this approach is kind of out of control, imo. mvrdv, big, others all doing the same (some better than others). some of it has reached endgame, maybe like the ones on geoff manaugh's website this week.
it looks almost identical to h&dem's leonard st building, its the same formal typology. because the h&dem building is a "skyscraper" with a small footprint, the core becomes almost entirely necessarily functional. MVRDV's project is more spread from the core, allowing a potential for a dynamic interior space, as opposed to just the exterior. i'm VERY curious for the sections of this building
i usually appreciate mvrdv's work, but, cmon, no need to be defensive, this thing does not want to be there, its even a little awkward in its formal composition,, to be honest, i like it as an object, even its awkwardness, but not as architecture,,
"remind me how to make a skyscraper in a low rise area",, why do u want to do that to begin with?? im also not saying keep it suburban and flat,, it is a complex issue
an architecture firm is approached by a client who wants to build a building. it is a high (relatively speaking) building in a low area. the architect pauses, thinks about how by putting in a high building into the low area it would automatically stick out, and declines the offer.
that does not happen.
its "awkward". that just means its something you're not entirely comfortable with. by taking it out of its context it makes you more comfortable with it, because maybe you cant imagine it ever becoming real.
to me, the main reason why i like it is for the simple fact that i CAN imagine it becoming real.
in the end it simply boils down to personal aesthetic taste, so i'm not trying to argue with you at all, im just expressing my beliefs (<3 this building and this trope of building that is seeing a rise in todays architecture)
and sorry, as an addendum (i wish there was an edit button), the fact that it is a contrast of scale, large building in a small environment, only makes it stand out as an object even more. making it a _real_ "object"
its the issue of figure:ground, where the object is the boundary between the two. the :
many of you have commented about the "sameness" of this to others in the field, but has anyone formalized "this", whatever "this" is, into a typology for all to rally around or reject?
curt: doesnt the fact that many people are designing, proposing, and attempting to build make it a "typology"? i actually wouldnt call it a typology, as a typology refers to program (maybe this is the "mixed use" typology, but who knows only time will tell). this design theology is a "trope". a trope that has yet to be proven socially. i cant wait for it to begin
alucidwake, i agree with u, its all personal taste, and i do like it as an object, but not as architecture,,
on the other hand, i am also waiting to see how this "trope" will be judged when its all said and done,, it could work,,, but, there is the possibility of it becoming background information that noone talks about anymore, like the million random facade patterns for low rise residential buildings being designed all over the world.. i like them,, and i like some of them ALOT,, but honestly,, ive stopped trying to "theorize" them.. it seems to me its just a reaction, or maybe an application of our ability to do it
I think if this turns out to be a flexible building that can change over time and accommodate different occupants it could be quite a good piece of architecture. At the moment the way apartments are built you have to change yourself to be able to live in one and there are too many compromises to be made. Since the spaces and structure of a modern apartment building are badly laid out they become difficult and expensive to renovate or expand, perhaps a more modular space would be more beneficial. If something like this isn't built, then how would we know it works?
i love when people see/post a rendering and they state "this or that already did this"... funny the idea some people have about what is architecture....
was Philip Johnson who said "I dont pretend my drawings to be buildings or my buildings to look like drawings" ??? cant remember, but love the quote
"Let's say "market demand" means they're gonna tack a few extra apartments on--so some current tenant gets screwed out of having exterior windows and they lose their terrace? Or do they just keep adding them to the top, like Jenga?"
I'm curious as to how this thing is adaptable, other than being able to possibly change the program. Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Am I right?
I'd say that it's an object being marketed as architecture.
"Let's say "market demand" means they're gonna tack a few extra apartments on--so some current tenant gets screwed out of having exterior windows and they lose their terrace? Or do they just keep adding them to the top, like Jenga?"
Um I don't understand, don't developers already do that? They finish apartments with low cost materials that appear to be of a high quality until you live in one and then decide it's a shit hole and rip everything out and start again. Either way they are running a business, profits are to be made, even at the expense of the consumer and where are they going to run to if they don't like the place? next door to a similar development, by the same developer?
The internal spaces are more important, since you can't change the exterior of an apartment building (you don't own the entire building). By having a uniform modular construction you can customise your interior spaces easily (partition them, open plan, connect one apartment to another if you're wealthy enough......). Architecture should be about giving people choices not forcing your beliefs on how they should live.
Nov 8, 08 8:27 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.
