Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron have today revealed plans for their £215 million iconic extension to the former power station on the south bank of the River Thames. The new 7,000 m² extension will be built on land to the south of the Tate Modern reclaimed from EDF energy networks. A new entrance and piazza to the 4 million visitor/year venue will allow north-south pedestrian passage through the complex. Ten new galleries will be provided in the 10 stories above ground and a performing space will be created within the former oil tanks, once used to feed the power station located below ground. The Mayor of London today pledged £7 million pounds towards the project through the London Development Agency. Completion is scheduled for 2012.
The project seems interesting, and I'm sure it will be stimulating sculputurally; but there was something powerfully austere about the Tate as is. The industrial warehouse exterior with the stark, understated interior relegated to the center of the interior space. This could make it seem like a caricature of itself. I wish the rendering had included the context of the full existing facade - maybe that's telling of a lack of consideration (intentional or not).
I'm not sure what to think of this, it kinda looks like the MVRDV mountains in China, except colder as a place.
My first reaction is that it looks like too much for the site and that area in London. H&M used to be subtly sublime this project is a new approach for them, very large and in stark contrast to its surrounding (?). But there is somthing about this pyramid, something almost primal, heroic, mythological about it that I like.
I would like to see more . . . and please don't get me wrong, this is cool and all, but the Tate Modern is HUGE as it is no? I know thay have a hell of a collection, but add this to it and if you want to see it all you are there for the better part of a day.
I feel even the Walker Art Center addition was a nice play with the existing volumes/context:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Walker_Art_Center.jpg[\img]
The tate website (linked above) has great images, plans, sections, etc.
But yeah, where's the regard?
I would like to see more . . . and please don't get me wrong, this is cool and all, but the Tate Modern is HUGE as it is no? I know thay have a hell of a collection, but add this to it and if you want to see it all you are there for the better part of a day.
I feel even the Walker Art Center addition was a nice play with the existing volumes/context:
The tate website (linked above) has great images, plans, sections, etc.
But yeah, where's the regard?
I worked at the Walker during and after the construction of the expansion and I thought that H&D hit a home run as far as the interior of the building is concerned as well as the rooftop areas... I always felt that the exterior looked a bit out of place in Uptown though. It totally dominates the old Walker and looks a bit sinister, actually. Especially in the winter or on a cloudy day. The Guthrie theater is amazing.
it looks highly unimaginative.. like someone played around with autocad solids and surfaces for an hour with no consideration to site or program. the structure is also boring, from what i hear.. trabeated concrete columns and slabs, with varying slab edges, thats about it. the only interesting thing is the way glazing might be handled.
screw computers, i dont give a crap about 'blobitecture' and 'digital architecture'.. give me some siza and kahn anyday. this design just doesnt impress me, i loved the walker center tho.
I dont think its a question of liking it because it is by H&deM. Its about faith in the architect. I think H&deM are one global practice that you can rely on to deliver consistent and progressive buildings. The fact that H&deM are'nt overt stylists or overt programmers gives me faith that the building will fundamentally work.
Its a sexy image, and the form is not instantly likable, but I am a fan of the building that grown on you. There is alot of potential there, and its a completely different building for that part of that town.
well, everyone, and I mean everyone, was saying the design of the new deYoung museum in San Francisco was butt ugly during design and construction phases but I think it turned out quite the opposite. I just visited the museum and it's amazing.
Do care for H&D and, as diabase points out, is about more than just renderings. I have faith in their abilities (they've both disappointed me and impressed me, but more often surprised me with something that ended up being nice and well thought out when I initially thought it boring and bland).
it definitely has a 'third year student trying to hard' quality about it. i think the starchitect-spectacle-bar has been raised too high. thank you mr. gehry & mr. libeskind.
i know they can do form well, the de young is a great example. but still i miss the good ole days:
Hey ferd, care to elucidate your opinion about the folk art museum, I've looked at shit before, mostly my own but no need to elaborate, and well quite frankly it doesn''t look like cast white bronze, although sometimes the texture is clsoe - so maybe you're right, the folk art does look like a priece of shit - are you saying that's a bad thing?
