Rem Koolhaas's call for architects to boycott the competition system has met with deafening silence from his fellow star practitioners, but sparked a fierce debate on the archinect.com discussion board.
Many contributors had little sympathy for Koolhaas. One said "he looks like nothing more than a spoiled, priviledged, elite rich child. He has no morals other than those that advance his precious 'ideas'", whilst another suggested "he should start designing better buildings that will win competitions." A third asked: "Would the elimination of the jury system benefit anyone but established celebrity architects like himself?"
Others felt Koolhaas's critique of the competition system, which he described as "hideous" and a drain on resources and influence, was a fair one. The system was branded "a strategic, political and ethical disservice to the profession", while another said: "as hypocritical as it is for this to be coming from Rem - he's right. All competitions, if they expect a well-developed design in the entry, should reimburse short-listed firms... or call for a less intensive proposal, but thoroughly interview competitors".
Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Zaha Hadid, Massimilliano Fuksas, Jean Nouvel and Daniel Liebeskind refused or did not respond to BD's request for comment on the boycott call.
I really have the impression that young designers get a pretty good shot at "making a difference" at OMA or other dutch avant-garde firms (not inters, young designers, obviously). Probably not the only places - but one of the biggest and the most experimental by far (experimental AND actually building something). Why not work there if you don't mind the economics and work-time demands? ARUP is probably also a great place, no question about it, but probably not looking for dyslexics at the moment.
-
The call for boycott got the "answer" it deserved.
"The call for boycott got the "answer" it deserved."
The call proving he never experienced having returned 3 month's of work , with the exchouse that "the area calculations that shuld have been written onto the small blue attached paper was not amone the material"
------ And experienced the answer after responsing that it seem strange with a 3D computer drawing that written numbers written onto a blue piece of paper, shuld not respond the claim for digital entries.
And experimenting how yet another of the friends won also this contest.
Experimenting to be taken the right to even publish ones work while a REM statist get saluted a by dull talk about vain objects placed silli.
Gee --- offcaurse it is true but, I would newer expect the spoiled and vain to complain what we all know, gee if anything is vain that is.
Those competitions that is judged the finest, are the most rotten ones , in denmark it allready was so bad back in the 1930' that the only way for the visionary at that time to break thru the nepotism , was to seek out one judge after another finding the weakest, forcing their issue untill finaly one of those architecture judges, placed there by acadmica friends for life, finaly gave up and just to get rid of the constant visits for once made a non-friend and an outsider academic win a single contest
This is how it worked back then --- would you emeagine to be less rotten now dutch compared denmark Gee there the spoiled and from school well fed, allready know their safe chairs. This guy ; is he an Idiot ?
Guess why I newer commit newer join one anymore, seen it, heard the responses as the rest of you wondered who beforehand showed the judges what style , and wondered this again and again while finding a pattern in the extra prices for innovation and fresh new idears that was allway's given to a cirtain circle of other academicas. Newer newer newer newer would an outsider win such contest and allway's would the same ones win among hundreds. ------- And these contests are the most gurantied ones, the "finest" ones. Listen the few times I had a suggestion there at display with all the other participants, mine was allway's hung upside down or left upside down on the floor , do not tell me about academica nepotism and how it is made to work.
Well you know the lead, when knowing the amount quality, silli social games about who are most important, arts and crafts or displaying architecture.
Listen I don't even bother, as working artist cramping today's yet solved Design issue Gee. Dutch and Danes, someone shuld make a comedy. Architecture massive spetacular in the eyes of informers blabable to complain and decide who to enter the next Spetacular deadend,
See I am not and newer was engaged , know I allready had my role in a design world where good relations and advise are more prone than the honest works of a designer.
These are the finest of these social instituded architect competitions, still I am holding back, no reson to scare anyone.
Stil there are nothing better than a competition outline to challance yourself, do design that engage real creativity mental aswell as practic down to the smallest detail allway's questioning yourself , even if you are blinding yourself. But who win a competion are by 98 pct. hopefully allready decided, unless somthing extraordanary show ; guess it work so the best 2 pct.
You have very little to realise what the true right answer is, so you have to fight your own expertations about what the competition are about I guess, then know that most often giving exactly what they want even it will be a blunt Icon is the answer that could bring you a price -- still this is not how it work as you see how most competions work and remember ; if you complain you are the fool, or did you master all 100 crafts good enough, did you fail the rest of the advanced mechanic offering a new tool . Gee a lot of these contests ask for innovation and creativity then when it come, there are no need for it and the whole thing was a joke, as this is not what our best friend can even speak.
I just did a rough survey and not even half of all post concern the actual arguments from the article. Why all the Rem-hate comments? Is it sincere anger, stupid envy, a short-sighted childish reaction (he’s a sore loser, la la la: Possiblity: He has lost and won more than you probably ever will, did you ever wonder why he does it now, only if it really concerns him?) I don´t know. The focus on his person is very interesting: While blaiming the ´starchitect’ you support him and the stardom system. Especially the little stories about ´Rem´ brilliantly illustrate this point. Just a stupid question @ _same old doctor: Why put in an effort to get tickets and go to their lecture THREE times to figure out you hate them?
Anyway, if you would know OMA’s work well, you would know that Koolhaas doesn’t owe his but to the competition system, but rather to successful commissions as Kunsthal, Euralille, Villa da’ll Ava, Maison a Bordeaux, and so on. If you read your Bible well, and yes I guess most of you have actually read SMLXL, enjoyed and used it for your own benefit (who is spitting in who's soup now?) , you would find an emphasis on the relationship between client and architect. And this is precisely what he is heading for: not presenting superficial one-way ideas, as what happened for Gazprom. Like: Just make your model look shiny, put some happy people in your rendering with a nice blue sky and win! For good architecture intense collaboration between client and architect is needed, the current competition system excludes it implicitly. For a good example of this argument check the rigged competition for the European Central Bank http://www.new-ecb-premises.com/ more than 70 designs entered, outcome is a bad Coop Himmelbau design, competition cost over 3 million Euro. What Koolhaas is looking for is simply more intelligence, to cancel redundancies and make the design presentation more than a fashion show. The process for the Seattle library is a good example of how this can work: a selection based on general notions and ideas regarding libraries lead to OMA getting the job, starting an intense collaboration between the library and the designers and giving Seattle one of the best libraries on the planet.
Well I would say that as a 3D-H lookalike it surely do try win the prize.
Listen Archigod ; just that remembered , do you realy find it so strange it is difficult for atleast me, to see this guy as a spoiled academic. Do you realy find it so strange to talk about a group of spoiled copyists.
But still I agrea that if this guy had understood 3D-H and not just taken it as a spetacular aproach just used it as wallpaper tint trended blue , if it hadn't been so obvious , Gee that guy realy shuld not talk about honesty and respect for designers work.
