Oh, come on. MVRDV aren't some kind of terrorist agenda group, they're a prominent design group who does interesting work. If this had been built pre 9/11 the discussion would be about the unique bridging conditions between two towers.
It is pretty obvious that they are making a jab at the Twin Towers. They will even justify it with some Dutch crap about memory etc. It will never get built anyways.
There are serious load factors from the pronounced protrusions that make this an inviting target for terrorists - all they have to do, is to hit just below the protrusions, start a huge fire that weakens the the structure, and down they go. then it's off to war again...
The people who jumped at MVRDV are idiots. so anytime a design has two towers dumb-ass Americans are going to jump at them about being terrorists this is why half the world hates our country. I served in the military and spent a fun year in sandbox defending it, people need to relax not everything has to to do with 911 its beginning to become ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure nobody is claiming that MVRDV are terrorists. The issue is, I looked at the renderings, and the 1st picture that popped into my head is the WTC attack...and I'm pretty sure that's a common reaction. If I design a building that looks like a phallus with balls, or a huge swastika, you'd think I was an idiot for not recognizing it. I have the same reaction to this building.
It does look like WTC (did you see the photo comparison with the one with the smoke/fire? Looks like a basic abstraction). Personally, I don't care, it is inline with much of their work.
Personally, I would have at least made it asymmetrical. All they had to do was make one tower taller and the comparison would have died.
These things aren't always obvious until someone points them out. If I had a nickel for every time an accidental swastika showed up in early design courses, I might be able to afford a nice McMeal.
I actually kind of like the design, WTC references aside. The 'cloud' part looks full of interesting spaces.
notice that mvrdv, along with several other offices, are doing towers confined to a particular footprint. Also notice that those footprints are actually set in pairs with small footprints.
notice that mvrdv, along with several other offices, are doing towers confined to a particular footprint. Also notice that those footprints are actually set in pairs with small footprints.
which proves you can design twin towers that do not evoke 9/11 imagery
I don't understand why a private developer and architect thousands of miles away, catering to SOUTH KOREANS, not AMERICANS, has to be at all concerned with evoking 9/11 imagery.
Id like to know if a single non american's initial reaction was...
"OH! Im offended by this buildings likeness to the 9/11 attacks"
im an american btw, and i never once had that thought until i read it on the blogs... that was the most common reaction ive come across among my friends as well.
well the developer and architect don't have to be concerned with evoking 9/11 imagery. but that's what this building is doing (whether the intent is there or not). so now that it's out there, it's up to the developer and architect to decide what to do.
those MVRDV guys are good, smart designers. i'm confident they can come up with a cloud solution that mitigates the 9/11 imagery if they want to be tasteful and sensitive about this situation.
WTC imagery aside, wouldn't there be extreme wind issues on those terraces? Looking at the rendering I visualize all of those tree planters being blown over. Maybe it would be a better place for a wind turbine than inhabitable park like spaces.
OOOOOOooooh ok... so you believe MVRDV intentionally designed towers which would invoke imagery of the 9/11 towers getting hit? well if you believe that i understand why youd be offended, that would be pulp and disrespectful to the most staunch MVRDV appologist...
that being said... believing MVRDV would intentionally design a tower to look like the WTC being blown up is delusional. Perhaps remembering that not all earthlings are americans would be helpful.
And in what could be seen as a contradiction to the company’s statement, MVRDV spokesman Jan Knikker told Dutch-language newspaper Algemeen Dagblad that the link to 9/11 has in fact been made.
'I must admit that we also thought of September 11, 2001,' he says, in a translation of an article on Friday from Dutch to English. 'But it is not intended association with the attacks.'
Why does it matter that some people see this tower as a reference to 9/11?
Because 911 was a human tradgedy not just an American tragedy. A building of such a public urban nature should evoke fellings of inspiration for the people of the city not feelings of fear and sadness, and therefore it fails as a piece of urban architecture whether they noticed it or not.
And I would bet a million dollars if I had it that someone in the office noticed the similarities!
I'm telling you, I took a crap that looked like a concentration camp!
You so called architects are bunch of tea-party, birthers drinking too much of the cheap shit, one week too early....dullards.