What do semantics have to do with anything - look it up, wrong use of the word. I was only trying to be funny and wittily criticize your inane vulgarity - apparently lost on you. I've been inside the Folk Art nad I have looked at the details, since you led off with your rather obnoxious opinion and no justification I'm going to wait to see if you actually have anything valuable to say - if not then I'll give my opinion. C'mon tough guy - justify your words.
ferd, I agree. the unresolved details really draw the eye away from what could be a very joyous whole. these things can be resolved with a greater allocation of design time. i'm sure the studio understands and will make the proper adjustments as required. there is no need to place fault, ferd. we all make mistakes.
Oh cf touche. I imagine they spent a fairly significant amount of design time on it - listen I'm not trying to necessarily defend Tod Williams billie Tsien, but I do happen to like the building and would expect that anyone of decent moral character and relative intelligence would be willing to engage in a conversation about a piece of architecture and not merely throw out thoughtless invectives.
I have to go to a meeting - I'll continue this later. CF - you have still said nothing - "unresolved detail" - specifics, give me some specifics. Prove you've even been in the building and you're not just basing your opinion on some photographs in a magazine.
if this had been by rem i'd understand it better. he described porto as the recycling of an idea: setting a shoebox in the center and wrapping all of the support spaces and infrastructure around it. originally intended for a house but then blown up for use at porto.
this design could be considered a turning inside out of that strategy: burying all of the support spaces and infrastructure inside a willy-nilly pile of shoeboxes.
of course both rem and h&dm would use prada shoeboxes.
I thought the Folk Art Museum was/is great (and yeah, I went inside). This is actually the first time I have heard anyone speak ill of it. It doesn't 'move' me, but it's a very nice piece of architecture.
H&dM aren't consistent, i thought the forum, barcelona was butt-ugly.
I'll second that.. their night renderings are convincing but the "actual piece" is quite deceiving..
the Forum doesn't look like they had imagined at night..
not that it should be exactly how they are selling it now, but I bet the general public will expect the Tate to look exactly like this... and it will not
I find the renderings to be confusing and the forms lacking any cohesiveness. the public space it creates at the street level could be interesting if it is indeed portrayed correctly - I don't remember there being what looks to be a busy urban street on the back side of the Tate.
I don't understand what the building is trying to do. I suppose make a significant gesture on the street side where the orginal already makes a significant gesture on the river side. In which case this looks like it would be fairly successful. It is a fairly potent gesture, noticeable if nothing else - the question is whether that is enough.
The stacked and rotated boxes, while reminiscent of certain shipping container projects (MDU by LotEK) and housing projects (Safdie's Habitat), does provide for the possibility of taking advantage of different viewing corridors and natural light paths depending upon intent and necessity - which is a useful tool.
It's unfortunate that the overal volume feels rather clunky and unresolved. This will look like a pile of dropped boxes behind the organized form of the old power plant Tate. It just feels wrong.
One does wonder what it will be made of as there is no indication in the renderings.
Ok sorry, I didn't notice that ferd had actually tried to formulate a critique of the folk art museum - not exactly in depth analysis ferd but at least you put something out there. I've been accused of hijacking threads before and don't wish to do that here, so ferd if you give a shit about my repsonse, start up a thread and I'm there - we can hash this out - it'll be fun.
Oh and cf, let me know what buildings you've designed so I can check them out because I can only assume that one would learn a very valuable lesson on detailing.
It is quite too much, it is more than an addition. I guess that's the problem with it.
And the renderings are confusing, I have no idea what the building will look like. - it looks a bit like wanting to do something verry cool in a weekend time.
Is it that they are getting old or greedy or what?
