Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Finalists include IwamotoScott, San Francisco, Ball-Nogues, Los Angeles, Gage Clemenceau, NYC, MOS, NYC and RuyKlein, NYC. Via
wow. impressive list I wonder who will take it?
fyi, MOS also has a website: http://www.mos-office.net/
thanks for the article - looking forward to ballnogues, ruyklein and mos entries.
I like meredith's website
I was going to make a snarky comment, but I can't muster it. I'm not sure whether it is the narrow interest of PS.1, or just that this is what Young Architects do, but I am saddened that I don't see much relevancy in these finalists apart from their contribution to formal innovation. BFD. Isn't there anything else of any importance in architecture besides shapemaking and creating new forms? And if so, how come you never see it at PS.1?
But perhaps I'm just not getting it - can someone correct me?
the comment comes in 2 parts:
is this what Young Architects do (formal innovation): certainly this is not a domain of the young as we see in works of complex geometry. Targeting formal expl as heraldry of the naive is a somewhat scattered blast.
PS1 and formal innovation: like the serpentine pavilion, each year a brief is given for a known site and programme - akin to the 17th c tradition of variations on a theme: interesting and perhaps indulgent. To disagree with a private client (are they private - are your taxes siphoned to moma?) and their interest is the stance of a critic.
on relevancy. If we look at the shortlist - a number of them are searching beyond voluptuous affect (of which I suspect you are against). 'Importance in architecture' is not always about social endeavor, innit
I also welcome correction
Can you elaborate on which of these is going beyond voluptuous effect? I see more of the same interest in digital fabrication (isn't this where PS.1 started almost a decade ago), but nothing else.
while i don't equate digital fabrication with shapemaking and formal innovation, i won't enter a debate on its attributes. it's too nice out. and I just found a reference
I wouldn't equate digital fabrication with shapemaking either - obviously you can be interested in one without even addressing the other.
But who really cares about this stuff? The blame lies not just with the architects, but also PS.1 for setting the bar so low, and creating a competition that will name the architectural equivalent of Little Miss Sunshine.
No one is suggesting that formal innovation is "heralding the naive" - the arguments are complex and the participants are sophisticated. But no matter how sophisticated, the arguments don't matter. Despite the press release which demands attention and asserts importance, Young Architects hasn't presented any evidence that it deserves it.
formal considerations aside, i'd book a flight to nyc to see if iwamotoscott could successfully create a prototype of that "jellyfish" house on their website. the rain-enhanced skin sounds like a knock-out & i'd love to get a first hand experience of its impact on the atmosphere
to all the haters.... if you want to hate then thats fine.. if you are inspired byt this work then take it for what it is and a way to explore what you are interested in.
and for those that continue to hate don't forget that the the people that you idolize were at one time new too.
just a thought...
Perhaps it would be best to give everyone a pat on the back for everything that they do, regardless of its merits. If you favor that regime I think you owe me a note of congratulations for saying anything at all.
I might propose that "Hating" and criticality aren't the same thing. If you disagree with what I am saying, fine, but I won't let you suggest that a negative critique is always without value because it is impolite. If the parties in this conversation actually believe in their projects, they should be tough enough to be able to sustain some inquiry and mount an intellectual defense without having their feelings hurt. Historically the worst periods for architectural culture have occurred when consensus was mistaken for progress, and architectural debate was narrowed to how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. I have nothing against young architects, and I can't imagine how you got that out of any of the previous posts - if anything, young practitioners are more likely to offer an alternative voice. My criticism with this program is that it seems to represent little more than the status quo, more of the same, but clad in mock-revolutionary garb.
janosh_you will have to excuse my haste in firing bullets on this thread but i was thoroughly dis-heartened after taking a minute [well much more than a minute] to review the threads on the "SUR" installation.
that said.. i just feel as though the "critique" of things that are not necessarily the norm is to often just "hating"due to lack of understanding. on the other side of the same coin there is quite a bit of constructive criticisms coming out of the PS1 installation debates.. which maybe is the ploy behind the entire PS1 approach... to create opinion and debate? this i am not sure.
in any case i appreciate these firms attempt to explore new areas of study that may not yet be considered architecture but their exploration is helping to drive what will be the future of architecture. and if there was no drive to be innovative dwellings would be caves and tree shelters.
correct me if i am wrong for i can digest it as part of learning
i would also appreciate those who are un-interested by this type of work to post images, theories, or something that represents what they are interested in so that an understanding of a particular stance may be obtained.
I like caves and tree shelters
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?