diabase:
Originality: B+
Sustainability: who cares, thats not the point
Functional: Its a folly - functionality is moot
Relevant: Debatable, but thats its function to an extent
This is probably one of the most disturbing posts in this thread....and there are a lot.
It's funny last years project was 100% biodegradeable and/or recyclable. It was made from sustainably harvested materials and it created a series of very exciting spaces in the courtyard. Sur does not seem to do all that much spatially....but then again I am sure someone in this thread will go on to tell me that architecture is not about space either.
The bottom line is that as architects we need to think of issues like sustainability all of the time....especially on a temporary installation. We really need to ask ourselves if architecture as a profession is part of the solution of part of the problem.
It amazes me that we can overlook so many opportunites to better society and simply lose ourselves in irellevant formal gestures.
In my mind his early instalation.. especially the one in SCI-Arc gallery in summer 2002 was much more better... and for somewhat irrational bloby form...i would say Dunescape by SHOP had more stuff to talk than just this pure simply a COOL sculpture form...
Quoting cyn: the 'meta' program here is about form and experimentation and provocation of debate in the public. the more the chosen architects push the envelope the happier the client (ps1) is.
This statement is spot on. To me this is why some of the issues that face 'regular' architecture - meeting the ground, longevity, etc. - are simply not issues.
That also to me means that while it is a structure about architecture questions, it is not quite architecture. But that's a really annoying nitpicky and ultimately subjective argument that I can't back up because while I don't think Sur is a building, I think Siza's armadillo is.
PS cyn I understand that in terms of the sublime, being overwhelming doesn't literally mean physically "big", but I do think this project would be better, and more likely to be overwhelming, if it was physically bigger, because it would be harder to comprehend all at once. I like it, and think I would like it more if it was bigger.
i doubt that architectural form would be seen by society as 'irrelevant'. in fact that is one of the hottest debates in the public and has been for a long time.
imo, sustainability is a far more complex and deeper problem rooted in the global economy, developers' interests, capitalism etc. architects have very limited ability to affect these things.
i would say Dunescape by SHOP had more stuff to talk than just this pure simply a COOL sculpture form..
Well, it did, but it seemed like a much more lengthy process to generate such a form. SHoP's wasnt about surfaces as much as it was concerned with volume. There is a difference.
And SHoP only completed 60% of their installation.
Again, SHoPs emphasis was more on the fabrication and less about the realization. Which holds its own merit asidefrom Hernan's intent.
doubt that architectural form would be seen by society as 'irrelevant'. in fact that is one of the hottest debates in the public and has been for a long time.
Not sure which public you are refering to but 99% of the built environment in the US seems to consist of little more than Vinyl sided boxes / Parking lots and Dryvit covered box stores. As far as public debate on architectural form goes I think that would fall really far below that "who should be the next American Idol" debate
"Not sure which public you are refering to but 99% of the built environment in the US seems to consist of little more than Vinyl sided boxes / Parking lots and Dryvit covered box stores. As far as public debate on architectural form goes I think that would fall really far below that "who should be the next American Idol" debate"
vinyl, parking lots and and dryvit are materials not form.
i think hernan's project will generate public debate, simply because it is not banal and moralistic.
it's safe to assume i'm not referring to the same public you are ( the one terribly concerned with american idol). do you think that is the only one there is or that matters?
remember to link images in the gallery to the URL in the Picture info, not the one that is initially displayed in the address box. Images in the gallery shift places when new images are added and the addresses expire, but not the one in the info... For permanent access you can also use the search results. Here they are for "Spectrum3d"
sorry parking lots is not material but not an architectural form either. it is a space or void.
the point is that the 99% of buildings you are talking about still put a great deal of weight on form, which today is seen as style--'branded' stores, graphics, etc. there is an emphasis on banality and mediocrity because that gives the least offense to the widest demographic. just because its not sculptural or highly designed spatially does not mean it is not hotly debated. debated downward. ie it is important to be banal if you want to sell coffee, groceries condos, etc.
and on the other end of things, yes the design of high-profile landmark or so-called cultural buildings like wtc or museums eg additions to the whitney etc are very hotly debated in terms of form. that cannot be denied.
I don't dislike this as much as most, in fact i don't have a problem with it at all. It just is what it is and it's getting waaaaay too much credit here just by discussing it for this long.....and here I do again!
What I don't understand is how people are calling it something special in terms of technique/fabrication? Scripts? C'mon, scripts are simple little things that are used everyday in Maya, Max, etc., and written everyday. They certainly aren't new to any field, including construction/fabrication.
