really?? not to be serious about the brief at initial stage?? may be is my background of being project adminstrator, we dun normally ignore the clients's brief, we scrutinized word by word...
I think I agree with that - My problem with these ramp sort of schemes is that I don't like the implication they make that knowledge is ordered in a straight line, with this topic at this end and that topic at that. Ironically, spatially it is even more restrictive and heierarchical than the sort of 19th century library that the Asplund building is a near descendant of.
I know that the cataloging systems seem to suggest these forms, but catalogs are abstract mechanisms for finding books. To reify the catalog into the form of the building and allow it to dominate the spatial composition seems contrived to me, and not conducive to all these new ideas of what a library can be.
even in their brief, they show a diagram by OMA that the world trend of books for display is drastically reducing while other types of medium increase dramatically over the years (DVD/CD magazine collections)... ppl now go to library not only for books but to be in touch with all kinds of medium...
so what's with this miles long of display of books in the most inefficient way to find it (versus double row as what we have normally)
like a keyboard, if u line up the letter a-z in a linear manner, it becomes a disaster to write a word... imagin this happens to a supermarket.... and i'm suprise some of the juries are library operators.
book arrangement aside, I think books hill had a clever mechanism where the ramp is actually two levels - the study and support spaces being on a parralell ramp below the books (or is it above ? diagrams are a little confusing in that regard )
the retrograde thinking is to divide category of books with different leveling (art & architecture 5/f, sex & adult top floor) rather than seeing library as conglomeration of different events such as exhibitions/public gathering/private readings/browsing/books display.... and how such activities interact.
i dunno why, many of the files like books hill i couldn't open??
ha, seems like only me and u talking here... anyway, nice meeting u guys!!
i meant to let it go as far as critising the jury or digging in plans their identity or corruption conspiracies.
Reading the rapports and going over the competition and questions in my mind it came to me that the extension plans might have taken a budget nose dive. It could be the canceled plans for the underground station had a larger effect on the library than anticipated. Looking at the winners and the lack of real world class spaces, size or style might be a consequence of changed thoughts or even fear of how to pay for such high ambitions. The winning submissions give me the impression they might be worked out with much less of the original program in the second stage.
My guess is that dikthornan or cut is going to win. dikthornan for its elevation at the library square, cut for its low impact on the site if they can work it out techniqually. Of course if I am right on a smaller program to be realised.
I noticed the winners did not show much glass roofs as so many had done. I think the organisation was not very interested in a lot of horizontal glass. Cut is mostly a glass roof but somehow doesn't look like it. Very clever to make the cut look orange. Imagine this plan with a plain grey glass roof or in black and white.
My apologoies Filver - I wasn't trying to trash the jury, especially in light of their having had to work with groups of politicians in addition to each other. The results are fair game though - especially since, as criticism, they are a sort of parralell to the design process, and can be informative if picked apart a bit. I'm not much for conspiracy theories either, but there are times when some basic proprieties should be observed - without demonizing, or slinging mud or making dire accusations - so that order can be maintained. I don't suggest that such is the time now, just that there is enough for the jury to come forward, state recognition, and explain their decision in a show of solid ethics, if for no other reason than to display good ethics in action for the public good.
I think you're entirely right about the jury not being lured by glazing per se - glass for glass's sake has been done quite a lot in the last few years. Matter of fact, the jury mentions Te ipsum's use of brick as a positive in their favor.
we went through this a lot with our prof's in A-school. They would always ask why we wanted some wall to be transparent - what did it mean to the program ? why was it needed ? - Its back to the old "buildings speak" sort of philosophy - a wall or roof that is glazed in entirety is, and says, something different than the same area glazed in part. (the same goes, btw, for walls and roofs that are entirely solid (blanket)). You need to be sure that those statements are in line with your intentions, and further that your intentions are appropriate.
ps filver -in case the implied intent does not read through via text, my apologies extend as well for the assumption that you were not interested in discussing design. I was interpereting your posting in error - my mistake.
aspect, you may enjoy reading "The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanities" by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a fair read I think. Another great book for those interested in lateral thinking is the Ove Arup biography by Peter Jones - very good stuff.
Anonymity: broken, so what... not a problem i think... been broken in many many competitions without any problem...
Broken rules: already been discussed: as always, its how much you can bend the rubber boundaries that is important in almost every competition i've entered. Think of rules as elastic, its up to each participant to feel how elastic they are, and how much he can pull the rubber out, before it comes back ejecting you, or keeping you within the acceptance factor. A jury has to write rules down, and the more precise the site / existing building / program is, the less elastic are the rules.
In this particular case, we had to think : two stage competition.
In case it was a one shot, boundaries would have been trickier to play with!
form1> ha, i'm a big fan of stephen jay gould too, starting from his articles from scientific america and panda's thumb, but we architects seems to focus on D'Arcy stuff since greg lynn mentioned it...
i thought Ove Arup are engineers, didn't know they are theorist also ha, sure would be interesting to read.
anyway, i'm staying in a city where u can't find anything (hongkong), no chance to visit ur reading list.
Stockholm Library Comp. Favorites?
really?? not to be serious about the brief at initial stage?? may be is my background of being project adminstrator, we dun normally ignore the clients's brief, we scrutinized word by word...
ancestral landscape? reminds me of this: http://geo.international.gc.ca/asia/hongkong/images/stanley-cemetery.jpg , well i still dun buy this cemetry display is a good strategy for library design...
