"This sucks"
"Fuck Gehry"
"this is garbage"
"uuggggghhh"
"first year undergrad"
These are not the type of comments that any educated architecture professional should allow to come out of their mouths without being followed by a proper critical, theoretical, programmatic, aesthetic or practical based criticism.
This is the level of discussion required to dismiss a piece of architecture? If so, then what makes your criticism any different than any other random joe schmoe off the street? If we can't hold each other to a higher standard when it comes to discussing the work of our peers then how could we possibly expect a non-architect to spend an iota of time understanding something you've worked on?
Working to improve the "value" of the profession is a collective undertaking and it must start from within.
i'm pretty sure most of those are first reactions, one line statements stating a quick initial impression...which anyone is welcome to make.
there are thousands of people on this site, using it to gain different degrees of information and discuss topics to various lengths. you may pass whatever judgment you want in whatever depth you want.
no one needs to back up their statements, this is not a design crit. perhaps the people who work at gehrys office can become more constructive so we don't have to even be brought to the point of saying those things...you're acting like frank himself is gonna sit around reading our reactions and then adjust his project taking our comments into careful consideration.
if you want to continue the argument about this why not stick to the news thread instead of posting it here.
AND if you have a problem with our standards, whats your constructive criticism...start this thread off right so we can have a proper discussion.
This just like libeskind hate except worse because Ghery has actively pushed the limits of technology and form that opens up whole new avenues to us as architects.
I do not like his Serpentine Pavillion
I do not like Atlantic Yards
I do not like Stata Center
I do like Bilbao
I do like Disney
Say what you want about Ghery, but every once in awhile he cranks out a really nice building, maybe even excellent and in doing so he pushes the limits of what is possible. His buildings are often like supercars, superficial and difficult to live with but like a supercar they push the limit of technology so that 40 years from now when you have to design an boring office tower in suburban houston you'll have a toolset at your fingertips that could give you greater degrees of freedom that came out of the technologies and technique pioneered in ghery's buildings.
You know - in school the professor crits were usualy one line shocking statements followed by babble. i much appriciated the negative statement at least its honest, but the babble - the dam babble has to stop. It doesnt actualy mean anything. Its words invented to go with other words like architectonic - just stop it -
That’s all fine Apurimac, but doesn't the potential of architecture (and especially the potential of an architect like Gehry who has so few limitations on his creativity) lie somewhere far beyond simply "pushing the limits of technology"?
Why should Gehry get an intelligent response to his work if he's not providing intelligent work?
And that is exactly what I been trying, -- if you even care to listen !
I don't say those cliche's but point to the fact, that these buildings seem like the painting of said technologies, rather than reflect those cutting edge structural issues in real.
Just bragging about using outdated aeroplane construction software, from the day's where 2D was 2D was 2D , and 2D was the 2D standard of 2D drawings for 2D aeroplane design paper plans ,for heaven sake -- can't you see thru the fog ?
Look under the thin skin , ask if any software was used for that heap of fiddled stringers, or if it was skilled metal workers who wouldn't care if the drawings was upside down. Gee -- in Disney new concert hall, there was intire walls that was forgotten in the plans ; but that did not matter, the metal workers could on the fly, just fill out the missing picture with standard fittings and short pieces.
Another place, they spended a farm bending and twisting Huge steel profiles like they was timbers, and that was the only way to eject a curvy shape , ( ---what a paragime shift--- ) -- as if with cutting edge technologis, when making a curve , all you do is to do it as if you was steam bending for timber ships building --- Gee can't you see it, then look for heaven sake, and dare ask the nessery questions, as this is not advanced technology, only a picture of how you would think it would look !
Then when you done that, think about how much more enginous it would work with 3dh. --- except, then it would only cost a third, and be genuine.
because some of his work is intelligent citrus. On a purely aesthetic level, the Disney concert hall is easily one of the prettiest buildings ever made in my mind while Stata center has to be one of the ugliest.
ok, how about this? I do not like Gehry because....
*his buildings are poorly detailed. Yes, I said it. The 1" gaps between where the panels of the Disney Concert Hall "meet," where you can clearly see waterproofing and all other kinds of ugly shite, are not acceptable. Severe leakage is not acceptable (slight leakage I would call OK, it could happen to anyone). Buildings that produce so much glare as to create hot spots on the sidewalk and drive up the cooling costs of nearby buildings are not OK. If they're not even OK, they obviously aren't great.
*he creates a grand entrance at the expense of the rest of the building. Wanting people to enter from a certain direction, or wanting to give a corner some extra preference is great. But intentionally making all the rest of the street-level experience crap to make your entrance seem grander? That's just lame, like producing bad work at the beginning of the quarter so that your instructors will think that you've improved soooo much. These are both freshman-year-of-college tricks, and not worthy of someone at the top of the heap.
*His interiors have too little to do with his exteriors. I once saw an exhibit on Gehry at MOCA LA, and it showed the contrast perfectly: in one room there was a wonderfully large series of molded fiberglass panels hung from the ceiling which were reminiscent of the exterior panelling of Disney and Bilbao. They curved, they swooped, they created really interesting spaces. Then in another room were models for the New York Times building: these were a series of boxes, with curvy forms draped over the boxes. Unfortunately too much of his work is like the NYT building, and too little of it is like the fiberglass installation. Right now he is using the bulk of his energy, thoughtfulness, technology, and the client's resources, to create cladding, instead of to create spaces. I feel like this makes his work very superficial, when it could have so much more depth.
"If so, then what makes your criticism any different than any other random joe schmoe off the street?"
The only random schmoe here, is that arogant exersise of making what shuld be a structural matter, into what this realy is, a social issue.
Caurse most of these tinhats is nothing but a tradisional building with a metal roof, --- is that realy advanced building yechnology , or is it making a picture of how you would expect advanced structural enginering would be ?
So if an architect in fact hold back real experimenting into innovative new methods, into newthinking the structural core of a building structure, by only delivering a painting of the future -- wouldn't you schmoe that calling it what it realy is ?
"because some of his work is intelligent citrus. On a purely aesthetic level, the Disney concert hall is easily one of the prettiest buildings ever made in my mind while Strata center has to be one of the ugliest."
This is exactly the problem; I respect what you're saying Apurimac but in all honesty if his work is functioning "on a purely aesthetic level" then it really isn't attempting any kind of complex or considered dialogue with any more meaningful issues. I personally think that this is the role of an intelligent contemporary architect, but instead Gehry is developing work that you either think is pretty or don't think is pretty. This is not intelligence it's taste, and that's why Gehry's work never inspires dialogue that is any more in depth than the discussion of a meal.