That's the part the disturbs me the most. If there is something new, I sure can't see it. This wouldn't look new 8 years ago.
sustainability ... yea sure, all that foam used to vaccum form this ugly monster is going to end up in some landfill to remain like that for the next 100 million years
originality ... sure they used cool new maya scripts to generate these forms, but in all honestly it just looks like a greg lynn idea x 25
I bet it would be a bit more interesting if these forms had some structural logic, or were derived from the strength of the material etc. For christsakes even gaudi's forms had some structural logic.
Many people here think this project is fine if viewed as a sculpture, but thats precisely why it fails. Hernan is an architect, and projects like these keep reducing the value of architecutre to sculpture etc and that does not push the discourse of architecture at all.
Ok, folks. lets look at the situation. firstly Hernan maybe very idiosyncratic in his nature but in terms of techinique and formal gestures how does he differ from A.Gaudi? How can the SaGrada Familia get such great praise and is considered a keystone of culture in Barcelona, but as soon as a very cheap installation is built in the U.S. that looks nothing like whats in 100 mi radius of it, there is a mob of low cultured American(aka boiling pot...wow) that are waiting to rip it to shreds and not understand it first. One problem I think we all have is that we live in such a fast paced society with value meals around every corner, so we travel through this country/world expecting up-front readings and cut-and-dry meanings.....thank you
if you read through the posts you will see that there are more people who are actually defending this project than criticizing it.
its interesting we shoudl talk about Gaudi approximately the same time. you have to understand that Gaudi started the design of the Sagrada Familia, which is arguably more complex in terms of scale, material context etc a fucking 120-odd years ago.
Hey but as seen by this renders the anteaters (can't believe they really look like that) Had to be suspended in air and not meant to touch ground on sand. I liked the whole renderings but the the built stuff with 60,000 $ budget isn't really like renders.
Maybe Hernan would have liked to have a Black Sky on it and not those shitty concrete walls all around. Those are Awfull and terrible.
sustainability ... yea sure, all that foam used to vaccum form this ugly monster is going to end up in some landfill to remain like that for the next 100 million years
You dont know what you are talking about, but that's to be expected. The structure is aluminum and spandex.
What vaccum forms are you talking about?
http://www.metropolismag.com/webimages/1437/aboverender.jpg
Hey but as seen by this renders the anteaters (can't believe they really look like that) Had to be suspended in air and not meant to touch ground on sand. I liked the whole renderings but the the built stuff with 60,000 $ budget isn't really like renders.
Maybe Hernan would have liked to have a Black Sky on it and not those shitty concrete walls all around. Those are Awfull and terrible.
The total construction cost soared over 100grand.
the concrete walls are nice by the way... the detaiing of the PS1 logo and the slivers of steel cast into the monoliths are interesting. And cost was another issue i'm sure. Concrete is sexy, much moreso than the banal black background you see this shit rendered in so often. Black backgrounds are an easy way out of compositional work.
John Prolly. Quite interested to know how did you came up with that number?
there's people taking a loss here but as far as getting press for it...geez it seems to be all worth it. Specially spectrum 3d.
For all of you who have ever acted as project managers out there:
I think Hernan's talents have really been highlighted in this project. Somehow, he has an amazing ability to attract really talented people and co-ordinate their independent egos to produce coherent projects. I've seen it in the schools and for the first time am seeing it in a more commercial context. This management skill is one that not all of us posess. Amazingly, he doesn't do it through draconian intimidation tactics. For some reason people who have lots of job options seem to want to assist Hernan. This is an enormously important skill to have as an architect. Nobody accuses Rem Koolhaas of being bad at getting his structural calculations right, or having a terrible sense of color.. The opposite is true- he is seen as a great Architect for his ability to attract and inspire the right combination of people.
I'm not trying to equate the talent of Koolhaas to that of Hernan, just to point out that in very different ways, I think they are both good managers- a skill we all know is key in Architecture.
What I find disturbing is the attitude that all architecture must conform to some kind of value checklist in order to be successful.
Architecture is a wide field made of many parts and many interests. What I like about this work is that someone has attempted to contribute to the knowledge of the field in specific ways, and that this benefits us all.
I think the attacks on the aesthetics and lack of functionality or sustainability of this project shows a shallowness of thought and a lack of understanding of the value and influence that this kind of project has on architectural knowledge - not to mention an over-reliance on the images of the project.
And lastly, this is an artistic installation, not an exhibition or tradeshow. It is an individuals response to a brief, and it has to be judged on that basis.
John Prolly. Quite interested to know how did you came up with that number?
there's people taking a loss here but as far as getting press for it...geez it seems to be all worth it. Specially spectrum 3d.
From my conversations with some of the helpers, the labor, material and fabrication costs of this project WOULD be in the 100k - 200k range.
Zoë Coombes: Students [which is all that EVER work for the like of Rem and Hernan] Look at this work as an extension of school. Very rarly do you see people who have been working for 2+ years out of school volunteer their time and labor for free for these people. Usually once these people get jobs that pay out of school, the freeloading martyresque attitudes die out.
