Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
What built work has he done since that house in Venice?
Other than the stuff posted on their website, has anyone seen photos of new built work by Johnston Marklee?
You mean that interior design bit in Venice? xD
I heard he is into designing jewelry these days
marcelo spina and crew seem to be busy
Theyre making more money traveling the world and teaching, rather than doing real design or architecture. Thats why you dont hear about them...
any work pays better than having no projects to build xD
Those who can't do, teach.
Yeah. I've seen some of the recent built work by Patterns. I hate to say it, but it looks really clunky and doesn't translate very well as built work. Kind of the ways that Eisenman's work in the 80's looked nice as drawings, but like tacky, low-grade mall architecture in real life.
Anybody know if there are photos of Johnston Marklee's beach house in Oxnard? I keep checking their website for updates. It seems like it should be built by now. Or that Menil project that got some press?
this is pretty bad.
Johnston Marklee is doing the new extension to the Menil in Houston, so that is probably occupying all their efforts right now...
Correction: It is P-R-E-T-T-Y B-A-D.
It looks like a model of a perfectly decent late-modern house that sat next to a hot oven and melted on one end.
Fortunately, the hyper-hyphenation of the firm's name will distract all attention from the work!
Correction: It is awful. Meaningless, dysfunctional, inordinately expensive, aesthetically putrid. It has everything it takes to get published and "win" commissions.
yup! PRETTY bad.. Typical of someone obsessed with form and what they think looks PRETTY, a mix match of everything disordered, lacking richness in terms of materiality or detailing. The construction looks PRETTY shoddy even from the pics, unlike built works that make you go wow (eg: Todd Williams Billie Tsien)
pssh, in a few years, you old farts will have kids that will strive to preserve those buildings.
A hater snarls when they make money from being lame.
those who can't think, recite the dum-dums
^ Talk about lame ...
Get spanked on another thread, change your name to Subscribe (from .com) and keep posting the same angry drivel, hoping that nobody will notice it's you.
Maybe you should try talking intelligently about the topic of the thread (if you can).
that patterns building..actually there is something interesting about it. a UNStudio-like formal contiguity fronted by de Stijl-ish facades giving way to deconstructivist elements (the canopy/warped glass facade, the peeled off parts of the facades) and ending with Hadid lines drawing out the pool area. its rather intellectually casual...not very pretty nor refined, its a bit of a quizzical mess...but there is a charisma, strongly eighties and ninties in spirit (overlooking the UNstudio-bit i guess).
i am only bothered by two aspects..why it has to be all white(it isnt becoming under in that light - all the plastering and painting deficiencies inherent or otherwise will be exaggerated) and why, inspite of all the other promiscuous liberties taken, the building is so boxlike..trapped within two very defined facades...like a flat fish is almost exclusively defined by two of its sides. why is the action so linear...
let me correct this :"quizzical mess". mess is too dismissive a word. quizzical association of styles.
after some -not much- thought, i think my issue with the building is that it is, simultaneously, too timid although it wants not to be (i mean, by comparison, the coop himmelblau malibu house design is so much more fun and carefee) and too flamboyant (the grouping of styles) where it shouldn't have been (the pithy counter-example of UNStudio Mobius house being an example).
ok, in the former post, i chose a more laid back attitude towards the same viewpoint presented herein. so, it is clear to me that the building easily exposes itself towards both an easy and a more difficult sort of criticism. choose.
I'm not seeing De Stijl. Unless any rectilinear feature means it's De Stijl. The detailing is wretched. It's just awful.
then look at the left hand half of the first picture. that should be obvious. the shoddy workmanship i can see is with the plastering and painting and that might have been a bad choice of plaster and paint material in the first place.the skewed glazing and framing is decent actually, workmanship wise.
in this kind of architecture, you would be quite silly to expect detailing at the disciplined level of john pawson, say (choosing a minimalist's minimalist as a counter example). detailing here is,like the rest of the building, rather casual. it doesnt revel in a deliberate intelligence.
you know, people who immediately badmouth this without giving good valid reasons are just only one step away from equaling those who troll anyone who criticizes. what does "its just awful" mean? need you badmouth someone else's work in such a trivial dismissive and -most significantly- unitelligent manner that does not add any modicum of substantial validification of your opinion? there are good things and bad things here...i've seen awful things and apart from the paint and plaster job and chice of this dead whiteness, this isnt awful by far.
sorry, was offering a pithy critique. to be fair, your choice of words is overwrought and self-aggrandizing, and you don't come off as sharp as you seem to think you are.
"modicum of substantial validification of your opinion"? learn to write, brother.
and learn the difference between an opinion and critique. and who said i'm a 'brother'?
would you care to draw the distinction between the two? sorry for gendering you.