I personally don’t find the Disney concert hall an attractive piece of architecture, and you do. But instead of being able to put that aside and discuss Gehry’s intentions, the depth of experiences contained within the hall or the relationship the building takes in regards to contemporary culture, philosophy, politics or history, we’re left arguing whether it is pretty or not.
Gehry just doesn't write a bs book about his projects. There is just as much thought, if not substantially more.
I agree with most of the other posts. Bilbao and Disney are wonderful, some of the others not so much, but most of all I admire him for being a successful architect, successful businessman and successful entrepreneur.
When something is genuine, it come from it's core. Sure everyone is happy to get the exact picture of what they emagine, but that is an image, not something that will change how we percive the build works.
By core each and every of these structures, is not about what they promise, they looks as if, but no one can honestly look under the clotches, and state, that this is realy computed, -- something it ought to be from it's looks. Most of it is forcing the allready used materials into doing what they was not ment to do. There are no genuine influence from these structures, onto the build works of today. No new methods just sculpturing with what is allrady, no real newthinking but only forcing the materials into new forms, and that realy make very little sense in terms of innovation and cutting edge technologies. --- just becaurse you can bend a H beam into a form -- where are the innovative spirit in that ? Where are the massive influence on future building methods in covering a tradisional building, build in tradisional materials, with practic small enough sheets, so you can't prove a 3D unfolding of a huge panel.
--- Na if Bilbao had been huge panels not small ones , if there was a real new building system under the thin skin, and not seven layers of thinner and thinner rods and stringers, if each building was not in fact two but one whole, where the inner core and outher skin ,made sense, but no --- they are what is expected, only a picture of what one would expect it to look, --- and it do matter, how it is build, it do matter if it had impac, it do matter that so much nonsense are said, that one forget what this shuld be about.
How many buildings have you visited of his? In my experience, from the buildings I've seen, it is the experience of the spaces that make his architecture 'real'.
I'm not a fan of Gehry's aesthetic... but I love what he's been able to accomplish. Think about the life he leads. He's attained the peak of architectural success. He gets tons of interesting high-profile commissions all of the world (and flies first class to get there) and can build pretty much whatever he wants there. That's the type of success and freedom in this constraining profession that everyone but him (and maybe Rem or Zaha, almost) can only dream of. And I'm not talking satisfaction with success just for the sake of celebrity or attention or ego or whatever - but the freedom to pursue whatever design inclinations he has and the ability to carry those ambitions to built reality. Sure, a lot of young architects like me are more into sexy forms that the bulbous Gehry curves. Sure, a lot of academics talk shit about him because he doesn't write theories about his work. I don't think he really has much theory or intellectual rigor behind his work, but why does that really matter? If that stuff is not important to him, he's doing things is own way and being successful at it, that's pretty awesome. Not everyone is (or should be) an Eisenman or a Kipnis or a Somol. Yeah, the curvy metal stuff did get really old after a while. But some of the new class stuff
Before I get beat up, I am still an evolving architecture student, so I am still quite naive.
Frankly (no pun intended), Gehry is no more different than Corb, Kahn, Mies, Saarenin, and other architects who found a certain "formula" for their design concepts and stuck with it but editing the concept with each new piece of architecture they created. BUT the difference between Gehry and those gurus is that THOSE architects (OR ALMOST all of them), matured through their design, you see a a clear sense of change in their design, sometimes it becomes more subtle and clear or more complex, ultimately you can see how they are evolving. For Gehry though, his buildings, in my opinion are too powerful, theres too much going on for ME, others may love the fact that the interiors of his buildings are just as playful as his exterior, and this relates back to the point i was making about maturity, Compare Three of his buildings:
1)Weisman Art Museum
2)Guggenheim Museum Bilbao
3)Experience Music Project
I personally do not see a sense of change, BUT i may be completely wrong because I haven't physically visited any of those, I will see the Experience M.P. this summer though.
I give some credit to the guy though, he got a movie about himself.....
Another note, some architects can pull of their building also as a piece of sculpture, some can't, I think Gehry can't pull of both unless something goes wrong technically, or aesthetically, I am glad he tries to push the limits, but I think he tries to push them too far.
This is a great discussion, you wonderful 'necters. Thanks for starting it, curt clay.
I don't have a well-informed opinion of Gehry, I've only visited two of his projects: Toledo Art Museum and Millennium Park- oh, and a drive by of his house back in the 80s. The Toledo Museum was full of beautiful interior spaces, though they were more likely happenstance: they were more likely beautiful through mistake than intent. But that's OK, in a way - when a certain shaft of sunlight highlights my brick wall it is far more beautiful than I ever imagined it to be, is that bad?
That said, rationalist, I think your points are all valid and well-stated.
In any case, he deserves acclaim and respect simply for what he's managed to accomplish in this craphole of a profession, right? Love him or hate him, you have to know him - and I'm embarrassed that I don't really know his work better than I do.
EP "the babble - the dam babble has to stop. It doesnt actualy mean anything. Its words invented to go with other words like architectonic - just stop it"
"In any case, he deserves acclaim and respect simply for what he's managed to accomplish in this craphole of a profession, right? Love him or hate him, you have to know him - and I'm embarrassed that I don't really know his work better than I do."
This discussion reflect what is realy wrong -- it's the fame and glitter that is discussed, it's the person and the magazins, -- the heck with structure, if this aeroplane software realy happen anything or is pure bragging --- sure 20 year old aeroplane design software could be relevant in structural performing, but only if that software is atleast transformed into delivering the building compoments and structural basics, -- atleast the software shuld be revised for other porpus we do not live in aeroplanes, and construction has very little to do with the overall design aproach of that software.
Beside -- there are way further promising visions, in attemting computers and software of today's -- way more relevance in supporting design aproaches that offer today's architecture students some real solid grounds, and with the exposure these structures had , -- well as they didn't has any impac on develobing architecture principles, atleast they shuld have offered some solid ground accordiing future architecture idears and how to enhange today's fantastic digital options into real progress, but did they ?
I agrea I newer had the money to visit any of these structures, but I took every oppotunity to look into foto's and articles about the core construction and use of computing in the building process -- and that realy was a sad experience every time. --- There are so much fiddeling and patching , forcing outdated construction technikes to perform what shuld be undetaken by what shuld has profited by these iconic gesture ; but nothing realy went into further progressing, real innovation and in particular structural newthinking, it's like the the promises with these structures made a fake image of what innovation and newthinking would bring, and that particular area of architecture been brought to a dead stop, with all the mighty words about what had in fact no impac where it must have an impac to be genuine.
--- And that case, it's so much easier to talk about the man, the fame and the glitter, then we sort of forget what these pictures shuld have been about.
I agrea I newer visited any of these designs , -- but this discussion
sunsetsam - look back at Gehry's beginnings. I'd say he's come farther than most, as far as evolving/maturing. Bilbao was done around the same time as EMP, so it is no wonder they resemble each other.
For an architect that has been practicing for 50 years or so, you have to look at more than 10 years of his career.
I can't say I've liked much in recent years, but his great ones are amazing.
lb - that 'mistake' is part of his process. His model building process, or process of discovering through experiment, is really no different than someone like Mayne that goes through a modeling/sketching/model making process. They are all about random discovery.
Imho, it is the solution they come up with to make these 'random' solutions viable pieces of architecture that separates the wanna be blobs from real architecture.
I’m not a huge fan of most of Gehry’s work. But I don’t want to bash his style too much. Why? He doesn’t really try to explain his work by some high-minded archibable. At least that’s the sense that I get after seeing some interviews with him as well as that Sketches of Gehry documentary. Sure, his buildings are quite whimsical and flashy, but he pretty much admits this. While it is easy to find faults in his buildings, it is refreshing to hear Gehry’s honest and often humorous view of his own work. He seems convey the message that his buildings are the way they are because he wanted them to look that way – no more, no less.
It seems that many other starchitects design in the same whimsical manner as Gehry, but try to cover it up with philosophical ramblings on why their work is the way it is. They seem to use these ramblings to make up for the lack of deep thought that went into their design – or the practicality they sacrificed to make an attention grabbing building.
And yes, I know there are plenty of daring, attention grabbing designs that were designed in a very thoughtful and practical manner - just to be fair.
Who is the real inovator in the Frank Gehry works? The software designers who make the torqued shapes measurable? The shipyards where the compound curves are bent up like for a ship's hull? The surveyor ( like my uncle who did Milenium Park) who has to find the panel points and nodes to feed to the fabricators to make the disaster possible?
I like frank - he's a great personality and not afraid to take risks with design, but his designs are sort of awry from any reason other than style, which is ok for him and his client but i dont find it to be any lasting legacy other than the builders who allow it to happem. And really the ship builders had been torquing metal plates since WW1 with that same equipment that did Bilbao - so its sort of an adoption of very old technologis. I'd like to hear Per's opinions on even older methods of Ships' hull forming - for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame.
If Frank had used these technologies to make good, practicle art I think they would be concidered beatiful but instead they come out trendy.
"for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame."
Tou will be surprised how simple it work -- how much of those hull designs been decided by the materials. Many of these designs is simply what the wooden planks allow, what methods is avaible to lenghten planks -- panels -- and ontop please remember , that qith atleast the Viking ships, we also talk about a construction method that is very enginous and difficult to explain . --- but please don't think much is realy changed according to hands-on methods.
But to answer you how panels are shapen to cover a particular form, then it work more rigid than you would possible think -- a ships hull paneling, are assembled from "known geometrics", that's slices of cylinders ,cones and domes becaurse there are known methods to unfold these : with my concept in "Cyber-Boat" ,it worked different and I guess I was the first to offer real unfolding from real "organic" forms ,by computer software back then. --- Just check the various "Cyber-Boat" Yahoo groups , they carry a number of small boat designs, all modeled by the Cyber-Boat in house software, that worked by a number of 3D ribs -- as many as you need -- to define the outher limits of very complex 3D hull shapes, and after these been used to generate a 3D polymesh of the hull shape, to use for various calculations like stability curves asf., -- then the polymesh are divided into rows of longship panels, that is then unfolded flat, and the idea in Cyber-Boat was then, to use the plotted unfolded panels , to cut the shape of the planks -- panels -- that would build the boat hull.
Offcaurse a boat hull need ribs , but these was not needed for the special Viking Lapstrake technike -- yet the Ribs or frames, are easily generated as sections thru the polymesh forming the hull shape.
--- Just check Cyber-Boat to see a number of these designs in fact build, as documentation for the software.
Now that's where 3dh surfaced -- as a natural develobment ,after writing the unfolding applications to bring into AutoCAD these allmost 20 years or more ago , --3dh was made to replace the rigid frames , the frames that in boatsbuilding, allway's follow the front plane ,by an array of sections down the hull -- reson for that, is to follow the planes, to be able to do calculations, but that's another story , -- anyway 3dh wirked much better, as instead of "rings" of independant ribs or frames , all the frames now was supported by all the other frames, and then one of the biggest problems in boatsbuilding was solved, as now you could generate the intire framework, with a gurantie that the drawn shape would be exactly the build shape, and after putting the framework together, all you needed, was to fasten the unfolded panels, the unfolded panels, calculated from the same 3D model, that was used to generate the 3dh framework.
Need more answers ? --- just remember , this is still innovative thinking, the panels for ships is still today not unfolded by the intire form of the hull, but from the individual "known geometrics" , put together to form the hull shape ; there the Cyber-Boat concept was allready different, as there you unfolded the intire free-form polymesh , to get the panels. And still ribs or frames, are exactly the same ribs or frames, that was in the construction of the 17' century woodenships, -- those that was used as testbench, for develobing modern drafting technikes.
Listen -- a form like this, a form like anything you can model with a computer and a Solid modeler, can be used to generate the intire and exact framework to cover with unfolded panels from the same 3D drawing -- with 3dh.
Fiddle me another method that maneage that, -- offcaurse you can find skilled workers that can put together the same form with known and tradisional means -- offcaurse you can , it is not the designer who build the binocular or the boat or the house -- but still 3dh is the only method that take advanteage of the full digital potentials, by making the frames in one material only, by doing it with NC cutters, by allowing any student to use his Solid modeler, and by offering a method that is a paragime shift in structural thinking.
Sorry but this thing happen every time, --- I want to answer the next thing you said evilcalypso ;
"- for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame."
If Frank had used these technologies to make good, practicle art I think they would be concidered beatiful but instead they come out trendy."
Well if he had followed my lead, he would first had learned to build a boat -- and then wondered if structure isn't the most important issue of all ; as if you can build the structure, the frames , and profit from the digital options, then you invented a new architecture.
But the proud crafts of eco friendly Vikings is not he future evil xxx , not at all. But sheet materials made from any eco material or any cheap stuff are, esp. if that sheet material, can form a strong basic structure for anything from boat hulls to aeroplane fuselages to building structures.
So I still claim Frank went wrong, and forgot that innovation has to have a solid and innovative core --- one that is generated from the designs the architecture students, can model with a Solid modeler.
You see. any structure need a framework, the framework are the basic to form the cube structure , the cube structure that is the real strength element, the panel-rib-stringer concept , the Box structure -- any construction a particular size need that, and is not made as a shell, not even your brick houses.
