well, uhm, they kinda beat 1960's steel towers and concrete brutalist blocks...i mea, it,s pretty much the same ego masturbation, only with bigger budgets and technology to actually build the thing.
if Frank Lloyd Wright and Sant'Elia had the chance they would have probably built the same megastructures.
the fact that there is 3 of them togther looks funny, it's almost like a braque cubist painting redrawn by dali.
and the one on the right is not that bad. and notice the little building behind it, the one with th offset window facade...every single architect in italy is doing those now!
There is a single-toothpick building at the SE end of the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam. You can google earth it but it can't be seen from the angle shown.
I don't get your WTF?! reaction. It's a really good presentation image, and there appears to be a nice articulation in all three designs. How is it irresponsible? Is the building on the right having unprotected sex with the earth using its two cocks? Come on, at least make a joke or something instead of flipping your keyboard in outrage.
It doesn't respect the existing site conditions: neither enhancing nor engaging the site in any way. Sometimes this is fine if the design, materials, conceptual idea, etc. is attempting to push the field beyond existing boundaires, but this is simply conventionally conventional.
But most disturbing, at least for me, is that the avant garde of the 70's - espeically Hadid and Libeskind, to a lesser extent Isozaki - seem to have totally disregarded their earlier ideas and critical stances in favor of a 'design by the rules' attitude; the above being a prime example.
I couldn't find a plan or anything else besides that picture. Unless y'all know something I don't then these are the typical, knee-jerk "it's crap" responses that occur ad infinitum on this site.
"respect the existing site conditions" - How could you know that? Please enlighten us to the experiential studies of the trade-fair district you have done, and the effects these buildings would have there.
All we can say with one rendering is whether or not the shapes are pretty. That's really about it, and it's purely subjective. The very least you would need is a program or parti diagram of the damn site, and maybe if you articulated specific problems with the plans of the buildings, I could accept these rants.
There are plenty of existing conditions that are revealed in the rendering; the two that I have an issue with in regards to the design are height and material. The size of the three towers especially disregards the existing height conditions.
i like the landscape the best. beautiful dense tree growths. nice towers too. bended (or limp) tower would have nice floors and i don't think it will look like that bad as it does in the rendering. the united nations looking tower is actually is very elegant. they share the same public space/landscape like i mentioned above. zaha's tower/complex is also very nice. i hope they build it like that. furniture business is big. so what? they build stuff all the time...
So iconography supersedes responsiblity? The history of the site as a 'gritty' neighborhood is replaced by another type of grittiness: yet another commercial high-rise reflecting 'the signature styles of the four [star]architects.'
NB: posting a picture of the Eiffel Tower would be pointless as the context between the two are different.
i have seen much worse interventions...i don't know the area precisely, but the usual milan suburb is a crappy place with crappy 1970's brick and concrete buildings, you wouldn't wanna have too much interaction with them...
about signature styles...isn't that what great architects have done all along?
one thing is really bad: the photomontage is shit! the ground seems to be around the same heigth of the 4th floor of the building behind it (look on the right). it is a quick cash in for an office, a building which does not push the boundaries of large scale Architecture, but that's not unusual in any way
there's a spine in the back of the building...you can see it in the rendering...no idea about the top 5 floors though (maybe some fanatical open air catwalks would be fun)
Auguste, are adherence or relationship to size and material necissarily prerequisites for an 'appropriate' response to site? i can think of many situations where they would be, but in the trade fair situation where the dominant forms are a mixture of horizontal slabs of metal clad halls and chain hotels, a grouping of towers could prevent the whole thing from becoming a vauge and formless periphery.
context?
on the designs themselves, ito's and zaha's would have to close to some of the more elegant tower designs floating around recently, the lines of zaha's twist are quite attractive, certianly in comparison to some of the other 'twist' or 'screws going around'.
danny boy's is more problematic, and while zaha's would certainly have an unusual floor plate, libeskind's appears to make the most of the fact that these towers are constructed in the 'type' but not the economic/urban imperative in which skyscrapers developed, i doubt there is that much preassure on usable space on this site to require the stacking of floor plates. in a funy way, libeskinds is a perfect response to the nature of these towers (im guessing the intention of the developers),as urban symbolism rather than the rationalism of manhattan or shanghai. he has obviously made the desision that the economics of space usual in a tower are of secondary importance.