I'm telling you, I took a crap that looked like a concentration camp! You so called architects are bunch of tea-party, birthers drinking too much of the cheap shit, one week too early....dullards.
I'm far from all those things you mention, but your crap was in a toilet I hope not in the city in public view right? Also to note, I was 100% in support of the mosque in NY that stirred up all the debate a few months ago so I am not saying that if something offends people it should be stopped. I am all for any type of free expression regardless of how offensive it may be (ex: a picture of the pope making love to justin bieber) but this is not about offending people its about making people who live near it feel uneasy and affecting the quality of a great city with the imposition of building that evokes imagery of a terrible disaster. I love their work but this one is a big fail!
This is going to be interesting. If MVRDV does not reconcile this design to not effect sentiment, they are going to have a hard time getting any commission in the US. On top of everything, the design is a stupid one-liner.
Don't live near it assmunch. For fucks sake, is this architecture 101? Go look back at the early rumminations on the design possibilities for the WTC site, the Morphosis team in particular, that project looked like collapsing buildings. The fucking memorial is two holes in the ground! If this building project were clad in dark bronze, and the fucking rendered view was a birds-eye perspective none of dilettantes would be talking shit. As for it being fugly? It's an idea, a drawing, not a completed building, act like you understand what it means to go through architecture school, instead of faking it for a change.
b3tadine[sutures]: it looks like you're in need of the architecture lesson...it's the scale, shape, and orientation of the MVRDV buildings that make you think of the WTC. Combine that with the "cloud" being placed at nearly the same point at the WTC impact, and it conjures up the disturbing image. You can clad it with anything, and it'll still be perceived the same way.
there were two strikes at the towers, each happening at different locations. it conjures up an image in your mind, because you have limited visual capacities, and are stuck in an era that is 10 years past. move on dilettante.
as for scale? clearly you have a problem with that: this project 300 meters at 60 floors, the WTC 417 at 110 floors.
and, as the image below shows, this hardly resembles a crumbling WTC. you fox news/tea party/conspiracy idiots; read any political persuasion, can go screw.
beta's right that it doesn't literally resemble a 'crumbling wtc'. the wtc attack was more cloud-like in that the 'cloud' part in the attacks did not appear as the same material as the towers.
but since mvrdv makes their 'cloud' as parts of the tower pushing out the design, in a way, is conceptually more representational of the wtc attack in that we remember the attack as the tower exploding outward.
the aerial view of mvrdv's design doesn't make that link as much as the view from the ground (where everyone will see this project). this goes back to fence's 'swastika' example where we don't view a completed building from google earth .. we look at it from the street. take that swastika building and rotate it vertically and believe me, you'll get plenty of outrage.
as i wrote above i think mvrdv could do a better 'cloud' that would, in the end, be better architecture and also not conjure up the wtc freeze-frame moment.
and what beta failed to learn in architecture school was when you design something it's doing a bunch of stuff that you intend but it's also doing a whole bunch of other stuff you're not even aware of. beta blames this on '... fox news/tea party/conspiracy idiots' but in reality mvrdv's design is a crumbling wtc tower as well as a cloud as well as an 'H' as well as machu picchu as well as ... etc. etc. blah blah blah
your impression/feelings about my idea is irrelevant to me, and is about as "nanny state" thinking as i could possibly imagine. and for you genuflecting douche bags that worship at the hip of that ragging fake ass author/philosopher Ayn Rand, and i dare say "c-word" for you sensitive types, i can't imagine the horror you must have found, when her beloved terrorist...err hero protagonist blows up "his" buildings...
the minute i give a shit what you - the public - care about my ideas, is the minute the terrorists win.
omg, am i howard roark now...time to o blow something up.
did anyone notice that the museum that preston scott cohen added on to in tel aviv (published in arch record recently) is also shaped like a swastika? an arts building in israel built in the 70s. who cares? a swastika is an ancient symbol - any opportunity to reclaim its old meanings should be welcomed.
