Archinect

1 Featured Comment

All 9 Comments

citizen

Cue Gordon Lightfoot's Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.  The long version.

Oct 13, 19 1:37 pm
citizen

Next up: a building shaped like the Holocaust.

Oct 13, 19 1:38 pm

You just can't unsee/hear that.

Oct 13, 19 3:37 pm
citizen

The address is One Titanic Plaza.

(Seriously, this stuff just writes itself.)

Oct 13, 19 6:54 pm
Menona

I will play shipwreck's advocate, and declare it: valid.

The image shows a pair of primary "regular" volumes, against which is contrasted an "organic" non-regular form expressed in a mismash of color, materiality, spatial quality and spatial relationship.

I would argue that this is the basic dynamic/move/formal-project that Le Corbusier deployed throughout his "ouvre" (sorry, had the opportunity, and just had to use it).  

So throughout LCs projects there is often a strong primary form of regular geometry, against which there are more free-form, sculptural, rounded, elements deployed.  This creates contrast and a visceral relief from the overwhelming-ness of regularity in the massive "geometric" volume.  This technique ameliorates and modulates the relentlessness of large geometric volumes in space. (Think the chimney on the Unite, the rounded form atop Savoye, the buildings at Chandigarh do it a lot. The Karl Marx Hof needs a bit of this type of relief - not LC, but used as an example to contrast.)

So I would argue that this building is an extension of that particular Corbusian architectural impulse.  And it appears that the red thing is a vertical manifestation of the "Roof Garden", either jumping up-to, or down-from, the roof. 

I would assume there is access to the red thing from all the levels in the tall volume.  In that case, it's really the roof garden spilling down from the top and becoming "Facade-Garden", then roof-garden again, and then down to the ground in the public space (the garden-garden).

My negative criticism would be that it isn't terribly elegant and maybe a little stylistically schizophrenic.  There's a bit of hodge-podge and lack of unity to the formal language.  But, I'm going to say it's architecturally valid.

Oct 14, 19 11:29 am
Archlandia

This building can't be valid... it's literal.

Volunteer

Architects frequently want to design buildings to look like ships (or part of ships, usually the bow). Naval architects never design their ships to look like buildings. 

Oct 14, 19 12:06 pm
SneakyPete

Container ships and prefab apartment buildings are remarkably similar in approach (unloading and loading) and look, but that probably isn't much more than parallel thinking.

nabru

I do wonder how much it would cost to hire someone to do renders + animation of a ridiculous proposal that would be guaranteed clicks and if the advertising dollars are above parity, and how many concerned interests an exercise like that would serve?

Oct 15, 19 7:18 pm
Wood Guy

I found the discount version: 

Nov 2, 19 11:26 am
Non Sequitur

I like it.

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: