I posted this on the "Build it Bigger" thread since that was the show that it was on. I am copying and pasting because my opinion remains largely unchanged 12 hours later.

~~~~~~
As for the City of Culture.....I have many opinions about it and I'm not sure that the word "brilliant" fits into any of them. I like the idea of keeping the city grid and using the local stone on the roof. However, as with many of Eisenman's designs, I have ask.....why? Why so much waste? For what? Did you SEE all of that sheet rock? Why waste so much energy and material on sheetrocking a ceiling 70' in the air? And why did the roof have to be concrete that they didn't even know how to mix yet? Why not use precast panels instead? Solar panels (they are in Spain for god's sakes)? Or, I don't know, maybe something that was meant to be on the roof?

I have just passed the point where I feel that traditional building methods, such as this, are acceptable on such a large scale, and especially where the end result is so static and difficult to maintain. I think we're past the era where looking pretty is good enough......for the amount of energy expended to build that building, it should be able to power the town or something.

That is enough architectural manifesto from me today. Carry on.

eisenman is a shitty architect

why should architects feel obliged to save the world if it compromises their vision? nobody else feels that pressure. everyone else can waste and waste and waste and their is never a complaint. how much energy does the usc football team use in a season? for example. the world needs a global catastrophe to set things right, i'd say.

I saw the show last night too, even though I shouldn't have since I lost 1 hour of sleep. From a currently non-architect student's POV it's externally aesthetically appealing. I have complete opposite feelings for the interior. It's big, it's glamarous. Obviously not the most efficient by any means.

sounds like you've lost your way from the apocalypse thread vado

I would like to see a football game at the City of Culture. USC vs. Cal.

I would like to see Ditka vs God.

It was just great to see quality architecture on prime time television

Notwithstanding you are right...

but it is funny you speak of waste/energy/needs/environmental as well as social consciousness about the works of Eisenman, albeit appropriate but the previous week they featured Trumps Chicago tower...which one truly is worse? Or better yet fails in making a step beyond economics and beauty?

nothing is more wasteful than beauty.

i don't see what you mean vado

i wanted to throw my television away after that craptactular host said "the architects code" for the ten thousandth time.

The host was a tool. I guess he felt he needed to be "funny" to keep everyone interested. I would have liked to see the contractors try out their different concrete mixtures on him.

was it Danny or somebody else?

Have you been able to unlock the architect's code?

architects love code

i'b sorry you can't unterstad be bud i hab a code.

hey he made Eisenman's work decipherable enough for america's viewing public to swallow, give Danny-boy a break

I like Danny, and I even like the City of Culture to a point. But what frustrates me is that here you have a guy with a vision.....a guy who has reached the pinnacle of his career and can take whatever commissions he wants.....a guy who, by all rights, should know better. No I don't like Trump developer crap and I'm sure that building was terribly wasteful but it was also probably a lot cheaper than anything Eisenman has ever done also. Because Petey is good at spending other people's money - often more than they planned - and giving them a fairly short-term investment for this money, for little more than an aesthetic whim.

Once again, I will say this.....and people wonder why architects are getting short-changed by the general public.


PS. Danny on the other hand is a college student and is trying to make a living to pay for all that GSD money he has to give back......he cannot responsible for mucking up the airwaves. I mean, he doesn't write it....he just presents it.

but... but... eisenman is a great and gifted architect... but but and floating panes of gwb 80 feet up reflect the phenomenal beauty radiating from the real culture in galicia, siza's Centro de Art Contemporanea de Galicia but but but, ehh feck. it's a piece of sh*t. anyway both petey eisenman and myself would rather be watching football. or is it fussball.

ballack... von elfmeter... tor!!!!!!!!!!!

it is doubtful that Eisenmann can "take whatever commissions he wants..."

few architects ever attain that position, and Eisenmann would not be one of them. he may well be offered some quite large commissions, but i don't see him gaining work everyday, like Zaha, Norman, or even HdM.

And i can't quite see why you berate Eisenmann for being "good at spending other people's money...", any more than dozens of other architects. it is interesting to see architects as critics so easily helping to perpetuate the myth that it is always the architect's fault that a project goes over budget.

as for "...and giving them a fairly short-term investment for this money, for little more than an aesthetic whim...", i don't think this statement can be made about the Wexner Centre. this is a seriously good gallery and contemporary arts centre. it may wear its intellectual aspirations a bit too proudly on its sleeve, but it is still a relevant and worthy exploration of gallery and exhibition organisation and order. hardly an "aesthetic whim".

I like the Wexner Center. I liked DAAP when it opened too, also over budget. I'm not trying to perpetuate a "myth" that it is "always" an architect's fault when a project goes over budget, because quite often it's not, and a lot of times it's a contractor trying to make money off of change orders.

But with Eisenman, it's his MO....he has gone over budget on every major project he's done, that I've heard of, at least. He did it with DAAP, he did it with the Jewish Memorial (which now has cracks in it, BTW).....

Listen, I defended Eisenman for years.....mainly throughout my college years when I had to work in DAAP, and I enjoyed the building. But it's 11 years old this month and it's falling apart. Eisenman came back last year for the building's 10 year anniversary and gave a talk, and you know what he said? He said "it's good to see this building still standing after 10 years, some of my buildings aren't".....

My point is, in this day and age, isn't it irresponsible to create a design that is A) now, a waste of material and B) in the future, a maintenance nightmare? Again, my beef is with the interior finishing and not so much with the exterior systems as I think the stone is a nice (if a bit heavy) treatment.


(PS. I do actually believe that most of Eisenman's buildings are aesthetic whim, and I actually applaud the arc of his career which seems to have included a lot of experimentation with the urban fabric....I just wish that he would do so in a more environmentally sensitive way)

Why was DAAP over budget? difficult design details? expensive materials? bad documentation? lack of construction oversight? these are the responsibility of the architect, so if these are the causes, then Eisenmann is guilty on that project. if not, then let's hear the whole story.

as to the current state of the building, is this also a question of design and documentation or construction? and were the materials chosen based on the norm for a public sector institutional building as one finds all over America now?

the Jewish memorial in Berlin - again, why was it over budget? and the cracks - are these the consequence of a design fault? bad materials? poor worksmanship?

whats more wasteful eisenman's building or say a u2 tour? in terms of fossil fuels expended? in fact all music is wasteful. it requires electricity and fossil fuel and there's the noise pollution to consider. theres' the amount of fuel used by fans to get to the show. goddamn it music industry stop ruining the earth.

vado what's your point exactly? Because in fact, most industry is wasteful, not just the music industry, but what does that have to do with this thread or that building? Why compare apples to oranges? My point is, don't people who have the vision and the capability have an obligation to create more responsible buildings so long as they have a responsive client? If Santiago de Compostela was willing to bend over and take it when Eisenman said "you have to use this stone from this quarry and nothing else on this building", don't you think they would have been happy to oblige if he had told them, "you know, let's make this building more harmonious with the earth"?

dlb, with regards to DAAP, Petey wanted to use ceramic tile all over the outside of the building. This was found to be totally cost in-effective, so the decision was made in construction to go with EIFS on the exterior. I don't know where you're from but in the Midwest, you should NOT use EIFS on buildings. That, in addition to a CD set of staggering size which contained thousands of details for a building with no right angles whatsoever, contributed to the cost overrun of $2 million.

With regards to the Jewish memorial, I really don't know. I was mentioning it because there seems to be a pattern. And that pattern seems to be that Eisenman likes to create really expensive buildings that may look "cool" and even function well program-wise, but in the long run create problems for their users.

Furthermore, if you are close to the Wexner Center then you should go check out DAAP and see for yourself what I am talking about, and then compare and contrast the two.

WK - i can't quite make out your fetish to attack eisenman. is he really the most deserving of architects for a condemnation of his "lack of responsibility"?

"...that pattern seems to be that Eisenman likes to create really expensive buildings that may look "cool" and even function well program-wise, but in the long run create problems for their users." --- you note that the DAAP was $2 million over budget. given it had a budget of $36 million, that equates to a 5.7% over-run. hardly "really expensive". clearly the building administration was willing to accept the over-run for the building they were getting.