im not saying that i agree with that thought process, just that the result he achieved follows a logical progression from what im assuming is the intent of this development.
the bldg on the right is just abt ok.its not so great just abt ok at the best.
but the remaining two...whew
guys, very frankly
they will MOST certainly have their conceptual justifications
I think they are probably starting to develop the mentality that
"hey- whatever- we- do- will- be -accepted -by- the -public- cos- we are- all -so- famous -and- all ".
If this trend of crapping chrome into the skyline continues , in a couple of generations ,Im afraid we might not be able to introduce ourselves as architects in any social gathering..
(without being hysterically laughed back in return.)
"I am the totem of the Earth, the Phallus raised to pierce the sky; - this is the altar of the stars. But they are mere flowers of the garden; harvest them and adorn thyself. Tear at the void and the lights therein; feast on infinities."
[The Book of Gog, 72]
I think I would need to see a lot more images before I decided that the buildings aren't contextual or responsible. Does anyone know anything about their structure? If they can get that middle one to work, more power to them. I have to admit, my idealized panorama of most cities involves a lot of fancy towers, and this is approaching that. I don't remember Milan having a particularly attractive skyline, and being the fashion capital of the world, they probably want to advance their metropolitan image.
I'm a little late to the party but those are my initial thoughts.
Wait, I thought this thread was about the TV show! Are those skyscrapers on the island? Were they built by the [http://www.thehansofoundation.org/]Hanso Foundation[/url]?
These three buildings are free of direct symbolic references, is that too much to handle? The ‘Im da starchitect so I do anything’ argument is the lowest form of criticism, you might as well tell DL ‘yo mom’s a ho and yo buildinz gots a small dick’
Italy is not known for Fiats, but when you go there you see about one million Fiats for every Ferrari. Metaphorically Italy also has about one million architectural Fiats for every Architectural Ferrari, and metaphorically you putrid half-wits are criticising three Ferraris parked in an ocean of Fiats – I suspect form the jealous tone of the posts that many of you are quite satisfied with Fiat.
For those who do not spend time in Vegas the elevators in the Luxor travel at an angle, which is likely the system that will start appearing in buildings with non-vertical massing. The ‘it dont work cuz it got curvz’ argument is equally that of an ignoramus Fiat buff.
There seems to be a recent uprise in disparaging remarks about computer generated/algorithmic/digital/non-traditional architecture and its related processes.
To all of the sceptics and naysayers, and from one who is not an ardent proponent of such architectures, but merely one who is interested in the advancement of architecture as a whole: get over yourselves.
I'm not advocating a solely digital future [ala Lynn], in the same way that I not advocating a sole future of traditional crafting [ala Fathy], but recognise that architects pushing new architectural methods are essential to architecture's development.
Do these buildings meet all building codes and handicap requirements? Will the buildings come in under budget? Will the Architect and Owner turn a profit?
Well then Bucko, it's Architecture. We all have seen incredible works of architecture lately. With in depth knowledge of the International Building Code, ADAAG, and BOMA, we all become more responsible architects. It is our responsibility to provide the consumer with a product that is safe and economical. Our training has given us the insight to make the right decisions at the right time at the right place. We as architects have the ability to lead our community forward to a greater understanding of our communal identity. Let's not back down know!!! A greater architectural profession awaits us all with greater insight and standardization. We can all work together towards this goal!!!
"These three buildings are free of direct symbolic references, is that too much to handle? The ‘Im da starchitect so I do anything’ argument is the lowest form of criticism, you might as well tell DL ‘yo mom’s a ho and yo buildinz gots a small dick’ "
um...no a pyramid and a sphynx do have direct symbolic meaning in that they are direct representations of actual pyramids and the sphynx. it doesn't get much clearer than that
I tend to agree that it isn't a bad arguement to question the legitamecy of architecture that is hailed as good because it is has been blessed by someone famous. Just like many of the people here would like more information is to truly critique thes buildings, their placement on the site. I think not questioning a star-architect and just going with the insipid rant of justification would be as easy as just believing a president knows whats best and just going to war...but then again that's just me and a whole different subject.