Listen I know and this is just what everyone know --- do you realy think that if Per Corell had joined with a spetacular 3D-H assembly of boxes that he would have a chance within European architect xompetition oposed if that guy had used a screen grapper and made a lookalike 3D-H , --- I don't think you know how rotten the state of denmark is.
well... vindpust - the seattle actually is a built building and not in denmark (so the rottens state of D is not an issue, right?) and the surfaces have an element of structure (not just trendy wallpaper) and rem can spell... so it seems that he at least in these categories whips Per's or Vind's, or whomever's, ass.
"well... vindpust - the seattle actually is a built building and not in denmark (so the rottens state of D is not an issue, right?)"
"Something rotten in the state of denmark" are from an english play, and as frase work in any contry.
"and the surfaces have an element of structure (not just trendy wallpaper) "
So you admit that this look a lot like 3D-H - you know the new fantastic building technike Per Corell openly shared on the web in pictures and words expecting just a bit of credit ,years before this guy suddenly, and with no earlier attemts just used it , just like copying halve a book or a whole novel somone else wrote and publishing it .
"and rem can spell... "
Realy and then what did he ever spell a building structure ? as if not I find this a wierd argument .
"so it seems that he at least in these categories whips Per's or Vind's, or whomever's, ass."
What you do is to justify robbery of intelectural property , and I simply don't understand why you crowd up around someone who so obviously robbed another artist work.
Well you maybe fame this guy but realy think about what you are doing ; you know that years before anyone else I been promoting this unique method , you seen the graphics , and yet you protect the criminal mind and even drowd together with the class bully to make a laugh of the guy being robbed his intelectural rights.
And then you can't understand why I find this guy so vain and spoiled, that when he is not the beforehand chosen winner and can not continue the genious he borrowed and acturly deliver something, then he start vain complains , --- He havn't even understood 3D-H but just copied the expression as eye candy ; and that is the vorse thing about when someone just for the fame about it, rob a method and use it with the tallent of an amature , like copying a novel, like copying a painting but not being able to uncover the quality detail , just use it as spetacular tapestry , --- this guy's use and understanding of 3D-H is not any better than the clumpsy Serpentine pavilion that also attemted a 3D-H ,
Helsinki stop defending the criminal mind, you seen 3D-H years before any of these copyists robbed the fancy look of it, without even understanding the great oppotunities in it, stop following the class bully and make architecture into a craft where it is allright to steal and rob.
And btw --- there are a great difference in openly sharing a great new method , compared robbing it without leaving a line of credit.
There are a great difference and that difference just define that piece of lashed together architecture ; what's the idea to use 3D-H if you don't even profit from it's obvious structural gains, why make a 3D-H lookalike when you don't even profit the oppotunity to have the intire structure in 3D-H do the whole structure in just one material and for the first time acturly project the intire building with computer.
What's the idea , if not just rob the fancy look of 3D-H not even understanding, that the fancy look are just a side effect of a structural system.
Why copy a side effect .
Your thoughts and oppinion are your own , but I am not here to "correct" anyone please remember that. But I will ask you to remember how you felt when your bike was stolen ; now try compare this with what was "borrowed" from me, and "borrowed" without the credit, --- If you went out to look for your bike, then you also know how it must be to be robbed the only thing you can do, the only thing I ever was good at, if you ever lost your bike to a thief then you also know how it must feel to be robbed the fruits of halve a life of works.
Dear Vindpust,
Thank you for your contribution and introducing me with 3d-H, although I think your claim is pretty far fetched. As far as I can tell this 3d-h system was introduced in 2000, although after 12 years of research, if my information is correct. The problem is that the design for the SPL was done somewhere in late 1999 and I doupt it that the creators where aware of the system. This because rather than thinking in the 3d-h technology the design concept was radically different. The choice for the current system was made with the engineers of ARUP and the result of the platform concept,. The structure was invented to make this particular idea, the superposition of several 'floating'platforms structuraly possible, as can be read in the book on the project that was published by Actar. Similar information can be found on the library's website:
So I am sorry but this is not copying. Also I would like to add that the building concepts developed by OMA where very important in the recent history of architecture and some of the concepts and ideas were copied too in large extent, so yes probably Koolhaas knows very well what copiyng is.
Concluding: I am sorry things didn't really work out (yet) with 3d-H but please don't aim your frustration at others who had nothing to do with it.
One more thing, just to be sure: I am not saying the specific idea of using a Parallelepiped structure was the first time it was ever used. You will probably find it early modern and constructivist architecture and we knows even earlier in medieval constructions. I think the who did what first is can get quite pointless anyway.
Eh are you talking about this Decor thing in the picture ?
Do it add the intire framework for said building , is it the core structure what is defines "structure" or could you please explain why the lines in the far part of the picture don't look as if they correspond to the direction of those in the front of the picture ?
Now I find it great that someone point to history , but if memmory don't fail me the design was changed slightly to say it soft, --- seem this is just bullseye and may I say, a bit late for manufactored evidense. Seem a bit strange and may I say , it also smell ; you see I just know these things by place of birth --- Anyway and I CAN use an anyway ; that just mean that I just need to prove a participation in a registrated contest before that date you so promtly Ate , the one I been saving ;
Gee didn't you think I was prepared , do you think I am that stupid to over compensate, when underestimating and acturly hold back the year just for security reson allway's fool the THIVES , The CRIMINALS , the LOWLIFES ???
-- I did not say "Kill The Truth" I said "Kill The Brick.
You shuld have guessed, realy you shuld have known, I am no fool.
And I am having a great laugh trapping a lame wannabe Crimminal , one of these who prove more eager than using the exchouse "I just followed order".
Go Kill The Tower , stop uncover yourself by killing the truth and make that your destany not to poison your life with lie and criminal occupation ; go Create something do some good instead of what is prone to be evil, it just Kill your creativity as acid allowing your very hands touch the dirty crap. Go fight a pig, atleast one of you will enjoy the pleasure this way, no one profit ; now don't say I did not warn.
"You will probably find it early modern and constructivist architecture and we knows even earlier in medieval constructions. "
That sound very interesting --- esp spicing the other ; now that mean you resemble medieval computers ??
Surprised --- well 3D-H or 3D-Honeycomb as it was named from the start when I first entered contests and applied for fonds , is a computer generated structure that carry a very specific defination, first of all it is computer generated ,,,, sorry I can hardly stay in the chair for laughter --- Anyway and I realy want to share an anyway, please conform you see the trouble with english language is, that you Romans seem not to vorry about your words , you say them but don't mean them , they are like fluid in your mouth the words change meaning all the time , it is like you don't even respect truth, honesty or substance . But back to issue the computng munks . Gee I realy want to enjoy their pover station.
