A naive but sincere question. And not supposed to sound as rhetorical as it does.
Morphosis are the only architects that I hear consistently about on this board. Are they the hottest thing at the moment? Or are they just especially relevent to Arch students right now? Why? It is not intuitive to me when I see their work that they should be deserving of SO much praise. Can someone explain how they are important in architecture right now?
it seems to me that a lot of students appreciate thier work... [old fogey voice] i remember back when i was a student (8 yrs ago), we all loved morphosis... [/old fogey voice]
the love has waned through years of professional practice for all of us.
One reason they (Mayne, Rotundi - now Mayne) were so popular is there extensive model building, diagramming, pretty picture making, etc. This is what we all do in school (and most would like to do it in the real world, but no one pays for that pretty stuff). So we look to experimental design, experimental model making, experimental diagramming, and it's all there, in slick and pretty books.
The latest one has brought everything into the computer era, solidifying Mayne, yet again, as a pioneer and visionary in any medium. He and Lynn (separately, of course) almost single handedly defined computer aesthetics for architects. This was due in large part to the limitations of the hardware available, but they made it all famous. Students are still making things this way (again, because of time limitations, although that's changing).
Basically, they/he have created some incredible pieces of architecture over a long 30 year or so history of doing avant garde architecture. They've also taught for the majority of that and helped to start Sci Arc. That's a lot of students!
Personally, I love it all, everything from the models to the buildings. I enjoyed my time as a student with Mayne and learned a lot. It was a fitting end to the school with someone that had inspired me throughout my education.
Unlike 3ifs, I appreciate their work, as built form, more through experience. I realize just how hard it is to design and build as they have (particularly Mayne - Diamond Ranch still being my fav). Not many can do it, even with a perfect opportunity, and certainly most will never have a chance to even try.
Lastly, the success is admirable as well. Not only did Mayne forge his own path, but he has remained true to it. As he once said, "The most difficult thing to do after 25 years of practice is to create something new". Not many have been able to redefine their own aesthetics, let alone successfully.
Thanks trace, that actually sheds a lot of light on Morphosis, and gives me a strong basis to respect the admiration Mayne seems to receive on this forum.
Personally, the thing I like most about Morphosis is the way each of their projects relate to each other....Its a continuous, consistent and persistent exploration of architecture that goes beyond just the client and cost aspects. What amazes me is that if you study their work, this relationship between two diverse, completely distinct projects is not apparent at first, but reveals itself on further scrutiny..
Thom Mayne is a very good speaker...he can talk volumes on architecture and art...
i agree with trace. i appreciate their work even more now because i know how difficult it is to get anything built. i'm also amazed that he has become the go to guy for government buildings. not sure i would use he and lynn in the same sentence though. sorry, i think lynn is crap.
I had never noticed an abnormal level of praise... but from someone who actually visits quite a bit of what they build, they are no more deserving of praise than anyone else in the 'high design' set right now- Moneo, Koolhaas, Gehry, etc. As I said, I see many of their projects in person- some I love, and sometimes it lasts and sometimes I only love it until they put actual loud live children inside their echoing halls of concrete. Morphosis may just be getting a lot of hype right now because they are the most recent addition to that top level of high design firms.
Well as an even older Fogey, they were the darlings of the design set back in the late 80's with the Crawford house, Kate Mantilini'sand the 6th Street House etc. very new stylish drawings and models. and got it built just like it was designed. Strong rigor and compositionally impressive. I remember thinking that when they split it was akin to the Beatles break up! Impressed that both have continued on there own paths and had new successes.
When I was starting Arch. School 13 years ago, MoRphosis was everyones "starchitect", for many of the same reasons stated above. Now I have learned to appreciate what Thom has been able to do with their Govmt. clients (GSA, NOAA, etc) Typically the most conservative of the bunch, set in their ways...Morphosis has pulled off some very competent forward thinking buildings, for that I give them credit.
Formally, I will remain a fan of their exploratory work... however, I find that their new work (from the 90's until now) have been a little too sterile and surgical in colour. It'd be nice to see a step away from the grey/black/white like the early years. Maybe that's due to the excessive use of metal everywhere. Next thing someone says is:
"Buddy, the glass isn't glass at all... It's transparent aluminum"
e - I hear you about Lynn. It was a 'battle' between Lynn and Mayne a few years back. Mayne would not let you use Maya and Lynn would not let you use FormZ. Obviously, the differences go so much deeper and I am sure you can guess which camp I bought into (as did many of us - it did divide the school, somewhat).
