and that's three... with the O.M.A. ones... I feel tempted to write an entire rant about lack of originality, blatant copying of images of pop culture devised as architecture, or the lack of meaningful interpretation of context to build image icons. But maybe it's better if I don't...
smart move, though I'm very curious what you have achieved as an architect (assuming you are one) that gives you the right to want to write a rant. But by saying that it it is a lack of originality, blatant copying of images of pop culture devise as architecture, i assume you are a professional that knows what good architecture is.
I think it's interesting when people make references to Star Wars when they talk about buildings. I can't count how many different dark and foreboding buildings people refer to as "the Darth Vader building."
The death star has far more sinister connotations, IMO... symbolically it represents something greater than Darth Vader - The Empire.
However, do people associate "the Death Star" with something sinister or is it simply humorous similarity to a movie? Has the Death Star entered into our cultural lexicon in the same way as Darth Vader?
I'm leaning more towards humorous... if it were a government building, however...
Ok, all suggestions of rants aside, I am going to try to describe what I think makes this "not the best architecture has to offer". I am not assuming to have the authority to say what is good architecture, but I can only say what I like or dislike, with my arguments.
And I do have issues with a project such as this. It's one-dimensional, since it's a copy of an image. I have absolutely no problem with architects using images-as-references. Some greats architects worked like that. I only have to point out the fascination of Le Corbusier with machinery - this wasn't as much about the actual processes involved, but more with the images. But where his projects gave off the aura of "being like a machine", it was never a complete copy of a machine. It only referred to one.
Let me give you an other example: I live in Amsterdam. And I really enjoy the look and atmosphere of the houses on the sides of the canals. But now, let's imagine that I have to plan a new neighborhood somewhere in the US. I could simply say "I like the look, I have the plans for part of Amsterdam, why not rebuilt it there". And this won't be an actual city, but more like a theme-park. It would only take the look of the place, without any consideration of the context, of the history, of the actual positions involved.
And this project is taking such a thing one step further. It's copying an image from a movie directly into a building. It's like a fish-shaped building for a fish-restaurant: a flat metaphor. The idea of the death star entails much more just a globe with a hole in it. For me this is exactly the same as rebuilding the eiffel tower in Las Vegas: it isn't the real thing, it isn't a interpretation of the real thing, it isn't an adaption of an idea behind the real thing, it's just an image.
Other than that, there have been 2 designs by O.M.A. in the press over the last months, which pretty much had the same shape: a globe with a circular cut. This makes three. Three buildings that make a direct copy of an image of pop-culture. Three buildings that don't make an interpretation of the death star, but just scale up the model that was used in creating the movie. To me, that's poor-man's rhetoric symbolism.
And I'm not quite sure what you mean with "what you have achieved as an architect (assuming you are one) that gives you the right to want to write a rant". Am I not allowed to criticise crap musicians, because I cannot carry a tune? Am I not allowed to give an opinion of a silly Hollywood-movie since I have never directed a movie myself? I think that makes no sense. If one had to shut up unless one had a proven track record in the same field, that would put almost every critic out of business, and would make every discussion and argument impossible. I just have an opinion that is backed up with arguments, and for that it doesn't matter whether I've built some of the greatest buildings on earth or have just read some books. Right?
Philarct:
Not too long - according to the Star Wars Databank it was 3 years between the destruction of the 1st Deathstar and the 2nd. Granted it wasn't complete, but it was fully operational...
Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
I often think that the destruction of the first death star could have been easily avoided by putting a cyclone fence over that equatorial trench, either that or just making the exhaust pipe point down or something; bad engineering in my mind.
First Deathstar took about 19 years to construct. Construction was just starting at the end of Episode 3 after Anakin had become Vader when he was about 24 years old. Vader died at the ripe-old age of 46, 3 years after the destruction of the 1st Deathstar.
I would be really suprised if the designers actually sought to make this look like the death star. Its not a positive image; no one would want to be associated with a pop symbol of evil.
Speaking of pop, it's just pop architecture. I don't think it's worth anyone getting huffy over - just admit that it's pretty and give'em their due, and then we can get on with more thought-provoking work, if that's what you like.
wasn't the exhaust shaft ray-shielded? I figured thats the Deathstar-equivalent to a grate. Its not like a grate could stop a proton torpedo anyways.. its easier than shooting womp rats on Tatooine, ya know!