Katze - faith is for religion and gods - that's the problem with that sentiment - it requires blindness to logic. As far as I'm concerned you are only as good as what you show me. True, one cannot disregard past work when making an assesment of a new, future project. But, to say that despite what one sees in front of them one should have faith and believe it will all turn out okay in the end, well that's unjust to the profession. The profession's critical eye should remain opened and voice raised at all times - it's unethical to do enything less.
That said one must use thoughtful judgement and not pure gut reaction when inlvolved in critique.
urbanspec, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I was speaking in a broader sense in terms of belief; in devotion to, or trust in somebody or something as a held set of beliefs or principles or allegiance to loyalty beyond something that requires logical proof of concept. Per Diabase, since H&deM is one global practice that you can rely on to deliver consistent and progressive buildings, I have faith on them that they will deliver. Maybe I should have provided a little more clarity in my previous post (because I believe we are on the same page here) you are only as good as your last project; and seeing that they have delivered in the past, I have faith that they will deliver in the future. In addition, I guess I was being facetious by stating (paraphrasing here) "…if you have designed something that’s better, show me or shut up". It's not a pure gut reaction on my part, especially since the Mayor of London supports the project by pledging £7 million pounds towards the project. Do you think this would happen with blindness to logic or uncertainty? I think not.
Katze, I think you were very clear in you previous post, you have only reiterated your definition of faith in your new post, not made a new point.
My criticism stands, bluntly put - blind faith is BAD for the profession. Just because every building they've done before is good (which I'm not necessarily saying they are) that does not make this building good - that is faulty logic. The past gives an indication of the present but it most certainly does not define it.
In other words when I look at the renderings by HdeM of this new Tate building my opinion will most undoubtedly be influenced by my reactions and thoughts of their previous projects, but, I try as hard as I can to suppress that inclination so I can be as objective as possible. This new project exists in an entirely different physical and cultural context then those others and this must be considered. Every project must be judged on its own merits. Having said that, renderings are poor subtitutes for the real thing.
I'm going to go and try to find out what they've said about the building, what are they trying to achieve- that is an important factor to be considered.
In fact you hit on a major problem of todays media driven star fucking culture - we are blinded by our own devotion to the image that we have created of these mythical god like architects. Please, please I beg of you - for the sake of all that is good, please, judge using all of your faculties, use all of the information presented to you, not just "faith on them that they will deliver".
Oh, and glad to hear that the mayor supports the project, political support for architectural projects is always a nice thing to see. I'm sure he has a very clear liswt of criteria when judging whether or not to endorse a project. That list probably goes something like this:
1. Will it make money for the city
2. Will I get more votes by supporting this
3. Will it bring in tourists
4. Is it generally supported by the public/profession
5. Will it genereate media coverage and international interest
6. What are the chances someting will go horribly wrong and totally fuck me over politicaly
These are all valid concerns for the Mayor, and I'm sure he put thought into them. Architects should have a different set of criteria from which to judge
Wonderful - good question nevermore, and I doubt I'll do it justice here. Your question really alludes to a greater question which is: what are the ethical standards of architectural practice.
The AIA has a published set ofethics which is a place to start the formulation of a response, considering this is the nationally recognized governing body of our profession and by paying dues (for those AIA mambers) you implicitly agree to abide by this code.
The AIA breaks the ethical code into Canons, of which there are five,
Canon 1 - GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
Canon 2 - OBLIGATIONS TO THE PUBLIC
Canon 3 - OBLIGATIONS TO THE CLIENT
Canon 4 - OBLIGAITONS TO THE PROFESSION
Canon 5 - OBLIGATIONS TO COLLEAGUES
Unfortunately the AIA canons mostly admonish the breaking of various laws but some questions can be formulated by using the canons (at least the first one) that can be considered criteria with which to judge a building. For instance with respect to the HdeM design; does it show a credible advancement in the knowledge and skill of HdeM's work? And if so does that contribute to the greater body of architectural accomplishment? Do the architects purport to seek to affect through this design the social and environmental realm in a positive manner?