What I blame that sort of architecture is, that instead of using it to develob a new paragime in construction, in perciving the build works -- then it became just a painting of what one would expect of a new architecture. And the real important thing, -- how to efficiently use the computer and the 3D technologies in that process, was simply forgotten , or atleast not used.
But I guess that to realise that, you has to build a boat.
fine fine... gehry is great................ at making shit look shiny...
the hate will stop when the crap-production stops and someone fixes the leaks in the MIT dorm building..
it's not our fault that he doesn't understand what conceptual architecture is..
it seems to me that many people aren't capable of putting their fingers on the things that intrigue them about buildings.
Its a very difficult thing to describe.
That being said, there are rational means of judging a building. The points rationalist described are spot on, and things i agree with. There are however other ways to judge a building.
The Stata center is constantly knocked for its poor construction. And yes, Ghery is often labeled as a man who doesn't seem to bother himself with connections and details.
These are legitimate things to criticize, but i found myself very much impressed by many parts of the stata center.
I found it a dynamic experience, constantly evolving and changing, no two views the same. I found the vivid yellows and reds of the central masses added enough of an 'institutional' message that it didnt strike me as a 'silly' building (as i had thought it might be judging from pictures).
The millenium park band shell is beautiful. It works amazingly as a sculptural object and it is always tops on the list of things i show off to visitors. Though technically it is not a building... it seems to have been excepted as sculpture and so generally adored.
Now... Old school Ghery... the art museum on the Univ. of Minn. campus.
Dreadful... just a really, really bad building. Horribly detailing... actually, no detailing... it feels like a 1st year studio model. it hasn't held up well, its un-flatering as an exhibition space, its dark, its random... its just bad... what a waste of an amazing site...
"It seems to me that many people aren't capable of putting their fingers on the things that intrigue them about buildings.
Its a very difficult thing to describe."
Sorry english is not my prime language , as I tried and tried, to not just point, but to lift the clotches to show what you also describe, later in your post.
But what we are dealing with, is something that act as cutting edge and extravagant structural aproaches ; and when examined, it prove no structure idea at all,
Sorry but I feel like my messeage havn't come thru -- I critic these structures for robbing the obvious progress that would come, case they was genuine, if they realy was ejected from the inside, by new innovative thinking about what's carrying it all the structure.
I tried prove how these are more or less just paintings of what we would expect of new advanced methods, taking advanteage of the computer -- but all it is , seem to be fiddled together to create a foundation for spetacular surfaces --- is that profiting architecture, do that learn our students how to use the computer in a creative manner , or is it a generation of architects, who can't allow a new generation prove their skills or change architecture in way's we can't even emagine -- so long as we stay with an outdated aproach towerds the build works.
ep - Randy Jefferson, his engineer and partner, will explain how Gehry is an integral part to the process. I had the pleasure of having a class with RJ in grad school and was quite impressed with the depth of the process.
Unlike other blobbers, that just hand off the design to some other firm to figure out the 'real' structural implications, Gehry has integrated it into his practice.
I just don't think he gets enough credit for the technological sophistication (Per, please stay away from this!!) in the arch community.
I think it is like looking at a good CEO. Take Steve Jobs for example, for an extreme comparison. Would there be an iPhone, iPod, etc., without him? Would Apple be anything? Most likely not, but he didn't design or build the pieces - BUT he made them happen.
That is something that is essential. The best ideas in the world mean nothing if they can't be implemented.
Trace I know I am a bit old-fasion in my aproach to the architects role in this, -- but realy I belive that many of the "troubles" with many of thes buildings come from the architect not having a clue about the structural details. --- Case you has the drive to force architecture into performing a form language that reflect a paragime shift, your start point must be the structure, not how it will look.
Old fasion in the sense, that I belive no paragime shift -- a real one not just one that looks as one -- come from the feel of the structure, come from knownig the structure and it's mechanics thruout and in detail.
--- And a paragime shift will not come as long as architecture continue as today, not before architecture students can use the Solid modeling and simple structural generating software, to gurantie the structural integrety of their designs.
Today where responsibility for the intire structural issues are the engineers, the architect has no other tools, than to have the responsability for the skin design, the structures aproach and visual impac --- that I belive is not enough amd I also belive it is a dead-end, as all inspiration are limited to the looks where the real change come from within, and within is the structure.
Offcaurse there are troubles, when the craftsmen has to translate their rigid methods of today's , to perform any odd form ; that will create the weak spots and leaks, that would newer occour, case the structural system worked smooth with the design process.
Just tell me what shuld be wrong , using a Solid modeler to design and use the computer to the limits, model the intire house as a scale model of the real, and then ask a program to use that model to calculate a reliable set of building compoments to build in full scale, build with a better structure put together by a clever program in such a way, that one simple NC cutter can manufactor all pieces numbered.
Isn't that more visionary, than throwing a sketch and rely that the skilled craftsmen will put it together , by the means and methods they learned a decade ago way before anyone could spell the words Direct link production.
Has we to stay with the methods of today forever ?
I know I sound old fasion, but I realy would like to see an architect who know what it say in the computer code, who can build a brick wall, who can teach the craftsman how to, who solve the problems with newthinking. --- But it don't work that way any more , and that only prove the dekadent attitude towerds the build works ; that the architect don't even know how the computer, his tools, work. That the architect know so little about how the craftsman will make the design come thru, that he can nor foresee the problems doing it the wrong way's.
--- That's what come when architecture turn into a social matter, a question about taste and fasion. When words like cutting edge and innovation get misused only to sell an image of how we expect it to look.
You Romans asked for it !
The Gehry hate has to stop...
... or at least become more constructive.
"This sucks"
"Fuck Gehry"
"this is garbage"
"uuggggghhh"
"first year undergrad"
These are not the type of comments that any educated architecture professional should allow to come out of their mouths without being followed by a proper critical, theoretical, programmatic, aesthetic or practical based criticism.
This is the level of discussion required to dismiss a piece of architecture? If so, then what makes your criticism any different than any other random joe schmoe off the street? If we can't hold each other to a higher standard when it comes to discussing the work of our peers then how could we possibly expect a non-architect to spend an iota of time understanding something you've worked on?
Working to improve the "value" of the profession is a collective undertaking and it must start from within.
awww boo hoo... poor widdle fwank gets no love... =(
this is a joke, right?
i'm pretty sure most of those are first reactions, one line statements stating a quick initial impression...which anyone is welcome to make.
there are thousands of people on this site, using it to gain different degrees of information and discuss topics to various lengths. you may pass whatever judgment you want in whatever depth you want.
no one needs to back up their statements, this is not a design crit. perhaps the people who work at gehrys office can become more constructive so we don't have to even be brought to the point of saying those things...you're acting like frank himself is gonna sit around reading our reactions and then adjust his project taking our comments into careful consideration.
if you want to continue the argument about this why not stick to the news thread instead of posting it here.
