oh, and 765 i have always been facinated at what is possible under totalitarian regimes, I've even got some propaganda posters and a little red book to take back to the states with me. Don't forget that Mao got his start as an anarchist.
Actually, I'm going to clarify this statement before its starts a huge flame war because i realize how bold it is and I don't want this thread to become a huge political deal. What I really mean to say is that all governments are equally self-serving, in the fact that i feel their true loyalty lies not to their people, but themselves. Is America like China? In the modern sense they are, and lots of innocent people have fallen victim to their policies throughout history. While China's government may have more blood on its hands that the American government historically, they are both bloody I guess its only a measure of which one is bloodier. America never had a "Cultural Revolution" or a "Great Leap Forward", but we did kill an awful lot of indians, and our foreign policies have cost many lives. We in the west (read Europe, the U.S.) may look at China and see a country who's government is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the 20th centrury, but that's because we have a hard time looking at ourselves. Our governments all have equal capacity for evil and good, wether they are democracies, autrocracies, or oligarchies, and thats what I really wanted to say. The only difference is really that our leaders are elected and their's aren't.
If i had an edit button i'd take that original statement back, because a claim like that and the argument that entails does not belong in this thread. It belongs in its own thread, which belongs on a politcal forum and not this one.
I hope we can keep talking about the stadium, because it is damn cool.
If I may be so bold, the only thing i'm gonna add to the political aspect of this discussion as far as U.S./China is concerned is that "All governments are created equal" it really is comparing apples and apples when you look at the policies of the U.S. and China respectively over their histories (I had no CLUE we/the CIA put Pol Pot in power).
This was the statement i wanted to clarify, no clue why it doesn't show up above.
RoedGroed I find it difficult to talk about these structures without in some way clasify them ---- what we seen of buildings that shuld have structuraly profited by computer calculations untill now, has been so ugly in their basic foundations, that they have had to be covered , paneled by steel Titanium , Aluminium all sheet , all Tinhats where underneath the shiny surfaces a more or less honest steel beam lattrice, sometimes in up to 8 layers of varying density beams down to rods, only to smoothen what start up as a very edgy and often very tradisional steel profile lattrice. Here structural beauty leave no doubt nothing is hidden .
So please allow me to use the term Tinhat --- these structures even basicly very different by dore structure, yet havn't been decided into types of structure, even everyone must realise the huge difference of this the subject and another one everyone know, the New disney concert hall, where if you look under the surface into the basic structure, the structure that in fact shuld be the issue, then you will be disapointed, as with the Tiinhat Movement it's still the surface, still the attitude and thin surface , not the quality structure the structural beauty , even realy it was ment to be that,
Libeskind's ROM in Toronto has a similar issue, its skeleton is gorgeous but the cladding is hideous. Here, i think H+M's point is that structure=skin. Even if that skin may just be skin and not exo-skeleton, like many other architects try to achieve.
And again apologies to any who read this for my blatantly political post above, it really doesn't belong here like that.
Structure = skin ------ well when you calculate the space covered , for how much rain would be catch by the structure and how much will go thru . When you compare this with the arear outside the structure , you will find that the frames protect the spaces covered in a way that give a compleat new meaning to the old climat shell.
Just emagine how a huge structure ,even the rain are allowed to enter, will make it so that in fact within, it will be a much more dry climat, as most of the rain are trapped and most of the light are allowed.
Now I know this issue havn't yet been realised, it's just another nice side effect but it will not be uncovered before we realy want a new architecture.
-- Sorry this maybe to dull, but the question "how will you keep out the rain" are silli with these structures, as it is not nessery to have a compleatly watertight roof ,to be able to dry out a huge arear covered with a lattrice space frame structure,
---------- What I realy like about this structure is that it turn upside-down the tradisional understanding of the build works. The architects tradisional understanding of the house to, the way we percive a building as four walls and a watertight roof here, you see walls and roof in one, the core structure as the finish ,the issue being the core structure ,and there mastery ensure structural beauty need not be hidden , core will uncover both skills and newthinking. Now this maybe for once will make a meaning to deconstruction, as what make this unique is a small structural fact, something you has to look for while it is so obvious that you maybe will not realise the difference between order and chaos.
I find the main issue with this structure to be exactly that fact, that each frame define it's own plane -- emagine each frame would have twisted in all tree directions, the differnce would be enourmous .
