I think the Canal Street entrepreneurs in New York get Prada better than either Rem or H&dM. The brand is so strong that you don't need Architecture to sell it - people will buy it laid out on a garbage bag.
if that's he way to do it.... design a night club and change the world......
that's how B018 started in Beirut ( n.6 in the world today)
architect Bernard Khoury Harvard graduate
This is essentially comparing a project that focused on the design of an exterior skin and a project that focused on enteriors. Which would be hard to do. And it would also be hard to judge their economic impact as I'm sure the brand is viewed quite differently in the US and Japan.
Of course, I'm sure it's much easier to design the budget-busting bling of a one-off retail emporium (with extravangances and minor dalliances forgiven in the name of uniqueness) than it would be to successfully and thoughtfully re-consider a pervasive problem with the way we are building the other 95% of the country (soon to be the world!).
But perhaps this is harsh. I'm sure any architect or planner (Rem included) would love a shot at an infrastructural problem of this scale, but the problem, I imagine, is there's no-one to pay for it, or interested enough to implement it. The public just isn't aware enough that it's a problem, and I'm sure Big Box developers are quite happy with their parking lots just as they are: efficient cogs in the money-making machine, public realm, environment, and quality of life be damned.
it will be a sad day when architects are no longer used for project types that are already consiered "too efficient" ... in the end isnt housing alreay efficient through the role of the developer/builder? oes that mean that an architect shoulnt be involved in the design of public housing?
we have to change the profession from within, dont wait for a client to come to you, go to them. Are we seen as only capable of doing bling shopfronts or branding museums? put on your prada gear or your kmart sweats and get out there.
but anyway, i gotta give it to HdM (i have been to both) simply becuase of the embedded changing rooms/floors. brillant.
architecture is slow and inefficient, yet efficiency should not be the role of the architect. in contemporary culture, efficiency is too much of a surface level idea.
developer / builder housing is not efficient either...in fact it is the furthest thing from efficient...it is perhaps economical, as a singular idea, but it is not efficient.
well Javier , ok we architects act as we design the whole f**** world.... but i think we should leave a tiny little space for other designers such as Prada.... they do have a "spirit" I think
i agree with mason. its all fine to moan and complain, but that continues the passive role architects have allowed to be cornered into. by taking an active stance, going after clients, sometimes even working for free and then showing someone an alternative solution, much can be done.
there are some big box stores that are starting to get concerned about their role in the sprawl problem. some new developments [and i haven't looked at this plan closely in a couple of years] in the atlanta steel project initially tried to deal with this, lining the big boxes and putting program on top.
lewis tsurumaki lewis have presented fun and inspiring alternatives to this problem. it can be done.
alejandro aravena has jumpstarted the elemental housing project, trying to deal with social housing as an architecture problem.
i personally think parking lots are a fantastic challenge. margaret crawford has studied parking lots that act as weekend markets in california. much can be done to activate these spaces.
but tackling these 'real world' problems leads to compromise, the dreaded word. nobody really likes compromise, but sometimes you have to give a little to be allowed to be done much. i guess i'm talking in disguise about a project i'm working on, but i find that the level of compromise you allow without selling out is the key to a good project.
No-one is suggesting we just sit back and moan, complain, and slide into irrelevance. I agree with all that has been said, but my point is that it will take more than that if we truly want to "change the world." I think we also have to step outside of the role of architects, and make a concerted effort at advocacy, especially in terms of public policy, public education. The models aml cites are noteworthy, but I think singular successful projects on their own terms are not going to be enough. My point is that the majority of people, including the public, developers, and politicians, still seem to see no problems with current development trends. They are thinking only in terms of convenience and economic efficiency. But as "Supermarket" rightly points out, there are other types of "efficiencies" that are worthwhile, and I think we have a role to play in convincing people that there are other values to consider, and better ways of approaching development. We, as a profession, tend to eschew ideas of populist outreach, but I think that expanding our responsibilities, by assuming other roles (not only developer, but politician, policy wonk, public journalist, etc.) may be necessary for us to truly have an impact.
