I remember the first time I saw a model (of the Texan's then soon-to-be-built stadium) that cost over $100k. I said, "There'd better be a family of four living in that thing!"(meaning the model, not the stadium). Well, there'd better be a whole town living in this guy's house, because that is bloody ricockulous.
that project has to be 4 years old now - images of it have been floating around for a while - im a little confused by the uproar is it because of the design? The unabashed display of Rockafellian wealth? Please explain.
How completely out of scale it is to be a person's home? We're becoming ever more concious of man's detrimental impact on the environment, and as such are particularly attuned now to notice when someone builds something completely out of scale for their actual needs.
yeah im not sure why anyone is surprised... that project is pretty much an architects wet dream... seems there little to no budgetary constraint, and free range to make whatever ideas you have reality... i think its pretty hypocritical to believe that anyone here would turn down such an outrageously rare opportunity...
man people hate pw! i dont want to know what they think about my office...
as for PW, i think the contemporaine is one of my favorite buildings in chicago... and they have done a couple other interesting projects lately as well... the charter school near chinatown and the skybridge to name a few...
whether you love or hate them, you have to credit them for trying things out with their commissions; which is more than many firms they compete with could say...
P+W have done a few nice ones in recent years. This thing reminds me more of old Koolhaas or something collage-like.
I don't understand why people care? It is an architect's wet dream.
Personally, I can't imagine living with 600 people in my home, regardless of how big it is!
It's really no worse than a typical high end highrise, if you consider all the people that will be employed by it (maybe better, as it won't just sit doing nothing for 50% of its life)
the way i see it, if you have time to read and post comments on an archinect thread in the middle of the day, you probably aren't working on anything too impressive.
did denari really invent the fold all of sudden? am i missing something?
haven't there been about three dozen projects with this idea (at least)?
i mean just look at the eyebeam competition...
mvrdv, d+s,r, koolhaas, thomas leeser, at the very least have done
this idea...
of course his money could go elsewhere.. but are the architects to blame for
taking on the project? i mean a client where money is literally no option?
would anyone turn that down?
Doubtless that most wouldn't turn down a commission like that. However, seeing as how costs may rise into the billions, I think the responsible thing to do would be to make the building as green as possible - even creating energy (pv, wind, etc) and *giving* it back to the community at no cost. Or something along those lines - there's a million ways to build such a monstrosity in a responsible way... embracing high-performance/green.... providing a community centre or public square.... and on and on.
The notion of this building as a single family residence is disgusting for all kinds of obvious reasons. "Gluttonous" is a good word here, Cris.
That said, I was reading the Record (?) article on Burj Dubai last week and was stopped cold upon reading that workers building the building make about $6 to $8 per day. I wonder if anyone at SOM is concerned about their involvement in a project that includes such low wages? I know we've discussed this elsewhere, just stuck in my head ever since I read it and thought I'd throw it out there.
I guess I'm relieved my own work doesn't require me to face such ethical dilemmas, though I am certain if one followed the production path of the majority of materials used in my jobs one would find similar poor working conditions.
But then, it's a questionable choice of project for a firm that otherwise positions itself in the marketplace as a *sustainable* firm...
which relates to a broader ethical question: not that this building is even attempting to be sustainable, but can architecture ever be sustainable if it supports a lifestyle that cannot possibly be sustainable? can a rich person living in a large house ever be sustainable? what if the richest person in the world asked you to implement sustainable strategies in their enormous home? is sustainability ever really something that can be applied as simply something technological to a building, or does it always relate to density of use? is there ever green building without talking about green lifestyle? can architecture ever be separate from who it serves? what if the client has an army of friends and family who will live there and the building were designed with sustainable features? say it were a sustainable apartment building that happened to be owned by one person?
well someone mentioned p+w's contemporamium and also you can include skybridge in chicago -- not sustainable in any way -- just be careful of corporate crap firms like p+w who use sustainable as another architectural 'style' and marketing tool for business sectors. this house suits p+w fine
they may not be on the theoretical edge but they do well detailed, well thought out out buildings in a modern asthetic without being married to style - all the while making happy clients. Nothing wrong with that.
