probably to come to an end here, a short comment on this louisville-design:
It is the second OMA-aproach (the first was with ramps and flowing space, as outlined in my previous comment): piling of boxes.
There is a project for Rotterdam (dont know the name, right now), which does exactely the same, and the "hyperbuilding" for Bankok is also in this group. I guess, i have seen similar things from the other dutch guys, too.

Maybe, I am going to start another discussion and post in my view great or interesting works/designs by rather unknown artists/architects. So - none of the well known and big offices...

Ah yes, well Rem Koolhaas is just architecture's Leni Riefenstahl actually. When he or OMA staff are confronted with just why they are building for a fascist regime in Shanghai (CCTV) one just hears how great China is, no petty restrictions there, none of the we-will-take-out-your-organs-BEFORE-you-are-executed-for-crimes-against-the-state bickering. Yes, Riefenstahl, not architect Albert Speer who actually went to prison and repented a bit, said that artists were never ever guilty, it was just "art", see, nothing about architecture/film being by definition political. A little extreme? Here's a thought: do you reckon google dot ch will link to this post?

CCTV is in Beijing, the Chinese top domain is .cn not .ch.

And, for your information:

you@google.cn

Hahhah! priceless...

but seriously, the problem of uncriticality is real - it's also a much more complicated issue than just naming oppressive regimes that murder & torture people home and abroad and make a top priority of twisting the truth. It's hard to find solid ground to rest your feet on - practice and theory collide most forcefully just in this muddy region of "good, bad & right".

I couldn't agree more.. Koolhaas brings up the discussion, it's always hot when he's around. Most others seem to rather ignore it, and it's also ignored in the critique of them. Which doesn't mean they deal with the issue better than OMA does.

So I guess I should be glad he made the subject come up, stop defending him and propose better solutions than his.

I'll have to think about that. :)

And it is so relevant in China.. "No petty restrictions here" is so way far away from the architectural scene in China, at least if you are not a Starchitect. Trying to do architecture you believe in here is like banging your head in a wall: the restrictions and regulations are insane, the clients are extremely extremely short-term and incompetent, and if all else works out, you can be sure that my boss will ruin it...

about this link to you@google.cn: i guess, google can easily restrict access at google.cn for people from outside of china by showing search results, which may be not available, if you would look it up from inside china. maybe somebody from within china can check, would be interesting!?

@Bobby Mugabe: you are right. the riefenstahl-case has many similarities.

@Helsinki: in terms of muddy regions: aren't there facts enough to get to solid ground?

@cassiel: "stop defending him and propose better solutions than his." exactely

I am in china. So it works from here. :)

If the same thread was in chinese though, I suspect that it would not show up. I can also read NYT without problem, browse adult websites as I wish and read long essays about democracy. I cannot though access BBC or, to my great frustration, blosgspot.com.

And the reason that I am defending him is mainly that I admire that he is actually trying to propose solutions, when most only ignore the issues. Hopefully I'll be able to dedicate my career to it, and and move the discourse forward...

Last paragraph refers to Rem, to avoid all missunderstandings!

Hey cassiel.. post some construction photos of the CCTV bulidings, will you?

Well, there are a very few architects that can say they stand on rock-solid ground when it comes to ethics in the widest sense (most of these also stand on that rocky ground somewhere way in the bush). Most leftist discourse in the past decades has argued that architecture is by nature something that reinforces the oppressive relations of our capitalist society. Architecture is a follower, and morality is relative. these two rules of thumb make me uneasy when the talk comes to the ethics of architecture. Obviously there is a lot to be discussed relating to good&bad - but any selfrighteous proclamations will be proven false very quickly.

And the Riefenstahl-remark is out of line. the trajectory of Koolhaas's work does not resemble the production of Leni Riefenstahl - even if it has occasionally overlapped with the aims of an oppressive regime.

ManuG,

I can't, not until I go to Beijing at least! Which should be in about a month...

@Knut
It's not only european castels, if you go deep enough in histroy you'll find that ramps were used in such manner (to emphasize grandeur) in Egypt (the temple of Hatshepsut) and ziggurats in Mesopotamia, but you misunderstood me, that is not the issue i was trying to make. While it's obvious that ramps were used from the beginning, i was referring to its specific use in connection to the concept of flowing space (as opposed to common notion of floors connected with stairwell). Ramps were also used in railway stations, but somewhere i read that it was Le Corbusier that first used them in residential private housing.
I don't think the ramp in Berlin embassy was used to emphasize ambassador's importance. It just flows through the building and ends up with a reastaurant, not with the ambassador's office.

@sumatra: you are right. the older guys were even more into this...

@helsinki:
you wrote "Well, there are a very few architects that can say they stand on rock-solid ground when it comes to ethics in the widest sense" that' right, and therefore we need to criticize the others.

"Most leftist discourse in the past decades has argued that architecture is by nature something that reinforces the oppressive relations of our capitalist society. Architecture is a follower, and morality is relative."
can you probably quote someone of these leftists? I do not agree with this "by nature"-argument". the leftists probably probably identify architecture with buildings, or big buildings, and this is certainly much too general...

@cassiel:
i would also like to see some images from the cctv site, by the way :) i must actually not use a smiley in this cctv-case :(

Knut,
I thought that was the general "rule of thumb": architecture is the language of nomalization and to some extents oppression. Just because it inevitably carries the values of power & reproduces the structure of oppressive relations. As an example of the discourse on that: almost anything Foucault has written (Discipline and punish, naturally, but also some of his interviews focus directly on architecture (one published in an Architectural theory compilation by Michael K Hays (I think)) and of course the recently published Society must be defended & Abnormal-both collections of lectures at the college de France) Check out Tafuri, have not done any serious readings of his work, but someone here can probably tell more.

Of course, it is healthy & commendable to search for a "way out" of this, but the critique has to be productive instead of just dismissive. I'm of the opinion that Rem's approach - head on. Is more productive and thought provocing than outright dismissal of environments & situations we feel are not "morally up to our standards".

There's a very good interview with Rem in the latest Architecture D'Aujourdhui -magazine, elaborating a bit OMA's stance towards idealism and real (often mundane & drab) conditions. I found the dialogue interesting & even stimulating. recommended.