Dear Vindpust, Very well put! The 'decor in the picture' wasn't uploaded be me and no I am not pointing to it.
It is not that I think you are loony, I wish to discuss your ideas only. As please feel free to do with mine, if possible in a straight-forward way.
Can you eloborate on the change in the design of SPL? It would be nice if you could produce concrete arguments, instead of refering only to your memory, which I can hardly check. Also a kind of DIRECT reference to the 3d-H system would be a nice addition to your claims. Oh no, I am sorry, criminals just don't do that.
About the historic claim. I was refering to paralellogram shaped constructions. If I am not mistaking that was also quite popular in the sixties. I guess you stole that idea from them then...
I do care about words. Very much even, especialy when they are put sensible order. You will encounter many attempts in the world of literature. I would like to point out that English is part of the Germanic language family.
Archigod I am sorry if I offended you, --- see just a day ago with another tread I had to explain the same that I now must say to you.
These fora's carry a harsh tone, the language are hopefully , say I, than everyday boring comminication , And please don't take my words to say I say you have a criminal mind , but I agrea that did use these words to maybe wake you up, to realise what you was saying. Anyway by prove you are not the one I blame and please recive my exchouse but, as I said , these fora's are popular exactly becaurse those who dare participate know that the tone can be harsh but there are things that myst be said , and the conflict in this tread just entlightened an old theme and the paralell find I, is obvious.
I find it quite natural that this guy's double agenda heat up this tread , and remember it is not a conflict between you and mee no, it is a conflict among today's star architects who damned newer had the gutts to share just a single word , ---- case they even understood what they was doing. But I don't think this guy have either the curige or the nerve to realise what it mean on one side vainly complain when he don't yet another time recive the spetacularaty and on the other side openly thiving others bright idears.
Now you maybe been surprised I all the time say "bright" and "newthinking" beside all the other great words , now please elaboate and try compare what "Bright" substance there are compared.
Anyway I have to repeat that I am sorry that again my name , sorry not my name but you know what I mean, pop up in a tread, that the whole subject suddenly turn towerds this guy , but realy is it so strange with such a rugid double agenda ?
About the innovative side of it, no that project was Not displaying that surface when it won the contest , but do it matter ; when that guy just used 3D-H as a tapestry to cover what seem quite a tradisional building, see 3D-H is a structural system , it's Decor come by structure and knowing the methood you do not need to add Decor l, doing that mean you don't understand the method , not understanding the method mean you must have "borrowed" it .
But this is not a 3D-H structure at all, it is a tradisional structure nipped with 3D-H as Decor and just that shuld prove to you , case you realised what 3D-H is , that something smell in the state of denmark.
Archogod I do find it sorry , that the "hero's" in architecture are allway's those who share the least, those who demand your praising and savage from that , it seem the fame are much more important than the core creavity, and belive me that there are a tail of willing servants , there allway's was and, bitte the dameage done by the head master is nothing compared the willing fury of the followers.
Just think about this guy who claim he develobed a briliant method over halve a lifetime, what do that count in architecture today, today where fame and arogance are higher apriciated than newthinking and honest work.
The double agenda , on one side grapping a bright method just as Decor --- maybe becaurse you simply are an architect and don't understand structural methods , or why Decor with this particular one , is not something you add as it is embedded in the structure. --- but do that give this guy and other glossy hero's the right to protect their thivery with just dull undulating words ?
And what do this intire aproach offer architecture, --- sharing nothing as even talking about the bright method may uncover the truth , see none of the "borrowers" acturly spended one single word to describe the most obvious Decor, the lookalike 3D-H , I leave it to you to guess why, and please allow me to hold my last cards hidden, allready I was not aware in the previous answers , but the less I talk about this, the better my posision are and belive me , I rest a good stronghold.
But my best stronghold would be the fact that I openly for more than 12 years openly shared , --- was that ever in these guy's agenda, then why do you Romans chose your hero's like this ?
Heating up -- I guess you realise what I am saying , why I ask you what these guy's ever given you what they shared beside their thirst for celebration, ---- try compare , as what I offer is much more and ontop what I all these years shared , was answers and oppotunity not your kneeling. Realy I find the subject a vain complain and now you know why. As what is asked is a battle to praise these vain guy's , to vain to realise they simply did not Deliver and now they want your blind fait , while things did not cash the investments in vodka and the useal social games , public fame, that are the fact "suggestion" in 90 pct. of these contests.
Then Archigod this time I ask you to exchouse me, --- you see I reconise the double agenda and very close as you proberly understand case you, had spended halve a life develobing and honestly sharing all thru these years , now can you exchouse me when you know ; I too would like to protest , but not protest that I don't recive the useal fame and therefore vainly group the troops no, I protest becaurse these contests support architecture as old mens privileage , well fed architects birth rights abowe the fluid layer of real innovation, honest sharing and acturly offering something.
Hmmm... Some time ago I posted a picture of a structure which resembled 3D-H but was built a long time ago, like this hangar by Nervi:
to which Per's response was that it was not "true 3D-H" (presumably since the diamond-shaped pattern does not cover everything). Now, when someone posts a picture which resembles 3D-H (but isn't "true" either) and that has been built *recently*, Per is whining that it's a theft and "decor 3D-H".
I just don't get it - did Per invent the grid?
As for Koolhaas, I completely agree with Archigod above.
a-f if you remember I allready pointed to the far back of that picture , where the grid do not follow the rest --- but let me repeat the arguments I remember using the last time ; is this a computer generated structure, is it more than a shell structure, have you looked at the edges where one frame verticaly break the "system" ? Please A-f we been over this again and again --- like other grid structures this one also resemble a 3D-H but that is all it do , details all over prove the difference I pointed to two please look at them. I allway's agrea the resemblance but allready this old drawing is also just a drawing and it is quite natural to turn the frames with such a roof but the rood is all that is left if it shuld be a a 3D-H the bottom part show vertical frames not intergrated with the rest as in a 3D-H ----- it is one of those structures that resemble a 3D-H but newer was, newer was thought as one and it do not inclute the features such as containing the floor and wall structure.
What you want to do is to jettison a fresh new idea just becaurse one of your old hero's drawn somthing that only by picture, not by construction or idea is what 3D-H offer; for you this surface scraping only delivering a roof jettison an idear that is totaly difference , you want to omit the obvious gains becaurse in your mind it seem that projects thought way before computers must jettison today's newthinking, --- isn't that the conclution ?
That nomatter how this was build or thought to be build, it is the opicture the resemblance that count, not the deep work develobing something fit for computers not the work refining it further than was possible in the 80 years that passed where nothing added to the resemblance where if this was thoought and percived as something to be made with a computer, then your argument is, that we jettison today's visionary --- this even you proberly agrea that that building if ever build, would not be build as you build a 3D-H.