the renderings that mvrdv released were unfortunate in that they made this building appear to be isolated, strengthening the potential association with the wtc. in fact, i doubt the real project would be perceived that way, occupying its place in a field of towers as illustrated in the master plan. maybe they could have shown the thing in a context suggesting it as part of an overall tower-scape. if you imagine it a grouping made up of things like libeskind's swoopy centerpiece, the impact would be much less.
part of the recognition factor with the wtc is that they were the biggest, most isolated objects in the skyline and that they stood out so dramatically. it's why they were a target, but also why their destruction was able to yield such dramatic images.
mvrdv did themselves a disservice. now they probably will not be able to build the project as originally designed. if they had gotten it built, it would possibly not have been an issue.
did anyone notice that the museum that preston scott cohen added on to in tel aviv (published in arch record recently) is also shaped like a swastika? an arts building in israel built in the 70s. who cares? a swastika is an ancient symbol - any opportunity to reclaim its old meanings should be welcomed.
a swastika in plan view is a swastika no one perceives (and 'tis great for egress)
MVRDV Towers in Korea - how horrible is this design?
How did the designers never see the similarity to the twin towers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072308/MVRDV-architects-reveal-plans-South-Korean-buildings-look-eerily-like-Twin-Towers-exploding.html
Oh, come on. MVRDV aren't some kind of terrorist agenda group, they're a prominent design group who does interesting work. If this had been built pre 9/11 the discussion would be about the unique bridging conditions between two towers.
It is pretty obvious that they are making a jab at the Twin Towers. They will even justify it with some Dutch crap about memory etc. It will never get built anyways.
There are a lot of comments about this already here and here.
There are serious load factors from the pronounced protrusions that make this an inviting target for terrorists - all they have to do, is to hit just below the protrusions, start a huge fire that weakens the the structure, and down they go. then it's off to war again...
really? 9-11? really? i took a shit today that looked strangely like auschwitz, i should've never had the kedem grape juice...
the buildings remind me of the warts i have growing on my double cock...im deeply offended..
9/11 was an inside job, instead of feeling offended by the imagery of Dutch architects, Americans should demand answers from their own governent
inside job, yeah, inside job and mvrdv - it's a conspiracy i tells ya!!
even zinn and chomsky know what you spout is akin to anal rape.
please note that MVRDV was not part of the inside job. Stray away from convoluted humor which clouds the facts
"convoluted humor"? did you type that with a straight face?
worst thread ever.
come on, we can do worse than this ..
haha
The people who jumped at MVRDV are idiots. so anytime a design has two towers dumb-ass Americans are going to jump at them about being terrorists this is why half the world hates our country. I served in the military and spent a fun year in sandbox defending it, people need to relax not everything has to to do with 911 its beginning to become ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure nobody is claiming that MVRDV are terrorists. The issue is, I looked at the renderings, and the 1st picture that popped into my head is the WTC attack...and I'm pretty sure that's a common reaction. If I design a building that looks like a phallus with balls, or a huge swastika, you'd think I was an idiot for not recognizing it. I have the same reaction to this building.
Well, then you're part of the problem, hence an idiot.
Huh, plenty of "phallus with balls" out there.
It does look like WTC (did you see the photo comparison with the one with the smoke/fire? Looks like a basic abstraction). Personally, I don't care, it is inline with much of their work.
Personally, I would have at least made it asymmetrical. All they had to do was make one tower taller and the comparison would have died.
(Florida State Capitol.)
These things aren't always obvious until someone points them out. If I had a nickel for every time an accidental swastika showed up in early design courses, I might be able to afford a nice McMeal.
I actually kind of like the design, WTC references aside. The 'cloud' part looks full of interesting spaces.
So, a few facts in here for those of you worried about the twin towers....
first of all this is a part of a HUGE masterplan done by liebeskind in seoul... you can check out a site plan here...
http://www.dreamhub21.com/eng/masterplan/archipelago02.asp
notice that mvrdv, along with several other offices, are doing towers confined to a particular footprint. Also notice that those footprints are actually set in pairs with small footprints.
notice that mvrdv, along with several other offices, are doing towers confined to a particular footprint. Also notice that those footprints are actually set in pairs with small footprints.
which proves you can design twin towers that do not evoke 9/11 imagery
I don't understand why a private developer and architect thousands of miles away, catering to SOUTH KOREANS, not AMERICANS, has to be at all concerned with evoking 9/11 imagery.