I only mentioned Lynn because of the Maya aesthetic - that standard plastic-high-specular-glossy-transparent look. Barely anyone ever learned how to light a model, let alone render it (mostly screen shots).
It's all pretty amusing, imo, but I am glad the blobbitecture is fading and architecture is coming back. That's another point - Morphosis alwasy designed things to be built, not theoretical shinniness that could never be built in such pristine form.
trace i agree with you for the most part but when you say, 'Mayne, yet again, as a pioneer and visionary in any medium. He and Lynn (separately, of course) almost single handedly defined computer aesthetics for architects.', i dont buy it even a bit.
I can agree about Lynn, but Mayne, not at all. Yes, if you talk about representation, Morphosis rocks, but i dont think they have advanced the discourse of architecture in more-than-formal terms
sameolddr - I think there architecture is more about experience. It's about inhabiting the form, touching it, feeling it.
This, to me, is what it's all about. It's about experiencing the space.
When I visited Diamond Ranch (just before completion) it really blew my mind. I liked all the pretty pics, of course, but the real building is much better. I don't love all of their work, but I admire most of it.
trace- I've unfortunately found that visiting their work prior to occupancy leaves people with a higher impression of it than visiting it when it's being used. I visited the Science Center School both during construction, and more recently on a school day, and my opinion was drastically changed when I saw the functional issues present which greatly reduced the enjoyment of the building by the kids and teachers. The form is stunning, but there are just enough small and mid-sized problems that they can't be overlooked for the sake of aesthetics.
ok, the big ones are these...
1) there's no touchable green- it's all on rooftops, so there's no really inviting place for kids to play. I see this as a BIG problem, being that it's an elementary school and all. There are just these great expanses of concrete, which leads us to the next point...
2) the materials chosen (concrete and metal) create a substantial noise problem. the courtyard between the main building and the old armory building gets quite an echo to it. even the classroom floors are concrete, and every time a kid moves their chair a bit, it schreeches over the lessons. The ground floor classrooms, where the contractor messed up the pour, causing cracking, had to be covered up with a synthetic composite material, and they're actually much better than the second floor classrooms, which were built as specified.
3) Dangerous/annoying detailing- there are several places where I noticed exposed sharp edges- for instance the railing/screen on either side of the bridge comes to a sharp point underneath, which is just the height that the older kids will try and jump to touch it (yeah, it sucks, but kids do this stuff all the time, and I think a *school* should be designed with this stuff in mind), and I was told by the principal that that same bridge has created a problem with kids dropping things. Forks, milk, papers, pretty much anything ends up over the edge. Maybe a higher railing, less gappy screen would have fixed this? When I saw these sorts of details on my first trip, I assumed that they were just there because it wasn't finished yet. I was wrong. They remain.
4) bad angles for light- when I saw this on my first visit, the clerestory windows in some of the classrooms looked great. When all the furnishings were moved in, high, deep cabinets were placed below them. From the children's viewpoints, there are no windows, because at the angle they see it from, the cabinets block the windows. Noticed this when I sat down at a desk.
5) lack of signage leaves visitors wandering around the building for quite some time trying to find the entrance- you would assume it was in the new building, but it turns out you actually enter through the old armory building.
6) when you do find the entrance, you come in and the principal, etc. are on one side of you, and the nurse is on the other side. well, they only have a real nurse come in once or twice a month, they said. so, the principal and vice principal end up dealing with your usual someone threw up, someone's got a fever sort of stuff. but the layout of this area makes that difficult for them- the kids don't know which room to go to if they're not feeling well.
smaller scale, more technical problems and dissappointments...
1) there was no pin-up space included in the design!!! Kids and teachers like to pin up homework, artwork, posters, etc. and there's nowhere for them to do that. I was told the school was trying to raise the extra 16 grand or so that it will take to outfit all of the classrooms with a common cork or fabric surfacing. There is a large window wall at the end of the building that is almost completely covered by papers, still.
2) for the kindergarten classrooms, they decided to put sinks in the rooms, as well as those drinking fountains that you can install near the front of the sink. Problem is, they didn't use a big enough sink, or take the sink pan out far enough or something, so the water from the drinking fountain all ends up on the countertop and on the floor.