"With regards to the Jewish memorial, I really don't know. I was mentioning it because there seems to be a pattern." --- you said previously that going over budget was Eisenman's "MO". you also mentioned that: "he has gone over budget on every major project he's done, that I've heard of..." --- so, has he gone over every project or not? is it really a pattern or just a convenient stick to hit him with? can you back up the allegations or does it just feel good to say it anyway?

i have visited the DAAP, the Wexner, the Check-Point Charlie bldg, and clearly Eisenman has problems when it comes to detailing buildings. but this can be discussed and noted by specific examples. it seems far too easy to me to just make blanket statements about an architect's work as part of a process of condemnation, without actually "building" a case. as an architect, that seems the less you could do. otherwise, it seems like laziness to me.

on the other hand, if you just want to vent your opinion, then state it as such; not with declarations that pose as absolutes and "facts".

For christ's sakes, dlb, frankly I've got better things to do with my time than fact check one of my many posts on this forum. In truth, I actually never stated that anything I said above was "fact", except I will say that the quote from Eisenman himself was a direct quote and that actually happened. With regards to everything else I said.... of course it's my opinion, it's my post, isn't it? That's the essence of a post, is it not? And with regards to the pattern I mentioned, notice that I said "And that pattern seems to be....." I didn't say it is.

I am making statements about Eisenman's work, here, on this thread, because the thread is about a project that he did, and he is an established architect, so I thought it might be a good time to bring up some of these issues.....if you are in the limelight, you have to learn to expect criticism. My overall issues could certainly be extended to many current practitioners, but with this project I saw a unique opportunity to create a conversation on something I feel very strongly about. I could mention specific examples about specific details on specific projects...... again if I had time, cared enough, and wanted the conversation to be about that. But I did not, and you seemed to have missed my point anyway, so I'm going to move on now.

WK - that must be the great thing about a post - all liberty and no responsibility.

i can only assume that your "point" is that you need to be allowed to say anything you want, but not have to substantiate it? - in which case you are correct - i did miss it. to my mind this is not 'criticism' (for which Eisenman has plenty), but mere opinion - something entirely different in regards to architectural discourse.

sure, this site is all about just throwing things out there and one shouldn't take it too seriously. but, isn't there any irony, or even hypocrisy, in people posting on this site with very emotional statements against, for and apathetic to architects and their architecture and its lack of "responsibility", "honesty", "authentic-ness", and "integrity", but it is only those being 'critiqued' that need to be held to these standards. a one-way street indeed.

as you say, if you "had time, cared enough..."

is it strange that i don't hear or see anyone blaming the client? yeah, you know the ones paying for these things?

i can't fault Pete for not caring about environmentally conscious buildings, no more than i can fault many of the architects out there that only care about environmentally conscious ones and then assault my eyes with their banal design solutions. each care about their particular design bents and focus on what the client wants to pay for.

if petey did make his buildings, the ones the clients want and sell to their constituents, environmentally responsible, how much would they cost, would those buildings reflect his ideas? if his ideas, you can debate his ideas til the cows come home, are lost for the sake of responsibility to the environment, then you have to ask yourself a question - is that fair, should he even be allowed to build? again, i say there are people out there taking care of the world and let them do that, and then there are people like pete/zaha/gehry/ and i say let them do what they do, unfettered by other agendas, particularly if those agendas have nothing to with the final solution or even detract from it.

i liken pete and his brood to hollywood superstars; the hollywood types advocate for all of us to save the world, save the environment, but when you look at their lifestyle we say how hypocritical. it's not hypocritical, they are one being, and we are many, WE have more of an impact on the world, than one Brangelina, and they are just trying to get behind an issue and use their cult of celebrity to motivate the masses.

so fault pete for his shoddy buildings, they've been that way since his early houses, but i dare say that if the client wants the design so damn much then they should actually be able step up to the plate and not VE the fuckers to death, and pay what it costs to finish the building in durable materials and not chintz on "substandard" materials or shitty low bid contractors with little more experience than fabricating pole barns.