Is this building really any different than the mega - estates out east of the Rockeffellers, Carnegies, Astors etc? Its a vertical estate with built in office complex - actually its a cool concept and the guy paying for it is earning it somehow and keeping people employed.
hehe, TED, i think you hit on a noticable aspect of architecture marketing... p+w aren't sustainable, i don't think they claim to be incredibly sustainable... but you better believe every firm is gonna have a lame blurb on their site about how they are pushing the envelop and creating a better future... skybridge and contemporaine are two "old" to really be concerned with sustainability or par with today's social viewpoint (does that make sense?)
but yeah, the work isn't meant to be incredibly edgy, however, it's a ton better than the whole of south loop (please help our fair city!)
..what gets me is these condo complexes selling a green lifestyle... with every modern amenity... now that's where the real bs lies... when a developer says sustainable, run for the hills.
What is truly sustainable is still being determined. I find it very ironic how some will point the finger at the big firm and say that they can't possibly be sustainable, or that a developer can't be sustainable - but an architect can?
I dunno, but from what I see money drives everything in the architecture/real estate/development world. Good ol' capitalism at it's finest. When it becomes economically viable to make a 'green' building, that's when it gets done. Who is driving this revolution? Not the small guy, it's massive corporations like the SOM's of the world. They can sell it as being a good investment to their clients.
This is similar to some of the theory stuff from the regular gang. I can recall ready about Tschumi's juxtaposing of program and thinking 'cool' - that's what we were taught to believe.
Then you enter the real world and see that it's been done for many years (ie without any books or theory, just business). Why? Because someone had the idea that it could make more interesting experiences, which, in turn, made more $$.
For better or worse, money drives the world. It may be ugly in its extravagance and disregard for reality, but it's the large projects with little budget constraints that truly drive innovation.
Shame on whom? How is this project any different than any other corporate tower? Essentially the CEO is just living in the building rather than in some suburban development outside of the city. Would it be better if he built a sprawling palace in the middle of nowhere?
It’s pretty incredulous the comments that some leave here – I guess anonymity is the culprit.
what is sustainable? why are so many people concerned with sustainablity and saving the world involved in an industry that does just the opposite? if you want to help mankind go to nursing school or become a teacher in the inner city. architecure is huddled under the umbrella of the construction industry and there's a downpour going on. don't build buildings if you want to do sustainable architecture. quit flying around the world to visit tokyo, london and new york city. save the world commit suicide.
While all the above may be true, there are some of us designers who are trying to change things from the inside. It will happen in time.
Architects talk incessantly about being cutting-edge and bla bla bla. Part of that is having an awareness of the world around you. Nobody designs anything in a vacuum, yet this project seems to do just that.
For those arguing that this isn't any different than an office building - are you serious? Of course it's different. It's a residence. It's not so much the material resources that people are flipping out about, but rather the flagrant disregard for the poverty surrounding the building/community/city/country. India's not a rich country. More people die there in poverty than we could ever know, and yet this one person is building a 60-storey tribute to his wealth (whether earned or inherited).
It's this sort of arrogance, seemingly without regard to the larger context, that bothers me more than anything. I'm not asking anybody to live in a mud hut or a shack on a hillside, but at some point, enough just has to be enough. Can anybody here seriously justify or explain how and why a small family needs 600 servants and 6 levels of parking for their dozens of cars?
