Big builds... Shumacher talks.  you choose.

BIG's talking masks a shallow process which helps him get commissions. He doesn't necessarily *build more.

BIG's process is not shallow- get to know north european protestant values and his thinking will become a lot more clear to you. 

it's about actually making good things happen, without the elitist aura of 'i know better' and 'you can't understand'.

it's about engaging with society.

prada, his design process IS relatively shallow—or simple. same thing. we've all heard him present his work. that's not necessarily a bad thing... if his firm produces beautiful, useful architecture via it.

however, it is certainly unpretentious, and free of bullshit. and i agree that it is very engaging work. i like a lot of it.

where are you pulling the 'north european protestant values' thing from? are you claiming that bjarke is influenced by lutheran tradition? despite the vast number of churches in DK, and northern europe, society in these areas is by and large extremely ambivalent towards religious ideology and values.

I think Prada more refers to the idea of the pragmatic "work ethic" of protestant belief - finding one's purpose in life through conducting good work. It's a common way for northern europeans (myself included) to pat themselves on their own backs, but I'm not sure if it is completely true. Probably it has more to do with the background of the society in agriculture and a relatively weak noble class. 

Having said that, I'm ambivalent if BIG's work is really that pragmatic though.

a-f,

i believe strong work ethic is very closely tied to protestantism. look no further than america as the best example of this relationship.

i don't follow what 'life-purpose through work' has to do with Bjarke's design process. that is a personal (not creative) creed.

I was just trying to explain what I think Prada meant: that BIG has a pragmatic attitude which is historically rooted in a protestant idea of hard work (supposedly for a public good) leading to personal salvation. Of course this doesn't mean Bjarke is religious, only that history leaves layers in society, which influence us.

all right. but that is not a protestant idea (protestant theology espouses personal salvation by grace, not work).

Ingels seems genuinely focused on designing buildings that make people's lives better.  I see his work springing from a profound optimism and humanism. 

Whatever the design agenda of Schumacher and Hadid is, a nurturing humanism is about as far from it as you can get.

I think for Bjarke, architecture is a means.  For Schumacher, its an end.  Unfortunately, or maybe very fortunately, Western culture doesn't really see building as an end unto itself; I think the OMA grandkids might be some of the first to fully grasp the meaning of this (or at least the first to get credit for grasping said meaning).

Also, totally unrelated, but I think you're officially a bonafide starchitect when other architects prefer to call you by your first name (Zaha, Frank, Rem, Bjarke).  Saying "Ingels" just feels so weird...

EKE, I love your comment.  Bjarke is wildly optimistic.  

BIG being more "human" sounds like a false morality.
I get the feeling of being in a Mcdonlads when going through his website.
Yes he is optimistic, but I'm finding Schumacher's intellect and the lineage he comes from more interesting, it is missing some design elements BIG does though.

few more comparisons:

Schumacher/Hadid
*have more stark/dark buildings
*use less sunsets and more gray/neutral skies in their imagery
*less use of people in their renderings or publication photos
*their approach to urban design is sometimes influenced by modernism
*Schumacher has a slick haircut and suits up

BIG
*uses more sunsets, blue skies and greenery in his renderings
* sounds more optimistic/simpler
*lots of happy people
*urban design tends to be pedestrian friendly
*sports a casual haircut and a t-shirt

those 2 buildings especially show their differences. BIG is more rigorous in his diagramming, which helps him sequentially figure things out.

Sometimes for schumacher, the form doesn't evolve to its full potential.

How is "being more human" (i.e. consciously pursuing a humane agenda), a "false morality"?

Because it lowers the level of discourse into a high school popularity contest.

So you believe that caring about people, and wanting your architecture to make the lives of people better is childish?

If you believe that shouldn't be a goal of serious architecture, what should the goals of serious architecture be?

holier than thou
architecture is about the construction of knowledge. 

its narrow-minded to depend on morality as a basis for judging buildings.
Morality was debunked long ago, despite what you read from Krier.

The construction of knowledge is great.  And knowledge is based in culture, and cultures grow through community, which is grounded in shared morality.

EKE, it's a useless effort with Since (or whatever nom du heure s/he is using).

The "humaness" of BIG isn't specific enough. Saying that Schumacher isn't humane makes things into a balck and white argument.

Spend some time in Guangzhou Opera House and its evident EKE's comment is quasi-religious.

I trust the severe leaking and the acoustic issues have been addressed?

Quasi-religious? What does that mean?

BIG's forms are basic, mostly predictable and boring, imho.  Tip of the hat to the success, but most of their projects look like one liners.

Schumacher has a rigor that is far more sophisticated (not necessarily better) and that is shown in his plans and forms.

"Morality was debunked long ago" Humanism and morality are 2 different things.  If you don't design for people than who do you design for?   Seems like we are the only ones who need and desire architecture.  If you  seperate humans from architecture you consiquently seperated architecture  from all the things that make it architecture and you end up with a structure that can only be justified by perpetual archi-jargon.

leap-oh-logic jluddite at it again.

Who has the bigger DK?

since, name one "building" that you like.  Why do you like it?   simple questions but for some reason I think that you will have a difficult time with the answer. 

It will take time to enter all the data in order for the computer to tell him what to like..jk

good one Kev made me and my computer laugh.

In a historical sense anything from Leonidov or Kahn. but my absolute favorite doesn't really exist.

people evolve...