AND if you have a problem with our standards, whats your constructive criticism...start this thread off right so we can have a proper discussion.
This just like libeskind hate except worse because Ghery has actively pushed the limits of technology and form that opens up whole new avenues to us as architects.
I do not like his Serpentine Pavillion
I do not like Atlantic Yards
I do not like Stata Center
I do like Bilbao
I do like Disney
Say what you want about Ghery, but every once in awhile he cranks out a really nice building, maybe even excellent and in doing so he pushes the limits of what is possible. His buildings are often like supercars, superficial and difficult to live with but like a supercar they push the limit of technology so that 40 years from now when you have to design an boring office tower in suburban houston you'll have a toolset at your fingertips that could give you greater degrees of freedom that came out of the technologies and technique pioneered in ghery's buildings.
You know - in school the professor crits were usualy one line shocking statements followed by babble. i much appriciated the negative statement at least its honest, but the babble - the dam babble has to stop. It doesnt actualy mean anything. Its words invented to go with other words like architectonic - just stop it -
enjoy the silence
i do not like the emp. goes double for vulcan/paul allen
That’s all fine Apurimac, but doesn't the potential of architecture (and especially the potential of an architect like Gehry who has so few limitations on his creativity) lie somewhere far beyond simply "pushing the limits of technology"?
Why should Gehry get an intelligent response to his work if he's not providing intelligent work?
"... or at least become more constructive."
And that is exactly what I been trying, -- if you even care to listen !
I don't say those cliche's but point to the fact, that these buildings seem like the painting of said technologies, rather than reflect those cutting edge structural issues in real.
Just bragging about using outdated aeroplane construction software, from the day's where 2D was 2D was 2D , and 2D was the 2D standard of 2D drawings for 2D aeroplane design paper plans ,for heaven sake -- can't you see thru the fog ?
Look under the thin skin , ask if any software was used for that heap of fiddled stringers, or if it was skilled metal workers who wouldn't care if the drawings was upside down. Gee -- in Disney new concert hall, there was intire walls that was forgotten in the plans ; but that did not matter, the metal workers could on the fly, just fill out the missing picture with standard fittings and short pieces.
Another place, they spended a farm bending and twisting Huge steel profiles like they was timbers, and that was the only way to eject a curvy shape , ( ---what a paragime shift--- ) -- as if with cutting edge technologis, when making a curve , all you do is to do it as if you was steam bending for timber ships building --- Gee can't you see it, then look for heaven sake, and dare ask the nessery questions, as this is not advanced technology, only a picture of how you would think it would look !
Then when you done that, think about how much more enginous it would work with 3dh. --- except, then it would only cost a third, and be genuine.
because some of his work is intelligent citrus. On a purely aesthetic level, the Disney concert hall is easily one of the prettiest buildings ever made in my mind while Stata center has to be one of the ugliest.
ok, how about this? I do not like Gehry because....
*his buildings are poorly detailed. Yes, I said it. The 1" gaps between where the panels of the Disney Concert Hall "meet," where you can clearly see waterproofing and all other kinds of ugly shite, are not acceptable. Severe leakage is not acceptable (slight leakage I would call OK, it could happen to anyone). Buildings that produce so much glare as to create hot spots on the sidewalk and drive up the cooling costs of nearby buildings are not OK. If they're not even OK, they obviously aren't great.
*he creates a grand entrance at the expense of the rest of the building. Wanting people to enter from a certain direction, or wanting to give a corner some extra preference is great. But intentionally making all the rest of the street-level experience crap to make your entrance seem grander? That's just lame, like producing bad work at the beginning of the quarter so that your instructors will think that you've improved soooo much. These are both freshman-year-of-college tricks, and not worthy of someone at the top of the heap.
*His interiors have too little to do with his exteriors. I once saw an exhibit on Gehry at MOCA LA, and it showed the contrast perfectly: in one room there was a wonderfully large series of molded fiberglass panels hung from the ceiling which were reminiscent of the exterior panelling of Disney and Bilbao. They curved, they swooped, they created really interesting spaces. Then in another room were models for the New York Times building: these were a series of boxes, with curvy forms draped over the boxes. Unfortunately too much of his work is like the NYT building, and too little of it is like the fiberglass installation. Right now he is using the bulk of his energy, thoughtfulness, technology, and the client's resources, to create cladding, instead of to create spaces. I feel like this makes his work very superficial, when it could have so much more depth.
"If so, then what makes your criticism any different than any other random joe schmoe off the street?"
The only random schmoe here, is that arogant exersise of making what shuld be a structural matter, into what this realy is, a social issue.
Caurse most of these tinhats is nothing but a tradisional building with a metal roof, --- is that realy advanced building yechnology , or is it making a picture of how you would expect advanced structural enginering would be ?
So if an architect in fact hold back real experimenting into innovative new methods, into newthinking the structural core of a building structure, by only delivering a painting of the future -- wouldn't you schmoe that calling it what it realy is ?
didnt gehry make the 'fuck gehry' shirts?
Excellent points rationalist, I've yet to see the DCH in person so my verdict is hardly final. Looks good in the magazines though.
"because some of his work is intelligent citrus. On a purely aesthetic level, the Disney concert hall is easily one of the prettiest buildings ever made in my mind while Strata center has to be one of the ugliest."
This is exactly the problem; I respect what you're saying Apurimac but in all honesty if his work is functioning "on a purely aesthetic level" then it really isn't attempting any kind of complex or considered dialogue with any more meaningful issues. I personally think that this is the role of an intelligent contemporary architect, but instead Gehry is developing work that you either think is pretty or don't think is pretty. This is not intelligence it's taste, and that's why Gehry's work never inspires dialogue that is any more in depth than the discussion of a meal.
I personally don’t find the Disney concert hall an attractive piece of architecture, and you do. But instead of being able to put that aside and discuss Gehry’s intentions, the depth of experiences contained within the hall or the relationship the building takes in regards to contemporary culture, philosophy, politics or history, we’re left arguing whether it is pretty or not.
gehry is the most influential architect of the past 100yrs...
architecture is not about taste?! Damn
Gehry just doesn't write a bs book about his projects. There is just as much thought, if not substantially more.
I agree with most of the other posts. Bilbao and Disney are wonderful, some of the others not so much, but most of all I admire him for being a successful architect, successful businessman and successful entrepreneur.