Aravena may fit this model best, and maybe the (gasp) New Urbanists as well. I need to read more about Aravena's work.
Not that this would necessarily be easy. I personally feel that I have a long way to go before I could get to a point where I'd feel knowledgeable enough to engage the public in this way... (but then again caution is my achilles' heel)
Marc, I agree with you but I think that in order to offer up other values we need to do so in the guise of cost-effectivness, perceieved value, and desirability. I think we should look at successful brands and companies and employ their strategies in order to further our own prominence in the marketplace. In other words; let the customer think they are getting a product from you that is affordable and will enhace their status, meanwhile you are getting the satisfaction of making a building to your interests and collecting a check.
I think JG's comments are pretty spot on ... present your design interests (material, environment, effect, etc.) on your clients terms (efficient, cost-effective, marketable).
Smart, tricky and potent.
there is nothing new about these restrictive terms...
architects have for years tried to implement their design interests via clients terms...it hasn't been as successful as we (as architects) hope it would be because we are limiting ourselves with our foolish mentalities.
architects seem to think architecture as a discipline is the sum of all creative disciplines and until we step down of our pedestal and critically question our mentalities, the better we'll be.
it certainly should be beyond "collecting a check" - that mentality as a driving factor to practice architecture is bullshit.
"let the customer think they are getting a product from you that is affordable and will enhace their status" - JG
this is lame. we shouldn't let anybody "think" they are getting something they are not really getting. they should get what they want, not what we want...find good clients and you will get what you want too.
Supermarket or Dshot: My interest is not in getting a check, that is a necessity to stay alive. I am merely pointing out ways to make it easier. So often my colleagues and friends complain about little pay, lay offs, lack of clients etc... I think that in order to counter these negatives we should examine business models from other professions and adopt them into our own consciousness and practices. I am reminded of Deleuzes quote about how the schizophrenic fights against the wave of capitalism and exerts a force so great that it ends up drowning him. I see architecture (in general, not all practices) as fighting against a building industry that will only end in defeat. Instead we should attempt to “ride the wave†and be able to bend it's momentum to our needs.
hey supermarket --
is 'honesty and integrity' making references to yourself in every other discussion forum on archinect? huh?
I would hardly hold you up as a model of 'integrity' with your tiresome self-promotions of "the supermarket." in my book you come much closer to the 'whore' as you call it.
get over yourself.
so promotion of a group and idea generation are not honest acts of intergrity?
JG talks about marketing and how we in the design professions should take note...well, the supermarket is taking note and stiring the pot.
the supermarket isn't about one voice...it's about sharing ideas and challenging the status qou...or the conventions of the design professions.
JG brings up some great points about architecture and its fight against the building industry - our current lack of maleability. However, easier is not architecture...the integrity of the profession (and all professions) should not be based on making things "easier"
challenge and progression is hard...not easy...easy is complacency.
stirring the point is one thing, deliberately misreading a sensible comment looking for attention is something else. this discussion was interesting before it got de-railed into this.
I think Prada has been very smart in engaging both of these architects' visions. In Rem they have the hip factor in his bold non-sequitur gestures, unsophisticated detailing, and edgy/questionable use of materials = SoHo. With skin-makers-extraordinaire HdM they shift gears to the polished jewel, the single gestalt image, all seduction and refinement = Tokyo's fashionable Aoyama/Omote Sando Street.
I expect, despite Rem's championing their cause, courting them over the last few years, they won't find it necessary to be loyal to any particular brand-name architect and they'll choose their architects to match each message/location. I think they've already started working on a small scale with some younger designers...
H&dM is off and doing wonderfull things in architecture-Prada for them is no more than an excuse/paycheck/opportunity to create one more of their beautiful bldgs. i don;t think they beneifit particularly from being associated with the brand - Prada gets a gorgeous bldg to their name/image ...