And one comment on the whole ferrari/fiat thing...as you said many more people buy the fiat than the ferrari and though it may look slick it is the people designing the fiat that are creating and changing our world. arguing over how nice a ferrari is (or whether it's even nice at all) may not always be as all-important on how to make the fiat better.
oh and yes the St. Louis arch has an elevator that goes up the curve also, you forgot about that. ---you also should consider that just because 'it dont work cuz it got curvz' may be true doesn't intrinsically mean that 'just because it has curves it works'...sometimes all a curve or random shape is, is something someone puts on to create 'pizzaz' because they couldn't come up with anything truely elegant.
and personally i think i wouldn't mind tooling around in a fiat for a while.
from the little i can gather from here, the un-esque on the right does like quite elegant... not too sure about the other two, but all this is from one rendering anyway. still, it seems to me that the vast majority of skyscrapers and high risers and dull and drab with a few standouts here and there. they seem to often be the worst of corporate architecture. i'd much rather see a less vertical city with a few high rises and spires in most cases than the boring skyscrapers currently prevelent. just my thought.
jpalmer makes some excellent points, and as usual cf does not:
"Do these buildings meet all building codes and handicap requirements? Will the buildings come in under budget? Will the Architect and Owner turn a profit?"
yes, cf, building codes and ada make architecture; and architecture is contigent upon the architect making a profit. well, i guess you can count just about every louis kahn building as non-architecture.
we all do jump to critical conclusions too often on this site, but at least we are thinking critically.
oh yeah, and the vado "limpdick" thing caused me to laugh outloud at work. i think they're onto my websurfing. snap yo.
"They are a series of strange objects placed inside the city but with absolutely no effort to integrate with its surroundings or to build a reasonable urban environment," said Milan architect Vittorio Gregotti, who designed a similarly-sized redevelopment of an area occupied by an old Pirelli factory.
Zaha Hadid, the prize-winning Baghdad-born architect who also worked on the project, said the criticism amounted to ill-concealed envy.
"I'm sure there are some Italian architects who would like to be in on it," she said." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3582567
Hadid's response to criticism: 'you are just jealous' - great!
yah - i think that one's renzo piano, sotthi. (or rogers or foster?) the tilted glass face has programmable lighting for images and messages that you can see across the river.
Jun 2, 06 7:42 am ·
·
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.
Lost for words.....
trade-fair district of Milan.
--Zaha Hadid, Arata Isozaki, Daniel Libeskind, and Pier Paolo Maggiora
Completion date: 2014
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/03/italy/source/7.htm
well..Im seeing this for the first time.dont know if its discussed here before...
Im sure many here will violently disagree with me but what the fuck were these designers thinking???????
Are they losing it ?
also I cant believe the arrogance that makes responsibilty towards society subservient to one's own "creative" style
There should be a censor-board for architecture too.
"...but you told me to render the entire model!"
"obviously the toothpicks were there just to support the model - they're not supposed to be there in real building!"
"well how am i supposed to know that - i just do renderings!"
"anyway do you have time to twist the building so we can eliminate the toothpicks?"
well, uhm, they kinda beat 1960's steel towers and concrete brutalist blocks...i mea, it,s pretty much the same ego masturbation, only with bigger budgets and technology to actually build the thing.
if Frank Lloyd Wright and Sant'Elia had the chance they would have probably built the same megastructures.
the fact that there is 3 of them togther looks funny, it's almost like a braque cubist painting redrawn by dali.
and the one on the right is not that bad. and notice the little building behind it, the one with th offset window facade...every single architect in italy is doing those now!
yeah, the one on the right w/o the toothpicks isn't that bad. I'd love to see some floorplans for the curvy one.
silent disapproval robot? is that you?
There is a single-toothpick building at the SE end of the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam. You can google earth it but it can't be seen from the angle shown.