Say whatever you want about him, his shit gets built and that is impressive in its own right.
That's the long and the short of it, in my opinion. It looks good in the magazines, but doesn't manage to go any further, and that is disappointing.
When something is genuine, it come from it's core. Sure everyone is happy to get the exact picture of what they emagine, but that is an image, not something that will change how we percive the build works.
By core each and every of these structures, is not about what they promise, they looks as if, but no one can honestly look under the clotches, and state, that this is realy computed, -- something it ought to be from it's looks. Most of it is forcing the allready used materials into doing what they was not ment to do. There are no genuine influence from these structures, onto the build works of today. No new methods just sculpturing with what is allrady, no real newthinking but only forcing the materials into new forms, and that realy make very little sense in terms of innovation and cutting edge technologies. --- just becaurse you can bend a H beam into a form -- where are the innovative spirit in that ? Where are the massive influence on future building methods in covering a tradisional building, build in tradisional materials, with practic small enough sheets, so you can't prove a 3D unfolding of a huge panel.
--- Na if Bilbao had been huge panels not small ones , if there was a real new building system under the thin skin, and not seven layers of thinner and thinner rods and stringers, if each building was not in fact two but one whole, where the inner core and outher skin ,made sense, but no --- they are what is expected, only a picture of what one would expect it to look, --- and it do matter, how it is build, it do matter if it had impac, it do matter that so much nonsense are said, that one forget what this shuld be about.
How many buildings have you visited of his? In my experience, from the buildings I've seen, it is the experience of the spaces that make his architecture 'real'.
inside = doesn't attempt anything truely special
outside = some insane stuff doesn't relate to anything (pretty or not)
and i agree with rationalist, totally uninspiring in the details.
the building needs to function on all levels (urban planning, greater form, interior sequence...as well as how it is put together).
his projects to ignore a few of those things all too often...in my opinion.
I'm not a fan of Gehry's aesthetic... but I love what he's been able to accomplish. Think about the life he leads. He's attained the peak of architectural success. He gets tons of interesting high-profile commissions all of the world (and flies first class to get there) and can build pretty much whatever he wants there. That's the type of success and freedom in this constraining profession that everyone but him (and maybe Rem or Zaha, almost) can only dream of. And I'm not talking satisfaction with success just for the sake of celebrity or attention or ego or whatever - but the freedom to pursue whatever design inclinations he has and the ability to carry those ambitions to built reality. Sure, a lot of young architects like me are more into sexy forms that the bulbous Gehry curves. Sure, a lot of academics talk shit about him because he doesn't write theories about his work. I don't think he really has much theory or intellectual rigor behind his work, but why does that really matter? If that stuff is not important to him, he's doing things is own way and being successful at it, that's pretty awesome. Not everyone is (or should be) an Eisenman or a Kipnis or a Somol. Yeah, the curvy metal stuff did get really old after a while. But some of the new class stuff
Er, new glass stuff is pretty cool. Like the Novartis pavilion.
Before I get beat up, I am still an evolving architecture student, so I am still quite naive.
Frankly (no pun intended), Gehry is no more different than Corb, Kahn, Mies, Saarenin, and other architects who found a certain "formula" for their design concepts and stuck with it but editing the concept with each new piece of architecture they created. BUT the difference between Gehry and those gurus is that THOSE architects (OR ALMOST all of them), matured through their design, you see a a clear sense of change in their design, sometimes it becomes more subtle and clear or more complex, ultimately you can see how they are evolving. For Gehry though, his buildings, in my opinion are too powerful, theres too much going on for ME, others may love the fact that the interiors of his buildings are just as playful as his exterior, and this relates back to the point i was making about maturity, Compare Three of his buildings:
1)Weisman Art Museum
2)Guggenheim Museum Bilbao
3)Experience Music Project
I personally do not see a sense of change, BUT i may be completely wrong because I haven't physically visited any of those, I will see the Experience M.P. this summer though.
I give some credit to the guy though, he got a movie about himself.....
Another note, some architects can pull of their building also as a piece of sculpture, some can't, I think Gehry can't pull of both unless something goes wrong technically, or aesthetically, I am glad he tries to push the limits, but I think he tries to push them too far.
i didn't know gehry sucks until i came to this forum. thanks!
This is a great discussion, you wonderful 'necters. Thanks for starting it, curt clay.
I don't have a well-informed opinion of Gehry, I've only visited two of his projects: Toledo Art Museum and Millennium Park- oh, and a drive by of his house back in the 80s. The Toledo Museum was full of beautiful interior spaces, though they were more likely happenstance: they were more likely beautiful through mistake than intent. But that's OK, in a way - when a certain shaft of sunlight highlights my brick wall it is far more beautiful than I ever imagined it to be, is that bad?
That said, rationalist, I think your points are all valid and well-stated.
In any case, he deserves acclaim and respect simply for what he's managed to accomplish in this craphole of a profession, right? Love him or hate him, you have to know him - and I'm embarrassed that I don't really know his work better than I do.
some ppl like to bitch on minor issues but forgotten the overall impact...
like someone bitch on beyonce finger nails colour but not aware that she is soooooooooooooooo god damn hot!
EP "the babble - the dam babble has to stop. It doesnt actualy mean anything. Its words invented to go with other words like architectonic - just stop it"
those damn obfuscationists... ;-)
"In any case, he deserves acclaim and respect simply for what he's managed to accomplish in this craphole of a profession, right? Love him or hate him, you have to know him - and I'm embarrassed that I don't really know his work better than I do."
This discussion reflect what is realy wrong -- it's the fame and glitter that is discussed, it's the person and the magazins, -- the heck with structure, if this aeroplane software realy happen anything or is pure bragging --- sure 20 year old aeroplane design software could be relevant in structural performing, but only if that software is atleast transformed into delivering the building compoments and structural basics, -- atleast the software shuld be revised for other porpus we do not live in aeroplanes, and construction has very little to do with the overall design aproach of that software.
Beside -- there are way further promising visions, in attemting computers and software of today's -- way more relevance in supporting design aproaches that offer today's architecture students some real solid grounds, and with the exposure these structures had , -- well as they didn't has any impac on develobing architecture principles, atleast they shuld have offered some solid ground accordiing future architecture idears and how to enhange today's fantastic digital options into real progress, but did they ?
I agrea I newer had the money to visit any of these structures, but I took every oppotunity to look into foto's and articles about the core construction and use of computing in the building process -- and that realy was a sad experience every time. --- There are so much fiddeling and patching , forcing outdated construction technikes to perform what shuld be undetaken by what shuld has profited by these iconic gesture ; but nothing realy went into further progressing, real innovation and in particular structural newthinking, it's like the the promises with these structures made a fake image of what innovation and newthinking would bring, and that particular area of architecture been brought to a dead stop, with all the mighty words about what had in fact no impac where it must have an impac to be genuine.