Which is not to say that many of the concerns of the Mayor of a given place will not coincide with those of the architect, but that a mayor's blessing should by no means placate the critical eye of the profession, as in "well the mayor is willing to fund it = it must be good"
Anyway, I would hope that this conversation could break into a wider discussion about the Architectural profession's code of ethics which would inevitably require a discussion about architecure and morality. Where ethics are the written, enforceable rules by which we practice and morals are the grey matter that can/should define the ethical code.
To direct your question, while not actually answering it Nevermore, I think that in order to really respond one has to re-interpret the professional code of ethics with a mind less on adherence to governing laws and more of a mind on what architecture should be and do. from that one could develop a set of criteria to "judge" a building and hence have a touchstone for critical discourse.
Tate Modern Addition
Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron have today revealed plans for their £215 million iconic extension to the former power station on the south bank of the River Thames. The new 7,000 m² extension will be built on land to the south of the Tate Modern reclaimed from EDF energy networks. A new entrance and piazza to the 4 million visitor/year venue will allow north-south pedestrian passage through the complex. Ten new galleries will be provided in the 10 stories above ground and a performing space will be created within the former oil tanks, once used to feed the power station located below ground. The Mayor of London today pledged £7 million pounds towards the project through the London Development Agency. Completion is scheduled for 2012.
Links not in a chain
thoughts? My feeling is that this is a step in a new direction for them. As always, their execution will probably be flawless.
The project seems interesting, and I'm sure it will be stimulating sculputurally; but there was something powerfully austere about the Tate as is. The industrial warehouse exterior with the stark, understated interior relegated to the center of the interior space. This could make it seem like a caricature of itself. I wish the rendering had included the context of the full existing facade - maybe that's telling of a lack of consideration (intentional or not).
I found some more renderings. I thought the addition was to the side, and apparently it is behind the main approach so maybe my point is irrelevant.
*relegated to the back of the interior space
I promise I'm done now
where are the other renderings? it's hard to say anything through a well cropped and calculated image.
I'm not sure what to think of this, it kinda looks like the MVRDV mountains in China, except colder as a place.
My first reaction is that it looks like too much for the site and that area in London. H&M used to be subtly sublime this project is a new approach for them, very large and in stark contrast to its surrounding (?). But there is somthing about this pyramid, something almost primal, heroic, mythological about it that I like.
Actually this can be a completely separate project.. it's so (FUCK THE CONTEXT) - but in a very ugly way (personal opinion there)
Y put it as an extension anyway?- the new volume acts as if the power station wasnt even there !!!!! :S
I would like to see more . . . and please don't get me wrong, this is cool and all, but the Tate Modern is HUGE as it is no? I know thay have a hell of a collection, but add this to it and if you want to see it all you are there for the better part of a day.
I feel even the Walker Art Center addition was a nice play with the existing volumes/context:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Walker_Art_Center.jpg[\img]
The tate website (linked above) has great images, plans, sections, etc.
But yeah, where's the regard?
I would like to see more . . . and please don't get me wrong, this is cool and all, but the Tate Modern is HUGE as it is no? I know thay have a hell of a collection, but add this to it and if you want to see it all you are there for the better part of a day.
I feel even the Walker Art Center addition was a nice play with the existing volumes/context:
The tate website (linked above) has great images, plans, sections, etc.
But yeah, where's the regard?
I worked at the Walker during and after the construction of the expansion and I thought that H&D hit a home run as far as the interior of the building is concerned as well as the rooftop areas... I always felt that the exterior looked a bit out of place in Uptown though. It totally dominates the old Walker and looks a bit sinister, actually. Especially in the winter or on a cloudy day. The Guthrie theater is amazing.
it looks highly unimaginative.. like someone played around with autocad solids and surfaces for an hour with no consideration to site or program. the structure is also boring, from what i hear.. trabeated concrete columns and slabs, with varying slab edges, thats about it. the only interesting thing is the way glazing might be handled.