I don't get your WTF?! reaction. It's a really good presentation image, and there appears to be a nice articulation in all three designs. How is it irresponsible? Is the building on the right having unprotected sex with the earth using its two cocks? Come on, at least make a joke or something instead of flipping your keyboard in outrage.
someone get the middle one an ambulance, stat!
'How is it irresponsible?'
It doesn't respect the existing site conditions: neither enhancing nor engaging the site in any way. Sometimes this is fine if the design, materials, conceptual idea, etc. is attempting to push the field beyond existing boundaires, but this is simply conventionally conventional.
But most disturbing, at least for me, is that the avant garde of the 70's - espeically Hadid and Libeskind, to a lesser extent Isozaki - seem to have totally disregarded their earlier ideas and critical stances in favor of a 'design by the rules' attitude; the above being a prime example.
...Or a healthy dose of Viagra.
I couldn't find a plan or anything else besides that picture. Unless y'all know something I don't then these are the typical, knee-jerk "it's crap" responses that occur ad infinitum on this site.
"respect the existing site conditions" - How could you know that? Please enlighten us to the experiential studies of the trade-fair district you have done, and the effects these buildings would have there.
All we can say with one rendering is whether or not the shapes are pretty. That's really about it, and it's purely subjective. The very least you would need is a program or parti diagram of the damn site, and maybe if you articulated specific problems with the plans of the buildings, I could accept these rants.
word to yo motha!
I second that
There are plenty of existing conditions that are revealed in the rendering; the two that I have an issue with in regards to the design are height and material. The size of the three towers especially disregards the existing height conditions.
i like the landscape the best. beautiful dense tree growths. nice towers too. bended (or limp) tower would have nice floors and i don't think it will look like that bad as it does in the rendering. the united nations looking tower is actually is very elegant. they share the same public space/landscape like i mentioned above. zaha's tower/complex is also very nice. i hope they build it like that. furniture business is big. so what? they build stuff all the time...
word to consider: iconography
We're not lawyers. No court has ruled that short buildings preclude tall buildings or vice versa.
Damn it, if I actually have to post a picture of the Eiffel Tower I'm going to scream.
So iconography supersedes responsiblity? The history of the site as a 'gritty' neighborhood is replaced by another type of grittiness: yet another commercial high-rise reflecting 'the signature styles of the four [star]architects.'
NB: posting a picture of the Eiffel Tower would be pointless as the context between the two are different.
the middle one needs some viagra... looks like a limp noodle.
How does the elevator work in the middle one?!?
Sorry if I'm being too much of a "real world" cop...
i have seen much worse interventions...i don't know the area precisely, but the usual milan suburb is a crappy place with crappy 1970's brick and concrete buildings, you wouldn't wanna have too much interaction with them...
about signature styles...isn't that what great architects have done all along?
one thing is really bad: the photomontage is shit! the ground seems to be around the same heigth of the 4th floor of the building behind it (look on the right). it is a quick cash in for an office, a building which does not push the boundaries of large scale Architecture, but that's not unusual in any way
there's a spine in the back of the building...you can see it in the rendering...no idea about the top 5 floors though (maybe some fanatical open air catwalks would be fun)
i declare the center building to affectionately be referred to as 'the limpdick building"
I'm with galford. this is "conventionally conventional" post. 1. image posted 2. knee-jerk "it's crap" responses 3. witty post by vado.
i think this project has a lot more possibilities than the many so-called "responsible" projects out there.
I disagree! A slight curvature is perfectly natural, and even desirable in some cultures.
bendy buildings anyone?
Auguste, are adherence or relationship to size and material necissarily prerequisites for an 'appropriate' response to site? i can think of many situations where they would be, but in the trade fair situation where the dominant forms are a mixture of horizontal slabs of metal clad halls and chain hotels, a grouping of towers could prevent the whole thing from becoming a vauge and formless periphery.
context?
on the designs themselves, ito's and zaha's would have to close to some of the more elegant tower designs floating around recently, the lines of zaha's twist are quite attractive, certianly in comparison to some of the other 'twist' or 'screws going around'.