3) electrical problems- the phones are on the floor, and the internet jacks are right by the sinks. How is that useful? Although this one could definitely be blamed on a stupid consultant, it's also definitely a problem of coordination.
4) color. Even the playground equipment is painted gray. I realize this is a personal preference (which is why it's so far down the list), but I would think that so much gray would get a bit depressing for the kids.
So yeah, that's what I remember noticing and having pointed out to me while I was there on the second trip. It's so stunning a form, and has so much potential, but you would almost think they had never designed a school before. It may have been a lot better if they had partnered to do it with someone who has done many schools and would catch these functional issues. Many of them wouldn't be problems for adults, but it's a building for kids and Morphosis didn't seem to realize that. It's a shame that these sorts of things hinder the kids enjoyment of the building, and perpetuate that stereotype of the great-looking building that doesn't work.
Good points. I agree about the concrete/steel aesthetic - I love it for its purity, but in reality it's simply too cold for most people (including myself). Their earlier work that fetishized steel detailing was a little too much for my taste, but the larger, more formal moves is what I do love. I am glad that the larger formal explorations is what is driving their work.
It's always good to hear about how things turn out, after the perfect picture taking is done.
Still love'em though. Kinda like Hadid's firehouse. When I saw it, I could careless that it became a display for Vitra's chairs.
Morphosis needs to warm up to landscape. The public space of every project of theirs Ive seen - Diamond Ranch High, Int'l Elementary, USC Science School, CalTrans - would benefit IMMENSELY from two, three, or four huge oak or sycamore trees. And there are materials other than concrete with which to pave public space. The plaza at CalTrans would be much better if the portion enclosed by the neon scrim had a few huge trees and if the whole plaza was paved in somekind of warm, smallish brick or stone.
The time i went there, when it was during construction, the sharp steel angles and the wiremeshes protruding out seemed too unfriendly and dangerous, at the least
I thought there was a big scale problem - the whole building could just be scaled by 150% and it would be fine.
And what the )*)*(*( was that long member projecting out on the entrance??? looked really superficial and out of place
i agree about the lack of vegetation. it is a common problem. vegetation was an after thought for rem's seattle public library too. it good have certainly benefited from a bit more thoughtful greenery.
actually, the funny thing is that there's vegitation all over the building- on the roof, in burms facing Exposition Blvd., etc. But there's just no plot of grass for a kid to run around on, which has got to suck for them.
Also, the building looked really good about midway through construction, when they had just put up the metal screens. This is because behind the metal screens on the main portion of the building, they didn't use concrete, but some more generic plaster or cementitious board type of thing, and at one point in the middle of construction it was yellow, and actually looked damn good that way. The color behind the screens really illustrated the depth of those outdoor walkways, as opposed to now that every layer of material is gray, it seems to flatten it visually.
The really funny thing is that the principal will point out a million flaws in the building (especially if she knows you're an architecture student), but she still loves it deep down. It is still a really cool looking building. And at night there are these flourescent lights in the emergency exit ramps along the front of it that make it look really cool. I should snap a picture sometime after my night class and post it for you guys.
I've always liked their work - but the one thing that I have noticed about Morphosis is that the buildings don't seem to age well. I heard him say something about his attention span when I was at UCLA, and I remember thinking that the lifespan of his buildings is just about as short. If you're in LA go look at some of the early work. It's been a while - but the house at the north end of Hermosa Beach Boulevard sticks out in my mind as being in really rough shape at an early age.
About building longevity, Thom Mayne has always talked about how for him the project and idea are more important more pure than the final built realization could ever be. I'm not saying one shouldn't be concerned with the final building, but the history of LA architecture is crazy designs built fast and cheap. Only now that the young Turks have matured into old architects and are getting big commissions are you seeing a greater attention to detail.
Anyhow, the worst detailed Morphosis building is a a million times better than any Peter Eisenman pastel EIFS building.
i'm sure that is of great consolation to the owner that spent good money only to have their house fall apart prematurely.
geez - i wonder how architects have gotten so marginalized.
emmfour - is that the Deathstar downtown? I haven't been able to find a reason to go down their since the barricades came down and they stopped threatening people with cameras.
3) electrical problems- the phones are on the floor, and the internet jacks are right by the sinks. How is that useful?
absolute necessity in the rooms they use to teach underwater basket-weaving.