Life to me at least, isn't about just taking, taking, taking. At some point I think we all have a responsibility to give back.
and vado, you have brought up points that i've been thinking about a lot lately, points that have made me really question my desire to be an architect.
architects won't change anything or it would have changed by now. any change will be made when the people who pay for things realize that they will make more money. and as far as an individual spending his money to live in a tower in a poor country so what. look at india. how much does india as a nation spend on nuclear weapons a year? maybe he is giving. how many people work for you? how much payroll do you meet? what do you give back? yes maybe when the revolution comes we can line the jokers up in the alley and put a couple in their brains. but, for now the ultra rich live in a different world.
first of all, shame on Mukesh Ambani (new proud home-owner)
second, if the architect thinks the program for the project he/she has been hired to execute conflicts with his/her ethics, the architect should excuse him(her)self from such project. It can be hard to do so when it's a multi-million dollar commission, and your office is struggling, but that's the call one has to make. How does that apply to p+w...maybe it's shame on them for not recognizing the ethics involved in such a project, or maybe it's shame on them for recognizing the ethics, but pressing on with the project for the multi-million dollar paycheck; or shame on them for believing architects are hired to provide a service, which does not include passing judgement onto clients. Personally, since I don't know the inner politics of P+W, I am sticking with "shame on Mukesh Ambani".
As has been suggested in a less specific terms, maybe the owner of this house is a philanthropist humanitarian. Maybe the "600 staff" are actually totally unemployable people: recovering addicts, mentally unstable, other-abled, single parents...maybe he wants to build the house as a huge place for them to live in peace, in safe, clean environment...maybe the dozens of cars are for them to use on a shared basis to go to job interviews, vocational school...maybe the helipad is for flying in Nobel prize winners to continue their research in the social sciences...
Liberty Bell - I loved your comment but you forgot to mention puppies somewhere in that mix. People love hearing about puppies. I'll add on to your comment:
[Liberty Bell] As has been suggested in a less specific terms, maybe the owner of this house is a philanthropist humanitarian. Maybe the "600 staff" are actually totally unemployable people: recovering addicts, mentally unstable, other-abled, single parents...maybe he wants to build the house as a huge place for them to live in peace, in safe, clean environment...maybe the dozens of cars are for them to use on a shared basis to go to job interviews, vocational school...maybe the helipad is for flying in Nobel prize winners to continue their research in the social sciences... And 8 floors are purely dedicated to PUPPIES!!!!! All puppy, all the time. There will be puppy obstacle courses, puppy houses, puppy swimming pools, puppy play toys, pictures of puppies, and puppy treats everywhere!!!!! YAY, PUPPIES!!!!
there u go. most of the hipster doofuses of archinect get all their clothing from this guy. wikipedia says he's the 14th richest guy in the world. so he should live in a three bedroom ranch in mumbai heights? hell who do you think comes to visit him? prolly noble people like presidents and sultans and the sons of presidents and sultans. almost all of whom LOVE puppies!!!!!
shame on perkins + will
i think i threw up a little when i saw this.
link
is denari working for them now?
and of course, not to mention the whole premise of the project
That's kind of amazing, like the secret headquarters that you draw for yourself when you're a kid, except real.
Three helipads!
Where's the waterslide?
I remember the first time I saw a model (of the Texan's then soon-to-be-built stadium) that cost over $100k. I said, "There'd better be a family of four living in that thing!"(meaning the model, not the stadium). Well, there'd better be a whole town living in this guy's house, because that is bloody ricockulous.
oh yes, disgusting, indeed.
check it out in the news.
Like this?
exactly!
that project has to be 4 years old now - images of it have been floating around for a while - im a little confused by the uproar is it because of the design? The unabashed display of Rockafellian wealth? Please explain.
Perkins and Will is owned by middle eastern investors... Just like Caribou Coffee and a lot of businesses
How completely out of scale it is to be a person's home? We're becoming ever more concious of man's detrimental impact on the environment, and as such are particularly attuned now to notice when someone builds something completely out of scale for their actual needs.