Id like to know if a single non american's initial reaction was...
"OH! Im offended by this buildings likeness to the 9/11 attacks"
im an american btw, and i never once had that thought until i read it on the blogs... that was the most common reaction ive come across among my friends as well.
well the developer and architect don't have to be concerned with evoking 9/11 imagery. but that's what this building is doing (whether the intent is there or not). so now that it's out there, it's up to the developer and architect to decide what to do.
those MVRDV guys are good, smart designers. i'm confident they can come up with a cloud solution that mitigates the 9/11 imagery if they want to be tasteful and sensitive about this situation.
supposedly the thing will be built as is... i understand what your saying FRaC, but i still dont see why there is any solution to be mitigated.
Why does it matter that some people see this tower as a reference to 9/11?
Why does it matter that some people see this tower as a reference to 9/11?
because architecturally representing the moment of the 9/11 attacks is a disgusting and horrific source for design inspiration
I'm not offended as an American, I'm offended as an Architect...those towers are fugly.
and this offends you as a jewish person?
no, it offends me as a comedian!
WTC imagery aside, wouldn't there be extreme wind issues on those terraces? Looking at the rendering I visualize all of those tree planters being blown over. Maybe it would be a better place for a wind turbine than inhabitable park like spaces.
FRaC...exactly.
OOOOOOooooh ok... so you believe MVRDV intentionally designed towers which would invoke imagery of the 9/11 towers getting hit? well if you believe that i understand why youd be offended, that would be pulp and disrespectful to the most staunch MVRDV appologist...
that being said... believing MVRDV would intentionally design a tower to look like the WTC being blown up is delusional. Perhaps remembering that not all earthlings are americans would be helpful.
from the article in the first post
And in what could be seen as a contradiction to the company’s statement, MVRDV spokesman Jan Knikker told Dutch-language newspaper Algemeen Dagblad that the link to 9/11 has in fact been made.
'I must admit that we also thought of September 11, 2001,' he says, in a translation of an article on Friday from Dutch to English. 'But it is not intended association with the attacks.'
You mean like this?
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/09/26/us_navy_building_looks_like_a_swastika
Sometimes people design things without seeing it clearly.
Why does it matter that some people see this tower as a reference to 9/11?
Because 911 was a human tradgedy not just an American tragedy. A building of such a public urban nature should evoke fellings of inspiration for the people of the city not feelings of fear and sadness, and therefore it fails as a piece of urban architecture whether they noticed it or not.
And I would bet a million dollars if I had it that someone in the office noticed the similarities!
I'm telling you, I took a crap that looked like a concentration camp! You so called architects are bunch of tea-party, birthers drinking too much of the cheap shit, one week too early....dullards.
I'm telling you, I took a crap that looked like a concentration camp! You so called architects are bunch of tea-party, birthers drinking too much of the cheap shit, one week too early....dullards.
I'm far from all those things you mention, but your crap was in a toilet I hope not in the city in public view right? Also to note, I was 100% in support of the mosque in NY that stirred up all the debate a few months ago so I am not saying that if something offends people it should be stopped. I am all for any type of free expression regardless of how offensive it may be (ex: a picture of the pope making love to justin bieber) but this is not about offending people its about making people who live near it feel uneasy and affecting the quality of a great city with the imposition of building that evokes imagery of a terrible disaster. I love their work but this one is a big fail!
and it's fugly
This is going to be interesting. If MVRDV does not reconcile this design to not effect sentiment, they are going to have a hard time getting any commission in the US. On top of everything, the design is a stupid one-liner.