OMA's case i find different, (am going here on gut feeling more than any extensive reading or information on their relationship...) I would say Rem get's to add Prada to his image and status, and as fodder for whatever book he comes out with next. Prada gets a hip bldg out of rem....
Your distinction sounds like a matter of personal opinion regarding these architects' work. As far as recognition, they're both top of the pile: both Pritzgers, both working around the globe, both doing fashion photo shoots and guest editing magazines outsdie their disciplines. I'd find it hard to say Rem aims to 'add Prada to his image and status' any more than HdM; they're about flush, and Prada has benefitted from both.
At least in the US, I'd almost venture that Rem has greater brand recognition among non-architects since Harvard studio books are at Barnes & Noble, Seattle and IIT are open. HdM has hit some barriers here, first in Texas and then with the hoopla about the 'ugly' deYoung in SF. Once that's finished, we'll see...
ward- yes - it is personal opinion more than anything.... but it does seem that the vibe of the respective relationships ( h&dM/ P vs OMA/P) is very different , and telling ....of what , i can't quite articulate Koolhaas seems so bastardly sometimes - and won;t make up his mind between solid critical discourse and good bldg, and playing l'enfant terrible....
Dec 16, 04 1:12 am ·
·
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.
Who gets Prada best OMA or Herzog & de Meuron
This is the link http://www.designboom.com/closeup/worksinprogress.html
and there are many more .. u tell us who u think captures the prada spirit more...
OMA or Herzog and de Meuron
I think the Canal Street entrepreneurs in New York get Prada better than either Rem or H&dM. The brand is so strong that you don't need Architecture to sell it - people will buy it laid out on a garbage bag.
I do love the air curtain at Rem's BH store.
but pls let's not forget that the brand made a re-birth through architecture.............................. nope????
Forget Prada ...
design a costco or walmart, and change the world.
actually, forget that.
design a parking lot, and change the world.
if that's he way to do it.... design a night club and change the world......
that's how B018 started in Beirut ( n.6 in the world today)
architect Bernard Khoury Harvard graduate
OMA
This is essentially comparing a project that focused on the design of an exterior skin and a project that focused on enteriors. Which would be hard to do. And it would also be hard to judge their economic impact as I'm sure the brand is viewed quite differently in the US and Japan.
Prada spirit? if you mean outrageous prices for one-liner products, then OMA wins
If you mean who created better architecture, HdM, hands down
I'm with Mason on this one.
Of course, I'm sure it's much easier to design the budget-busting bling of a one-off retail emporium (with extravangances and minor dalliances forgiven in the name of uniqueness) than it would be to successfully and thoughtfully re-consider a pervasive problem with the way we are building the other 95% of the country (soon to be the world!).
But perhaps this is harsh. I'm sure any architect or planner (Rem included) would love a shot at an infrastructural problem of this scale, but the problem, I imagine, is there's no-one to pay for it, or interested enough to implement it. The public just isn't aware enough that it's a problem, and I'm sure Big Box developers are quite happy with their parking lots just as they are: efficient cogs in the money-making machine, public realm, environment, and quality of life be damned.
yep trace prada spirit!
architecture in this case cannot be abstract or away from the prada spirit, since it is a fashion line .
it will be a sad day when architects are no longer used for project types that are already consiered "too efficient" ... in the end isnt housing alreay efficient through the role of the developer/builder? oes that mean that an architect shoulnt be involved in the design of public housing?
we have to change the profession from within, dont wait for a client to come to you, go to them. Are we seen as only capable of doing bling shopfronts or branding museums? put on your prada gear or your kmart sweats and get out there.
but anyway, i gotta give it to HdM (i have been to both) simply becuase of the embedded changing rooms/floors. brillant.
architecture is slow and inefficient, yet efficiency should not be the role of the architect. in contemporary culture, efficiency is too much of a surface level idea.
developer / builder housing is not efficient either...in fact it is the furthest thing from efficient...it is perhaps economical, as a singular idea, but it is not efficient.