I think I agree with that - My problem with these ramp sort of schemes is that I don't like the implication they make that knowledge is ordered in a straight line, with this topic at this end and that topic at that. Ironically, spatially it is even more restrictive and heierarchical than the sort of 19th century library that the Asplund building is a near descendant of.
I know that the cataloging systems seem to suggest these forms, but catalogs are abstract mechanisms for finding books. To reify the catalog into the form of the building and allow it to dominate the spatial composition seems contrived to me, and not conducive to all these new ideas of what a library can be.
even in their brief, they show a diagram by OMA that the world trend of books for display is drastically reducing while other types of medium increase dramatically over the years (DVD/CD magazine collections)... ppl now go to library not only for books but to be in touch with all kinds of medium...
so what's with this miles long of display of books in the most inefficient way to find it (versus double row as what we have normally)
like a keyboard, if u line up the letter a-z in a linear manner, it becomes a disaster to write a word... imagin this happens to a supermarket.... and i'm suprise some of the juries are library operators.
book arrangement aside, I think books hill had a clever mechanism where the ramp is actually two levels - the study and support spaces being on a parralell ramp below the books (or is it above ? diagrams are a little confusing in that regard )
oh for gods sake - I was reading the books hill write up ontheir board, and they have divided the humanities from the sciences.
now that's retrograde 19th century library thinking.
the retrograde thinking is to divide category of books with different leveling (art & architecture 5/f, sex & adult top floor) rather than seeing library as conglomeration of different events such as exhibitions/public gathering/private readings/browsing/books display.... and how such activities interact.
i dunno why, many of the files like books hill i couldn't open??
ha, seems like only me and u talking here... anyway, nice meeting u guys!!
i meant to let it go as far as critising the jury or digging in plans their identity or corruption conspiracies.
Reading the rapports and going over the competition and questions in my mind it came to me that the extension plans might have taken a budget nose dive. It could be the canceled plans for the underground station had a larger effect on the library than anticipated. Looking at the winners and the lack of real world class spaces, size or style might be a consequence of changed thoughts or even fear of how to pay for such high ambitions. The winning submissions give me the impression they might be worked out with much less of the original program in the second stage.
My guess is that dikthornan or cut is going to win. dikthornan for its elevation at the library square, cut for its low impact on the site if they can work it out techniqually. Of course if I am right on a smaller program to be realised.
I noticed the winners did not show much glass roofs as so many had done. I think the organisation was not very interested in a lot of horizontal glass. Cut is mostly a glass roof but somehow doesn't look like it. Very clever to make the cut look orange. Imagine this plan with a plain grey glass roof or in black and white.
My apologoies Filver - I wasn't trying to trash the jury, especially in light of their having had to work with groups of politicians in addition to each other. The results are fair game though - especially since, as criticism, they are a sort of parralell to the design process, and can be informative if picked apart a bit. I'm not much for conspiracy theories either, but there are times when some basic proprieties should be observed - without demonizing, or slinging mud or making dire accusations - so that order can be maintained. I don't suggest that such is the time now, just that there is enough for the jury to come forward, state recognition, and explain their decision in a show of solid ethics, if for no other reason than to display good ethics in action for the public good.
I think you're entirely right about the jury not being lured by glazing per se - glass for glass's sake has been done quite a lot in the last few years. Matter of fact, the jury mentions Te ipsum's use of brick as a positive in their favor.
we went through this a lot with our prof's in A-school. They would always ask why we wanted some wall to be transparent - what did it mean to the program ? why was it needed ? - Its back to the old "buildings speak" sort of philosophy - a wall or roof that is glazed in entirety is, and says, something different than the same area glazed in part. (the same goes, btw, for walls and roofs that are entirely solid (blanket)). You need to be sure that those statements are in line with your intentions, and further that your intentions are appropriate.
ps filver -in case the implied intent does not read through via text, my apologies extend as well for the assumption that you were not interested in discussing design. I was interpereting your posting in error - my mistake.
aspect, you may enjoy reading "The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanities" by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a fair read I think. Another great book for those interested in lateral thinking is the Ove Arup biography by Peter Jones - very good stuff.
Anonymity: broken, so what... not a problem i think... been broken in many many competitions without any problem...
Broken rules: already been discussed: as always, its how much you can bend the rubber boundaries that is important in almost every competition i've entered. Think of rules as elastic, its up to each participant to feel how elastic they are, and how much he can pull the rubber out, before it comes back ejecting you, or keeping you within the acceptance factor. A jury has to write rules down, and the more precise the site / existing building / program is, the less elastic are the rules.
In this particular case, we had to think : two stage competition.
In case it was a one shot, boundaries would have been trickier to play with!
N
form1> ha, i'm a big fan of stephen jay gould too, starting from his articles from scientific america and panda's thumb, but we architects seems to focus on D'Arcy stuff since greg lynn mentioned it...
i thought Ove Arup are engineers, didn't know they are theorist also ha, sure would be interesting to read.
anyway, i'm staying in a city where u can't find anything (hongkong), no chance to visit ur reading list.
try Amazon - they'll ship it to ya.
My old structures prof used to work for Eero Saarinen - he was a big D'Arcy Thompson fan - made us read it for class.
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.