Blah Blah Blah - it's amazing. You can call anything "unimaginative" especially in this 'computer' age.
screw computers, i dont give a crap about 'blobitecture' and 'digital architecture'.. give me some siza and kahn anyday. this design just doesnt impress me, i loved the walker center tho.
that thing is a piece of shit. quote me.
would anybody even like this if it wasn't H&M?
I dont think its a question of liking it because it is by H&deM. Its about faith in the architect. I think H&deM are one global practice that you can rely on to deliver consistent and progressive buildings. The fact that H&deM are'nt overt stylists or overt programmers gives me faith that the building will fundamentally work.
Its a sexy image, and the form is not instantly likable, but I am a fan of the building that grown on you. There is alot of potential there, and its a completely different building for that part of that town.
H&dM aren't consistent, i thought the forum, barcelona was butt-ugly.
"Its about faith in the architect"
What kinda fart is that?
Has anyone noticed the face?
i better get to the eyedoctor and have him check me out. because my eyes are saying ugly buildings, ugly buildings.
well, everyone, and I mean everyone, was saying the design of the new deYoung museum in San Francisco was butt ugly during design and construction phases but I think it turned out quite the opposite. I just visited the museum and it's amazing.
hey, whatever happened to FOA's bbc building?
Don't care for the design and images.
Do care for H&D and, as diabase points out, is about more than just renderings. I have faith in their abilities (they've both disappointed me and impressed me, but more often surprised me with something that ended up being nice and well thought out when I initially thought it boring and bland).
walker is the better building then the redone moma- that said, the folk art museum rocks!
folk art museum is a piece of shit as well.
have you actually opened your eyes when you've been there?
it definitely has a 'third year student trying to hard' quality about it. i think the starchitect-spectacle-bar has been raised too high. thank you mr. gehry & mr. libeskind.
i know they can do form well, the de young is a great example. but still i miss the good ole days:
Hey ferd, care to elucidate your opinion about the folk art museum, I've looked at shit before, mostly my own but no need to elaborate, and well quite frankly it doesn''t look like cast white bronze, although sometimes the texture is clsoe - so maybe you're right, the folk art does look like a priece of shit - are you saying that's a bad thing?
i agree with silverlake!!!! and i know that i have been harsh in this thread.
just because you think that you have a great idea, doesn't necessarily mean that it'sa great idea to build it.
hdem are amazing, but thaere are moments when it looks like they are trying too hard.
de younge is incredible.
C/mon ferd, justify your comment about the folk Art museum - I'm dying here.
urbanspec, there is alot more to look at in the folk art than the facade. maybe you should worry less about the semantics and more about the details.
have you looked at the unresolved collisions in the fol art museum. not very elegant.
the museum isn't interesting spatially. it's a lot of fancy materials nicely arranged, but the parts don't add up to a great whole.
nice green three story piece of suspended resin. that has folk art written all over it.
What do semantics have to do with anything - look it up, wrong use of the word. I was only trying to be funny and wittily criticize your inane vulgarity - apparently lost on you. I've been inside the Folk Art nad I have looked at the details, since you led off with your rather obnoxious opinion and no justification I'm going to wait to see if you actually have anything valuable to say - if not then I'll give my opinion. C'mon tough guy - justify your words.
I'm waiting.
ferd, I agree. the unresolved details really draw the eye away from what could be a very joyous whole. these things can be resolved with a greater allocation of design time. i'm sure the studio understands and will make the proper adjustments as required. there is no need to place fault, ferd. we all make mistakes.
Oh cf touche. I imagine they spent a fairly significant amount of design time on it - listen I'm not trying to necessarily defend Tod Williams billie Tsien, but I do happen to like the building and would expect that anyone of decent moral character and relative intelligence would be willing to engage in a conversation about a piece of architecture and not merely throw out thoughtless invectives.