Offices like SHoP and LTL who are atimate about paying their employees shoudl be the new model of the these rockstarchitects.
Hernan's helpers are doing this for their own reasons as well; mostly to be apart of something great. A lot of these workers [esp from SciArc] have him as their advisors and in the great world of LArc, it's who you know. Ya Know?
I Would have volunteered if I could have gotten off work. I think the more you can add to your Arcsenal will benefit your learning experience as well as adding to you becoming a more well-rounded designer.
On a side note: Rem Koolhaas is almost Bankrupt - imagine if he HAD to pay people. The CCTV wouldnt even be in the works.
You are right: It is true that this thing will be leaching into the ground for hundreds of years and killing many, as yet, unborn baby birds .. Many of our buildings will.
But remember, it's not easy to make a building that isn't harmful. This is partially a fuction of how our economic system works- value is not related to a material's long term effects on biology. I'm sure a much less harmful project could have been made. However, this would have been a bigger challenge, taken more time to design, and perhaps come at a higher cost. The N-Architects project was really strong in this aspect. Biodegradable isoparms.. super cool.
What is important here is that we should be careful not to let the fact that this is a pretty toxic project cancel out it's many acheivements. (I won't list them here, since so many people have put it so well here in this thread.)
If I ever heard Hernan (or anyone in Architecture, I suppose...) say that it is 'Way Gay' to think about the effect of your building on our larger environment in the longterm- I would say they were dumb. I don't relish the idea of my child dying of cancer- no debate. But I don't think this is the case with Hernan. He isn't negating the importance of thinking about the impact of building materials on the earth- he just isn't tackling that issue.
Don't worry, no one is saying this is the single model of utopia. Like most projects, its not perfect, and your critique holds a grain of truth. However, if you want to understand this project in a smart way- don't let its weaknesses blind you to its many strengths.
good point sameold... but we both know that in the world of architecture 120 yrs is not much at all, hell we're still using columns n sht. so dating gaudi's work was not my point because we can name dates all day to show we stayed awaked in history class, but the true question is how far have we really gotten?
John Prolly,
It is true that the system of unpaid work in Architecture is detrimental to the talent of the proffesion. It narrows our talent pool to only those who find the means to invest in themselves for a few years until they get to the paid range. All the good reasons America has minimum wage standards are thrown to the wind. But let's face it- Hernan is not the first to do this. And the interns are just as guilty in this equation.
But really- wouldn't that be flattering if one of your employees (paid or unpaid) said that working for you felt like an extension of school? Congratulations to Hernan if that is what the people are saying!
if its true that rem is almost bankrupt...then how do you expect him to keep designing the things he does and pay people well too?
isn't that why people do shlock architecture? for the money?
I would rather have seen giant heads wrapped in pantyhose that some over sized coat hangers. This is the last of a dieing breed and I say enjoy your day in the sun.
i'm genuinely puzzled by the reactions...you'd think hernan was some huge threat to what others are doing and what their idea of architecture is???? if hernan's ps1 was just crap, it wouldn't get this much notice...
wasn't there alot of vitriol against zaha when she started too? and if i'm not mistaken, there was a huge campaign by more corporate SOM types against libeskind when he won the wtc competition--that even spilled over onto amazon reviews...i was amazed...
i have little problem with the work, i am still trying to understand what is going on, what i should read or should have read. i think what these people do and will do is extremely rigorous. but i think i have a problem when people dismiss the naysayers or inquisitioners, what are the right questions or critiques for this work? why is a connection to the ground not important? i could see if this work stayed in the virtual, but this is a real, built work. my question goes to the idea that with few exceptions these works do nothing to the "ground plane" they don't manipulate, distort, intersect, incorporate - nothing happens. in fact the ground plane seems to be nothing more that a stage for these works, and when you look at this installation it looks like stage props that can be moved or reconfigured to a new set. don't assume that the old questions of architecture have no ability to inform or even question the new - especially because the only thing that is new here is the means of production.
Personally, I loved Zaha from the moment I found her first El Croquis in a pile of books...but that's a different story.
I am surprised there is so much hatred as well. One reason that it's getting so much talk (he's gotta be lovin' this!!) is that it's the first blob built in a loooong time (that I can recall). Personally, I find the idea of beauty and grotesque very interesting, however, I find the discussion of technology (as in 3D technology, not 'real' technology for architecture) old and tiring.
My score: B- (B+ if you eliminate the talk about Maya/Rhino/Scripts, etc. - show me what it's really doing for you and I may buy it)
It's just sculpture to me and that's ok. It's a formal/graphical experiment, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say, that just generating this much talk has made me appreciate it more.