danny boy's is more problematic, and while zaha's would certainly have an unusual floor plate, libeskind's appears to make the most of the fact that these towers are constructed in the 'type' but not the economic/urban imperative in which skyscrapers developed, i doubt there is that much preassure on usable space on this site to require the stacking of floor plates. in a funy way, libeskinds is a perfect response to the nature of these towers (im guessing the intention of the developers),as urban symbolism rather than the rationalism of manhattan or shanghai. he has obviously made the desision that the economics of space usual in a tower are of secondary importance.
im not saying that i agree with that thought process, just that the result he achieved follows a logical progression from what im assuming is the intent of this development.
the bldg on the right is just abt ok.its not so great just abt ok at the best.
but the remaining two...whew
guys, very frankly
they will MOST certainly have their conceptual justifications
I think they are probably starting to develop the mentality that
"hey- whatever- we- do- will- be -accepted -by- the -public- cos- we are- all -so- famous -and- all ".
If this trend of crapping chrome into the skyline continues , in a couple of generations ,Im afraid we might not be able to introduce ourselves as architects in any social gathering..
(without being hysterically laughed back in return.)
nevermore>> they will MOST certainly have their conceptual justifications
Just as lame as their structures...
http://www.floornature.com/worldaround/articolo.php/art441/3/en/arch
sotthi....
"This insignifigant stone is indeed of trifling value,
It is despised by fools, the more cherished by the wise."
- Arnold of Villanova
I'll second you on that Nevermore.
"I am the totem of the Earth, the Phallus raised to pierce the sky; - this is the altar of the stars. But they are mere flowers of the garden; harvest them and adorn thyself. Tear at the void and the lights therein; feast on infinities."
[The Book of Gog, 72]
http://www.paranormal.de/symbole/indien/shiva/shivaling3.jpg
http://www.indhistory.com/img/hindu-temple-lingaraja-temple-01.jpg
I don't know how I missed this one.
I think I would need to see a lot more images before I decided that the buildings aren't contextual or responsible. Does anyone know anything about their structure? If they can get that middle one to work, more power to them. I have to admit, my idealized panorama of most cities involves a lot of fancy towers, and this is approaching that. I don't remember Milan having a particularly attractive skyline, and being the fashion capital of the world, they probably want to advance their metropolitan image.
I'm a little late to the party but those are my initial thoughts.
Wait, I thought this thread was about the TV show! Are those skyscrapers on the island? Were they built by the [http://www.thehansofoundation.org/]Hanso Foundation[/url]?
Isn’t the Luxor fantastic?
These three buildings are free of direct symbolic references, is that too much to handle? The ‘Im da starchitect so I do anything’ argument is the lowest form of criticism, you might as well tell DL ‘yo mom’s a ho and yo buildinz gots a small dick’
Italy is not known for Fiats, but when you go there you see about one million Fiats for every Ferrari. Metaphorically Italy also has about one million architectural Fiats for every Architectural Ferrari, and metaphorically you putrid half-wits are criticising three Ferraris parked in an ocean of Fiats – I suspect form the jealous tone of the posts that many of you are quite satisfied with Fiat.
For those who do not spend time in Vegas the elevators in the Luxor travel at an angle, which is likely the system that will start appearing in buildings with non-vertical massing. The ‘it dont work cuz it got curvz’ argument is equally that of an ignoramus Fiat buff.
There seems to be a recent uprise in disparaging remarks about computer generated/algorithmic/digital/non-traditional architecture and its related processes.
To all of the sceptics and naysayers, and from one who is not an ardent proponent of such architectures, but merely one who is interested in the advancement of architecture as a whole: get over yourselves.
I'm not advocating a solely digital future [ala Lynn], in the same way that I not advocating a sole future of traditional crafting [ala Fathy], but recognise that architects pushing new architectural methods are essential to architecture's development.
My stupid joke was rendered even more stupid by me inablility to copy/paste correctly:
Hanso Foundation
is the fiat building a fiat or a ferrari???
i think it's a piano, in't?
maybe they are in some secret societies trying to hide symbols in the architecture to prove something...
Hanso Foundation = Vanilla Sky ?
That website was creepy.
pre-war futuristic monument that unfortunately didn't survive the war:
fiat:
ferrari:
Do these buildings meet all building codes and handicap requirements? Will the buildings come in under budget? Will the Architect and Owner turn a profit?