I have to go to a meeting - I'll continue this later. CF - you have still said nothing - "unresolved detail" - specifics, give me some specifics. Prove you've even been in the building and you're not just basing your opinion on some photographs in a magazine.
if this had been by rem i'd understand it better. he described porto as the recycling of an idea: setting a shoebox in the center and wrapping all of the support spaces and infrastructure around it. originally intended for a house but then blown up for use at porto.
this design could be considered a turning inside out of that strategy: burying all of the support spaces and infrastructure inside a willy-nilly pile of shoeboxes.
of course both rem and h&dm would use prada shoeboxes.
I thought the Folk Art Museum was/is great (and yeah, I went inside). This is actually the first time I have heard anyone speak ill of it. It doesn't 'move' me, but it's a very nice piece of architecture.
I'll second that.. their night renderings are convincing but the "actual piece" is quite deceiving..
the Forum doesn't look like they had imagined at night..
not that it should be exactly how they are selling it now, but I bet the general public will expect the Tate to look exactly like this... and it will not
I find the renderings to be confusing and the forms lacking any cohesiveness. the public space it creates at the street level could be interesting if it is indeed portrayed correctly - I don't remember there being what looks to be a busy urban street on the back side of the Tate.
I don't understand what the building is trying to do. I suppose make a significant gesture on the street side where the orginal already makes a significant gesture on the river side. In which case this looks like it would be fairly successful. It is a fairly potent gesture, noticeable if nothing else - the question is whether that is enough.
The stacked and rotated boxes, while reminiscent of certain shipping container projects (MDU by LotEK) and housing projects (Safdie's Habitat), does provide for the possibility of taking advantage of different viewing corridors and natural light paths depending upon intent and necessity - which is a useful tool.
It's unfortunate that the overal volume feels rather clunky and unresolved. This will look like a pile of dropped boxes behind the organized form of the old power plant Tate. It just feels wrong.
One does wonder what it will be made of as there is no indication in the renderings.
Ok sorry, I didn't notice that ferd had actually tried to formulate a critique of the folk art museum - not exactly in depth analysis ferd but at least you put something out there. I've been accused of hijacking threads before and don't wish to do that here, so ferd if you give a shit about my repsonse, start up a thread and I'm there - we can hash this out - it'll be fun.
Oh and cf, let me know what buildings you've designed so I can check them out because I can only assume that one would learn a very valuable lesson on detailing.
" but I bet the general public will expect the Tate to look exactly like this... and it will not"
I'm sure hoping for a miracle here !
I don't know whether to say i'll thk god if it doesn't look like the renderings, or can it get worse?
It is quite too much, it is more than an addition. I guess that's the problem with it.
And the renderings are confusing, I have no idea what the building will look like. - it looks a bit like wanting to do something verry cool in a weekend time.
Is it that they are getting old or greedy or what?
I agree with Diabase and trace – it is about faith in the architect and faith their abilities, which go beyond the renderings.
For all you skeptics and disbelievers – show me your last project - You are only as good as the last thing you built.
Katze - faith is for religion and gods - that's the problem with that sentiment - it requires blindness to logic. As far as I'm concerned you are only as good as what you show me. True, one cannot disregard past work when making an assesment of a new, future project. But, to say that despite what one sees in front of them one should have faith and believe it will all turn out okay in the end, well that's unjust to the profession. The profession's critical eye should remain opened and voice raised at all times - it's unethical to do enything less.
That said one must use thoughtful judgement and not pure gut reaction when inlvolved in critique.
urbanspec, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I was speaking in a broader sense in terms of belief; in devotion to, or trust in somebody or something as a held set of beliefs or principles or allegiance to loyalty beyond something that requires logical proof of concept. Per Diabase, since H&deM is one global practice that you can rely on to deliver consistent and progressive buildings, I have faith on them that they will deliver. Maybe I should have provided a little more clarity in my previous post (because I believe we are on the same page here) you are only as good as your last project; and seeing that they have delivered in the past, I have faith that they will deliver in the future. In addition, I guess I was being facetious by stating (paraphrasing here) "…if you have designed something that’s better, show me or shut up". It's not a pure gut reaction on my part, especially since the Mayor of London supports the project by pledging £7 million pounds towards the project. Do you think this would happen with blindness to logic or uncertainty? I think not.