I think the onion is talking about this guy.
are you guys seriously surprised at perkins+will?
yeah im not sure why anyone is surprised... that project is pretty much an architects wet dream... seems there little to no budgetary constraint, and free range to make whatever ideas you have reality... i think its pretty hypocritical to believe that anyone here would turn down such an outrageously rare opportunity...
when did those jackholes move from postmodernism to denari rip-offs?
man people hate pw! i dont want to know what they think about my office...
as for PW, i think the contemporaine is one of my favorite buildings in chicago... and they have done a couple other interesting projects lately as well... the charter school near chinatown and the skybridge to name a few...
whether you love or hate them, you have to credit them for trying things out with their commissions; which is more than many firms they compete with could say...
P+W have done a few nice ones in recent years. This thing reminds me more of old Koolhaas or something collage-like.
I don't understand why people care? It is an architect's wet dream.
Personally, I can't imagine living with 600 people in my home, regardless of how big it is!
It's really no worse than a typical high end highrise, if you consider all the people that will be employed by it (maybe better, as it won't just sit doing nothing for 50% of its life)
the way i see it, if you have time to read and post comments on an archinect thread in the middle of the day, you probably aren't working on anything too impressive.
?
ha ha ha, appleCA, spot on!
i'm guessing you're not either!
ok guys, let's not critize this project (or any project) anymore since we aren't doing work as "good" as p+w.
i was including myself in the 'not impressive' project catagory
i think there are some people working on really uninteresting aspects of interesting work however.
but you've only got 12 comments!
you're probably actually working, ha ha ha. =P
anyway, my main problem is with the people who think they need that much space. it's pretty gluttonous, in my opinion.
and i guess i can't really hate on p+w that much, because if they didn't do it, somebody else would have.
uh, so what's that say about my 1884 comments?
you are right appleCA. I'm not working on anything impressive. a couple "cool" things. nothing impressive. thank you for reminding me.
if you think about it, probably 99.8% of designers/architects are not working on anything impressive at this moment. awesome.
At least they are not taking up too much land - build-em up mang!
did denari really invent the fold all of sudden? am i missing something?
haven't there been about three dozen projects with this idea (at least)?
i mean just look at the eyebeam competition...
mvrdv, d+s,r, koolhaas, thomas leeser, at the very least have done
this idea...
of course his money could go elsewhere.. but are the architects to blame for
taking on the project? i mean a client where money is literally no option?
would anyone turn that down?
Doubtless that most wouldn't turn down a commission like that. However, seeing as how costs may rise into the billions, I think the responsible thing to do would be to make the building as green as possible - even creating energy (pv, wind, etc) and *giving* it back to the community at no cost. Or something along those lines - there's a million ways to build such a monstrosity in a responsible way... embracing high-performance/green.... providing a community centre or public square.... and on and on.
Stuff like this helps me understand the French Revolution.
I was just gonna comment along the larslarson line. Ain't nothing Denari-esque about that fold anyways.
that's not true, denari not working there but diller
http://www.dillerscofidio.com/eyebeam.html
The notion of this building as a single family residence is disgusting for all kinds of obvious reasons. "Gluttonous" is a good word here, Cris.
That said, I was reading the Record (?) article on Burj Dubai last week and was stopped cold upon reading that workers building the building make about $6 to $8 per day. I wonder if anyone at SOM is concerned about their involvement in a project that includes such low wages? I know we've discussed this elsewhere, just stuck in my head ever since I read it and thought I'd throw it out there.
I guess I'm relieved my own work doesn't require me to face such ethical dilemmas, though I am certain if one followed the production path of the majority of materials used in my jobs one would find similar poor working conditions.
Well, the project is driven by the client.
