Nouvel is a superstar, and he has some good buildings for sure, and I hate to sound mean but I just don't think this is very good. The tower form itself is cool and might be ok as a mass, but the fenestration is uncomfortably chaotic AND looks cheap, both the window units themselves and the way they punch into the brick. The brick is blue, as is the interior:
which the article claims is a nod to the police officers who inhabit the building. I hope this isn't true, as if it is that makes the tower form seem monumentally overbearing, like a prison guardhouse/watchtower. But also the relentless blue on the interior is just overbearing, too. And the interior spaces of the offices (click the article) with their sloping walls feel crushing.
I visited the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis recently, also by Nouvel, and frankly felt kind of the same about it. It did have a great presence on the skyline, really effective at announcing a district, but the interior spaces were dark, confusing, and monotonous. Granted I was there in the afternoon, and I imagine the spaces that felt too dark and narrow for daytime would feel glamorous and svelte at night for an opera, with everyone dressed in glittery gowns, but overall I found the building to be unfriendly and trying too hard to be cool.
Nouvel's Institut du Monde Arabe, tho. Damn, it's gorgeous.
gwharton
Dec 4, 15 4:00 pm
"Your fear is so engrained. Sad."
I just want to point this out as a rhetorical tactic which has become all too common these days: accusing anybody who disagrees with something of being cowardly or afraid without any basis whatsoever. You see it everywhere, and it is totally corrosive to any kind of discourse or thinking. Some examples:
Comment: "Glorification of hedonism through normalization of homosexuality is having a very negative effect on our culture."
Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF GAY PEOPLE, HOMOPHOBE?!"
Comment: "Introduction of large numbers of outsiders into society through unrestricted immigration is breaking down social trust and undermining essential institutions."
Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF IMMIGRANTS, XENOPHOBE?"
etc., etc.
This sort of psychologizing in place of actual response is absolute bullshit and a mark of complete intellectual dishonesty. It is exactly the same thing as kindergartners on a playground calling each other "chicken," and double-dog-daring one another into some kind of stupidity. Predictably, it also often devolves into endless rounds of "AM NOT! ARE TOO!"
anonitect
Dec 4, 15 4:38 pm
DOES NOT!
I do find it interesting that your examples present reactionary points of view as reasonable, by subtly distorting the issues. For example - to blame equal rights for homosexuals for a glorification of hedonism is an obvious straw man, and where is there "unrestricted" immigration. Strangely, you've picked two instances where the relatively powerless are scapegoated for larger societal problems.
But, you're right that Quodam's response was pretty lame.
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 5:10 pm
quondam,
I am trying to understand your critique, can you encapsulate it in 25 words or less?
Preferably in a non-invective declarative sentence(s).
Miles Jaffe
Dec 4, 15 5:19 pm
It's not a false accusation, it is a disciplined, systematic analysis of your posting tactics.
It's no secret that you are a fraction of the intellect you consider yourself to be, except possibly to you.
awaiting_deletion
Dec 4, 15 6:16 pm
the building sucks.
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 6:23 pm
Fair enough and certainly valid, however, a subjective opinion does not give enough substance with which to carry on a conversation.
Surely with your education you could provide some more insight.
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 6:24 pm
^ meant to quondam
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 7:37 pm
quondam,
I have perused what you have written and I can not find a reasoned argument, only a subjective opinion.
Can you either restate it or show me where the analysis is?
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 7:39 pm
^ or copy paste
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 8:02 pm
your statement above, in quotes.
SneakyPete
Dec 4, 15 8:10 pm
OOH, semantics. Scintillating,
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 8:27 pm
I know bullshit when I hear it.
I am not going to devolve this thread any further in a mindless exercise of semantic hair splitting.
Miles Jaffe
Dec 4, 15 8:30 pm
That's not semantics, it word salad.
Real semantics requires disciplined, systematic analysis.
Volunteer
Dec 4, 15 8:37 pm
It's just an ugly building I'll suited to it's site or purpose. It is like the Boston City Hall in that respect. Some people have to show their assumed intellectual superiority by saying what a wonderful structure it is and how it should be preserved when it is just a widely-loathed pile of shit.