-d
who or what the hell has a "spirit"?; they turn to architecture to design them a (temporary) one.
who or what the hell has a "spirit"?
...
pure poetry Javier
well Javier , ok we architects act as we design the whole f**** world.... but i think we should leave a tiny little space for other designers such as Prada.... they do have a "spirit" I think
i agree with mason. its all fine to moan and complain, but that continues the passive role architects have allowed to be cornered into. by taking an active stance, going after clients, sometimes even working for free and then showing someone an alternative solution, much can be done.
there are some big box stores that are starting to get concerned about their role in the sprawl problem. some new developments [and i haven't looked at this plan closely in a couple of years] in the atlanta steel project initially tried to deal with this, lining the big boxes and putting program on top.
lewis tsurumaki lewis have presented fun and inspiring alternatives to this problem. it can be done.
alejandro aravena has jumpstarted the elemental housing project, trying to deal with social housing as an architecture problem.
i personally think parking lots are a fantastic challenge. margaret crawford has studied parking lots that act as weekend markets in california. much can be done to activate these spaces.
but tackling these 'real world' problems leads to compromise, the dreaded word. nobody really likes compromise, but sometimes you have to give a little to be allowed to be done much. i guess i'm talking in disguise about a project i'm working on, but i find that the level of compromise you allow without selling out is the key to a good project.
No-one is suggesting we just sit back and moan, complain, and slide into irrelevance. I agree with all that has been said, but my point is that it will take more than that if we truly want to "change the world." I think we also have to step outside of the role of architects, and make a concerted effort at advocacy, especially in terms of public policy, public education. The models aml cites are noteworthy, but I think singular successful projects on their own terms are not going to be enough. My point is that the majority of people, including the public, developers, and politicians, still seem to see no problems with current development trends. They are thinking only in terms of convenience and economic efficiency. But as "Supermarket" rightly points out, there are other types of "efficiencies" that are worthwhile, and I think we have a role to play in convincing people that there are other values to consider, and better ways of approaching development. We, as a profession, tend to eschew ideas of populist outreach, but I think that expanding our responsibilities, by assuming other roles (not only developer, but politician, policy wonk, public journalist, etc.) may be necessary for us to truly have an impact.
Aravena may fit this model best, and maybe the (gasp) New Urbanists as well. I need to read more about Aravena's work.
Not that this would necessarily be easy. I personally feel that I have a long way to go before I could get to a point where I'd feel knowledgeable enough to engage the public in this way... (but then again caution is my achilles' heel)
Marc, I agree with you but I think that in order to offer up other values we need to do so in the guise of cost-effectivness, perceieved value, and desirability. I think we should look at successful brands and companies and employ their strategies in order to further our own prominence in the marketplace. In other words; let the customer think they are getting a product from you that is affordable and will enhace their status, meanwhile you are getting the satisfaction of making a building to your interests and collecting a check.
i agree with JG more i should say.........
it's all Euro-trash
JG, dig a little deeper...
"succesful" "satisfaction" "collecting a check"
you're restrictive mentality is no good for architecture and the world.
-d1758
these are not restrictive terms, I see them as new to most architects.
I think JG's comments are pretty spot on ... present your design interests (material, environment, effect, etc.) on your clients terms (efficient, cost-effective, marketable).
Smart, tricky and potent.
there is nothing new about these restrictive terms...
architects have for years tried to implement their design interests via clients terms...it hasn't been as successful as we (as architects) hope it would be because we are limiting ourselves with our foolish mentalities.
architects seem to think architecture as a discipline is the sum of all creative disciplines and until we step down of our pedestal and critically question our mentalities, the better we'll be.
it certainly should be beyond "collecting a check" - that mentality as a driving factor to practice architecture is bullshit.