Well then Bucko, it's Architecture. We all have seen incredible works of architecture lately. With in depth knowledge of the International Building Code, ADAAG, and BOMA, we all become more responsible architects. It is our responsibility to provide the consumer with a product that is safe and economical. Our training has given us the insight to make the right decisions at the right time at the right place. We as architects have the ability to lead our community forward to a greater understanding of our communal identity. Let's not back down know!!! A greater architectural profession awaits us all with greater insight and standardization. We can all work together towards this goal!!!
"These three buildings are free of direct symbolic references, is that too much to handle? The ‘Im da starchitect so I do anything’ argument is the lowest form of criticism, you might as well tell DL ‘yo mom’s a ho and yo buildinz gots a small dick’ "
um...no a pyramid and a sphynx do have direct symbolic meaning in that they are direct representations of actual pyramids and the sphynx. it doesn't get much clearer than that
I tend to agree that it isn't a bad arguement to question the legitamecy of architecture that is hailed as good because it is has been blessed by someone famous. Just like many of the people here would like more information is to truly critique thes buildings, their placement on the site. I think not questioning a star-architect and just going with the insipid rant of justification would be as easy as just believing a president knows whats best and just going to war...but then again that's just me and a whole different subject.
And one comment on the whole ferrari/fiat thing...as you said many more people buy the fiat than the ferrari and though it may look slick it is the people designing the fiat that are creating and changing our world. arguing over how nice a ferrari is (or whether it's even nice at all) may not always be as all-important on how to make the fiat better.
oh and yes the St. Louis arch has an elevator that goes up the curve also, you forgot about that. ---you also should consider that just because 'it dont work cuz it got curvz' may be true doesn't intrinsically mean that 'just because it has curves it works'...sometimes all a curve or random shape is, is something someone puts on to create 'pizzaz' because they couldn't come up with anything truely elegant.
and personally i think i wouldn't mind tooling around in a fiat for a while.
um just rereading what i wrote, and i need to go back to third grade english
The 'three buildings' I was referring to were the towers in Milan, the picture is misleading....
Fiats are not very inspiring, except for 1980's Pandas.
from the little i can gather from here, the un-esque on the right does like quite elegant... not too sure about the other two, but all this is from one rendering anyway. still, it seems to me that the vast majority of skyscrapers and high risers and dull and drab with a few standouts here and there. they seem to often be the worst of corporate architecture. i'd much rather see a less vertical city with a few high rises and spires in most cases than the boring skyscrapers currently prevelent. just my thought.
jpalmer makes some excellent points, and as usual cf does not:
"Do these buildings meet all building codes and handicap requirements? Will the buildings come in under budget? Will the Architect and Owner turn a profit?"
yes, cf, building codes and ada make architecture; and architecture is contigent upon the architect making a profit. well, i guess you can count just about every louis kahn building as non-architecture.
we all do jump to critical conclusions too often on this site, but at least we are thinking critically.
oh yeah, and the vado "limpdick" thing caused me to laugh outloud at work. i think they're onto my websurfing. snap yo.
"They are a series of strange objects placed inside the city but with absolutely no effort to integrate with its surroundings or to build a reasonable urban environment," said Milan architect Vittorio Gregotti, who designed a similarly-sized redevelopment of an area occupied by an old Pirelli factory.
Zaha Hadid, the prize-winning Baghdad-born architect who also worked on the project, said the criticism amounted to ill-concealed envy.
"I'm sure there are some Italian architects who would like to be in on it," she said."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3582567
Hadid's response to criticism: 'you are just jealous' - great!
Anyway, from the third last message in this forum
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5095.html
"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/jimboholland/more/image1.jpg
the building on the right side had a same idea as this building in rotterdam, holland..
check that great white steel beam in the middle of the building
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/jimboholland/more/5524kppnnn.jpg
here can you see it better:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/jimboholland/more/285belvedere2.jpg "
yah - i think that one's renzo piano, sotthi. (or rogers or foster?) the tilted glass face has programmable lighting for images and messages that you can see across the river.
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.