Protecting the old hero's and using them as ammunition against the ones that is so arogant to say that we don't need old poorly detailed drawings , but new tools.
No, you don't understand what I mean. This is what you claim:
Nervi, 1936 = not 3D-H
Corell, 2000? = 3D-H
Koolhaas, 2004 = not 3D-H, but trying to imitate 3D-H
Where is the logic in that?
And as a comment to your claim that 3D-H needs computer technology: No, if the inner and outer surface can be described mathematically, you can (and it has been done since the 16th century) make the intersections by manual calculation or projective geometry.
I know exactly what 3D-H is, you don't have to explain it again. I know perfectly well that the Nervi hangar is not "real 3D-H". However, you accuse OMA of stealing your idea, but apparently this theme have been around for a long time, and has endless variations. So why do you think everybody is copying you, and not e.g. Nervi?
s-f the reson is obvious if you yourdelf would just look at the very picture you provide.
Technical speaking the reson Nervi's hanger is no 3D-H is easy seen in that picture --- and please allow me to return later with a close-up that eliminate all doubt. But first let me explain the core issue in words:
You see with 3D-H a nomber of parallel sections "cut" the framework. That mean that the lines where two frames meet if you continue these infinity, will newer meet. Now if you look closer to Nervi's roof, and look at those "lines" where two frames meet it is obvious that the framework sort of follow the surface of the roof and the overlap lines do not continue parallel if you lenghten them.
With a 3D-H you would have a structure that , I agrea that, would not be as harmonic as Nervi's , but if you section a halve round roof like Nervi's and looked to see if these was identic , even with same denseness in frames, then these two structures would by eye be so different that you will say these are not the same method.
If you havn't realised what I say, try look, try lenghten the lines that form with each overlap ,check if these lines all have the same direction ; they have not in Nervi's but they by defination will have same direction in 3D-H.
Now I be happy to prove this with a few drawings, please tell me if you se the point and why Nervi's hanger , even it in your mind show resemblance are newer a 3D-H . Please tell me if a few graphics could end this debate once and for all ; but then please also in that case promise me, that when I prove this you will support 3D-H.
a-f please let me strongly claim that this is not a detail , this fact technic "detail" describe 3D-H and one of the side effects of these overlap lines being paralell is that then the frames can be assembled so it is very important that they are paralell, --- not if craftsmen assemble the structure by other methods but, with 3D-H Nervi's hanger would display totaly different. Reson is a practic one , while it hands-on are more "natural" to let the frames follow the surface but if you tried do that with 3D-H you will be stranded, 3D-H sinply don't allow the framework to grow in the direction 90 deg. to the surface as in Nervi's , with 3D-H the frames would show all different angles towerds that covering surface but, all frames in one direction would be parallel with all others as with all frames the opposite direction would also all be parallel,
But Nervi made a more harmonic structure by allowing the frames to follow that surface and the frames in Nervi's hanger are not parallel when you look closer --- more harmonic true, but 3D-H newer was made to produce harmonics.
I know exactly what 3D-H is, you don't have to explain it again. I know perfectly well that the Nervi hangar is not "real 3D-H". However, you accuse OMA of stealing your idea, but apparently this theme have been around for a long time, and has endless variations. So why do you think everybody is copying you, and not e.g. Nervi?
This is a rendering , a perspective 35 mm. lens used , but I am sure that even with perspective this explain why Nervi's hanger can not be a 3D-H , please check the lines ;
a-f if you don't have 2S-H is is hands-on more practic to do what Nervi did --- to make the frames follow the surface they support. Both in building and projecting with craftsman methods this will be the choice, becaurse 3D-H is extreemly difficult to project without a computer.
3D-H are sloced by parallel sections this would be unhandy and aquate with the old methods , please look at the pictures and please realise that 3D-H would be silli and troublesom before the computer.
Trying to make a 3D-H with the direction of frames like Nervi's hanger would become a huge trouble, 3D-H simply don't work that way.
a-f even both pictures are perspective , I placed the camera in the middle just like in the picture you placed, and there it shuld be obvious that these are and can not be the same type of structure.
Now I wonder one particular thing ; was Nervi's hanger ever build ?
------- it could sound a bit oppotunistic but, is it even buildable ?
If it is would it then even be possible to produce these overlap-lines with huge sections, wouldn't they need so much twisting that it would be allmost impossible to assemble frames this way with the overlap lines not pointing the same direction, wouldn't you need to build it in small pieces to make it look like this while the forces required to twist the frames into place would be impossible.
A 3D-H can be build to fill that form, but are you compleatly sure that Nervi's building is structuraly logic ?
a-f I don't think you are fair ; you react as I insulted one of your hero's by just asking quite natural questions , realy it shuld be me who was offended as suddenly you agrea that this building is cast concrete , meaning not in any way relevant as a structural method being the "same" as + 3D-H ?
You claimed that that hanger was a prove that I did not develob this method as the first and someone else used same method, and this shuld prove that I could not ask the privileage of credits , as with this picture you could prove that someone allready invented the method. Now you agrea that either method or material have any resemblance , that this was a concrete building a structure build in a compleatly different way.
If you had said that you better can cast in concrete what I in detail describe with 3D-H , then there would bew solid ground for a discussion , --- but you was just trying to blindfold me for my credits knowing this hanger was made in concrete, how on earth could this be any relevant towerds the invention of 3D-H , I simply can't follow this logic ; it is like saying that if you can build it in bricks just the same form, then you invented the method that in the first place build the structure that shape, this make no sense ; concrete are cast and the buildings build in concrete are made in a totaly different way , how can a somewhat dimular form unprove anything and in particular the method you yourself point to in this case.
I'm not really knoweldgeble about structural logic but this:
to me, relates to the structural system used by Nervi. The vectors you described in the Nervi vault photo pretty much match the logic of a classical brick vault. Now, that's not to say that everything old is logical, is just proves that the technology behind Nervi's is probably simpler than what's behind 3dH. Maybe it allows for less material use, but it's not more or less logical than Nervi's vault.
These are just beautifull , and thoughtfull to, as think that so acturly simple craft , just stagging stones in a particular pattern work great millions of various structures allway's followed known technikes and avaible material as entering the digital options will then make wonders , sad it also act as an digital aproach in a way but tru these are nice pictures.
Rem demands boycott
COMPETITION BOYCOTT CALL MET WITH SILENCE
Rem Koolhaas's call for architects to boycott the competition system has met with deafening silence from his fellow star practitioners, but sparked a fierce debate on the archinect.com discussion board.
Many contributors had little sympathy for Koolhaas. One said "he looks like nothing more than a spoiled, priviledged, elite rich child. He has no morals other than those that advance his precious 'ideas'", whilst another suggested "he should start designing better buildings that will win competitions." A third asked: "Would the elimination of the jury system benefit anyone but established celebrity architects like himself?"
