Ok, urbanistic, so let me remove the term "faith" from my argument because it is causing too much controversy and I hate getting caught up in word fights. Society imposes responsibilities of behaving dutifully according to ethical standards, and we hold Architects accountable to these societal obligations. Therefore, if architects meet these obligations by satisfying the public, their client, the profession and their colleagues, the criteria from which to judge has been satisfied. So are you arguing that you are not satisfied as a colleague or as a member of the profession? Are you losing confidence in their (H&deM's) abilities, which could engender confidence in the profession? And I assume you have concerns in regards to credible advancement and contribution to the greater body of architectural accomplishments? Or are you saying H&deM is not meeting requirements generated from their client or the public? Or both?

If I were to say that H&deM has behaved responsibly in the past, why is it so wrong to believe that H&deM will not behave responsibly in the future and get the job done ethically? Have they not behaved accordingly in past commitments? And no need to beg about using all information presented to criticize - I don't judge on blind faith – that would be ludicrous. And yes, I am sure the Mayor has his own agenda for wanting to support this project:) Politics at its best.

urbanspec, what do you mean "thank you?" Diabase started this whole "faith" controversy. Please reiterate what you mean by that comment. And Diabase, chime in here dude – don't flake on me and abandon your post.

Faith is fine.

I have faith that H&deM specifically [and other architects] will continue to produce good buildings. It's not hard to have to have faith. Going by their previous buildings, I can have some comfort [if that is a good word] that their future endeavours will be of a similar standard.

In regards to this render, I can make an educated guess that it is not all fluff, not program vs. form, not form vs. program, not style vs. substance etc. H&deM are successful because they have a rigorous internal research agenda, that emphasizes material research, collaboration, building systems research etc. Have a look at the facade studies produced for 40 Bond for example.

They were the architects for the Tate - I doubt there are any other architects who know the site better, know its conditions, know how it gets used, when, by who and what for. I doubt anyone knows better the potential of a building to supplement the existing Tate - what it needs, what may be lacking, how to complement and contrast the original, how to improve accessibility, and how to add to a cityscape.

If this render was produced by EOM, Eisenman, Fuksas, Jacob MacFarlane, etc, etc, I would be more suspicious of the success of the building.

I think it is sad that some people dont have faith in certain architects. I think it is sad that there seems to be a resistance to experimentation in architecture. Faith is a fine word. I'm too smart to be bothered using archispeak.

I said thank-you because I thought Diabase was calling my little "code of ethics" rant premium educated fart - maybe he was referring to something else. Oh and it's urbanspec, urbanistic is some other gas bag.

I'm glad you consider yourself smart Diabase - but faith is not a good word in this case - for all the reasons I mentioned before. It's more than semantics, it gets to the heart of star fucking.

Katze I think you raise some interesting questions with your post. First off society doesn't impose the standards of ethics, we do - it comes from within the profession. The question I was trying to raise and provide possible avenues of repsonse to is how does one critique a building? If I say, "you have designed a bad building," it means nothing outside of myself. If I say, "you have designed a building that leaks water when it rains," then I'm relying on a tacit agreement that it is indeed bad for a building to leak water when it rains, I understand this because it is culturally defined. If I say, "you have designed a bad building because it is poorly detailed." Well, what does that mean.

Is detailing an ethicak issue?

I'm trying to ask how can we develop a language beyond archispeak that we can use to discuss or critique architecture within the profession and without. In my ethics rant I was making a fairly large logical leap, that an ethical code defines a means of critique. To take it to the limit then, if we say good detailing is an important part of what makes a good building then should that be an ethical standard by which all architects should practice.

I'm not saying one way of the other whether HdeM has behaved ethicaly towrds the client, although I'd like to see the brief to see how they responded to the clients program - then I could take a critical stance.
And I actually think it is an ethical imperative for architects to experiment, through experimentation we get the "advancement and contribution" to the profession. which I think HdeM have definitely contributed.

All the factors that Diabase describes with respect to HdeM's understanding of the site are valid criteria in judging the design, but they are not articles of faith, they're factors of logic.

disagree.

Logic deduced by someone is not neutral. Information presented to different people will have different results when acted upon. Here is where faith comes in: belief that when presented with a situation, a person will act in a certain way.

i didn't think you could polish a turd...but h&dm seem to
be trying..
very awkward. hopefully this is an early first scheme and will develop
into something not so turd-like.