Good point e. It is ironic how biased so many are (and I admit that I am, too, to some degree).
i have no problem with honest criticism, and with good criticism usually comes alternative solutions to the issues. to complain without offer solution, is pointless whinning to me. and i do see a lot of comments like this >> "I would rather have seen giant heads wrapped in pantyhose that some over sized coat hangers. This is the last of a dieing breed and I say enjoy your day in the sun."
raising issues that are important to you should never be discouraged. would i like to see a more sustainable solution for something so temporary? you betcha. that's important to me, but that does not mean that one should dismiss the entire piece.
as many have said, like trace, this is not architecture, but this does not mean that architects can not learn from it. open your eyes to the world and you will be amazed at where one can draw inspiration from. this profession needs many types to inspire us, and all have their place and purpose. none have all the answers.
well i have yet to hear some clear reasons why this is not architecture. someone help me out here... all i am hearing are unsupported statements that it is not...WHY not??
what about the garden follies at stowe, versailles etc--would you say they are not architecture? what about tschumi's folliies at la villette? do they "look" more like a conventional building to you? if you do not consider them architecture either, then what is your definition of architecture?
personally, i have a very broad notion of architecture--basically, anything to do with order. and in the narrow sense, anything to do with spatial order. it does not have to have air conditioning and follow a building code to make it work for me.
beta--i am not sure but it seems like you are saying that unless the building seems to be rooted somehow in the ground that it is not correct somehow.
I dont think this is about what is architecture - I think its more about what is appropriate.
If this was a house, then there are serious problems. If this is what it is, an installation with some propositions about fabrication, design, form, narrative, materiality, then it begins to achieve some of what it sought to do.
Unfortunately, I am not due in New York for the foreseeable future, so I cant really test those propositions fully. I'll have to leave it others, and debate its value from what I can discern from text and image.
i do think this project blurs the boundary between art and architecture but because it is a structure that provides places to sit and listen to music that are sheltered or somewhat enclosed, it is not merely sculpture. i could imagine that you might call it an installation but then again i could also call most installations architecture, because their intention is to provide an immersive environment.
this is a challenging work because it does question presuppositions about architecture. i think it is fascinating.
like the question about meeting the ground--does that mean that house trailers are not architecture? what about pods? what is a meaningful way to engage the ground? is it not meaningful to sit on the ground in a temporary way, if the architecture is temporary?
this thing reminds me of being inside a dinosaur's carcass.
so my critique or question about how this engages the ground and how the ground engages it, informs it, deforms it, degrades it, morphs it, decomposes, etc...is not valid? then how about this, as this dinosaur carcass decomposes and fosilizes the ground has nothing to with informing the decomposing carcass and the carcass does not imbue the ground with its imprint?? this is temporary by the nature of the installation not the nature of the form, this could easily be there for centuries while decomposing in this art landfill, and then what? well shit that is temporary too. pods? mobile homes? most mobile homes don't move, they are not on wheels, they are not carted from park to park, and yes those too lack any thoughtful connection to the ground plane. what i appreciated most about SHoPs project is that to me appeared that the installation as object also became the ground both literally and figuratively, at least from what i can recall.
by no means do i question the validity or correctness, i fucking hate absolutes, i am merely asking questions in an effort to try and gain some knowledge. i also understand that the question i asked may not be relevant to the architect. i am always interested in cutting, engaging the ground, the digging, and the surgery are things that interest me, and it seems that works like this miss something when it avoids the inevitability of gravity.
i questioned whether the assumption that the thing had to engage the ground in the way you describe was really something beyond discussion.
to me that is one of the presuppositions about architecture that we have all been taught in school, and that this project is challenging.
i don't think this project would have the feel of a carcass if it engaged the ground as you described, and something essential about the project and the aesthetic it is exploring would be lost.
carcass = grotesque = disgust, yet something beautiful in a picturesque kind of way...the project reminds me of romantic paintings of meat carcasses
i think we just disagree...i like decomposition, i like the idea of this thing sinking into the ground or the ground swallowing the rotting carcass, i too see the beauty in that. i just don't think the carcass as such is that interesting without a return - ala ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
i forgot to say, i don't think this carcass is rotting yet. it is a relatively fresh carcass. therefore it would not imbue the ground with an imprint. anyway, that may be taking things too literally.
Xefirotarch @ P.S. 1
diabase:
Originality: B+
Sustainability: who cares, thats not the point
Functional: Its a folly - functionality is moot
Relevant: Debatable, but thats its function to an extent
This is probably one of the most disturbing posts in this thread....and there are a lot.
It's funny last years project was 100% biodegradeable and/or recyclable. It was made from sustainably harvested materials and it created a series of very exciting spaces in the courtyard. Sur does not seem to do all that much spatially....but then again I am sure someone in this thread will go on to tell me that architecture is not about space either.