Apuirimac, I'm appreciating talking about a building here - and while the question of western architects doing work in China is worthy of discussion, I agree that keeping it architectural is (at this moment, for me) preferred.
That ghostly skin image above is not as appealing to me as the pwoerful structure visible now. Hmmmm.
well apparently it's only going to be partially clothed, my internet is too shoddy here to try and find a good render, but the ETFE skin only covers the very top of the structure, leaving the beams fully exposed on elevation.
i'm probably committing an unpardonable sin in not questioning these guys but if WE (me, for example, being the a constant victim of value-engineering compromises) think the skin seems even the least bit unappealing, i am pretty sure that the ultimate SKIN architects, H&DM, will have figured out a beautiful solution for it. they will not have settled for a compromise.
I agree about the politics thing, probably the only thing worth noting about it is
command economy = big clear gesture
fragmented consensus = unfocused public architecture
That's pretty on-topic, no?
... and about that ETFE skin, it looks like it only exists under the roof structure? In those aerial renderings posted earlier it seems to be barely visible under the bones. You know the helicopters are going to be flying all around this thing for establishing shots when they cut to commercials so the view from above is crucial.
I've got a copy of El Croquis with the renderings-in-question in it by me, and I have to say its a tough call to say where the actual ETFE skin lies on the top of the structure. It looks like its attached on the underside of the top beams, giving the the beams a kind of "pop effect" so they don't really read like they are covered if that helps clarify your point 765.
Then will it be nessery --- guess it's allowed to aproach a design from it's basic idea, I find that very nessery when you promote what is a new architecture --- and I find it perfectly ok to simply forget about the roof issue, the "paneling" issue and not compromise. See I don't think it is very wise to think like that ; within the volume ,unseen ,it is easy to place smaller volumes that if even needed produce that service.
The first Funkis buldings wasn't perfect either -- anyone knew the trouble with single layer steel frame windows , but even these foults people just love that architecture ---- what shuld a bit rain then mean, particular when you know , that even without a roof, the structure are quite dry.
H & deM In Beijing, I am now a convert
oh, and 765 i have always been facinated at what is possible under totalitarian regimes, I've even got some propaganda posters and a little red book to take back to the states with me. Don't forget that Mao got his start as an anarchist.
Actually, I'm going to clarify this statement before its starts a huge flame war because i realize how bold it is and I don't want this thread to become a huge political deal. What I really mean to say is that all governments are equally self-serving, in the fact that i feel their true loyalty lies not to their people, but themselves. Is America like China? In the modern sense they are, and lots of innocent people have fallen victim to their policies throughout history. While China's government may have more blood on its hands that the American government historically, they are both bloody I guess its only a measure of which one is bloodier. America never had a "Cultural Revolution" or a "Great Leap Forward", but we did kill an awful lot of indians, and our foreign policies have cost many lives. We in the west (read Europe, the U.S.) may look at China and see a country who's government is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the 20th centrury, but that's because we have a hard time looking at ourselves. Our governments all have equal capacity for evil and good, wether they are democracies, autrocracies, or oligarchies, and thats what I really wanted to say. The only difference is really that our leaders are elected and their's aren't.
If i had an edit button i'd take that original statement back, because a claim like that and the argument that entails does not belong in this thread. It belongs in its own thread, which belongs on a politcal forum and not this one.
I hope we can keep talking about the stadium, because it is damn cool.
This was the statement i wanted to clarify, no clue why it doesn't show up above.
RoedGroed I find it difficult to talk about these structures without in some way clasify them ---- what we seen of buildings that shuld have structuraly profited by computer calculations untill now, has been so ugly in their basic foundations, that they have had to be covered , paneled by steel Titanium , Aluminium all sheet , all Tinhats where underneath the shiny surfaces a more or less honest steel beam lattrice, sometimes in up to 8 layers of varying density beams down to rods, only to smoothen what start up as a very edgy and often very tradisional steel profile lattrice. Here structural beauty leave no doubt nothing is hidden .