But then, it's a questionable choice of project for a firm that otherwise positions itself in the marketplace as a *sustainable* firm...
which relates to a broader ethical question: not that this building is even attempting to be sustainable, but can architecture ever be sustainable if it supports a lifestyle that cannot possibly be sustainable? can a rich person living in a large house ever be sustainable? what if the richest person in the world asked you to implement sustainable strategies in their enormous home? is sustainability ever really something that can be applied as simply something technological to a building, or does it always relate to density of use? is there ever green building without talking about green lifestyle? can architecture ever be separate from who it serves? what if the client has an army of friends and family who will live there and the building were designed with sustainable features? say it were a sustainable apartment building that happened to be owned by one person?
well someone mentioned p+w's contemporamium and also you can include skybridge in chicago -- not sustainable in any way -- just be careful of corporate crap firms like p+w who use sustainable as another architectural 'style' and marketing tool for business sectors. this house suits p+w fine
I was thinking about working with them at one point.
they may not be on the theoretical edge but they do well detailed, well thought out out buildings in a modern asthetic without being married to style - all the while making happy clients. Nothing wrong with that.
Is this building really any different than the mega - estates out east of the Rockeffellers, Carnegies, Astors etc? Its a vertical estate with built in office complex - actually its a cool concept and the guy paying for it is earning it somehow and keeping people employed.
hehe, TED, i think you hit on a noticable aspect of architecture marketing... p+w aren't sustainable, i don't think they claim to be incredibly sustainable... but you better believe every firm is gonna have a lame blurb on their site about how they are pushing the envelop and creating a better future... skybridge and contemporaine are two "old" to really be concerned with sustainability or par with today's social viewpoint (does that make sense?)
but yeah, the work isn't meant to be incredibly edgy, however, it's a ton better than the whole of south loop (please help our fair city!)
..what gets me is these condo complexes selling a green lifestyle... with every modern amenity... now that's where the real bs lies... when a developer says sustainable, run for the hills.
What is truly sustainable is still being determined. I find it very ironic how some will point the finger at the big firm and say that they can't possibly be sustainable, or that a developer can't be sustainable - but an architect can?
I dunno, but from what I see money drives everything in the architecture/real estate/development world. Good ol' capitalism at it's finest. When it becomes economically viable to make a 'green' building, that's when it gets done. Who is driving this revolution? Not the small guy, it's massive corporations like the SOM's of the world. They can sell it as being a good investment to their clients.
This is similar to some of the theory stuff from the regular gang. I can recall ready about Tschumi's juxtaposing of program and thinking 'cool' - that's what we were taught to believe.
Then you enter the real world and see that it's been done for many years (ie without any books or theory, just business). Why? Because someone had the idea that it could make more interesting experiences, which, in turn, made more $$.
For better or worse, money drives the world. It may be ugly in its extravagance and disregard for reality, but it's the large projects with little budget constraints that truly drive innovation.
Shame on whom? How is this project any different than any other corporate tower? Essentially the CEO is just living in the building rather than in some suburban development outside of the city. Would it be better if he built a sprawling palace in the middle of nowhere?
It’s pretty incredulous the comments that some leave here – I guess anonymity is the culprit.
what is sustainable? why are so many people concerned with sustainablity and saving the world involved in an industry that does just the opposite? if you want to help mankind go to nursing school or become a teacher in the inner city. architecure is huddled under the umbrella of the construction industry and there's a downpour going on. don't build buildings if you want to do sustainable architecture. quit flying around the world to visit tokyo, london and new york city. save the world commit suicide.
While all the above may be true, there are some of us designers who are trying to change things from the inside. It will happen in time.
Architects talk incessantly about being cutting-edge and bla bla bla. Part of that is having an awareness of the world around you. Nobody designs anything in a vacuum, yet this project seems to do just that.
For those arguing that this isn't any different than an office building - are you serious? Of course it's different. It's a residence. It's not so much the material resources that people are flipping out about, but rather the flagrant disregard for the poverty surrounding the building/community/city/country. India's not a rich country. More people die there in poverty than we could ever know, and yet this one person is building a 60-storey tribute to his wealth (whether earned or inherited).