New MVRDV high Rise in Copenhagen
Images:
http://www.dezeen.com/2008/11/04/r%c3%b8dovre-skyscraper-by-mvrdv-and-adept/
i like it...
intrusive, does not fit in its context, and, didnt rem koolhas do this a couple of times already?
remind me how to make a skyscraper in a low rise area "fit into its context"
i love it
when did Q-bert come back onto the scene?
this approach is kind of out of control, imo. mvrdv, big, others all doing the same (some better than others). some of it has reached endgame, maybe like the ones on geoff manaugh's website this week.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bldgblog/3003507918/
as a person who has been to several large cities i can tell you that that building ain't a skyscraper.
my sincere apologies. "tall building"
looks a lot like herzon & de meuron's condo's to be built in NYC
it looks almost identical to h&dem's leonard st building, its the same formal typology. because the h&dem building is a "skyscraper" with a small footprint, the core becomes almost entirely necessarily functional. MVRDV's project is more spread from the core, allowing a potential for a dynamic interior space, as opposed to just the exterior. i'm VERY curious for the sections of this building
i usually appreciate mvrdv's work, but, cmon, no need to be defensive, this thing does not want to be there, its even a little awkward in its formal composition,, to be honest, i like it as an object, even its awkwardness, but not as architecture,,
"remind me how to make a skyscraper in a low rise area",, why do u want to do that to begin with?? im also not saying keep it suburban and flat,, it is a complex issue
an architecture firm is approached by a client who wants to build a building. it is a high (relatively speaking) building in a low area. the architect pauses, thinks about how by putting in a high building into the low area it would automatically stick out, and declines the offer.
that does not happen.
its "awkward". that just means its something you're not entirely comfortable with. by taking it out of its context it makes you more comfortable with it, because maybe you cant imagine it ever becoming real.
to me, the main reason why i like it is for the simple fact that i CAN imagine it becoming real.
in the end it simply boils down to personal aesthetic taste, so i'm not trying to argue with you at all, im just expressing my beliefs (<3 this building and this trope of building that is seeing a rise in todays architecture)
and sorry, as an addendum (i wish there was an edit button), the fact that it is a contrast of scale, large building in a small environment, only makes it stand out as an object even more. making it a _real_ "object"
its the issue of figure:ground, where the object is the boundary between the two. the :
many of you have commented about the "sameness" of this to others in the field, but has anyone formalized "this", whatever "this" is, into a typology for all to rally around or reject?
just curious...
would you deem it as progressive modernism?
by the way:
oma...
meh...nothing too new...
looks like koolhaas's 23 East 22nd Street and that lego project by big got together and had a baby
http://curbed.com/uploads/2008_8_23east22.jpg
http://www.storefrontnews.org/newsletter/BIG%20LEGO%20MODEL%20strip.jpg
curt: doesnt the fact that many people are designing, proposing, and attempting to build make it a "typology"? i actually wouldnt call it a typology, as a typology refers to program (maybe this is the "mixed use" typology, but who knows only time will tell). this design theology is a "trope". a trope that has yet to be proven socially. i cant wait for it to begin
alucidwake, i agree with u, its all personal taste, and i do like it as an object, but not as architecture,,
on the other hand, i am also waiting to see how this "trope" will be judged when its all said and done,, it could work,,, but, there is the possibility of it becoming background information that noone talks about anymore, like the million random facade patterns for low rise residential buildings being designed all over the world.. i like them,, and i like some of them ALOT,, but honestly,, ive stopped trying to "theorize" them.. it seems to me its just a reaction, or maybe an application of our ability to do it
which is not a wrong thing, at all,, i believe aesthetics and technology are inseperable,, i.e Villa Savoye
I think if this turns out to be a flexible building that can change over time and accommodate different occupants it could be quite a good piece of architecture. At the moment the way apartments are built you have to change yourself to be able to live in one and there are too many compromises to be made. Since the spaces and structure of a modern apartment building are badly laid out they become difficult and expensive to renovate or expand, perhaps a more modular space would be more beneficial. If something like this isn't built, then how would we know it works?
i love when people see/post a rendering and they state "this or that already did this"... funny the idea some people have about what is architecture....
was Philip Johnson who said "I dont pretend my drawings to be buildings or my buildings to look like drawings" ??? cant remember, but love the quote
fair enough, mad. you will admit there's something in the air, tho?
School of Intemperate Cantileverage
HomeDepot Home Kit?
wow, is that a Magritte painting? (from the Flickr site mentioned above)
love it
Nothing really new or interesting. I give it an "ok", or B.
Core77 said it better than I could, so:
"Let's say "market demand" means they're gonna tack a few extra apartments on--so some current tenant gets screwed out of having exterior windows and they lose their terrace? Or do they just keep adding them to the top, like Jenga?"
I'm curious as to how this thing is adaptable, other than being able to possibly change the program. Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Am I right?
I'd say that it's an object being marketed as architecture.
emilio - here's the story.
"Let's say "market demand" means they're gonna tack a few extra apartments on--so some current tenant gets screwed out of having exterior windows and they lose their terrace? Or do they just keep adding them to the top, like Jenga?"
Um I don't understand, don't developers already do that? They finish apartments with low cost materials that appear to be of a high quality until you live in one and then decide it's a shit hole and rip everything out and start again. Either way they are running a business, profits are to be made, even at the expense of the consumer and where are they going to run to if they don't like the place? next door to a similar development, by the same developer?
The internal spaces are more important, since you can't change the exterior of an apartment building (you don't own the entire building). By having a uniform modular construction you can customise your interior spaces easily (partition them, open plan, connect one apartment to another if you're wealthy enough......). Architecture should be about giving people choices not forcing your beliefs on how they should live.
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.