Ok, so let's agree that we disagree in the terms of "society doesn't impose the standards of ethics, we do - it comes from within the profession." Architects may be involved in the definition of these terms, but it is a governing society that determines said rules. Society certainly imposes ethics. I've been a Software Engineer for a number of years (and I don't see that the Architecture disciple is much different) and we have always been subject to abide by ethical standards. These standards are not written by software engineers (per say), but they are created buy a governing body (which includes the society as a whole) which has interest in said ethical direction.

Urbanspec,

I really dont have a reaction on this particular Tate extension bldg...

but If I may be allowed to say so, both you and Katze have valid points and both of you are correct in your respective viewpoints.

Katze's saying that :--If it's a freakin 7 million pound building..It must definitely be more researched than just translating a marker sketch from the drwg board to the construction site.

You are also correct..
I would just like to comment on what you wrote to me..

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


( If I understood your point correctly )..You want a judgement of architecture based on what it contributes on the aesthetical, social and ethical value of society rather than what arch laws and bye-laws dictate and blind faith in a great arch firm .


Frankly, That would be an unending debate going into the depths of semantic eternity !.
Thats cos everyone has an opinion of what the ideal 'utopia' .. so-as-to-speak...should be.


Morality, ethics etc are undending debates...for .eg ..what architecture should be and do etc...each architect will have his /her own interpretation ..so where do we draw the line ? ?

So thats where we have the set of laws and bye-laws in each country (yea I know ,pal..they suck ! ) made by respective arch councils to regulate the creation of architecture .

something like --> Ok Mr. Architect ,stick by these basic laws ,so that public life and context are not jeopardised and within those basic laws you are free to hulahoop your creativity as much as you want !

--

Finally Urbanspec , But I think there should be space in our profession also for accomodating controversial and 'wierd' buildings like you percieve this one to be.

cos if we include the bad with the good ..we can sieve out and really appreciate the value of good ! what say ?

I liked my one and only visit to the Tate Modern...but couldn't walk across the bridge because it was under repair. It is an inspirational building with alot of GREAT ART....and a buch of JUNK! Guess we can't all be in tune with everything which is hip!....So for this Addition It kinda looks like my two dogs going at it in the back yard, even if their program isn't working cause their both guy dogs....and I don't think their male inclined dogs.....if you get my point. These sheekly looking broad stroke felt tip pen creations....are getting a bit borring... hoping someone will come up with something new and better real soon...or I might start to think we on an a big downturn.

Nevermore, you are at the heart of my point, or question really. Morality may be endlessly debated but ethics are written, they exist, on paper to be studied and critiqued. The AIA code of ethics is a prime example.

Opinions are endlessly devirgent and so debate can continue forever. But my question is how do we even define what the right questions to debate are? We are trying to do that here, but it's like batting at flies, where is the focus of the profession? Shouldn't there be a central leadership organization from which we and the population in general can draw some understanding of what it is we do or should do?

Maybe there shouldn't be. Maybe we should keep relying on the guidance of those chosen to be the media superstars and make sure we don't break the law, "what are you going to do next Herzog and De Meuron?" Light my way!

Of course there should be room for experimantal and "weird" buidlngs. But you miss my point - What does that mean? By what set of criteria are you judging a building to be experimental and "weird"? It need not devolve into semantic, not if there is some professionally desrcibed set of criteria. Sounds a bit 1984 but it need not be.

It's is a condition of our post modern society to believe that there are no "rules" no "conditions" which transcend times and places. There is no eternal. Unlike the modernists who believed they must eradicate all history, clean it up, sponge off the dirt to reveal the essence, the transcendent truth. Well it turns out the dirt comes back and the truth becomes unclear but that doesn't mean one should cease trying to order the chaos around them.

I guess in many ways I'm arguing for a CIAM like structure that would take a lead role in defining the porfession's goals. Scary thought, and as I say it I'm filled with doubts about such an organization. Isn't there something in-between the AIA model, which is a beaurocratic form filling and records keeping organizatin, and the CIAM model which could be the moral heart of the profession?

There is no consideration needed.

This is not about starfucking - I'd be happy if Kerstin Thompson were doing this building too - I doubt you know who they are. Its about the quality of an individual architects work.

I'd prefer taking an architects work/d on their merit - much more that some kind of standardisation. Architecture as a profession can not show any conclusive set of qualitative data to prove the worthiness or unworthiness of any set of design precepts. CIAM failed.

CIAM failed - yes. I don't want to get too wrapped up in why it failed and the many disastrous precepts of high modernism - I only used it as a counterpoint to the AIA model of organization. In other words leadership organized around a set of guiding design principles as opposed to leadership organized around bureaucratic legislation.