The bottom line is that as architects we need to think of issues like sustainability all of the time....especially on a temporary installation. We really need to ask ourselves if architecture as a profession is part of the solution of part of the problem.
It amazes me that we can overlook so many opportunites to better society and simply lose ourselves in irellevant formal gestures.
In my mind his early instalation.. especially the one in SCI-Arc gallery in summer 2002 was much more better... and for somewhat irrational bloby form...i would say Dunescape by SHOP had more stuff to talk than just this pure simply a COOL sculpture form...
Quoting cyn: the 'meta' program here is about form and experimentation and provocation of debate in the public. the more the chosen architects push the envelope the happier the client (ps1) is.
This statement is spot on. To me this is why some of the issues that face 'regular' architecture - meeting the ground, longevity, etc. - are simply not issues.
That also to me means that while it is a structure about architecture questions, it is not quite architecture. But that's a really annoying nitpicky and ultimately subjective argument that I can't back up because while I don't think Sur is a building, I think Siza's armadillo is.
PS cyn I understand that in terms of the sublime, being overwhelming doesn't literally mean physically "big", but I do think this project would be better, and more likely to be overwhelming, if it was physically bigger, because it would be harder to comprehend all at once. I like it, and think I would like it more if it was bigger.
i doubt that architectural form would be seen by society as 'irrelevant'. in fact that is one of the hottest debates in the public and has been for a long time.
imo, sustainability is a far more complex and deeper problem rooted in the global economy, developers' interests, capitalism etc. architects have very limited ability to affect these things.
once again, the new[er] old[er] makes valid point.
Well, it did, but it seemed like a much more lengthy process to generate such a form. SHoP's wasnt about surfaces as much as it was concerned with volume. There is a difference.
And SHoP only completed 60% of their installation.
Again, SHoPs emphasis was more on the fabrication and less about the realization. Which holds its own merit asidefrom Hernan's intent.
doubt that architectural form would be seen by society as 'irrelevant'. in fact that is one of the hottest debates in the public and has been for a long time.
Not sure which public you are refering to but 99% of the built environment in the US seems to consist of little more than Vinyl sided boxes / Parking lots and Dryvit covered box stores. As far as public debate on architectural form goes I think that would fall really far below that "who should be the next American Idol" debate
i think abracadabra should be the next american idol.
Steve Fuchs - can you please post Chris Artzen's Rhino script to evaluate and break apart the NURBS into curved and straight segments.
Thanks
I've posted some more images of the pool construction in the image gallery.
See them
here
here
here
and here
"Not sure which public you are refering to but 99% of the built environment in the US seems to consist of little more than Vinyl sided boxes / Parking lots and Dryvit covered box stores. As far as public debate on architectural form goes I think that would fall really far below that "who should be the next American Idol" debate"
vinyl, parking lots and and dryvit are materials not form.
i think hernan's project will generate public debate, simply because it is not banal and moralistic.
it's safe to assume i'm not referring to the same public you are ( the one terribly concerned with american idol). do you think that is the only one there is or that matters?
remember to link images in the gallery to the URL in the Picture info, not the one that is initially displayed in the address box. Images in the gallery shift places when new images are added and the addresses expire, but not the one in the info... For permanent access you can also use the search results. Here they are for "Spectrum3d"
sorry parking lots is not material but not an architectural form either. it is a space or void.
the point is that the 99% of buildings you are talking about still put a great deal of weight on form, which today is seen as style--'branded' stores, graphics, etc. there is an emphasis on banality and mediocrity because that gives the least offense to the widest demographic. just because its not sculptural or highly designed spatially does not mean it is not hotly debated. debated downward. ie it is important to be banal if you want to sell coffee, groceries condos, etc.
and on the other end of things, yes the design of high-profile landmark or so-called cultural buildings like wtc or museums eg additions to the whitney etc are very hotly debated in terms of form. that cannot be denied.
I don't dislike this as much as most, in fact i don't have a problem with it at all. It just is what it is and it's getting waaaaay too much credit here just by discussing it for this long.....and here I do again!
What I don't understand is how people are calling it something special in terms of technique/fabrication? Scripts? C'mon, scripts are simple little things that are used everyday in Maya, Max, etc., and written everyday. They certainly aren't new to any field, including construction/fabrication.
That's the part the disturbs me the most. If there is something new, I sure can't see it. This wouldn't look new 8 years ago.
sustainability ... yea sure, all that foam used to vaccum form this ugly monster is going to end up in some landfill to remain like that for the next 100 million years
originality ... sure they used cool new maya scripts to generate these forms, but in all honestly it just looks like a greg lynn idea x 25
I bet it would be a bit more interesting if these forms had some structural logic, or were derived from the strength of the material etc. For christsakes even gaudi's forms had some structural logic.
