In the lead up to 9/11 Christopher Hawthorne wrote "The tall tower is architecture's most famous building type and also the one most clearly at odds with the profession's roots. Fundamentally, architecture is shelter, a concession that we're afraid to face the elements without protection. A skyscraper is vertical hubris." In response to which Donna Sink queried "So is CCTV a greater or lesser example of hubris than the next-temporarily-tallest tower?"
The New York Observer, observed that "Thanks to some lightning rods, 1 World Trade Center will be free from some of the silly symbolic weight given to it by Danny Libeskind." However, TheMasterBuilder disagreed "I like this design, and I'm glad they went with this instead of exactly what Libeskind had proposed. The Chamfered edges, the square profiles the large antenna all recall the original WTC buildings. ..Overall, I'd say, it's not ideal, and its not what people were hoping for, but neither was the first WTC, and I'm sure that in time, this building will be regarded as an important part of the skyline and people will be unable to imagine that it wasn't always there." Additionally, as AbrahamNR noted "AJ2030 proves himself to be an intolerant bigot."
Marking the decade since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Lebbeus Woods offered reflections on the context for the tragedy, and the reconstruction's bitter sense of business as usual , in Domus. eric chavkin thought "Sarajevo...New York > An interesting comparison."
The NYT profiled some studies, which "suggest that doubling density raises productivity by around 6 percent while others peg the impact at up to 28 percent." and while that may be true Dani Zoe responded "but does that outweigh the increased cost of living? In a place like New York it certainly does not."
The Atlantic highlighted the book New York Dozen by Michael J. Crosbie (who is an architect and chair of the Department of Architecture at the University of Hartford). The book profiles 12 up and coming firms and "is a slice through the city's strata of architectural talent, taken at a moment challenging architects globally." Michael Crosbie acknowledged that the title is "a play on 'Five Architects,' the book published in 1972 that presented the work of architects Peter Eisenman, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk, and Richard Meier." While jk3hl said "this collection of firms can't be compared to the Five and their influence." and snail argued that "It makes sense to include WORKac and MOS, but where are SHoP and LTL? The book seems interesting as an introduction to some new architects, but I hope it's not interpreted as a definitive listing."
Matthew at University of Illinois Chicago is "back in Chicago after a summer in Copenhagen and other various Nordic lands." So he provides a wrap up of his time in Copenhagen included a sampling of the work he produced for DIS ( Danish Institute of Study).
Anthony at Columbia University's GSAPP is back from the summer Palestinian Workshop. He writes "Water and utilities is another big issue for Palestinians. Although Palestinians have the right to the land of the West Bank from the Oslo Accords. Israelis have the air and subterranean rights, so Palestinians have no access to the water table. Water is piped into Israel and then sold back to the Palestinians."
Samuel at University Of Tennessee has been working on a LEED for "Homes submission to the USGBC (United States Green Building Council) in hopes of achieving a Platinum certification" for the New Norris House. He also offers a preview of a case-study book the university has been working on to document the design and build process of the New Norris House.
Transparence wants to talk about "Future Trends in Architecture" emergency exit wound offered up some dense food for thought including this gem "Is 'what a building really is' that which is most valuable in terms of being the harbinger of architectural aesthetics?"
brutalism&booze; asks is "is green code having a negative effect on architecture?" holz.box writes "i don't see how it has a negative affect - except that maybe it makes people who don't want to deal with energy modeling throw up 'clunky' elements." and Urbanist seems to agree. He points out "I'm not really sure it's fair to say that code constrains good design. We're trained to operate within and respond to site, context, physical AND regulatory constraints with outstanding design. I believe there's no such thing as "unconstrained" design." brutalism&booze; clarifies his concern "I think the point is that a building's structure is such a fundamental part of what that building is that if it's not in some way available to the architect then that's quite a major compromise. A bit like saying please form a band and make outstanding music but no bass or drums allowed."
lessisdefmore writes "Every so often I come to archinect for work updates, inspiration and a dose of architecture and design. After opening 20+ tabs on forum threads I usually find myself depressed and re-thinking a career in architecture." citizen advises "Don't forget: Archinect is not necessarily a random sample of people representing a wide range of views of the field, though clearly there's a variety of people here. My hunch is that "membership" or active participation here probably skews toward the cranky or critical. " Finally, mantaray feels "although archinect has rarely made me anything but pleased to be able to share thoughts with others who understand the unique experience of being a strange person who loves to see tangible objects transformed into living spaces, i do know what you mean."