I agree on DIA:Beacon. That is the most amazing building I've been to in a good while. It's all about the program though, and the raw space for the art to impact. It was a pre-existing building, but I think Irwin, the master of minimalism, was able to really make it a spatial canvas for the flavin/serra/heizer type pieces. Each room fits its art perfectly.
love moneo, was extremely disappointed by the cathedral. there are probably 4 structures on that street that are better...disney, an elementary school, Moma, and uncle arnie's hot dog stand. wtf ralfie
I went to Bard last summer and have pictures that I can email you if you'd like. I wasn't overly impressed, and when the student that gave the tour (composed of myself and my at-the-time girlfriend that was also an architecture student) he made a point to mention that in the winter they have to put an elaborate scaffolding system up around the building to prevent snow/ice from cascading down onto pedestrians. I thought that ruined what could have been the buildings saving grace, how it looked in a New England winter. If you want picture, lemme know.
I thought the Cathedral destoyed the Disnet Concert Hall. It is so damn stereotomic, making it read well for a catholic church in my eyes. At least it doesnt use materials in a way that heats up adjacent buildings more than 20 degrees like the cladding on Disney does. Disney just seemed superflous to an extreme where the Cathedral seemed to be more specific to the voice it is speaking.
OMA's Seattle Library is not bad, but underwhelming. The exterior already looks dated, dirty (from rain), and grey (unfortunate match with and reinforcement of the city's own pervasive greyness), unrelieved by any open or green space. The interior layout and flow is surprisingly non-functional (too simplisticly linear) and lacks depth, especially given how much time OMA supposedly spent to study libraries all over the world. The reading room is too small and the layout, furniture and color scheme (what's with the busy carpet?) more conducive for a bustling cafeteria than the warm, cozy, calming, curl-up-with-a-book-for-the-afternoon kind of space it ought to be. For all the time and thought that supposedly went into the place, it was quite disappointing, imo.
Gehry's Stata. Don't get me started. Do public buildings have to be such a jab in the eye to be deemed worthy these days? Is there any worse eyesore out there than Stata (other than Gaudi's worst or his own Santa Monica house)? Worse, it just doesn't work for the people who have to work in it. The best "design" feature is that it enforces short meetings, cuz more than a few participants get vertigo from all the fractured and angled lines.
Have not seen some of the others in person, so will reserve comment. It's all about the emperor's new clothes, if you ask me.
i have yet to go to seattle and can agree with some of your
statements on the library..though i think some of your
criticisms are questionable...(too simplisticly linear?) i'm not
sure what that means...i mean they are stacks of books within
a ramp right?
as far as the stata...i would bet that you've never lived in
boston. because personally i respect that building at the
very least for its ability to get built. very little in the way of
modern architecture has been built since the seventies in boston.
other than holl's building (which i believe deserves far more
criticism than the stata) im pei's buildings at mit, john hancock,
christian science center, philip johnson's library and a few other
projects..there has been very little to crow about in terms of
architecture there. gehry's building at the least is a step away
from the developer driven buildings that occupy most of kendall
sq. (there are a couple good buildings that have gone up as
well in this area..one by ehrlich i believe? and gunther benisch sp?)
but for the most part the buildings in the area are far more
deserving of criticism...i should know i worked on a few.
as far as your criticism of the interior spaces...i am interested to
know..is this from personal experience or from stories you've
read? or do you know people that work there. i'm not saying
it's untrue and that i heard some of the same stories...but i
don't know if i'd state them as fact.
and your comment on 'short meetings' undercuts the rest of
your criticism into farce.
larson, why would you want to bet a stranger where he has or has not been? That's presumptious to the max. FYI, I went to school there, lived in Boston for 10+ yrs and know all the bldgs you enumerated. As I said in the same post, I would never comment on a building I've never seen in person. As to Stata, yes, been there and met and know a few people who work there (almost to a person think it's a joke). The "short meeting" was sarcasm, but I would not bother to worry about whether you got that or not. Farce? Don't believe that warrants a response.
Other than that, as I said, it is entirely possible that I don't get it. I sure don't get why the fact that a building's "ability to get built" (for $300M, no less) should be "respected." I don't hear that in any other field. So, lars, you are right -- no, I don't get it.
fair enough. glad to know that your criticism was from
living there and talking to people...i guess my feeling
was after dealing with all the bull crap that you're
put through in creating anything interesting
and how public opinion tends towards
sentimentality that the building should be lauded for
at the least being different...even though it was over budget
. i don't necessarily love stata..just having lived there most of my life
i was just happy to see something out of the ordinary
produced in that area, especially, and boston, in general.
i think few professions have to jump through as many
hoops to create something different than architects in
boston...(maybe public art projects) i think gehry's building
(or holl's) paved the way for some contemporary work being
done there...and i don't think that should be ignored.
and i got the joke.. sorry i was just in a pissy 'i need a nap' mood
and reacted immaturely to what is your opinion after all.
Top 5 projects in US/Canada in last two year?
No other comments to IIT student center @ chicago by Rem?
just visited dia:beacon - a really refreshing experience and would
rate it high, especially against other museums that try too hard.