Many people here think this project is fine if viewed as a sculpture, but thats precisely why it fails. Hernan is an architect, and projects like these keep reducing the value of architecutre to sculpture etc and that does not push the discourse of architecture at all.
Ok, folks. lets look at the situation. firstly Hernan maybe very idiosyncratic in his nature but in terms of techinique and formal gestures how does he differ from A.Gaudi? How can the SaGrada Familia get such great praise and is considered a keystone of culture in Barcelona, but as soon as a very cheap installation is built in the U.S. that looks nothing like whats in 100 mi radius of it, there is a mob of low cultured American(aka boiling pot...wow) that are waiting to rip it to shreds and not understand it first. One problem I think we all have is that we live in such a fast paced society with value meals around every corner, so we travel through this country/world expecting up-front readings and cut-and-dry meanings.....thank you
mindarch,
if you read through the posts you will see that there are more people who are actually defending this project than criticizing it.
its interesting we shoudl talk about Gaudi approximately the same time. you have to understand that Gaudi started the design of the Sagrada Familia, which is arguably more complex in terms of scale, material context etc a fucking 120-odd years ago.
Hey but as seen by this renders the anteaters (can't believe they really look like that) Had to be suspended in air and not meant to touch ground on sand. I liked the whole renderings but the the built stuff with 60,000 $ budget isn't really like renders.
Maybe Hernan would have liked to have a Black Sky on it and not those shitty concrete walls all around. Those are Awfull and terrible.
You dont know what you are talking about, but that's to be expected. The structure is aluminum and spandex.
What vaccum forms are you talking about?
http://www.metropolismag.com/webimages/1437/aboverender.jpg
Hey but as seen by this renders the anteaters (can't believe they really look like that) Had to be suspended in air and not meant to touch ground on sand. I liked the whole renderings but the the built stuff with 60,000 $ budget isn't really like renders.
Maybe Hernan would have liked to have a Black Sky on it and not those shitty concrete walls all around. Those are Awfull and terrible.
The total construction cost soared over 100grand.
the concrete walls are nice by the way... the detaiing of the PS1 logo and the slivers of steel cast into the monoliths are interesting. And cost was another issue i'm sure. Concrete is sexy, much moreso than the banal black background you see this shit rendered in so often. Black backgrounds are an easy way out of compositional work.
is this not a foam mould, JohnProlly???
Please see all the images posted by Javier on the 'Spectrum3d' link....all these materials are highly non-recylable, john.
anyways enough of a discussion for this monstrosity.
QED
John Prolly. Quite interested to know how did you came up with that number?
there's people taking a loss here but as far as getting press for it...geez it seems to be all worth it. Specially spectrum 3d.
It's kind of absurd to say that because a material can't be recycled we shouldn't ever use it.
"reducing the value of architecutre to sculpture"
-sameolddoctor
get over yourself mr. architect.
architecture cannot be REDUCED to sculpture.
3d-honeycomb will save us all
For all of you who have ever acted as project managers out there:
I think Hernan's talents have really been highlighted in this project. Somehow, he has an amazing ability to attract really talented people and co-ordinate their independent egos to produce coherent projects. I've seen it in the schools and for the first time am seeing it in a more commercial context. This management skill is one that not all of us posess. Amazingly, he doesn't do it through draconian intimidation tactics. For some reason people who have lots of job options seem to want to assist Hernan. This is an enormously important skill to have as an architect. Nobody accuses Rem Koolhaas of being bad at getting his structural calculations right, or having a terrible sense of color.. The opposite is true- he is seen as a great Architect for his ability to attract and inspire the right combination of people.
I'm not trying to equate the talent of Koolhaas to that of Hernan, just to point out that in very different ways, I think they are both good managers- a skill we all know is key in Architecture.
good or bad
ETHICAL managers
pay their workers
Pete Dawson:
What I find disturbing is the attitude that all architecture must conform to some kind of value checklist in order to be successful.
Architecture is a wide field made of many parts and many interests. What I like about this work is that someone has attempted to contribute to the knowledge of the field in specific ways, and that this benefits us all.
I think the attacks on the aesthetics and lack of functionality or sustainability of this project shows a shallowness of thought and a lack of understanding of the value and influence that this kind of project has on architectural knowledge - not to mention an over-reliance on the images of the project.
And lastly, this is an artistic installation, not an exhibition or tradeshow. It is an individuals response to a brief, and it has to be judged on that basis.
there's people taking a loss here but as far as getting press for it...geez it seems to be all worth it. Specially spectrum 3d.
From my conversations with some of the helpers, the labor, material and fabrication costs of this project WOULD be in the 100k - 200k range.
Zoë Coombes: Students [which is all that EVER work for the like of Rem and Hernan] Look at this work as an extension of school. Very rarly do you see people who have been working for 2+ years out of school volunteer their time and labor for free for these people. Usually once these people get jobs that pay out of school, the freeloading martyresque attitudes die out.