what i dont get it - eisenman being a successful architect - how hard is it for him to just bring in a flashing expert or whatever to detail his buildings before they are constructed? i mean when your buildings have such healthy budgets, is there an excuse for such fundamental mistakes?

What do people think about his writings? Personally I found them deep and stimulating, but Im still relatively inexperienced in those matters. Correct me if im wrong, but he is one of the more prolific theorists in contemporary architecture, justifiably so?

examples?

sorry was the @ me? examples of what?

its an 800k sf complex. its gonna have a few issues to work out in the field. seems as though the conceptual driver of this project is similar to the way predock approaches projects in that the prawn uses geological, cultural, etc topographies to (IN)form the building. its funny cuz i always thought petey hated the prawn's work, however it looks like he's appropriating the prawn's ideas.

everyone criticizing eisenman's construction details, find out first if there was an architect-of-record producing the documents. they, most likely, developed the construction details. and they, most likely, are very experienced at doing this. the problems with detailing eisenman's work lie in the likelihood that there are conditions created by his work that haven't been encountered in the past. that's why we celebrate him!

wouldnt you just do a stone roof similar to the way you do say a balcony with stone pavers? put some leveler on a epdm roof membrane or the like and slope it to some drains? not really that new or unencountered?

there may be some odd corners or hard to build (and flash) properly cuz of lack of space things going on...i dunno, i didt see the vid cuz i don't get much american tv here, and only seen the pics at arcspace. looks pretty nice to me.

ecology? guess it depends if the building is gonna last or not. if it lasts 300 years then is ok. 5 years? waste of cash and time.

matriality and sustainability type discussions always make me think about easter island and how the stone statues were made using wood til all the trees were gone and the societies disterpeered...materials are complex beasties and when to use them is always a question of sorts...but even natural stone carved with stone tools can lead to disastrous consequences...and vice versa (ie, tech can be good). knowing how to be actually eco as opposed to justapparently eco is in the end the real rub...wish i had answers.

music of course is all the product of the devil...expescially the pentatonic scale stuff.

examples? how about examples of the perfect buildings you've designed and someone else built that did not have any issues after completion? how about examples of the poor flashing details? how about examples of shop drawings reviewed by petey's office, approving the details? point is, buildings are products of many people and i dare say eisenman's office is no more perfect or no more problematic than others...

The roof in question,

has the aeroplane and zeppelin and the bird's eye perspective and computer flyovers put all this emphasis on the roof cuz unless you fly over in a plane or climb the ladder and unlock the roof hatch on your way to commit suicide you aint ever even gonna experience the sweepy stone roof or any swoopy roof anywaze.

i thought the roofs were used as walkways? i may be wrong - didnt see the video, just from memory

I think it would be way more successful as a green roof/park, simply because his wood model indicates an integration with the landscape that will not exist with the roof covered in stone like that. Not to mention, who the hell would want to walk up there with it built as-is? They'll cook!



^now that's cool.

vado, not necessarily true, this region of Galicia is particularly hilly/mountainous..i have a friend from the area and my last employer has a home he is building there...so an appreciation may be had, but i think the experience has more to do with the experience in the city....

i can see the roof next door as well and the rtu's as well. they're stunning

by definition entertainment and therefore recreation are a 'waste' of energy and materials, ie U2 on tour (so are politics). So we gotta choose how we squander our resources on enhancing culture.

I agree, petey should know better.

i agree with beta. leaking happens in regular poorly built expensive buildings too. its a thing that happens. slamming this project before it is even done is kinda jumping gun...though it may happen.

having those roofs as non-accesible or not visible in daily use would be a curious choice....he made a 5th facade but only for birds? why?

the model is very beautiful.

LOL!

well if you look at say a leed book it ll tell that x billion gallons of water are used to flush toilets etc. and y amount of electricity is used. but really this isnt the building doing anything its people in the building using the energy how much energy does an empty building use? and architecturally one could take an theoretical stance that entropy is a good thing. one could build their whole philosophy around the idea of entropy, decay, things falling apart and to me that would be totally legitimate.

my thesis is probably going to center around entropy and decay...