Don't live near it assmunch. For fucks sake, is this architecture 101? Go look back at the early rumminations on the design possibilities for the WTC site, the Morphosis team in particular, that project looked like collapsing buildings. The fucking memorial is two holes in the ground! If this building project were clad in dark bronze, and the fucking rendered view was a birds-eye perspective none of dilettantes would be talking shit. As for it being fugly? It's an idea, a drawing, not a completed building, act like you understand what it means to go through architecture school, instead of faking it for a change.
b3tadine[sutures]: it looks like you're in need of the architecture lesson...it's the scale, shape, and orientation of the MVRDV buildings that make you think of the WTC. Combine that with the "cloud" being placed at nearly the same point at the WTC impact, and it conjures up the disturbing image. You can clad it with anything, and it'll still be perceived the same way.
there were two strikes at the towers, each happening at different locations. it conjures up an image in your mind, because you have limited visual capacities, and are stuck in an era that is 10 years past. move on dilettante.
as for scale? clearly you have a problem with that: this project 300 meters at 60 floors, the WTC 417 at 110 floors.
and, as the image below shows, this hardly resembles a crumbling WTC. you fox news/tea party/conspiracy idiots; read any political persuasion, can go screw.
beta's right that it doesn't literally resemble a 'crumbling wtc'. the wtc attack was more cloud-like in that the 'cloud' part in the attacks did not appear as the same material as the towers.
but since mvrdv makes their 'cloud' as parts of the tower pushing out the design, in a way, is conceptually more representational of the wtc attack in that we remember the attack as the tower exploding outward.
the aerial view of mvrdv's design doesn't make that link as much as the view from the ground (where everyone will see this project). this goes back to fence's 'swastika' example where we don't view a completed building from google earth .. we look at it from the street. take that swastika building and rotate it vertically and believe me, you'll get plenty of outrage.
as i wrote above i think mvrdv could do a better 'cloud' that would, in the end, be better architecture and also not conjure up the wtc freeze-frame moment.
and what beta failed to learn in architecture school was when you design something it's doing a bunch of stuff that you intend but it's also doing a whole bunch of other stuff you're not even aware of. beta blames this on '... fox news/tea party/conspiracy idiots' but in reality mvrdv's design is a crumbling wtc tower as well as a cloud as well as an 'H' as well as machu picchu as well as ... etc. etc. blah blah blah
your impression/feelings about my idea is irrelevant to me, and is about as "nanny state" thinking as i could possibly imagine. and for you genuflecting douche bags that worship at the hip of that ragging fake ass author/philosopher Ayn Rand, and i dare say "c-word" for you sensitive types, i can't imagine the horror you must have found, when her beloved terrorist...err hero protagonist blows up "his" buildings...
the minute i give a shit what you - the public - care about my ideas, is the minute the terrorists win.
omg, am i howard roark now...time to o blow something up.
beta, you okay, man?
beta is fundamentally a jingoist
that's okay, cowabunga is one of those tin hat idiots, chasing unicorns and little fairies....you grassy knoller types...are such easy targets. dolt.
did anyone notice that the museum that preston scott cohen added on to in tel aviv (published in arch record recently) is also shaped like a swastika? an arts building in israel built in the 70s. who cares? a swastika is an ancient symbol - any opportunity to reclaim its old meanings should be welcomed.
the renderings that mvrdv released were unfortunate in that they made this building appear to be isolated, strengthening the potential association with the wtc. in fact, i doubt the real project would be perceived that way, occupying its place in a field of towers as illustrated in the master plan. maybe they could have shown the thing in a context suggesting it as part of an overall tower-scape. if you imagine it a grouping made up of things like libeskind's swoopy centerpiece, the impact would be much less.
part of the recognition factor with the wtc is that they were the biggest, most isolated objects in the skyline and that they stood out so dramatically. it's why they were a target, but also why their destruction was able to yield such dramatic images.
mvrdv did themselves a disservice. now they probably will not be able to build the project as originally designed. if they had gotten it built, it would possibly not have been an issue.
did anyone notice that the museum that preston scott cohen added on to in tel aviv (published in arch record recently) is also shaped like a swastika? an arts building in israel built in the 70s. who cares? a swastika is an ancient symbol - any opportunity to reclaim its old meanings should be welcomed.
a swastika in plan view is a swastika no one perceives (and 'tis great for egress)
Crescent to Americans like cross to Count Dracula.
OMG FLW did a crescent of embrace, too!!1!one!1two
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.