Others felt Koolhaas's critique of the competition system, which he described as "hideous" and a drain on resources and influence, was a fair one. The system was branded "a strategic, political and ethical disservice to the profession", while another said: "as hypocritical as it is for this to be coming from Rem - he's right. All competitions, if they expect a well-developed design in the entry, should reimburse short-listed firms... or call for a less intensive proposal, but thoroughly interview competitors".
Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Zaha Hadid, Massimilliano Fuksas, Jean Nouvel and Daniel Liebeskind refused or did not respond to BD's request for comment on the boycott call.
- Building Design, January 12th 2007
I really have the impression that young designers get a pretty good shot at "making a difference" at OMA or other dutch avant-garde firms (not inters, young designers, obviously). Probably not the only places - but one of the biggest and the most experimental by far (experimental AND actually building something). Why not work there if you don't mind the economics and work-time demands? ARUP is probably also a great place, no question about it, but probably not looking for dyslexics at the moment.
-
The call for boycott got the "answer" it deserved.
"The call for boycott got the "answer" it deserved."
The call proving he never experienced having returned 3 month's of work , with the exchouse that "the area calculations that shuld have been written onto the small blue attached paper was not amone the material"
------ And experienced the answer after responsing that it seem strange with a 3D computer drawing that written numbers written onto a blue piece of paper, shuld not respond the claim for digital entries.
And experimenting how yet another of the friends won also this contest.
Experimenting to be taken the right to even publish ones work while a REM statist get saluted a by dull talk about vain objects placed silli.
Gee --- offcaurse it is true but, I would newer expect the spoiled and vain to complain what we all know, gee if anything is vain that is.
Those competitions that is judged the finest, are the most rotten ones , in denmark it allready was so bad back in the 1930' that the only way for the visionary at that time to break thru the nepotism , was to seek out one judge after another finding the weakest, forcing their issue untill finaly one of those architecture judges, placed there by acadmica friends for life, finaly gave up and just to get rid of the constant visits for once made a non-friend and an outsider academic win a single contest
This is how it worked back then --- would you emeagine to be less rotten now dutch compared denmark Gee there the spoiled and from school well fed, allready know their safe chairs. This guy ; is he an Idiot ?
Guess why I newer commit newer join one anymore, seen it, heard the responses as the rest of you wondered who beforehand showed the judges what style , and wondered this again and again while finding a pattern in the extra prices for innovation and fresh new idears that was allway's given to a cirtain circle of other academicas. Newer newer newer newer would an outsider win such contest and allway's would the same ones win among hundreds. ------- And these contests are the most gurantied ones, the "finest" ones. Listen the few times I had a suggestion there at display with all the other participants, mine was allway's hung upside down or left upside down on the floor , do not tell me about academica nepotism and how it is made to work.
wtf?
Well you know the lead, when knowing the amount quality, silli social games about who are most important, arts and crafts or displaying architecture.
Listen I don't even bother, as working artist cramping today's yet solved Design issue Gee. Dutch and Danes, someone shuld make a comedy. Architecture massive spetacular in the eyes of informers blabable to complain and decide who to enter the next Spetacular deadend,
See I am not and newer was engaged , know I allready had my role in a design world where good relations and advise are more prone than the honest works of a designer.
These are the finest of these social instituded architect competitions, still I am holding back, no reson to scare anyone.
Stil there are nothing better than a competition outline to challance yourself, do design that engage real creativity mental aswell as practic down to the smallest detail allway's questioning yourself , even if you are blinding yourself. But who win a competion are by 98 pct. hopefully allready decided, unless somthing extraordanary show ; guess it work so the best 2 pct.
You have very little to realise what the true right answer is, so you have to fight your own expertations about what the competition are about I guess, then know that most often giving exactly what they want even it will be a blunt Icon is the answer that could bring you a price -- still this is not how it work as you see how most competions work and remember ; if you complain you are the fool, or did you master all 100 crafts good enough, did you fail the rest of the advanced mechanic offering a new tool . Gee a lot of these contests ask for innovation and creativity then when it come, there are no need for it and the whole thing was a joke, as this is not what our best friend can even speak.
Dear All,
I just did a rough survey and not even half of all post concern the actual arguments from the article. Why all the Rem-hate comments? Is it sincere anger, stupid envy, a short-sighted childish reaction (he’s a sore loser, la la la: Possiblity: He has lost and won more than you probably ever will, did you ever wonder why he does it now, only if it really concerns him?) I don´t know. The focus on his person is very interesting: While blaiming the ´starchitect’ you support him and the stardom system. Especially the little stories about ´Rem´ brilliantly illustrate this point. Just a stupid question @ _same old doctor: Why put in an effort to get tickets and go to their lecture THREE times to figure out you hate them?
Anyway, if you would know OMA’s work well, you would know that Koolhaas doesn’t owe his but to the competition system, but rather to successful commissions as Kunsthal, Euralille, Villa da’ll Ava, Maison a Bordeaux, and so on. If you read your Bible well, and yes I guess most of you have actually read SMLXL, enjoyed and used it for your own benefit (who is spitting in who's soup now?) , you would find an emphasis on the relationship between client and architect. And this is precisely what he is heading for: not presenting superficial one-way ideas, as what happened for Gazprom. Like: Just make your model look shiny, put some happy people in your rendering with a nice blue sky and win! For good architecture intense collaboration between client and architect is needed, the current competition system excludes it implicitly. For a good example of this argument check the rigged competition for the European Central Bank http://www.new-ecb-premises.com/ more than 70 designs entered, outcome is a bad Coop Himmelbau design, competition cost over 3 million Euro. What Koolhaas is looking for is simply more intelligence, to cancel redundancies and make the design presentation more than a fashion show. The process for the Seattle library is a good example of how this can work: a selection based on general notions and ideas regarding libraries lead to OMA getting the job, starting an intense collaboration between the library and the designers and giving Seattle one of the best libraries on the planet.
Finally someone... thanks archiGOD,
Well I would say that as a 3D-H lookalike it surely do try win the prize.
Listen Archigod ; just that remembered , do you realy find it so strange it is difficult for atleast me, to see this guy as a spoiled academic. Do you realy find it so strange to talk about a group of spoiled copyists.
But still I agrea that if this guy had understood 3D-H and not just taken it as a spetacular aproach just used it as wallpaper tint trended blue , if it hadn't been so obvious , Gee that guy realy shuld not talk about honesty and respect for designers work.