1) there was no pin-up space included in the design!!! Kids and teachers like to pin up homework, artwork, posters, etc. and there's nowhere for them to do that.
some fool's been dumping appliances behind my fence. i could bring a few old refrigerators by. The kids could cut pieces of magnet out of the gaskets...
4) color. Even the playground equipment is painted gray. I realize this is a personal preference (which is why it's so far down the list), but I would think that so much gray would get a bit depressing for the kids.
Navy gray! An unfair advantage against the Army recruiters.
--------
I remember taking classes one summer at a different campus than my High School. The summer location was newer and carpeted, but was a more "sterile" modern style. All raw concrete slabs, and some walls lacked any windows. the buildings gave me no sense of novelty, despite that I compared them to my 60's cookie cutter High School. If this summer campus had been my only High School, I probably would have thought of it as equally boring as the cookie cutter campus.
Diamond Ranch High, Int'l Elementary, USC Science School, CalTrans - would benefit IMMENSELY from two, three, or four huge oak or sycamore trees.
Cut a 2'x2' into the paving next to a wall, and feed the building to a big Ficus pumila :-)
Big old F. p. would look great on those tilt-out walls.
Clytostoma covers beautifully given some water. Don't stand too close. Macfadyena ...
Or let some Italian Cypress "smash" into the wall and leave a scrubby arc when the wind blows.
Truthfully, I like that these 'starchitects', or lesser known designers, with distinguishable style produce variations for different cities. So many cities can have a taste of different styles.
Some buildings have a strong shipping crane appearance or star wars enemy mothership appearance. Which is fine. But I wonder if some of the tack-on "details" are at all functional.
i agree about the lack of vegetation. it is a common problem. vegetation was an after thought for rem's seattle public library too. it good have certainly benefited from a bit more thoughtful greenery.
yeah. that's why they pay LA's, to fix the architecture :-)
Bring it on!
Mar 2, 05 11:51 pm ·
·
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.
Whats so great about Morphosis?
A naive but sincere question. And not supposed to sound as rhetorical as it does.
Morphosis are the only architects that I hear consistently about on this board. Are they the hottest thing at the moment? Or are they just especially relevent to Arch students right now? Why? It is not intuitive to me when I see their work that they should be deserving of SO much praise. Can someone explain how they are important in architecture right now?
probably becaue they do quite a bit of slick work in california...where this site is based i do believe....
only a theory of course. personally i like their stuff.
it seems to me that a lot of students appreciate thier work... [old fogey voice] i remember back when i was a student (8 yrs ago), we all loved morphosis... [/old fogey voice]
the love has waned through years of professional practice for all of us.
One reason they (Mayne, Rotundi - now Mayne) were so popular is there extensive model building, diagramming, pretty picture making, etc. This is what we all do in school (and most would like to do it in the real world, but no one pays for that pretty stuff). So we look to experimental design, experimental model making, experimental diagramming, and it's all there, in slick and pretty books.
The latest one has brought everything into the computer era, solidifying Mayne, yet again, as a pioneer and visionary in any medium. He and Lynn (separately, of course) almost single handedly defined computer aesthetics for architects. This was due in large part to the limitations of the hardware available, but they made it all famous. Students are still making things this way (again, because of time limitations, although that's changing).
Basically, they/he have created some incredible pieces of architecture over a long 30 year or so history of doing avant garde architecture. They've also taught for the majority of that and helped to start Sci Arc. That's a lot of students!
Personally, I love it all, everything from the models to the buildings. I enjoyed my time as a student with Mayne and learned a lot. It was a fitting end to the school with someone that had inspired me throughout my education.
Unlike 3ifs, I appreciate their work, as built form, more through experience. I realize just how hard it is to design and build as they have (particularly Mayne - Diamond Ranch still being my fav). Not many can do it, even with a perfect opportunity, and certainly most will never have a chance to even try.
Lastly, the success is admirable as well. Not only did Mayne forge his own path, but he has remained true to it. As he once said, "The most difficult thing to do after 25 years of practice is to create something new". Not many have been able to redefine their own aesthetics, let alone successfully.
Thanks trace, that actually sheds a lot of light on Morphosis, and gives me a strong basis to respect the admiration Mayne seems to receive on this forum.
Their work was highly influential to the Flash/web design set who found their books.