Offices like SHoP and LTL who are atimate about paying their employees shoudl be the new model of the these rockstarchitects.
Hernan's helpers are doing this for their own reasons as well; mostly to be apart of something great. A lot of these workers [esp from SciArc] have him as their advisors and in the great world of LArc, it's who you know. Ya Know?
I Would have volunteered if I could have gotten off work. I think the more you can add to your Arcsenal will benefit your learning experience as well as adding to you becoming a more well-rounded designer.
On a side note: Rem Koolhaas is almost Bankrupt - imagine if he HAD to pay people. The CCTV wouldnt even be in the works.
All Hail the green building. Maybe if Hernan had a sunpath diagram you hippies would be happy.
"Students [which is all that EVER work for the like of Rem and Hernan]..."
you are saying rem only have students working for him? i think not.
Pete Dawson:
You are right: It is true that this thing will be leaching into the ground for hundreds of years and killing many, as yet, unborn baby birds .. Many of our buildings will.
But remember, it's not easy to make a building that isn't harmful. This is partially a fuction of how our economic system works- value is not related to a material's long term effects on biology. I'm sure a much less harmful project could have been made. However, this would have been a bigger challenge, taken more time to design, and perhaps come at a higher cost. The N-Architects project was really strong in this aspect. Biodegradable isoparms.. super cool.
What is important here is that we should be careful not to let the fact that this is a pretty toxic project cancel out it's many acheivements. (I won't list them here, since so many people have put it so well here in this thread.)
If I ever heard Hernan (or anyone in Architecture, I suppose...) say that it is 'Way Gay' to think about the effect of your building on our larger environment in the longterm- I would say they were dumb. I don't relish the idea of my child dying of cancer- no debate. But I don't think this is the case with Hernan. He isn't negating the importance of thinking about the impact of building materials on the earth- he just isn't tackling that issue.
Don't worry, no one is saying this is the single model of utopia. Like most projects, its not perfect, and your critique holds a grain of truth. However, if you want to understand this project in a smart way- don't let its weaknesses blind you to its many strengths.
good point sameold... but we both know that in the world of architecture 120 yrs is not much at all, hell we're still using columns n sht. so dating gaudi's work was not my point because we can name dates all day to show we stayed awaked in history class, but the true question is how far have we really gotten?
John Prolly,
It is true that the system of unpaid work in Architecture is detrimental to the talent of the proffesion. It narrows our talent pool to only those who find the means to invest in themselves for a few years until they get to the paid range. All the good reasons America has minimum wage standards are thrown to the wind. But let's face it- Hernan is not the first to do this. And the interns are just as guilty in this equation.
But really- wouldn't that be flattering if one of your employees (paid or unpaid) said that working for you felt like an extension of school? Congratulations to Hernan if that is what the people are saying!
if its true that rem is almost bankrupt...then how do you expect him to keep designing the things he does and pay people well too?
isn't that why people do shlock architecture? for the money?
He pays people well?
I would rather have seen giant heads wrapped in pantyhose that some over sized coat hangers. This is the last of a dieing breed and I say enjoy your day in the sun.
so much hatred here. with a world full of mediocrity, why? i mean, hernan's work doesn't rock my world, but i do appreciate it for what it is.
i'd like to know that too, e...
i'm genuinely puzzled by the reactions...you'd think hernan was some huge threat to what others are doing and what their idea of architecture is???? if hernan's ps1 was just crap, it wouldn't get this much notice...
wasn't there alot of vitriol against zaha when she started too? and if i'm not mistaken, there was a huge campaign by more corporate SOM types against libeskind when he won the wtc competition--that even spilled over onto amazon reviews...i was amazed...
i have little problem with the work, i am still trying to understand what is going on, what i should read or should have read. i think what these people do and will do is extremely rigorous. but i think i have a problem when people dismiss the naysayers or inquisitioners, what are the right questions or critiques for this work? why is a connection to the ground not important? i could see if this work stayed in the virtual, but this is a real, built work. my question goes to the idea that with few exceptions these works do nothing to the "ground plane" they don't manipulate, distort, intersect, incorporate - nothing happens. in fact the ground plane seems to be nothing more that a stage for these works, and when you look at this installation it looks like stage props that can be moved or reconfigured to a new set. don't assume that the old questions of architecture have no ability to inform or even question the new - especially because the only thing that is new here is the means of production.
Personally, I loved Zaha from the moment I found her first El Croquis in a pile of books...but that's a different story.
I am surprised there is so much hatred as well. One reason that it's getting so much talk (he's gotta be lovin' this!!) is that it's the first blob built in a loooong time (that I can recall). Personally, I find the idea of beauty and grotesque very interesting, however, I find the discussion of technology (as in 3D technology, not 'real' technology for architecture) old and tiring.