"let the customer think they are getting a product from you that is affordable and will enhace their status" - JG
this is lame. we shouldn't let anybody "think" they are getting something they are not really getting. they should get what they want, not what we want...find good clients and you will get what you want too.
where is your honesty and integrity?
you're a whore to convention and money.
-dshot
Supermarket or Dshot: My interest is not in getting a check, that is a necessity to stay alive. I am merely pointing out ways to make it easier. So often my colleagues and friends complain about little pay, lay offs, lack of clients etc... I think that in order to counter these negatives we should examine business models from other professions and adopt them into our own consciousness and practices. I am reminded of Deleuzes quote about how the schizophrenic fights against the wave of capitalism and exerts a force so great that it ends up drowning him. I see architecture (in general, not all practices) as fighting against a building industry that will only end in defeat. Instead we should attempt to “ride the wave†and be able to bend it's momentum to our needs.
hey supermarket --
is 'honesty and integrity' making references to yourself in every other discussion forum on archinect? huh?
I would hardly hold you up as a model of 'integrity' with your tiresome self-promotions of "the supermarket." in my book you come much closer to the 'whore' as you call it.
get over yourself.
so promotion of a group and idea generation are not honest acts of intergrity?
JG talks about marketing and how we in the design professions should take note...well, the supermarket is taking note and stiring the pot.
the supermarket isn't about one voice...it's about sharing ideas and challenging the status qou...or the conventions of the design professions.
JG brings up some great points about architecture and its fight against the building industry - our current lack of maleability. However, easier is not architecture...the integrity of the profession (and all professions) should not be based on making things "easier"
challenge and progression is hard...not easy...easy is complacency.
-d
the supermarket is pitiful. stir your pot elsewhere.
stirring the point is one thing, deliberately misreading a sensible comment looking for attention is something else. this discussion was interesting before it got de-railed into this.
Agreed, aml.
I think Prada has been very smart in engaging both of these architects' visions. In Rem they have the hip factor in his bold non-sequitur gestures, unsophisticated detailing, and edgy/questionable use of materials = SoHo. With skin-makers-extraordinaire HdM they shift gears to the polished jewel, the single gestalt image, all seduction and refinement = Tokyo's fashionable Aoyama/Omote Sando Street.
I expect, despite Rem's championing their cause, courting them over the last few years, they won't find it necessary to be loyal to any particular brand-name architect and they'll choose their architects to match each message/location. I think they've already started working on a small scale with some younger designers...
H&dM is off and doing wonderfull things in architecture-Prada for them is no more than an excuse/paycheck/opportunity to create one more of their beautiful bldgs. i don;t think they beneifit particularly from being associated with the brand - Prada gets a gorgeous bldg to their name/image ...
OMA's case i find different, (am going here on gut feeling more than any extensive reading or information on their relationship...) I would say Rem get's to add Prada to his image and status, and as fodder for whatever book he comes out with next. Prada gets a hip bldg out of rem....
Your distinction sounds like a matter of personal opinion regarding these architects' work. As far as recognition, they're both top of the pile: both Pritzgers, both working around the globe, both doing fashion photo shoots and guest editing magazines outsdie their disciplines. I'd find it hard to say Rem aims to 'add Prada to his image and status' any more than HdM; they're about flush, and Prada has benefitted from both.
At least in the US, I'd almost venture that Rem has greater brand recognition among non-architects since Harvard studio books are at Barnes & Noble, Seattle and IIT are open. HdM has hit some barriers here, first in Texas and then with the hoopla about the 'ugly' deYoung in SF. Once that's finished, we'll see...
ward- yes - it is personal opinion more than anything.... but it does seem that the vibe of the respective relationships ( h&dM/ P vs OMA/P) is very different , and telling ....of what , i can't quite articulate Koolhaas seems so bastardly sometimes - and won;t make up his mind between solid critical discourse and good bldg, and playing l'enfant terrible....
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.