So please allow me to use the term Tinhat --- these structures even basicly very different by dore structure, yet havn't been decided into types of structure, even everyone must realise the huge difference of this the subject and another one everyone know, the New disney concert hall, where if you look under the surface into the basic structure, the structure that in fact shuld be the issue, then you will be disapointed, as with the Tiinhat Movement it's still the surface, still the attitude and thin surface , not the quality structure the structural beauty , even realy it was ment to be that,
Libeskind's ROM in Toronto has a similar issue, its skeleton is gorgeous but the cladding is hideous. Here, i think H+M's point is that structure=skin. Even if that skin may just be skin and not exo-skeleton, like many other architects try to achieve.
And again apologies to any who read this for my blatantly political post above, it really doesn't belong here like that.
Structure = skin ------ well when you calculate the space covered , for how much rain would be catch by the structure and how much will go thru . When you compare this with the arear outside the structure , you will find that the frames protect the spaces covered in a way that give a compleat new meaning to the old climat shell.
Just emagine how a huge structure ,even the rain are allowed to enter, will make it so that in fact within, it will be a much more dry climat, as most of the rain are trapped and most of the light are allowed.
Now I know this issue havn't yet been realised, it's just another nice side effect but it will not be uncovered before we realy want a new architecture.
-- Sorry this maybe to dull, but the question "how will you keep out the rain" are silli with these structures, as it is not nessery to have a compleatly watertight roof ,to be able to dry out a huge arear covered with a lattrice space frame structure,
---------- What I realy like about this structure is that it turn upside-down the tradisional understanding of the build works. The architects tradisional understanding of the house to, the way we percive a building as four walls and a watertight roof here, you see walls and roof in one, the core structure as the finish ,the issue being the core structure ,and there mastery ensure structural beauty need not be hidden , core will uncover both skills and newthinking. Now this maybe for once will make a meaning to deconstruction, as what make this unique is a small structural fact, something you has to look for while it is so obvious that you maybe will not realise the difference between order and chaos.
I find the main issue with this structure to be exactly that fact, that each frame define it's own plane -- emagine each frame would have twisted in all tree directions, the differnce would be enourmous .
I do believe to roof of it will be an ETFE skin, which leaves the structure visible but in a ghosted fashion:
Apuirimac, I'm appreciating talking about a building here - and while the question of western architects doing work in China is worthy of discussion, I agree that keeping it architectural is (at this moment, for me) preferred.
That ghostly skin image above is not as appealing to me as the pwoerful structure visible now. Hmmmm.
- Agrea.
well apparently it's only going to be partially clothed, my internet is too shoddy here to try and find a good render, but the ETFE skin only covers the very top of the structure, leaving the beams fully exposed on elevation.
i'm probably committing an unpardonable sin in not questioning these guys but if WE (me, for example, being the a constant victim of value-engineering compromises) think the skin seems even the least bit unappealing, i am pretty sure that the ultimate SKIN architects, H&DM, will have figured out a beautiful solution for it. they will not have settled for a compromise.
I agree about the politics thing, probably the only thing worth noting about it is
command economy = big clear gesture
fragmented consensus = unfocused public architecture
That's pretty on-topic, no?
... and about that ETFE skin, it looks like it only exists under the roof structure? In those aerial renderings posted earlier it seems to be barely visible under the bones. You know the helicopters are going to be flying all around this thing for establishing shots when they cut to commercials so the view from above is crucial.
I've got a copy of El Croquis with the renderings-in-question in it by me, and I have to say its a tough call to say where the actual ETFE skin lies on the top of the structure. It looks like its attached on the underside of the top beams, giving the the beams a kind of "pop effect" so they don't really read like they are covered if that helps clarify your point 765.
Yeah that makes sense, thanks Apu.
I was worried about those helicopter shots for a second there.
Then will it be nessery --- guess it's allowed to aproach a design from it's basic idea, I find that very nessery when you promote what is a new architecture --- and I find it perfectly ok to simply forget about the roof issue, the "paneling" issue and not compromise. See I don't think it is very wise to think like that ; within the volume ,unseen ,it is easy to place smaller volumes that if even needed produce that service.
It's wrong !
"We now go live to the Budweiser Helicopter cam. Brought to you by Budwieser, the King of Beers".
Or as the Germans called it during the world cup "dishwater".
I hope Tsingtao gets the pour rights at their olympics.
The first Funkis buldings wasn't perfect either -- anyone knew the trouble with single layer steel frame windows , but even these foults people just love that architecture ---- what shuld a bit rain then mean, particular when you know , that even without a roof, the structure are quite dry.
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.