Personally, the thing I like most about Morphosis is the way each of their projects relate to each other....Its a continuous, consistent and persistent exploration of architecture that goes beyond just the client and cost aspects. What amazes me is that if you study their work, this relationship between two diverse, completely distinct projects is not apparent at first, but reveals itself on further scrutiny..
Thom Mayne is a very good speaker...he can talk volumes on architecture and art...
In short.. Morphosis Rocks !!
i agree with trace. i appreciate their work even more now because i know how difficult it is to get anything built. i'm also amazed that he has become the go to guy for government buildings. not sure i would use he and lynn in the same sentence though. sorry, i think lynn is crap.
remember the january 1997 architecture mag cover story was "Why does morphosis always win?"
I had never noticed an abnormal level of praise... but from someone who actually visits quite a bit of what they build, they are no more deserving of praise than anyone else in the 'high design' set right now- Moneo, Koolhaas, Gehry, etc. As I said, I see many of their projects in person- some I love, and sometimes it lasts and sometimes I only love it until they put actual loud live children inside their echoing halls of concrete. Morphosis may just be getting a lot of hype right now because they are the most recent addition to that top level of high design firms.
Well as an even older Fogey, they were the darlings of the design set back in the late 80's with the Crawford house, Kate Mantilini'sand the 6th Street House etc. very new stylish drawings and models. and got it built just like it was designed. Strong rigor and compositionally impressive. I remember thinking that when they split it was akin to the Beatles break up! Impressed that both have continued on there own paths and had new successes.
When I was starting Arch. School 13 years ago, MoRphosis was everyones "starchitect", for many of the same reasons stated above. Now I have learned to appreciate what Thom has been able to do with their Govmt. clients (GSA, NOAA, etc) Typically the most conservative of the bunch, set in their ways...Morphosis has pulled off some very competent forward thinking buildings, for that I give them credit.
Formally, I will remain a fan of their exploratory work... however, I find that their new work (from the 90's until now) have been a little too sterile and surgical in colour. It'd be nice to see a step away from the grey/black/white like the early years. Maybe that's due to the excessive use of metal everywhere. Next thing someone says is:
"Buddy, the glass isn't glass at all... It's transparent aluminum"
Colm - Diamond Ranch has red steel ;-)
e - I hear you about Lynn. It was a 'battle' between Lynn and Mayne a few years back. Mayne would not let you use Maya and Lynn would not let you use FormZ. Obviously, the differences go so much deeper and I am sure you can guess which camp I bought into (as did many of us - it did divide the school, somewhat).
I only mentioned Lynn because of the Maya aesthetic - that standard plastic-high-specular-glossy-transparent look. Barely anyone ever learned how to light a model, let alone render it (mostly screen shots).
It's all pretty amusing, imo, but I am glad the blobbitecture is fading and architecture is coming back. That's another point - Morphosis alwasy designed things to be built, not theoretical shinniness that could never be built in such pristine form.
thx for the clarification trace.
trace i agree with you for the most part but when you say, 'Mayne, yet again, as a pioneer and visionary in any medium. He and Lynn (separately, of course) almost single handedly defined computer aesthetics for architects.', i dont buy it even a bit.
I can agree about Lynn, but Mayne, not at all. Yes, if you talk about representation, Morphosis rocks, but i dont think they have advanced the discourse of architecture in more-than-formal terms
sameolddr - I think there architecture is more about experience. It's about inhabiting the form, touching it, feeling it.
This, to me, is what it's all about. It's about experiencing the space.
When I visited Diamond Ranch (just before completion) it really blew my mind. I liked all the pretty pics, of course, but the real building is much better. I don't love all of their work, but I admire most of it.
trace- I've unfortunately found that visiting their work prior to occupancy leaves people with a higher impression of it than visiting it when it's being used. I visited the Science Center School both during construction, and more recently on a school day, and my opinion was drastically changed when I saw the functional issues present which greatly reduced the enjoyment of the building by the kids and teachers. The form is stunning, but there are just enough small and mid-sized problems that they can't be overlooked for the sake of aesthetics.
USCErin, can you elaborate as to the problems?
ok, the big ones are these...
1) there's no touchable green- it's all on rooftops, so there's no really inviting place for kids to play. I see this as a BIG problem, being that it's an elementary school and all. There are just these great expanses of concrete, which leads us to the next point...