Ok, Pix...Since the torpedos came at the shaft at a low angle of incidence, wouldn't they have hit the wall of the shaft? The torpedo's making that sharp turn down the shaft at that kind of speed seems kind of dicey.
sorry for the quote, didn't feel like going through New Hope to get it right. but didn't Ackbar (and I gotta say Mon Calamari is a hilarious name for his species) say that the proton torpedo would start a chain reaction resulting in the reactor core's destruction.
dammit, I was gonna do laundry tonight too, now I gotta watch New Hope and if I'm watching that I gotta watch Empire!
Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
You know this now adds a whole new layer of conversation at the next meetup right. Nothing says "dorks" quite like architecture talk mixed with Star Wars. We rock!
To skip the whole "I know Star Wars better than you" part...
the fact that a couple of recent buildings look like spheres or spheres with holes in them doesn't mean that much I think, other than the fact that finally the construction companies are willing to move beyond the box. All those greek and roman and renaissance buildings looked alike as well. There's just a limited amount of forms to explore and use. Even all those formless buildings in the end look the same to me. Maybe it should be about program and users instead of focussing on renders and the image.
if you think greek, roman and renaissance buildings all look alike i suggest ya get your parents ask for a refund for architectural history 101 and 102 tuition...
with all the garbage that's being built nowadays, i don't care if it's cribbing from pop culture, i would love to see this thing get built, if not just for the sheer spectacle of it!
I don't like this project at all and I don't think it deserves to be compared to the OMA proposals' I don't see any intelligence in that work, only a client getting his/her way.
Its camp in the worst kind of way.
As for the OMA "Death Star series" I think that although the renders I've seen align themselves pretty damn close to the movie thing, I also see a revisit to an older project - first off, as has been discussed before, I think the RAK masterplan, specifically the conference center that they lost to Snohetta (or was it Zaha?) was the first time I saw the "DeathStar" iconography in their work - and as an aside I think that work, in a simple top down interpretation reminded me of Agadir, Morocco, 1990.
But going back further, I was recently surprised to find the theme of the sphere much earlier in the OMA archive, specifically De Bol, Rotterdam, 1985 which i guess was re-addressed in the Zeebrugge Terminal proposal.
I'm a big OMA fan so heavily biased, but my guess is that they would be able to actually go beyond the heavy iconography and add intelligence to all of those spheres you've been seeing. I think that it's perfectly within the OMA modus to recycle/explore previous proposals within new contexts, especially from the ones they didn't win! - It's not like they're going to go and build CCTV 2...Or 6 Death Stars all over the Middle East
citrus.grey - ah, yep, I forgot that Ouroussoff pointed it out...Oh, well.
I can't find it now, but there was a page in the Al-Manakh issue of Volume which appeared to feature a note from a meeting which stated that the client had expressed a wish for a radial street pattern with some specific number of tall buildings of which some "must be iconic". It's tough out there..
Isn't that tall slender slab to the left also a move-over from a different Gulf State project - the one they did with the Mexican architect?
BTW, how will you make a glased sphere work in Dubai? Or is it not glased...?
I was blown away when I saw this - consider the fees...Does anyone know or can explain to me how such a project is developed - does it get delegated out or will OMA remain principle office and design all the buildings? If it does indeed go ahead...No wonder they needed "generics".
Mar 9, 08 7:12 pm ·
·
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.
Deathstar Hotel
and that's three... with the O.M.A. ones... I feel tempted to write an entire rant about lack of originality, blatant copying of images of pop culture devised as architecture, or the lack of meaningful interpretation of context to build image icons. But maybe it's better if I don't...
in case you guys don't realize it. the death star was never built. it was a movie.
I just posted the lineage of the death star in this thread yesterday, including the project above.
smart move, though I'm very curious what you have achieved as an architect (assuming you are one) that gives you the right to want to write a rant. But by saying that it it is a lack of originality, blatant copying of images of pop culture devise as architecture, i assume you are a professional that knows what good architecture is.
And another booming oil city (a la Dubai) rises from the dust.....attempting to make a name for itself via formarific architecture!
Eventually it will be back there.
phuyaka - interesting... thanks for those images
I think it's interesting when people make references to Star Wars when they talk about buildings. I can't count how many different dark and foreboding buildings people refer to as "the Darth Vader building."
The death star has far more sinister connotations, IMO... symbolically it represents something greater than Darth Vader - The Empire.