My score: B- (B+ if you eliminate the talk about Maya/Rhino/Scripts, etc. - show me what it's really doing for you and I may buy it)
It's just sculpture to me and that's ok. It's a formal/graphical experiment, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say, that just generating this much talk has made me appreciate it more.
Good point e. It is ironic how biased so many are (and I admit that I am, too, to some degree).
i have no problem with honest criticism, and with good criticism usually comes alternative solutions to the issues. to complain without offer solution, is pointless whinning to me. and i do see a lot of comments like this >> "I would rather have seen giant heads wrapped in pantyhose that some over sized coat hangers. This is the last of a dieing breed and I say enjoy your day in the sun."
raising issues that are important to you should never be discouraged. would i like to see a more sustainable solution for something so temporary? you betcha. that's important to me, but that does not mean that one should dismiss the entire piece.
as many have said, like trace, this is not architecture, but this does not mean that architects can not learn from it. open your eyes to the world and you will be amazed at where one can draw inspiration from. this profession needs many types to inspire us, and all have their place and purpose. none have all the answers.
well i have yet to hear some clear reasons why this is not architecture. someone help me out here... all i am hearing are unsupported statements that it is not...WHY not??
what about the garden follies at stowe, versailles etc--would you say they are not architecture? what about tschumi's folliies at la villette? do they "look" more like a conventional building to you? if you do not consider them architecture either, then what is your definition of architecture?
personally, i have a very broad notion of architecture--basically, anything to do with order. and in the narrow sense, anything to do with spatial order. it does not have to have air conditioning and follow a building code to make it work for me.
beta--i am not sure but it seems like you are saying that unless the building seems to be rooted somehow in the ground that it is not correct somehow.
I dont think this is about what is architecture - I think its more about what is appropriate.
If this was a house, then there are serious problems. If this is what it is, an installation with some propositions about fabrication, design, form, narrative, materiality, then it begins to achieve some of what it sought to do.
Unfortunately, I am not due in New York for the foreseeable future, so I cant really test those propositions fully. I'll have to leave it others, and debate its value from what I can discern from text and image.
i do think this project blurs the boundary between art and architecture but because it is a structure that provides places to sit and listen to music that are sheltered or somewhat enclosed, it is not merely sculpture. i could imagine that you might call it an installation but then again i could also call most installations architecture, because their intention is to provide an immersive environment.
this is a challenging work because it does question presuppositions about architecture. i think it is fascinating.
like the question about meeting the ground--does that mean that house trailers are not architecture? what about pods? what is a meaningful way to engage the ground? is it not meaningful to sit on the ground in a temporary way, if the architecture is temporary?
this thing reminds me of being inside a dinosaur's carcass.
so my critique or question about how this engages the ground and how the ground engages it, informs it, deforms it, degrades it, morphs it, decomposes, etc...is not valid? then how about this, as this dinosaur carcass decomposes and fosilizes the ground has nothing to with informing the decomposing carcass and the carcass does not imbue the ground with its imprint?? this is temporary by the nature of the installation not the nature of the form, this could easily be there for centuries while decomposing in this art landfill, and then what? well shit that is temporary too. pods? mobile homes? most mobile homes don't move, they are not on wheels, they are not carted from park to park, and yes those too lack any thoughtful connection to the ground plane. what i appreciated most about SHoPs project is that to me appeared that the installation as object also became the ground both literally and figuratively, at least from what i can recall.
by no means do i question the validity or correctness, i fucking hate absolutes, i am merely asking questions in an effort to try and gain some knowledge. i also understand that the question i asked may not be relevant to the architect. i am always interested in cutting, engaging the ground, the digging, and the surgery are things that interest me, and it seems that works like this miss something when it avoids the inevitability of gravity.
i didn't say your question wasn't valid.
i questioned whether the assumption that the thing had to engage the ground in the way you describe was really something beyond discussion.
to me that is one of the presuppositions about architecture that we have all been taught in school, and that this project is challenging.
i don't think this project would have the feel of a carcass if it engaged the ground as you described, and something essential about the project and the aesthetic it is exploring would be lost.
carcass = grotesque = disgust, yet something beautiful in a picturesque kind of way...the project reminds me of romantic paintings of meat carcasses
i think we just disagree...i like decomposition, i like the idea of this thing sinking into the ground or the ground swallowing the rotting carcass, i too see the beauty in that. i just don't think the carcass as such is that interesting without a return - ala ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
i forgot to say, i don't think this carcass is rotting yet. it is a relatively fresh carcass. therefore it would not imbue the ground with an imprint. anyway, that may be taking things too literally.
decomposition/decay would give this project a whole different feel. i think hernan is after something more vital and edgy.
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.