Shalak: I have opened an new thread. Waiting for your input>>>
I agree on DIA:Beacon. That is the most amazing building I've been to in a good while. It's all about the program though, and the raw space for the art to impact. It was a pre-existing building, but I think Irwin, the master of minimalism, was able to really make it a spatial canvas for the flavin/serra/heizer type pieces. Each room fits its art perfectly.
Austin City Hall - Antoine Predock
The Nasher glass roof is amazing as is the intelligently designed shade forms by Arup. Arup really make a ton of architects look brilliant.
love moneo, was extremely disappointed by the cathedral. there are probably 4 structures on that street that are better...disney, an elementary school, Moma, and uncle arnie's hot dog stand. wtf ralfie
Trace:
I went to Bard last summer and have pictures that I can email you if you'd like. I wasn't overly impressed, and when the student that gave the tour (composed of myself and my at-the-time girlfriend that was also an architecture student) he made a point to mention that in the winter they have to put an elaborate scaffolding system up around the building to prevent snow/ice from cascading down onto pedestrians. I thought that ruined what could have been the buildings saving grace, how it looked in a New England winter. If you want picture, lemme know.
I thought the Cathedral destoyed the Disnet Concert Hall. It is so damn stereotomic, making it read well for a catholic church in my eyes. At least it doesnt use materials in a way that heats up adjacent buildings more than 20 degrees like the cladding on Disney does. Disney just seemed superflous to an extreme where the Cathedral seemed to be more specific to the voice it is speaking.
I just don't get it.
OMA's Seattle Library is not bad, but underwhelming. The exterior already looks dated, dirty (from rain), and grey (unfortunate match with and reinforcement of the city's own pervasive greyness), unrelieved by any open or green space. The interior layout and flow is surprisingly non-functional (too simplisticly linear) and lacks depth, especially given how much time OMA supposedly spent to study libraries all over the world. The reading room is too small and the layout, furniture and color scheme (what's with the busy carpet?) more conducive for a bustling cafeteria than the warm, cozy, calming, curl-up-with-a-book-for-the-afternoon kind of space it ought to be. For all the time and thought that supposedly went into the place, it was quite disappointing, imo.
Gehry's Stata. Don't get me started. Do public buildings have to be such a jab in the eye to be deemed worthy these days? Is there any worse eyesore out there than Stata (other than Gaudi's worst or his own Santa Monica house)? Worse, it just doesn't work for the people who have to work in it. The best "design" feature is that it enforces short meetings, cuz more than a few participants get vertigo from all the fractured and angled lines.
Have not seen some of the others in person, so will reserve comment. It's all about the emperor's new clothes, if you ask me.
"I just don't get it."
it's true, you don't.
i have yet to go to seattle and can agree with some of your
statements on the library..though i think some of your
criticisms are questionable...(too simplisticly linear?) i'm not
sure what that means...i mean they are stacks of books within
a ramp right?
as far as the stata...i would bet that you've never lived in
boston. because personally i respect that building at the
very least for its ability to get built. very little in the way of
modern architecture has been built since the seventies in boston.
other than holl's building (which i believe deserves far more
criticism than the stata) im pei's buildings at mit, john hancock,
christian science center, philip johnson's library and a few other
projects..there has been very little to crow about in terms of
architecture there. gehry's building at the least is a step away
from the developer driven buildings that occupy most of kendall
sq. (there are a couple good buildings that have gone up as
well in this area..one by ehrlich i believe? and gunther benisch sp?)
but for the most part the buildings in the area are far more
deserving of criticism...i should know i worked on a few.
as far as your criticism of the interior spaces...i am interested to
know..is this from personal experience or from stories you've
read? or do you know people that work there. i'm not saying
it's untrue and that i heard some of the same stories...but i
don't know if i'd state them as fact.
and your comment on 'short meetings' undercuts the rest of
your criticism into farce.
larson, why would you want to bet a stranger where he has or has not been? That's presumptious to the max. FYI, I went to school there, lived in Boston for 10+ yrs and know all the bldgs you enumerated. As I said in the same post, I would never comment on a building I've never seen in person. As to Stata, yes, been there and met and know a few people who work there (almost to a person think it's a joke). The "short meeting" was sarcasm, but I would not bother to worry about whether you got that or not. Farce? Don't believe that warrants a response.
Other than that, as I said, it is entirely possible that I don't get it. I sure don't get why the fact that a building's "ability to get built" (for $300M, no less) should be "respected." I don't hear that in any other field. So, lars, you are right -- no, I don't get it.
alcc
fair enough. glad to know that your criticism was from
living there and talking to people...i guess my feeling
was after dealing with all the bull crap that you're
put through in creating anything interesting
and how public opinion tends towards
sentimentality that the building should be lauded for
at the least being different...even though it was over budget
. i don't necessarily love stata..just having lived there most of my life
i was just happy to see something out of the ordinary
produced in that area, especially, and boston, in general.
i think few professions have to jump through as many
hoops to create something different than architects in
boston...(maybe public art projects) i think gehry's building
(or holl's) paved the way for some contemporary work being
done there...and i don't think that should be ignored.
and i got the joke.. sorry i was just in a pissy 'i need a nap' mood
and reacted immaturely to what is your opinion after all.
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.