--- And that case, it's so much easier to talk about the man, the fame and the glitter, then we sort of forget what these pictures shuld have been about.
I agrea I newer visited any of these designs , -- but this discussion
tell that in today's architecture it's not innovation and newthinking that take the price.
sunsetsam - look back at Gehry's beginnings. I'd say he's come farther than most, as far as evolving/maturing. Bilbao was done around the same time as EMP, so it is no wonder they resemble each other.
For an architect that has been practicing for 50 years or so, you have to look at more than 10 years of his career.
I can't say I've liked much in recent years, but his great ones are amazing.
lb - that 'mistake' is part of his process. His model building process, or process of discovering through experiment, is really no different than someone like Mayne that goes through a modeling/sketching/model making process. They are all about random discovery.
Imho, it is the solution they come up with to make these 'random' solutions viable pieces of architecture that separates the wanna be blobs from real architecture.
I’m not a huge fan of most of Gehry’s work. But I don’t want to bash his style too much. Why? He doesn’t really try to explain his work by some high-minded archibable. At least that’s the sense that I get after seeing some interviews with him as well as that Sketches of Gehry documentary. Sure, his buildings are quite whimsical and flashy, but he pretty much admits this. While it is easy to find faults in his buildings, it is refreshing to hear Gehry’s honest and often humorous view of his own work. He seems convey the message that his buildings are the way they are because he wanted them to look that way – no more, no less.
It seems that many other starchitects design in the same whimsical manner as Gehry, but try to cover it up with philosophical ramblings on why their work is the way it is. They seem to use these ramblings to make up for the lack of deep thought that went into their design – or the practicality they sacrificed to make an attention grabbing building.
And yes, I know there are plenty of daring, attention grabbing designs that were designed in a very thoughtful and practical manner - just to be fair.
PerCorell, nobody is talking about the man, the fame, the glitter.
The man, the fame, and the glitter are all a direct result of the architecture, not something we admire instead of the architecture.
Who is the real inovator in the Frank Gehry works? The software designers who make the torqued shapes measurable? The shipyards where the compound curves are bent up like for a ship's hull? The surveyor ( like my uncle who did Milenium Park) who has to find the panel points and nodes to feed to the fabricators to make the disaster possible?
I like frank - he's a great personality and not afraid to take risks with design, but his designs are sort of awry from any reason other than style, which is ok for him and his client but i dont find it to be any lasting legacy other than the builders who allow it to happem. And really the ship builders had been torquing metal plates since WW1 with that same equipment that did Bilbao - so its sort of an adoption of very old technologis. I'd like to hear Per's opinions on even older methods of Ships' hull forming - for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame.
If Frank had used these technologies to make good, practicle art I think they would be concidered beatiful but instead they come out trendy.
"Lately i've been thinking about fish."
I respect Frank and his creations.
At least they're looking.
Do you mean looking like...?
"for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame."
Tou will be surprised how simple it work -- how much of those hull designs been decided by the materials. Many of these designs is simply what the wooden planks allow, what methods is avaible to lenghten planks -- panels -- and ontop please remember , that qith atleast the Viking ships, we also talk about a construction method that is very enginous and difficult to explain . --- but please don't think much is realy changed according to hands-on methods.
But to answer you how panels are shapen to cover a particular form, then it work more rigid than you would possible think -- a ships hull paneling, are assembled from "known geometrics", that's slices of cylinders ,cones and domes becaurse there are known methods to unfold these : with my concept in "Cyber-Boat" ,it worked different and I guess I was the first to offer real unfolding from real "organic" forms ,by computer software back then. --- Just check the various "Cyber-Boat" Yahoo groups , they carry a number of small boat designs, all modeled by the Cyber-Boat in house software, that worked by a number of 3D ribs -- as many as you need -- to define the outher limits of very complex 3D hull shapes, and after these been used to generate a 3D polymesh of the hull shape, to use for various calculations like stability curves asf., -- then the polymesh are divided into rows of longship panels, that is then unfolded flat, and the idea in Cyber-Boat was then, to use the plotted unfolded panels , to cut the shape of the planks -- panels -- that would build the boat hull.
Offcaurse a boat hull need ribs , but these was not needed for the special Viking Lapstrake technike -- yet the Ribs or frames, are easily generated as sections thru the polymesh forming the hull shape.
--- Just check Cyber-Boat to see a number of these designs in fact build, as documentation for the software.
Now that's where 3dh surfaced -- as a natural develobment ,after writing the unfolding applications to bring into AutoCAD these allmost 20 years or more ago , --3dh was made to replace the rigid frames , the frames that in boatsbuilding, allway's follow the front plane ,by an array of sections down the hull -- reson for that, is to follow the planes, to be able to do calculations, but that's another story , -- anyway 3dh wirked much better, as instead of "rings" of independant ribs or frames , all the frames now was supported by all the other frames, and then one of the biggest problems in boatsbuilding was solved, as now you could generate the intire framework, with a gurantie that the drawn shape would be exactly the build shape, and after putting the framework together, all you needed, was to fasten the unfolded panels, the unfolded panels, calculated from the same 3D model, that was used to generate the 3dh framework.
Need more answers ? --- just remember , this is still innovative thinking, the panels for ships is still today not unfolded by the intire form of the hull, but from the individual "known geometrics" , put together to form the hull shape ; there the Cyber-Boat concept was allready different, as there you unfolded the intire free-form polymesh , to get the panels. And still ribs or frames, are exactly the same ribs or frames, that was in the construction of the 17' century woodenships, -- those that was used as testbench, for develobing modern drafting technikes.
Listen -- a form like this, a form like anything you can model with a computer and a Solid modeler, can be used to generate the intire and exact framework to cover with unfolded panels from the same 3D drawing -- with 3dh.
Fiddle me another method that maneage that, -- offcaurse you can find skilled workers that can put together the same form with known and tradisional means -- offcaurse you can , it is not the designer who build the binocular or the boat or the house -- but still 3dh is the only method that take advanteage of the full digital potentials, by making the frames in one material only, by doing it with NC cutters, by allowing any student to use his Solid modeler, and by offering a method that is a paragime shift in structural thinking.
Sorry but this thing happen every time, --- I want to answer the next thing you said evilcalypso ;
"- for example the Vikings actualy went into the forest to find trees with branches curved to their specification so the strands where natururly strong in compression - then they laped them together into a bent plate - like form, no frame."
