Basically they haven't built anything to look at and take seriously.

Never was a fan.

I can't understand why so many architects make a box, then 'warp' it. No matter what you call it, it looks like a mushed box or a project that no one knew how to finish.

That said, I like the Aeon project. They also did a nice gardne competition many, many years ago (didn't see it on their site).

the taiwan bridge- was that built?

i always have been intrigued by them, but they've never seemed to really differentiate themselves in terms of their work. especially given the whole columbia during tschumi days thing.... plus it's not like they've really built any of it to provoke some new assessment of what they've been doing. maybe this sagoponack house will happen so there will be something to discuss.

"There's an honesty about them that i don't get from other frims cranking out curvtastic fantasy work in Dubai... "

If I'm reading this right.... you do know they've attempted to crank out "curvastic fantasy work in Dubai" right? They lost to Zaha. Or are you acknowledging the attempt, but stating that they are better than the rest?

That being said, I also like their work, especially their house for the development in Sagaponac. Not sure if it will be built. Jesse lectured at my school recently and gave a great talk.

One professor of mine calls the Atlas, "extremely pretentious". I own it, but have not had the time to form my own opinion of them.

they're good professors - if you happen to be in grad school when/where they are offering a studio, take it.

Didn't they break up?

trace-
The garden project is on the site

WATER GARDEN
OHIO, U.S.A.
1997

I though it was amazing at the time.
Influenced quite a few Landcape Architects I thought.

Kathryn Gustafson perhaps?

i think the taiwan bridge is built. Jesse reiser came to speak at UCLA last quarter and showed some slides. but it's all hazy as i was in and out of consciousness (post-crit-lack-of-sleep). hey, i'm just trying to be honest.

I think they do a lot of nice work. but i think their stuff on paper comes across a little better.

trace - everyone's been deforming boxes since eisenman. it's a tradition now. schools of thought.


43N88W-

this wouldn't have possibly been speaks' comment?

they're pretty good. the dubai project on their website that isn't getting built (looking up the glass 4-tower crotch) is a big wierd but has some incredible renderings.

what's the 'while at columbia during tschumi' thing you're talking about? where's he now, princeton? and her? cooper union?

anyways, they're really good. they just need a good marketing person to sell them and a good logistics person to make it happen. maybe the new dubai thing they actually are building will help that happen.

Who do we mention?

they came to tulane as visiting critics in '90-or-so and acted like spoiled brats. (well, he did. she was very quiet.)

although i've found some of their work intriguing, it's hard to get past an extremely negative in-person experience sometimes.

ACfA - yeah, they have, but if I were a professor I'd look at that design and say it was unfinished, that the deformation did not get carried through.

While I don't like much of Eisenman's early homes, I would not argue that the ideas were carred through.

The RM house looks 'safe', to me. It looks like there was an idea, but before it was fully explored it was intentionally stopped to keep it from getting messy (where it becomse more difficult, but also more exciting).


I guess that big problem (to me) is it looks like a billion other Maya-warped boxes to me.

I like Atlas of Novel Tectonics all right -- it's a handsome little book with some interesting (though sometimes specious) thinking. However, both times I've seen Jesse Reiser lecture, he keeps showing that damn bridge and Dubai building. I've never seen him lecture on anything else and I wonder what he talks about in class or on the lectern if not about these projects.

And here's a pet peeve: lectures that are nor any different from an architect's website. When I saw Reiser (and others as well), I got the distinct impression that I could get the same experience browsing through a website. Sometimes these lectures sound and feel like some type of narration you would hear while going through some sites. LTL and Ali Rahim, on the other hand, are expert presenters: slick, well-spoken, compelling and entertaining.

the comment related to "at columbia under tschumi" is to differentiate it from columbia in its current incarnation. basically i was alluding to what trace stated directly " looks like a bilion other Maya-warped boxes". basically that under tschumi columbia became a hot-bed of digital architectural theory and reiser and umemoto never really differentiated themselves within that environment sufficiently to garner a particular "mystique"...therefore there stuff looks very ad-nauseum for the production of the school and it's conceptual progenitors at that time, i.e. maya warped boxes.

so columbia, mid 1990s = maya warped boxes. i'm currently applying to columbia, so i would be interested to hear your assessment of where they are at now.

I really liked RUR's work from the 90's - the sort of pre/early blog era when there was a really open ended feel to their experimentations. The work was brutal and menacing, and completely unique. He was lecturing at that time about the potential of geodesic structures. It was really compelling stuff.

I saw him lecture a year ago, and it wasn't as compelling. The work was much tamer, more slick and a more generic. He started the lecture by going through some of the big points in the Atlas, a lot of which were shaky and definitely not well followed through in the work.

Then in the Q+A Antoine Picon called him out on the the taiwan bridge. Reiser openned the lecture talking about material specificity and material driven systems. The bridge was designed - ie rendered - to be wood, but when the engineers got involved, they quicky pointed out how wood was inadequate and it would have to be steel. The submitted a really heinous sketch to him. Reiser moaned about the engineers, laughed at their ugly sketch, and completely unraveled his material practice claim. Picon totally called him on - and it was a great "oh snap" moment.

If anyone is interested, Reiser + Umemoto: Recent Projects documents the classic and, I'd argue, best RUR work.

i am currently reading their book, atlas of novel tectonics, seems to me that at times, the content is more of scholastic arrogance, redundancy, rather than content. Interesting attempt to marry the elements and metaphors of physics and architecture tho. Lots of good stuff inside.

But nonetheless, along with other theory-based books, this one is subject to be tasted, chewed and swallowed; and if you find it awful, just spit it it out and try something else that suits your mood.

warning. This isnt architectural theory for everyone.

My studio professor worked for them for years when it was only Reisser, Umemoto and him. He is the wierdest person I have ever met, with absolutely no understanding of what it takes or how to build a building.......

.......He is really good at Maya though........