2) the materials chosen (concrete and metal) create a substantial noise problem. the courtyard between the main building and the old armory building gets quite an echo to it. even the classroom floors are concrete, and every time a kid moves their chair a bit, it schreeches over the lessons. The ground floor classrooms, where the contractor messed up the pour, causing cracking, had to be covered up with a synthetic composite material, and they're actually much better than the second floor classrooms, which were built as specified.
3) Dangerous/annoying detailing- there are several places where I noticed exposed sharp edges- for instance the railing/screen on either side of the bridge comes to a sharp point underneath, which is just the height that the older kids will try and jump to touch it (yeah, it sucks, but kids do this stuff all the time, and I think a *school* should be designed with this stuff in mind), and I was told by the principal that that same bridge has created a problem with kids dropping things. Forks, milk, papers, pretty much anything ends up over the edge. Maybe a higher railing, less gappy screen would have fixed this? When I saw these sorts of details on my first trip, I assumed that they were just there because it wasn't finished yet. I was wrong. They remain.
4) bad angles for light- when I saw this on my first visit, the clerestory windows in some of the classrooms looked great. When all the furnishings were moved in, high, deep cabinets were placed below them. From the children's viewpoints, there are no windows, because at the angle they see it from, the cabinets block the windows. Noticed this when I sat down at a desk.
5) lack of signage leaves visitors wandering around the building for quite some time trying to find the entrance- you would assume it was in the new building, but it turns out you actually enter through the old armory building.
6) when you do find the entrance, you come in and the principal, etc. are on one side of you, and the nurse is on the other side. well, they only have a real nurse come in once or twice a month, they said. so, the principal and vice principal end up dealing with your usual someone threw up, someone's got a fever sort of stuff. but the layout of this area makes that difficult for them- the kids don't know which room to go to if they're not feeling well.
smaller scale, more technical problems and dissappointments...
1) there was no pin-up space included in the design!!! Kids and teachers like to pin up homework, artwork, posters, etc. and there's nowhere for them to do that. I was told the school was trying to raise the extra 16 grand or so that it will take to outfit all of the classrooms with a common cork or fabric surfacing. There is a large window wall at the end of the building that is almost completely covered by papers, still.
2) for the kindergarten classrooms, they decided to put sinks in the rooms, as well as those drinking fountains that you can install near the front of the sink. Problem is, they didn't use a big enough sink, or take the sink pan out far enough or something, so the water from the drinking fountain all ends up on the countertop and on the floor.
3) electrical problems- the phones are on the floor, and the internet jacks are right by the sinks. How is that useful? Although this one could definitely be blamed on a stupid consultant, it's also definitely a problem of coordination.
4) color. Even the playground equipment is painted gray. I realize this is a personal preference (which is why it's so far down the list), but I would think that so much gray would get a bit depressing for the kids.
So yeah, that's what I remember noticing and having pointed out to me while I was there on the second trip. It's so stunning a form, and has so much potential, but you would almost think they had never designed a school before. It may have been a lot better if they had partnered to do it with someone who has done many schools and would catch these functional issues. Many of them wouldn't be problems for adults, but it's a building for kids and Morphosis didn't seem to realize that. It's a shame that these sorts of things hinder the kids enjoyment of the building, and perpetuate that stereotype of the great-looking building that doesn't work.
Good points. I agree about the concrete/steel aesthetic - I love it for its purity, but in reality it's simply too cold for most people (including myself). Their earlier work that fetishized steel detailing was a little too much for my taste, but the larger, more formal moves is what I do love. I am glad that the larger formal explorations is what is driving their work.
It's always good to hear about how things turn out, after the perfect picture taking is done.
Still love'em though. Kinda like Hadid's firehouse. When I saw it, I could careless that it became a display for Vitra's chairs.
Morphosis needs to warm up to landscape. The public space of every project of theirs Ive seen - Diamond Ranch High, Int'l Elementary, USC Science School, CalTrans - would benefit IMMENSELY from two, three, or four huge oak or sycamore trees. And there are materials other than concrete with which to pave public space. The plaza at CalTrans would be much better if the portion enclosed by the neon scrim had a few huge trees and if the whole plaza was paved in somekind of warm, smallish brick or stone.