Listen I know and this is just what everyone know --- do you realy think that if Per Corell had joined with a spetacular 3D-H assembly of boxes that he would have a chance within European architect xompetition oposed if that guy had used a screen grapper and made a lookalike 3D-H , --- I don't think you know how rotten the state of denmark is.
rem is our laius. zaha our jacosta...
i consider politically is bad- is so brad. yuck...yuck yuck!
well... vindpust - the seattle actually is a built building and not in denmark (so the rottens state of D is not an issue, right?) and the surfaces have an element of structure (not just trendy wallpaper) and rem can spell... so it seems that he at least in these categories whips Per's or Vind's, or whomever's, ass.
"well... vindpust - the seattle actually is a built building and not in denmark (so the rottens state of D is not an issue, right?)"
"Something rotten in the state of denmark" are from an english play, and as frase work in any contry.
"and the surfaces have an element of structure (not just trendy wallpaper) "
So you admit that this look a lot like 3D-H - you know the new fantastic building technike Per Corell openly shared on the web in pictures and words expecting just a bit of credit ,years before this guy suddenly, and with no earlier attemts just used it , just like copying halve a book or a whole novel somone else wrote and publishing it .
"and rem can spell... "
Realy and then what did he ever spell a building structure ? as if not I find this a wierd argument .
"so it seems that he at least in these categories whips Per's or Vind's, or whomever's, ass."
What you do is to justify robbery of intelectural property , and I simply don't understand why you crowd up around someone who so obviously robbed another artist work.
Well you maybe fame this guy but realy think about what you are doing ; you know that years before anyone else I been promoting this unique method , you seen the graphics , and yet you protect the criminal mind and even drowd together with the class bully to make a laugh of the guy being robbed his intelectural rights.
And then you can't understand why I find this guy so vain and spoiled, that when he is not the beforehand chosen winner and can not continue the genious he borrowed and acturly deliver something, then he start vain complains , --- He havn't even understood 3D-H but just copied the expression as eye candy ; and that is the vorse thing about when someone just for the fame about it, rob a method and use it with the tallent of an amature , like copying a novel, like copying a painting but not being able to uncover the quality detail , just use it as spetacular tapestry , --- this guy's use and understanding of 3D-H is not any better than the clumpsy Serpentine pavilion that also attemted a 3D-H ,
Helsinki stop defending the criminal mind, you seen 3D-H years before any of these copyists robbed the fancy look of it, without even understanding the great oppotunities in it, stop following the class bully and make architecture into a craft where it is allright to steal and rob.
And btw --- there are a great difference in openly sharing a great new method , compared robbing it without leaving a line of credit.
There are a great difference and that difference just define that piece of lashed together architecture ; what's the idea to use 3D-H if you don't even profit from it's obvious structural gains, why make a 3D-H lookalike when you don't even profit the oppotunity to have the intire structure in 3D-H do the whole structure in just one material and for the first time acturly project the intire building with computer.
What's the idea , if not just rob the fancy look of 3D-H not even understanding, that the fancy look are just a side effect of a structural system.
Why copy a side effect .
oh. now I see & stand corrected.
vindpust i think you're running out of mind...
"vindpust i think you're running out of mind..."
Yes I rather contribuate with something nice or fun, something to brighten your day or open your eyes, --- but I think you are right.
"oh. now I see & stand corrected."
Your thoughts and oppinion are your own , but I am not here to "correct" anyone please remember that. But I will ask you to remember how you felt when your bike was stolen ; now try compare this with what was "borrowed" from me, and "borrowed" without the credit, --- If you went out to look for your bike, then you also know how it must be to be robbed the only thing you can do, the only thing I ever was good at, if you ever lost your bike to a thief then you also know how it must feel to be robbed the fruits of halve a life of works.
Dear Vindpust,
Thank you for your contribution and introducing me with 3d-H, although I think your claim is pretty far fetched. As far as I can tell this 3d-h system was introduced in 2000, although after 12 years of research, if my information is correct. The problem is that the design for the SPL was done somewhere in late 1999 and I doupt it that the creators where aware of the system. This because rather than thinking in the 3d-h technology the design concept was radically different. The choice for the current system was made with the engineers of ARUP and the result of the platform concept,. The structure was invented to make this particular idea, the superposition of several 'floating'platforms structuraly possible, as can be read in the book on the project that was published by Actar. Similar information can be found on the library's website:
http://www.spl.org/lfa/central/oma/OMAbook1299/page2.htm
So I am sorry but this is not copying. Also I would like to add that the building concepts developed by OMA where very important in the recent history of architecture and some of the concepts and ideas were copied too in large extent, so yes probably Koolhaas knows very well what copiyng is.
Concluding: I am sorry things didn't really work out (yet) with 3d-H but please don't aim your frustration at others who had nothing to do with it.
One more thing, just to be sure: I am not saying the specific idea of using a Parallelepiped structure was the first time it was ever used. You will probably find it early modern and constructivist architecture and we knows even earlier in medieval constructions. I think the who did what first is can get quite pointless anyway.
Eh are you talking about this Decor thing in the picture ?
Do it add the intire framework for said building , is it the core structure what is defines "structure" or could you please explain why the lines in the far part of the picture don't look as if they correspond to the direction of those in the front of the picture ?
Now I find it great that someone point to history , but if memmory don't fail me the design was changed slightly to say it soft, --- seem this is just bullseye and may I say, a bit late for manufactored evidense. Seem a bit strange and may I say , it also smell ; you see I just know these things by place of birth --- Anyway and I CAN use an anyway ; that just mean that I just need to prove a participation in a registrated contest before that date you so promtly Ate , the one I been saving ;
Gee didn't you think I was prepared , do you think I am that stupid to over compensate, when underestimating and acturly hold back the year just for security reson allway's fool the THIVES , The CRIMINALS , the LOWLIFES ???
-- I did not say "Kill The Truth" I said "Kill The Brick.
You shuld have guessed, realy you shuld have known, I am no fool.
And I am having a great laugh trapping a lame wannabe Crimminal , one of these who prove more eager than using the exchouse "I just followed order".
Go Kill The Tower , stop uncover yourself by killing the truth and make that your destany not to poison your life with lie and criminal occupation ; go Create something do some good instead of what is prone to be evil, it just Kill your creativity as acid allowing your very hands touch the dirty crap. Go fight a pig, atleast one of you will enjoy the pleasure this way, no one profit ; now don't say I did not warn.
"You will probably find it early modern and constructivist architecture and we knows even earlier in medieval constructions. "
That sound very interesting --- esp spicing the other ; now that mean you resemble medieval computers ??
Surprised --- well 3D-H or 3D-Honeycomb as it was named from the start when I first entered contests and applied for fonds , is a computer generated structure that carry a very specific defination, first of all it is computer generated ,,,, sorry I can hardly stay in the chair for laughter --- Anyway and I realy want to share an anyway, please conform you see the trouble with english language is, that you Romans seem not to vorry about your words , you say them but don't mean them , they are like fluid in your mouth the words change meaning all the time , it is like you don't even respect truth, honesty or substance . But back to issue the computng munks . Gee I realy want to enjoy their pover station.