If Frank had used these technologies to make good, practicle art I think they would be concidered beatiful but instead they come out trendy."
Well if he had followed my lead, he would first had learned to build a boat -- and then wondered if structure isn't the most important issue of all ; as if you can build the structure, the frames , and profit from the digital options, then you invented a new architecture.
But the proud crafts of eco friendly Vikings is not he future evil xxx , not at all. But sheet materials made from any eco material or any cheap stuff are, esp. if that sheet material, can form a strong basic structure for anything from boat hulls to aeroplane fuselages to building structures.
So I still claim Frank went wrong, and forgot that innovation has to have a solid and innovative core --- one that is generated from the designs the architecture students, can model with a Solid modeler.
You see. any structure need a framework, the framework are the basic to form the cube structure , the cube structure that is the real strength element, the panel-rib-stringer concept , the Box structure -- any construction a particular size need that, and is not made as a shell, not even your brick houses.
What I blame that sort of architecture is, that instead of using it to develob a new paragime in construction, in perciving the build works -- then it became just a painting of what one would expect of a new architecture. And the real important thing, -- how to efficiently use the computer and the 3D technologies in that process, was simply forgotten , or atleast not used.
But I guess that to realise that, you has to build a boat.
HAhahahhaha...
fine fine... gehry is great................ at making shit look shiny...
the hate will stop when the crap-production stops and someone fixes the leaks in the MIT dorm building..
it's not our fault that he doesn't understand what conceptual architecture is..
it seems to me that many people aren't capable of putting their fingers on the things that intrigue them about buildings.
Its a very difficult thing to describe.
That being said, there are rational means of judging a building. The points rationalist described are spot on, and things i agree with. There are however other ways to judge a building.
The Stata center is constantly knocked for its poor construction. And yes, Ghery is often labeled as a man who doesn't seem to bother himself with connections and details.
These are legitimate things to criticize, but i found myself very much impressed by many parts of the stata center.
I found it a dynamic experience, constantly evolving and changing, no two views the same. I found the vivid yellows and reds of the central masses added enough of an 'institutional' message that it didnt strike me as a 'silly' building (as i had thought it might be judging from pictures).
The millenium park band shell is beautiful. It works amazingly as a sculptural object and it is always tops on the list of things i show off to visitors. Though technically it is not a building... it seems to have been excepted as sculpture and so generally adored.
Now... Old school Ghery... the art museum on the Univ. of Minn. campus.
Dreadful... just a really, really bad building. Horribly detailing... actually, no detailing... it feels like a 1st year studio model. it hasn't held up well, its un-flatering as an exhibition space, its dark, its random... its just bad... what a waste of an amazing site...
"It seems to me that many people aren't capable of putting their fingers on the things that intrigue them about buildings.
Its a very difficult thing to describe."
Sorry english is not my prime language , as I tried and tried, to not just point, but to lift the clotches to show what you also describe, later in your post.
But what we are dealing with, is something that act as cutting edge and extravagant structural aproaches ; and when examined, it prove no structure idea at all,
Sorry but I feel like my messeage havn't come thru -- I critic these structures for robbing the obvious progress that would come, case they was genuine, if they realy was ejected from the inside, by new innovative thinking about what's carrying it all the structure.
I tried prove how these are more or less just paintings of what we would expect of new advanced methods, taking advanteage of the computer -- but all it is , seem to be fiddled together to create a foundation for spetacular surfaces --- is that profiting architecture, do that learn our students how to use the computer in a creative manner , or is it a generation of architects, who can't allow a new generation prove their skills or change architecture in way's we can't even emagine -- so long as we stay with an outdated aproach towerds the build works.
ep - Randy Jefferson, his engineer and partner, will explain how Gehry is an integral part to the process. I had the pleasure of having a class with RJ in grad school and was quite impressed with the depth of the process.
Unlike other blobbers, that just hand off the design to some other firm to figure out the 'real' structural implications, Gehry has integrated it into his practice.
I just don't think he gets enough credit for the technological sophistication (Per, please stay away from this!!) in the arch community.
I think it is like looking at a good CEO. Take Steve Jobs for example, for an extreme comparison. Would there be an iPhone, iPod, etc., without him? Would Apple be anything? Most likely not, but he didn't design or build the pieces - BUT he made them happen.
That is something that is essential. The best ideas in the world mean nothing if they can't be implemented.
That Philippe Starck style garden gnome stool: I want one in the image of Gehry, and a big tall one of Rem.
Trace I know I am a bit old-fasion in my aproach to the architects role in this, -- but realy I belive that many of the "troubles" with many of thes buildings come from the architect not having a clue about the structural details. --- Case you has the drive to force architecture into performing a form language that reflect a paragime shift, your start point must be the structure, not how it will look.
Old fasion in the sense, that I belive no paragime shift -- a real one not just one that looks as one -- come from the feel of the structure, come from knownig the structure and it's mechanics thruout and in detail.
--- And a paragime shift will not come as long as architecture continue as today, not before architecture students can use the Solid modeling and simple structural generating software, to gurantie the structural integrety of their designs.
Today where responsibility for the intire structural issues are the engineers, the architect has no other tools, than to have the responsability for the skin design, the structures aproach and visual impac --- that I belive is not enough amd I also belive it is a dead-end, as all inspiration are limited to the looks where the real change come from within, and within is the structure.
Offcaurse there are troubles, when the craftsmen has to translate their rigid methods of today's , to perform any odd form ; that will create the weak spots and leaks, that would newer occour, case the structural system worked smooth with the design process.
Just tell me what shuld be wrong , using a Solid modeler to design and use the computer to the limits, model the intire house as a scale model of the real, and then ask a program to use that model to calculate a reliable set of building compoments to build in full scale, build with a better structure put together by a clever program in such a way, that one simple NC cutter can manufactor all pieces numbered.
Isn't that more visionary, than throwing a sketch and rely that the skilled craftsmen will put it together , by the means and methods they learned a decade ago way before anyone could spell the words Direct link production.
Has we to stay with the methods of today forever ?
I know I sound old fasion, but I realy would like to see an architect who know what it say in the computer code, who can build a brick wall, who can teach the craftsman how to, who solve the problems with newthinking. --- But it don't work that way any more , and that only prove the dekadent attitude towerds the build works ; that the architect don't even know how the computer, his tools, work. That the architect know so little about how the craftsman will make the design come thru, that he can nor foresee the problems doing it the wrong way's.
--- That's what come when architecture turn into a social matter, a question about taste and fasion. When words like cutting edge and innovation get misused only to sell an image of how we expect it to look.
You Romans asked for it !
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.