The time i went there, when it was during construction, the sharp steel angles and the wiremeshes protruding out seemed too unfriendly and dangerous, at the least
I thought there was a big scale problem - the whole building could just be scaled by 150% and it would be fine.
And what the )*)*(*( was that long member projecting out on the entrance??? looked really superficial and out of place
Alaska thinks Morphosis is pretty great:
Morphosis' Dome-shaped Capitol design selected
i agree about the lack of vegetation. it is a common problem. vegetation was an after thought for rem's seattle public library too. it good have certainly benefited from a bit more thoughtful greenery.
actually, the funny thing is that there's vegitation all over the building- on the roof, in burms facing Exposition Blvd., etc. But there's just no plot of grass for a kid to run around on, which has got to suck for them.
Also, the building looked really good about midway through construction, when they had just put up the metal screens. This is because behind the metal screens on the main portion of the building, they didn't use concrete, but some more generic plaster or cementitious board type of thing, and at one point in the middle of construction it was yellow, and actually looked damn good that way. The color behind the screens really illustrated the depth of those outdoor walkways, as opposed to now that every layer of material is gray, it seems to flatten it visually.
The really funny thing is that the principal will point out a million flaws in the building (especially if she knows you're an architecture student), but she still loves it deep down. It is still a really cool looking building. And at night there are these flourescent lights in the emergency exit ramps along the front of it that make it look really cool. I should snap a picture sometime after my night class and post it for you guys.
All that needs to be said is that this space is awesome, and the building was already featured in a Chevy commercial.
I've always liked their work - but the one thing that I have noticed about Morphosis is that the buildings don't seem to age well. I heard him say something about his attention span when I was at UCLA, and I remember thinking that the lifespan of his buildings is just about as short. If you're in LA go look at some of the early work. It's been a while - but the house at the north end of Hermosa Beach Boulevard sticks out in my mind as being in really rough shape at an early age.
yeah, i remeber thinking the same thing about kate mantilini years ago. panels falling out and just looking a mess.
About building longevity, Thom Mayne has always talked about how for him the project and idea are more important more pure than the final built realization could ever be. I'm not saying one shouldn't be concerned with the final building, but the history of LA architecture is crazy designs built fast and cheap. Only now that the young Turks have matured into old architects and are getting big commissions are you seeing a greater attention to detail.
Anyhow, the worst detailed Morphosis building is a a million times better than any Peter Eisenman pastel EIFS building.
i'm sure that is of great consolation to the owner that spent good money only to have their house fall apart prematurely.
geez - i wonder how architects have gotten so marginalized.
emmfour - is that the Deathstar downtown? I haven't been able to find a reason to go down their since the barricades came down and they stopped threatening people with cameras.
absolute necessity in the rooms they use to teach underwater basket-weaving.
1) there was no pin-up space included in the design!!! Kids and teachers like to pin up homework, artwork, posters, etc. and there's nowhere for them to do that.
some fool's been dumping appliances behind my fence. i could bring a few old refrigerators by. The kids could cut pieces of magnet out of the gaskets...
4) color. Even the playground equipment is painted gray. I realize this is a personal preference (which is why it's so far down the list), but I would think that so much gray would get a bit depressing for the kids.
Navy gray! An unfair advantage against the Army recruiters.
--------
I remember taking classes one summer at a different campus than my High School. The summer location was newer and carpeted, but was a more "sterile" modern style. All raw concrete slabs, and some walls lacked any windows. the buildings gave me no sense of novelty, despite that I compared them to my 60's cookie cutter High School. If this summer campus had been my only High School, I probably would have thought of it as equally boring as the cookie cutter campus.
Cut a 2'x2' into the paving next to a wall, and feed the building to a big Ficus pumila :-)
Big old F. p. would look great on those tilt-out walls.
Clytostoma covers beautifully given some water. Don't stand too close. Macfadyena ...
Or let some Italian Cypress "smash" into the wall and leave a scrubby arc when the wind blows.
Truthfully, I like that these 'starchitects', or lesser known designers, with distinguishable style produce variations for different cities. So many cities can have a taste of different styles.
Some buildings have a strong shipping crane appearance or star wars enemy mothership appearance. Which is fine. But I wonder if some of the tack-on "details" are at all functional.
Disneyland Guillotine by RAM card?
Pitb site
http://www.morphosis.net/morph.swf
yeah. that's why they pay LA's, to fix the architecture :-)
Bring it on!
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.