very engaging at street level. Skyscrapers can be difficult because they are incredibly supersized and can be harsh at street level. But you can see their bases are visually interesting to the pedestrian and open themselves up to alot of activity.
o wow just noticed that,though i agree skyscrapers arnt built in scale to us do to their gargantuan size though SOM has always had a way to make them interactive with us in the best ways possible,another point for SOM +1
Except you won't find literally dozens of the blah towers they decorated many US cities with in the 1970s on their website (or even in many books about them).
SOM has produced some absolutely incredible buildings, but plenty of duds as well.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Except you won't find literally dozens of the blah towers they decorated many US cities with in the 1970s on their website (or even in many books about them).
SOM has produced some absolutely incredible buildings, but plenty of duds as well.
can you post some examples? im not familiar with the buildings your talking about
Go do some research on Gordon Bunshaft, Myron Goldsmith, Bruce Graham, Richard Keating, Adrian Smith, Craig Hartman, David Childs...among others. All of them have produced (within the SOM office) some incredible works. But all of them have also produced some terribly uninteresting, architecturally banal towers.
You live in NYC, go to an architecture library...
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Richardson Building in Winnipeg by SOM 1970....the tallest building west of toronto in canada when it was built....looks like a really big refrigerator.
SOM have become the volvo of high rise architects over the past 2 decades in my opinion.....they make functional but generally uninteresting buildings....rarely does an SOM design present a new idea or push any kind of envelope, beyond possibly height.
every once in a while they do something interesting but when you crank out hundreds of buildings a year you are bound to fluke out a few.
Last edited by trueviking; Aug 16, 2010 at 1:45 AM.
SOM are the volvo of high rise architects....they make functional but generally uninteresting buildings in my opinion....rarely does an SOM design push any kind of design envelope beyond possibly height.
every once in a while they do something interesting but when you crank out hundreds of buildings a year you are bound to fluke out a few.
really,heh im more of a groupie for SOM ive never seen a building i didnt like from them until the one you just showed me. there actually my favorite architectural firm.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
^
Well, understanding the context of the site is part of what makes good architecture. Buildings are not abstract pieces of art in a void, they exist as part of cities. That's the difference between "architecture" and mere sculpture.
^
Well, understanding the context of the site is part of what makes good architecture. Buildings are not abstract pieces of art in a void, they exist as part of cities. That's the difference between "architecture" and mere sculpture.
well these arnt sculptures though,simply buildings with a straight vertical core that has a variation of different sized floor plates which make the building.
Prev
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3341844433_b60625d482.jpg
ive never seen a building i didnt like from them until the one you just showed me. there actually my favorite architectural firm.
Linear Mode