It's this sort of arrogance, seemingly without regard to the larger context, that bothers me more than anything. I'm not asking anybody to live in a mud hut or a shack on a hillside, but at some point, enough just has to be enough. Can anybody here seriously justify or explain how and why a small family needs 600 servants and 6 levels of parking for their dozens of cars?
Life to me at least, isn't about just taking, taking, taking. At some point I think we all have a responsibility to give back.
well said slantsix.
and vado, you have brought up points that i've been thinking about a lot lately, points that have made me really question my desire to be an architect.
architects won't change anything or it would have changed by now. any change will be made when the people who pay for things realize that they will make more money. and as far as an individual spending his money to live in a tower in a poor country so what. look at india. how much does india as a nation spend on nuclear weapons a year? maybe he is giving. how many people work for you? how much payroll do you meet? what do you give back? yes maybe when the revolution comes we can line the jokers up in the alley and put a couple in their brains. but, for now the ultra rich live in a different world.
first of all, shame on Mukesh Ambani (new proud home-owner)
second, if the architect thinks the program for the project he/she has been hired to execute conflicts with his/her ethics, the architect should excuse him(her)self from such project. It can be hard to do so when it's a multi-million dollar commission, and your office is struggling, but that's the call one has to make. How does that apply to p+w...maybe it's shame on them for not recognizing the ethics involved in such a project, or maybe it's shame on them for recognizing the ethics, but pressing on with the project for the multi-million dollar paycheck; or shame on them for believing architects are hired to provide a service, which does not include passing judgement onto clients. Personally, since I don't know the inner politics of P+W, I am sticking with "shame on Mukesh Ambani".
the building needs more volumes cantilevering out of it and built out of concrete (polished) and glass...
and if i was the owner, i'd dedicate a floor around the 20th storey as public space accessed via an elevator from the street...
Let's take the shiny happy view of this.
As has been suggested in a less specific terms, maybe the owner of this house is a philanthropist humanitarian. Maybe the "600 staff" are actually totally unemployable people: recovering addicts, mentally unstable, other-abled, single parents...maybe he wants to build the house as a huge place for them to live in peace, in safe, clean environment...maybe the dozens of cars are for them to use on a shared basis to go to job interviews, vocational school...maybe the helipad is for flying in Nobel prize winners to continue their research in the social sciences...
Liberty Bell - I loved your comment but you forgot to mention puppies somewhere in that mix. People love hearing about puppies. I'll add on to your comment:
[Liberty Bell] As has been suggested in a less specific terms, maybe the owner of this house is a philanthropist humanitarian. Maybe the "600 staff" are actually totally unemployable people: recovering addicts, mentally unstable, other-abled, single parents...maybe he wants to build the house as a huge place for them to live in peace, in safe, clean environment...maybe the dozens of cars are for them to use on a shared basis to go to job interviews, vocational school...maybe the helipad is for flying in Nobel prize winners to continue their research in the social sciences... And 8 floors are purely dedicated to PUPPIES!!!!! All puppy, all the time. There will be puppy obstacle courses, puppy houses, puppy swimming pools, puppy play toys, pictures of puppies, and puppy treats everywhere!!!!! YAY, PUPPIES!!!!
Archinect Shiny Happy Philanthropist Humanitarian of the Year
Mr. Mukesh Ambani
Mukesh D. Ambani
Chairman & Managing Director
Reliance Industries enjoys global leadership in its businesses, being the largest polyester yarn and fibre producer in the world and among the top five to ten producers in the world in major petrochemical products.
there u go. most of the hipster doofuses of archinect get all their clothing from this guy. wikipedia says he's the 14th richest guy in the world. so he should live in a three bedroom ranch in mumbai heights? hell who do you think comes to visit him? prolly noble people like presidents and sultans and the sons of presidents and sultans. almost all of whom LOVE puppies!!!!!
ahh so this is mumbai! let's hit the puppy palace after we close some petrochemical deals!!!!
it's no dumber than the shit i work on.
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.