Daibase, you keep avoiding my point - how can you judge a work on its merit when there is no agreed upon set of criteria to define that merit? I am seriously asking you this question - it is not rhetorical.

Holy shit - I just became LostInSpace. That was really weird.

I would ask you where are the failings as you see it in the current systems of critique? Trying to avoid subjectivity, and move toward objectivity is an impossilbe task - particularly in a fractured field. No matter that you desire, you will not be able to establish a framework to judge a building against. All you have, is the individual building, ts context, its intentions and its architect. A move towards establishing a framework of inclusivity leads to dilution and weakness. A move towards a framework based on a limted set of opinions leads to totalitarianism.

In the above case, we have some rudimentary renderings and drawings. Apart from this, all I have is the architects previous built works to judge it by, and I am happy with it on that basis. Each building and architect is a case in point. Until I see more, I cant really remark further than that.

I have argued in other threads that architecure has not advanced since modernism and this is the problem with what you are trying to establish - there has been little or no advancement at all.

Well whether or not there has been advancement may be debatable, but it is unmistakeable that we are not in the same "place" we were back then.

And I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but advancement in what? How do you judge advancement? How can we have a discussion about it unless we both understand the terms.

I'm not talking about subjectivity vs. objectivity. I'm talking about common terms - language - communication.

"Inclusivity leads to dilution and weakness"? Are you serious? Please don't tell me you believe that. Because it's late and I feel like being dramatic I'll say this: that is an attitude which will destroy everything.

The failings in the current system of critique? good question. One I'm going to avoid by claiming sleepiness. I'll pick it up tomorrow.

inclusivity. the proverbial example of the committee that cant make a decision is what I was hinting at. Establishing a framework of judging criteria will kill architecture quicker than anything else.

See here for the advancement thread.

It takes judgements to define criteria, LostinSpace. The two aren't seperable: one is not prior to the other. Judgements contain criteria (explicitly or implicitly), and criteria contain judgements.

The best way around this is to always explicitly state your criteria with your judgements. That way, people can either enter into the internal logic of your criteria and agree or disagree, or they can agree or disagree with your criteria.

Subjectivity judgement is not vague or arbitrary. It calls for far greater precision than any putative objectivity.

db: architecture hasn't advanced since modernism? perhaps we're just looking from too close. It is only in retrospect that the modernists of twenties look radically different from their precursors.

Defunct Urbanspec, I wanted to apologize calling you urbanistic – no disrespect, just a typo. Welcome LostInSpace…

i just wish i could buy ove arup stock or whatever -- 'cause the structural engineering on that mutha is gonna cost a lot of coin

this is just schematic -- the design will doubtlessly change, and greatly -- but the concept pretty much appears to be this: this will be the largest, and most expensive, sculpture that the tate modern will EVER acquire

No worries Katze - just switching it up - I gets bored.

Okay, I'm going to break off this thread, and try to start up a new one since I think this has moved beyond the critique of the HdeM rendering.

This may fail miserably but - deep breath...

Go for it...we need new topics.

Oh shit, but before I go, I'm in the process of reading this thread you started Dia, the advancement one, and I'm glad you pointed it out becasue it really pokes holes in my big sweater, my arguments have air blowing through them all over the place, and apparently a lot of that air was swished around already in that post.

But I did come across one thing which bugged me a bit, This statement of yours, "I am looking for fundamentals to frame the situation."

And now you've got the gaul to criticize me with, "Establishing a framework of judging criteria will kill architecture quicker than anything else." I mean, nice to meat you Diabase - you're a gas bag just like me.

God I love this. Still working on a new thread, trying to infuse it with as much helium as possible so that we can all talk funny.

lostinspace - the fundamentals I was looking at had more to do with actual agreed upon advancements in architecture, rather than agrreed upon fundamental bases to form judgements on aesthetics and form.

Like how Moore's Law has influenced the development if processors....

I still cant find any, but please add to the thread...

d

You do all realise that if we were at any architecture school
F would have been the result - and end of discussion - no comments needed by the student !!!

I can't believe energy and time are spent on discussing about this project - let alone having it done by H&deM

i think the point is that whether you think the renderings or forms are hot or not, its only part of the picture and whether we can judge the bulding to be a success will be based on use and experience of the built work, not on a sexy picture cause anybody can do that. so you cant say it would get an F becuase its only half the story. maybe the wall section for this bad boy would knock your socks off or the way the spaces relate on the interior is really complex or interesting, or the way the light hits the lobby at sunset is gorgeous...blah blah blah.

that said i agree with johnprolly. its hot.