Dear Vindpust, Very well put! The 'decor in the picture' wasn't uploaded be me and no I am not pointing to it.
It is not that I think you are loony, I wish to discuss your ideas only. As please feel free to do with mine, if possible in a straight-forward way.
Can you eloborate on the change in the design of SPL? It would be nice if you could produce concrete arguments, instead of refering only to your memory, which I can hardly check. Also a kind of DIRECT reference to the 3d-H system would be a nice addition to your claims. Oh no, I am sorry, criminals just don't do that.
About the historic claim. I was refering to paralellogram shaped constructions. If I am not mistaking that was also quite popular in the sixties. I guess you stole that idea from them then...
I do care about words. Very much even, especialy when they are put sensible order. You will encounter many attempts in the world of literature. I would like to point out that English is part of the Germanic language family.
Archigod I am sorry if I offended you, --- see just a day ago with another tread I had to explain the same that I now must say to you.
These fora's carry a harsh tone, the language are hopefully , say I, than everyday boring comminication , And please don't take my words to say I say you have a criminal mind , but I agrea that did use these words to maybe wake you up, to realise what you was saying. Anyway by prove you are not the one I blame and please recive my exchouse but, as I said , these fora's are popular exactly becaurse those who dare participate know that the tone can be harsh but there are things that myst be said , and the conflict in this tread just entlightened an old theme and the paralell find I, is obvious.
I find it quite natural that this guy's double agenda heat up this tread , and remember it is not a conflict between you and mee no, it is a conflict among today's star architects who damned newer had the gutts to share just a single word , ---- case they even understood what they was doing. But I don't think this guy have either the curige or the nerve to realise what it mean on one side vainly complain when he don't yet another time recive the spetacularaty and on the other side openly thiving others bright idears.
Now you maybe been surprised I all the time say "bright" and "newthinking" beside all the other great words , now please elaboate and try compare what "Bright" substance there are compared.
Anyway I have to repeat that I am sorry that again my name , sorry not my name but you know what I mean, pop up in a tread, that the whole subject suddenly turn towerds this guy , but realy is it so strange with such a rugid double agenda ?
About the innovative side of it, no that project was Not displaying that surface when it won the contest , but do it matter ; when that guy just used 3D-H as a tapestry to cover what seem quite a tradisional building, see 3D-H is a structural system , it's Decor come by structure and knowing the methood you do not need to add Decor l, doing that mean you don't understand the method , not understanding the method mean you must have "borrowed" it .
But this is not a 3D-H structure at all, it is a tradisional structure nipped with 3D-H as Decor and just that shuld prove to you , case you realised what 3D-H is , that something smell in the state of denmark.
Archogod I do find it sorry , that the "hero's" in architecture are allway's those who share the least, those who demand your praising and savage from that , it seem the fame are much more important than the core creavity, and belive me that there are a tail of willing servants , there allway's was and, bitte the dameage done by the head master is nothing compared the willing fury of the followers.
Just think about this guy who claim he develobed a briliant method over halve a lifetime, what do that count in architecture today, today where fame and arogance are higher apriciated than newthinking and honest work.
The double agenda , on one side grapping a bright method just as Decor --- maybe becaurse you simply are an architect and don't understand structural methods , or why Decor with this particular one , is not something you add as it is embedded in the structure. --- but do that give this guy and other glossy hero's the right to protect their thivery with just dull undulating words ?
And what do this intire aproach offer architecture, --- sharing nothing as even talking about the bright method may uncover the truth , see none of the "borrowers" acturly spended one single word to describe the most obvious Decor, the lookalike 3D-H , I leave it to you to guess why, and please allow me to hold my last cards hidden, allready I was not aware in the previous answers , but the less I talk about this, the better my posision are and belive me , I rest a good stronghold.
But my best stronghold would be the fact that I openly for more than 12 years openly shared , --- was that ever in these guy's agenda, then why do you Romans chose your hero's like this ?
is Vindpust Sacha Baron Cohen in a new role? hm. I wonder.
Heating up -- I guess you realise what I am saying , why I ask you what these guy's ever given you what they shared beside their thirst for celebration, ---- try compare , as what I offer is much more and ontop what I all these years shared , was answers and oppotunity not your kneeling. Realy I find the subject a vain complain and now you know why. As what is asked is a battle to praise these vain guy's , to vain to realise they simply did not Deliver and now they want your blind fait , while things did not cash the investments in vodka and the useal social games , public fame, that are the fact "suggestion" in 90 pct. of these contests.
Then Archigod this time I ask you to exchouse me, --- you see I reconise the double agenda and very close as you proberly understand case you, had spended halve a life develobing and honestly sharing all thru these years , now can you exchouse me when you know ; I too would like to protest , but not protest that I don't recive the useal fame and therefore vainly group the troops no, I protest becaurse these contests support architecture as old mens privileage , well fed architects birth rights abowe the fluid layer of real innovation, honest sharing and acturly offering something.
I guess that kinda answers the question...
Hmmm... Some time ago I posted a picture of a structure which resembled 3D-H but was built a long time ago, like this hangar by Nervi:
to which Per's response was that it was not "true 3D-H" (presumably since the diamond-shaped pattern does not cover everything). Now, when someone posts a picture which resembles 3D-H (but isn't "true" either) and that has been built *recently*, Per is whining that it's a theft and "decor 3D-H".
I just don't get it - did Per invent the grid?
As for Koolhaas, I completely agree with Archigod above.
a-f if you remember I allready pointed to the far back of that picture , where the grid do not follow the rest --- but let me repeat the arguments I remember using the last time ; is this a computer generated structure, is it more than a shell structure, have you looked at the edges where one frame verticaly break the "system" ? Please A-f we been over this again and again --- like other grid structures this one also resemble a 3D-H but that is all it do , details all over prove the difference I pointed to two please look at them. I allway's agrea the resemblance but allready this old drawing is also just a drawing and it is quite natural to turn the frames with such a roof but the rood is all that is left if it shuld be a a 3D-H the bottom part show vertical frames not intergrated with the rest as in a 3D-H ----- it is one of those structures that resemble a 3D-H but newer was, newer was thought as one and it do not inclute the features such as containing the floor and wall structure.
What you want to do is to jettison a fresh new idea just becaurse one of your old hero's drawn somthing that only by picture, not by construction or idea is what 3D-H offer; for you this surface scraping only delivering a roof jettison an idear that is totaly difference , you want to omit the obvious gains becaurse in your mind it seem that projects thought way before computers must jettison today's newthinking, --- isn't that the conclution ?
That nomatter how this was build or thought to be build, it is the opicture the resemblance that count, not the deep work develobing something fit for computers not the work refining it further than was possible in the 80 years that passed where nothing added to the resemblance where if this was thoought and percived as something to be made with a computer, then your argument is, that we jettison today's visionary --- this even you proberly agrea that that building if ever build, would not be build as you build a 3D-H.