Katze, I think you were very clear in you previous post, you have only reiterated your definition of faith in your new post, not made a new point.
My criticism stands, bluntly put - blind faith is BAD for the profession. Just because every building they've done before is good (which I'm not necessarily saying they are) that does not make this building good - that is faulty logic. The past gives an indication of the present but it most certainly does not define it.
In other words when I look at the renderings by HdeM of this new Tate building my opinion will most undoubtedly be influenced by my reactions and thoughts of their previous projects, but, I try as hard as I can to suppress that inclination so I can be as objective as possible. This new project exists in an entirely different physical and cultural context then those others and this must be considered. Every project must be judged on its own merits. Having said that, renderings are poor subtitutes for the real thing.
I'm going to go and try to find out what they've said about the building, what are they trying to achieve- that is an important factor to be considered.
In fact you hit on a major problem of todays media driven star fucking culture - we are blinded by our own devotion to the image that we have created of these mythical god like architects. Please, please I beg of you - for the sake of all that is good, please, judge using all of your faculties, use all of the information presented to you, not just "faith on them that they will deliver".
Oh, and glad to hear that the mayor supports the project, political support for architectural projects is always a nice thing to see. I'm sure he has a very clear liswt of criteria when judging whether or not to endorse a project. That list probably goes something like this:
1. Will it make money for the city
2. Will I get more votes by supporting this
3. Will it bring in tourists
4. Is it generally supported by the public/profession
5. Will it genereate media coverage and international interest
6. What are the chances someting will go horribly wrong and totally fuck me over politicaly
These are all valid concerns for the Mayor, and I'm sure he put thought into them. Architects should have a different set of criteria from which to judge
@ Urbanspec , I'm sorry to butt in...Im quite intrigued..
Architects should have a different set of criteria from which to judge
Such as...?
Wonderful - good question nevermore, and I doubt I'll do it justice here. Your question really alludes to a greater question which is: what are the ethical standards of architectural practice.
The AIA has a published set ofethics which is a place to start the formulation of a response, considering this is the nationally recognized governing body of our profession and by paying dues (for those AIA mambers) you implicitly agree to abide by this code.
The AIA breaks the ethical code into Canons, of which there are five,
Canon 1 - GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
Canon 2 - OBLIGATIONS TO THE PUBLIC
Canon 3 - OBLIGATIONS TO THE CLIENT
Canon 4 - OBLIGAITONS TO THE PROFESSION
Canon 5 - OBLIGATIONS TO COLLEAGUES
Unfortunately the AIA canons mostly admonish the breaking of various laws but some questions can be formulated by using the canons (at least the first one) that can be considered criteria with which to judge a building. For instance with respect to the HdeM design; does it show a credible advancement in the knowledge and skill of HdeM's work? And if so does that contribute to the greater body of architectural accomplishment? Do the architects purport to seek to affect through this design the social and environmental realm in a positive manner?
Which is not to say that many of the concerns of the Mayor of a given place will not coincide with those of the architect, but that a mayor's blessing should by no means placate the critical eye of the profession, as in "well the mayor is willing to fund it = it must be good"
Anyway, I would hope that this conversation could break into a wider discussion about the Architectural profession's code of ethics which would inevitably require a discussion about architecure and morality. Where ethics are the written, enforceable rules by which we practice and morals are the grey matter that can/should define the ethical code.
To direct your question, while not actually answering it Nevermore, I think that in order to really respond one has to re-interpret the professional code of ethics with a mind less on adherence to governing laws and more of a mind on what architecture should be and do. from that one could develop a set of criteria to "judge" a building and hence have a touchstone for critical discourse.
ET
Total Entries: 4
Total Comments: 113
08/11/06 0:15
"Its about faith in the architect"
What kinda fart is that?
That my friend, is premium educated fart.
Thank-you. I just had a big meal.
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.