However, do people associate "the Death Star" with something sinister or is it simply humorous similarity to a movie? Has the Death Star entered into our cultural lexicon in the same way as Darth Vader?
I'm leaning more towards humorous... if it were a government building, however...
how long would it take to build a structure that large?
as long as it took to build the death star?
Ok, all suggestions of rants aside, I am going to try to describe what I think makes this "not the best architecture has to offer". I am not assuming to have the authority to say what is good architecture, but I can only say what I like or dislike, with my arguments.
And I do have issues with a project such as this. It's one-dimensional, since it's a copy of an image. I have absolutely no problem with architects using images-as-references. Some greats architects worked like that. I only have to point out the fascination of Le Corbusier with machinery - this wasn't as much about the actual processes involved, but more with the images. But where his projects gave off the aura of "being like a machine", it was never a complete copy of a machine. It only referred to one.
Let me give you an other example: I live in Amsterdam. And I really enjoy the look and atmosphere of the houses on the sides of the canals. But now, let's imagine that I have to plan a new neighborhood somewhere in the US. I could simply say "I like the look, I have the plans for part of Amsterdam, why not rebuilt it there". And this won't be an actual city, but more like a theme-park. It would only take the look of the place, without any consideration of the context, of the history, of the actual positions involved.
And this project is taking such a thing one step further. It's copying an image from a movie directly into a building. It's like a fish-shaped building for a fish-restaurant: a flat metaphor. The idea of the death star entails much more just a globe with a hole in it. For me this is exactly the same as rebuilding the eiffel tower in Las Vegas: it isn't the real thing, it isn't a interpretation of the real thing, it isn't an adaption of an idea behind the real thing, it's just an image.
Other than that, there have been 2 designs by O.M.A. in the press over the last months, which pretty much had the same shape: a globe with a circular cut. This makes three. Three buildings that make a direct copy of an image of pop-culture. Three buildings that don't make an interpretation of the death star, but just scale up the model that was used in creating the movie. To me, that's poor-man's rhetoric symbolism.
And I'm not quite sure what you mean with "what you have achieved as an architect (assuming you are one) that gives you the right to want to write a rant". Am I not allowed to criticise crap musicians, because I cannot carry a tune? Am I not allowed to give an opinion of a silly Hollywood-movie since I have never directed a movie myself? I think that makes no sense. If one had to shut up unless one had a proven track record in the same field, that would put almost every critic out of business, and would make every discussion and argument impossible. I just have an opinion that is backed up with arguments, and for that it doesn't matter whether I've built some of the greatest buildings on earth or have just read some books. Right?
the strange adventure of lemmy caution...
usernametaken-
I don't think the "imagery" is intentional in this case.
retarded
Philarct:
Not too long - according to the Star Wars Databank it was 3 years between the destruction of the 1st Deathstar and the 2nd. Granted it wasn't complete, but it was fully operational...
Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
I often think that the destruction of the first death star could have been easily avoided by putting a cyclone fence over that equatorial trench, either that or just making the exhaust pipe point down or something; bad engineering in my mind.
Well said pixelwhore, well said
First Deathstar took about 19 years to construct. Construction was just starting at the end of Episode 3 after Anakin had become Vader when he was about 24 years old. Vader died at the ripe-old age of 46, 3 years after the destruction of the 1st Deathstar.
So...
46-3=43
43-24=19
all ages are based on info from wookieepedia.
I would be really suprised if the designers actually sought to make this look like the death star. Its not a positive image; no one would want to be associated with a pop symbol of evil.
Speaking of pop, it's just pop architecture. I don't think it's worth anyone getting huffy over - just admit that it's pretty and give'em their due, and then we can get on with more thought-provoking work, if that's what you like.
I think it has much more to do with this:
than this:
Death M&M!
Why wasn't there a grate over the exhaust shaft? Here in Boston and in New York they have grates over the exhausts for the subway.
I hate the fuckin eagles, man
Excellent visual history, phuyaka! I enjoyed that.
The 3 guys on the right must be related. Or at least #2 and #4.
Supplementary or additional party tunes upon request...
Tush
aquino I'm pretty sure the grates were added after the security threat was made clear.
before that, our exhaust shafts were just as vulnerable as the deathstar's.
those aren't the eagles i remember.