,,,,
Dec 4, 15 9:15 pm
apologies to everyone for feeding the troll
awaiting_deletion
Dec 4, 15 11:36 pm
the building sucks.
jacobpetion
Sep 3, 19 8:43 pm
Stop calling these pile of diarrhea "architecture." people should just banned them in their cities.
I saw this Jean Nouvel project in Architect Magazine while flying to Phoenix last week.
Link here.
Nouvel is a superstar, and he has some good buildings for sure, and I hate to sound mean but I just don't think this is very good. The tower form itself is cool and might be ok as a mass, but the fenestration is uncomfortably chaotic AND looks cheap, both the window units themselves and the way they punch into the brick. The brick is blue, as is the interior:
which the article claims is a nod to the police officers who inhabit the building. I hope this isn't true, as if it is that makes the tower form seem monumentally overbearing, like a prison guardhouse/watchtower. But also the relentless blue on the interior is just overbearing, too. And the interior spaces of the offices (click the article) with their sloping walls feel crushing.
I visited the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis recently, also by Nouvel, and frankly felt kind of the same about it. It did have a great presence on the skyline, really effective at announcing a district, but the interior spaces were dark, confusing, and monotonous. Granted I was there in the afternoon, and I imagine the spaces that felt too dark and narrow for daytime would feel glamorous and svelte at night for an opera, with everyone dressed in glittery gowns, but overall I found the building to be unfriendly and trying too hard to be cool.
Nouvel's Institut du Monde Arabe, tho. Damn, it's gorgeous.
"Your fear is so engrained. Sad."
I just want to point this out as a rhetorical tactic which has become all too common these days: accusing anybody who disagrees with something of being cowardly or afraid without any basis whatsoever. You see it everywhere, and it is totally corrosive to any kind of discourse or thinking. Some examples:
Comment: "Glorification of hedonism through normalization of homosexuality is having a very negative effect on our culture."
Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF GAY PEOPLE, HOMOPHOBE?!"
Comment: "Introduction of large numbers of outsiders into society through unrestricted immigration is breaking down social trust and undermining essential institutions."
Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF IMMIGRANTS, XENOPHOBE?"
etc., etc.
This sort of psychologizing in place of actual response is absolute bullshit and a mark of complete intellectual dishonesty. It is exactly the same thing as kindergartners on a playground calling each other "chicken," and double-dog-daring one another into some kind of stupidity. Predictably, it also often devolves into endless rounds of "AM NOT! ARE TOO!"
DOES NOT!
I do find it interesting that your examples present reactionary points of view as reasonable, by subtly distorting the issues. For example - to blame equal rights for homosexuals for a glorification of hedonism is an obvious straw man, and where is there "unrestricted" immigration. Strangely, you've picked two instances where the relatively powerless are scapegoated for larger societal problems.
But, you're right that Quodam's response was pretty lame.
quondam,
I am trying to understand your critique, can you encapsulate it in 25 words or less?
Preferably in a non-invective declarative sentence(s).
It's not a false accusation, it is a disciplined, systematic analysis of your posting tactics.
It's no secret that you are a fraction of the intellect you consider yourself to be, except possibly to you.
the building sucks.
Fair enough and certainly valid, however, a subjective opinion does not give enough substance with which to carry on a conversation.
Surely with your education you could provide some more insight.
^ meant to quondam
quondam,
I have perused what you have written and I can not find a reasoned argument, only a subjective opinion.
Can you either restate it or show me where the analysis is?
^ or copy paste
your statement above, in quotes.
OOH, semantics. Scintillating,
I know bullshit when I hear it.
I am not going to devolve this thread any further in a mindless exercise of semantic hair splitting.
That's not semantics, it word salad.
Real semantics requires disciplined, systematic analysis.
It's just an ugly building I'll suited to it's site or purpose. It is like the Boston City Hall in that respect. Some people have to show their assumed intellectual superiority by saying what a wonderful structure it is and how it should be preserved when it is just a widely-loathed pile of shit.
apologies to everyone for feeding the troll
the building sucks.
Stop calling these pile of diarrhea "architecture." people should just banned them in their cities.