Protecting the old hero's and using them as ammunition against the ones that is so arogant to say that we don't need old poorly detailed drawings , but new tools.
No, you don't understand what I mean. This is what you claim:
Nervi, 1936 = not 3D-H
Corell, 2000? = 3D-H
Koolhaas, 2004 = not 3D-H, but trying to imitate 3D-H
Where is the logic in that?
And as a comment to your claim that 3D-H needs computer technology: No, if the inner and outer surface can be described mathematically, you can (and it has been done since the 16th century) make the intersections by manual calculation or projective geometry.
I know exactly what 3D-H is, you don't have to explain it again. I know perfectly well that the Nervi hangar is not "real 3D-H". However, you accuse OMA of stealing your idea, but apparently this theme have been around for a long time, and has endless variations. So why do you think everybody is copying you, and not e.g. Nervi?
I wish someone would copy me.
s-f the reson is obvious if you yourdelf would just look at the very picture you provide.
Technical speaking the reson Nervi's hanger is no 3D-H is easy seen in that picture --- and please allow me to return later with a close-up that eliminate all doubt. But first let me explain the core issue in words:
You see with 3D-H a nomber of parallel sections "cut" the framework. That mean that the lines where two frames meet if you continue these infinity, will newer meet. Now if you look closer to Nervi's roof, and look at those "lines" where two frames meet it is obvious that the framework sort of follow the surface of the roof and the overlap lines do not continue parallel if you lenghten them.
With a 3D-H you would have a structure that , I agrea that, would not be as harmonic as Nervi's , but if you section a halve round roof like Nervi's and looked to see if these was identic , even with same denseness in frames, then these two structures would by eye be so different that you will say these are not the same method.
If you havn't realised what I say, try look, try lenghten the lines that form with each overlap ,check if these lines all have the same direction ; they have not in Nervi's but they by defination will have same direction in 3D-H.
Now I be happy to prove this with a few drawings, please tell me if you se the point and why Nervi's hanger , even it in your mind show resemblance are newer a 3D-H . Please tell me if a few graphics could end this debate once and for all ; but then please also in that case promise me, that when I prove this you will support 3D-H.
a-f please let me strongly claim that this is not a detail , this fact technic "detail" describe 3D-H and one of the side effects of these overlap lines being paralell is that then the frames can be assembled so it is very important that they are paralell, --- not if craftsmen assemble the structure by other methods but, with 3D-H Nervi's hanger would display totaly different. Reson is a practic one , while it hands-on are more "natural" to let the frames follow the surface but if you tried do that with 3D-H you will be stranded, 3D-H sinply don't allow the framework to grow in the direction 90 deg. to the surface as in Nervi's , with 3D-H the frames would show all different angles towerds that covering surface but, all frames in one direction would be parallel with all others as with all frames the opposite direction would also all be parallel,
But Nervi made a more harmonic structure by allowing the frames to follow that surface and the frames in Nervi's hanger are not parallel when you look closer --- more harmonic true, but 3D-H newer was made to produce harmonics.
Ok, you don't understand. Read this again:
I know exactly what 3D-H is, you don't have to explain it again. I know perfectly well that the Nervi hangar is not "real 3D-H". However, you accuse OMA of stealing your idea, but apparently this theme have been around for a long time, and has endless variations. So why do you think everybody is copying you, and not e.g. Nervi?
a-f please look here ;
This is a rendering , a perspective 35 mm. lens used , but I am sure that even with perspective this explain why Nervi's hanger can not be a 3D-H , please check the lines ;
I give up! You still don't understand what I'm writing. Besides, this is supposed to be a thread about OMA.
Archinecters, I'm sorry for provoking hijacking of this thread.
a-f if you don't have 2S-H is is hands-on more practic to do what Nervi did --- to make the frames follow the surface they support. Both in building and projecting with craftsman methods this will be the choice, becaurse 3D-H is extreemly difficult to project without a computer.
3D-H are sloced by parallel sections this would be unhandy and aquate with the old methods , please look at the pictures and please realise that 3D-H would be silli and troublesom before the computer.
Trying to make a 3D-H with the direction of frames like Nervi's hanger would become a huge trouble, 3D-H simply don't work that way.
a-f even both pictures are perspective , I placed the camera in the middle just like in the picture you placed, and there it shuld be obvious that these are and can not be the same type of structure.
Now I wonder one particular thing ; was Nervi's hanger ever build ?
------- it could sound a bit oppotunistic but, is it even buildable ?
If it is would it then even be possible to produce these overlap-lines with huge sections, wouldn't they need so much twisting that it would be allmost impossible to assemble frames this way with the overlap lines not pointing the same direction, wouldn't you need to build it in small pieces to make it look like this while the forces required to twist the frames into place would be impossible.
A 3D-H can be build to fill that form, but are you compleatly sure that Nervi's building is structuraly logic ?
YES IT WAS BUILT AND NERVI IS ONE OF THE MASTERS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
a-f I don't think you are fair ; you react as I insulted one of your hero's by just asking quite natural questions , realy it shuld be me who was offended as suddenly you agrea that this building is cast concrete , meaning not in any way relevant as a structural method being the "same" as + 3D-H ?
You claimed that that hanger was a prove that I did not develob this method as the first and someone else used same method, and this shuld prove that I could not ask the privileage of credits , as with this picture you could prove that someone allready invented the method. Now you agrea that either method or material have any resemblance , that this was a concrete building a structure build in a compleatly different way.
If you had said that you better can cast in concrete what I in detail describe with 3D-H , then there would bew solid ground for a discussion , --- but you was just trying to blindfold me for my credits knowing this hanger was made in concrete, how on earth could this be any relevant towerds the invention of 3D-H , I simply can't follow this logic ; it is like saying that if you can build it in bricks just the same form, then you invented the method that in the first place build the structure that shape, this make no sense ; concrete are cast and the buildings build in concrete are made in a totaly different way , how can a somewhat dimular form unprove anything and in particular the method you yourself point to in this case.
I'm not really knoweldgeble about structural logic but this:
to me, relates to the structural system used by Nervi. The vectors you described in the Nervi vault photo pretty much match the logic of a classical brick vault. Now, that's not to say that everything old is logical, is just proves that the technology behind Nervi's is probably simpler than what's behind 3dH. Maybe it allows for less material use, but it's not more or less logical than Nervi's vault.
These are just beautifull , and thoughtfull to, as think that so acturly simple craft , just stagging stones in a particular pattern work great millions of various structures allway's followed known technikes and avaible material as entering the digital options will then make wonders , sad it also act as an digital aproach in a way but tru these are nice pictures.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.