[geek]
wasn't the exhaust shaft ray-shielded? I figured thats the Deathstar-equivalent to a grate. Its not like a grate could stop a proton torpedo anyways.. its easier than shooting womp rats on Tatooine, ya know!
[/geek]
Ok, Pix...Since the torpedos came at the shaft at a low angle of incidence, wouldn't they have hit the wall of the shaft? The torpedo's making that sharp turn down the shaft at that kind of speed seems kind of dicey.
...and i believe it's bullseye womp rats
alllllmost there, allmost there!
sorry pix, but no amount of html tagging can reduce the geek quotient of what you just wrote.
well done.
remember pix, they're not much bigger than 2 meters...
sorry for the quote, didn't feel like going through New Hope to get it right. but didn't Ackbar (and I gotta say Mon Calamari is a hilarious name for his species) say that the proton torpedo would start a chain reaction resulting in the reactor core's destruction.
dammit, I was gonna do laundry tonight too, now I gotta watch New Hope and if I'm watching that I gotta watch Empire!
Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
i understand the chain reaction, but the torpedos still turn down the shaft.
You want us to get closer?!
according to my e-sources, proton torpedos are "highly maneuverable" and thats how they were able to take the 90 degree bend for the shaft...
Pixel 1, Aquino 0.
You know this now adds a whole new layer of conversation at the next meetup right. Nothing says "dorks" quite like architecture talk mixed with Star Wars. We rock!
Bespin Cloud City - the ventilator shaft (aka Shanghai Grand Hyatt)
To skip the whole "I know Star Wars better than you" part...
the fact that a couple of recent buildings look like spheres or spheres with holes in them doesn't mean that much I think, other than the fact that finally the construction companies are willing to move beyond the box. All those greek and roman and renaissance buildings looked alike as well. There's just a limited amount of forms to explore and use. Even all those formless buildings in the end look the same to me. Maybe it should be about program and users instead of focussing on renders and the image.
if you think greek, roman and renaissance buildings all look alike i suggest ya get your parents ask for a refund for architectural history 101 and 102 tuition...
with all the garbage that's being built nowadays, i don't care if it's cribbing from pop culture, i would love to see this thing get built, if not just for the sheer spectacle of it!
^agreed, i am offended, and its vulgar, but still cooler than 99% of the shit that gets built
I don't like this project at all and I don't think it deserves to be compared to the OMA proposals' I don't see any intelligence in that work, only a client getting his/her way.
Its camp in the worst kind of way.
As for the OMA "Death Star series" I think that although the renders I've seen align themselves pretty damn close to the movie thing, I also see a revisit to an older project - first off, as has been discussed before, I think the RAK masterplan, specifically the conference center that they lost to Snohetta (or was it Zaha?) was the first time I saw the "DeathStar" iconography in their work - and as an aside I think that work, in a simple top down interpretation reminded me of Agadir, Morocco, 1990.
But going back further, I was recently surprised to find the theme of the sphere much earlier in the OMA archive, specifically De Bol, Rotterdam, 1985 which i guess was re-addressed in the Zeebrugge Terminal proposal.
I'm a big OMA fan so heavily biased, but my guess is that they would be able to actually go beyond the heavy iconography and add intelligence to all of those spheres you've been seeing. I think that it's perfectly within the OMA modus to recycle/explore previous proposals within new contexts, especially from the ones they didn't win! - It's not like they're going to go and build CCTV 2...Or 6 Death Stars all over the Middle East
... this is the time to establish the WAP ( world architecture police) ... and there should be high punishments for projects like this...
<img src="http://www.debunking911.com/deathstar_jpg_w300h265.jpg">
Actually savedbytech, a closer look at this shows OMA's CCTV 2, or perhaps CCTV 2 & 3.
citrus.grey - ah, yep, I forgot that Ouroussoff pointed it out...Oh, well.
I can't find it now, but there was a page in the Al-Manakh issue of Volume which appeared to feature a note from a meeting which stated that the client had expressed a wish for a radial street pattern with some specific number of tall buildings of which some "must be iconic". It's tough out there..
Isn't that tall slender slab to the left also a move-over from a different Gulf State project - the one they did with the Mexican architect?
BTW, how will you make a glased sphere work in Dubai? Or is it not glased...?
I was blown away when I saw this - consider the fees...Does anyone know or can explain to me how such a project is developed - does it get delegated out or will OMA remain principle office and design all the buildings? If it does indeed go ahead...No wonder they needed "generics".
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.