i really like the vertical phasing concept though... the idea that you add a new ring as needed is great. It feels primitive and novel but beautiful. you gotta admit though, MVRDV is proving itself incredibly versatile.
The Gwanggyo Power Centre will consist of 200,000m2 housing, 48,000m2 offices, 200,000m2 mix of culture, retail, leisure and education and 200,000m2 parking.
who's gonna trim those hedges? maybe they've invented a new job-creation scenario! hedge-trimmers that ride on the same kind of platforms that window-washers do.
reminds me a little of jean renaudie's etoiles, 1969:
The curvy shapes and layers of green icing are interesting, but the "urban" sensibility reminds me of most superblock, whole-cloth urban renewal schemes of the last century. Adding people to the renderings won't necessarily result in vibrant placemaking.
citizen, I completely agree. I think architects might do better to consider that until the past two centuries, the basic structure and elements of cities have changed very little. Yes, a lot has changed with industrialization, and later with technological advances, but I don't think high-rises and superblocks are really the answer in most cases, with or without grass cladding. I hope that doesn't come across as too conservative, because I think there's a lot of wonderful, inventive and different things that can be done, but I think too often architects like this concentrate on innovation and trendiness rather than pragmatism, and implementable, acceptable solutions.
FLM, you put your finger on it: the crucial difference between big architecture and urban design. Cities are impossibly complex entities, and the making of forms and spaces to create successful urban places must be about more than just one or two ideas.
That said, when I was in planning school, I was always defending my fellow architects as both visionaries and pragmatists, without whom policymakers would not know what is possible (visionary) or what the built impacts are of sometimes ill-considered regulation (pragmatic).
as with theory in many fields, I think architectural theory and sometimes visionary if not realistic projects are good to push the envelope, to show what is possible... if there is a compelling reason, but the ideas and the theories must be very good. It is then up to someone to pursue what I see as the more difficult task: to step back from the theory and implement in a pragmatic way, to realize the vision to some degree. Unfortunately, I think our profession (and certainly academia and the media) values the at best innovative and thought-provoking and at worst flashy and trendy architecture over the pragmatic implementation of good design that benefits communitys, individuals, and the built environment. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir a bit, and it seems like many schools are beginning to focus less on iconic architecture and more on community design, but it still seems like we don't give enough credit to offices and architects whose contributions might be more socially responsible and realistic. On top of that, I don't really think MVRDV is all that innovative or good in the first place.
MVRDV's sky-scraper hills
Have a look at MVRDV's latest design:
http://www.dezeen.com/2008/12/03/gwanggyo-power-centre-by-mvrdv/
kinda funny looking but i like it
cool. and easier to make models.
I like it.
cartoon architecture... my baby niece will like it.
i really like the vertical phasing concept though... the idea that you add a new ring as needed is great. It feels primitive and novel but beautiful. you gotta admit though, MVRDV is proving itself incredibly versatile.
from the description:
The Gwanggyo Power Centre will consist of 200,000m2 housing, 48,000m2 offices, 200,000m2 mix of culture, retail, leisure and education and 200,000m2 parking.
what's terribly wrong with this picture?
Cars make me want to puke a little in my mouth.
Until people can fly or teleport, they will be too damn lazy to walk.
how is this different from an ordinary tall apartment building with balconcies and bridges across?
MVRDV, big... u wonder what went wrong with present dutch architecture...
"MVRDV, big... u wonder what went wrong with present dutch architecture..."
Socialism is the cause
BIG is Danish
who's gonna trim those hedges? maybe they've invented a new job-creation scenario! hedge-trimmers that ride on the same kind of platforms that window-washers do.
reminds me a little of jean renaudie's etoiles, 1969:
I had never seen that Steven - beautiful stuff.
The curvy shapes and layers of green icing are interesting, but the "urban" sensibility reminds me of most superblock, whole-cloth urban renewal schemes of the last century. Adding people to the renderings won't necessarily result in vibrant placemaking.
citizen, I completely agree. I think architects might do better to consider that until the past two centuries, the basic structure and elements of cities have changed very little. Yes, a lot has changed with industrialization, and later with technological advances, but I don't think high-rises and superblocks are really the answer in most cases, with or without grass cladding. I hope that doesn't come across as too conservative, because I think there's a lot of wonderful, inventive and different things that can be done, but I think too often architects like this concentrate on innovation and trendiness rather than pragmatism, and implementable, acceptable solutions.
FLM, you put your finger on it: the crucial difference between big architecture and urban design. Cities are impossibly complex entities, and the making of forms and spaces to create successful urban places must be about more than just one or two ideas.
That said, when I was in planning school, I was always defending my fellow architects as both visionaries and pragmatists, without whom policymakers would not know what is possible (visionary) or what the built impacts are of sometimes ill-considered regulation (pragmatic).
ken frampton once said "why MVRDV become famous is a mystery"
100% agreed.
as with theory in many fields, I think architectural theory and sometimes visionary if not realistic projects are good to push the envelope, to show what is possible... if there is a compelling reason, but the ideas and the theories must be very good. It is then up to someone to pursue what I see as the more difficult task: to step back from the theory and implement in a pragmatic way, to realize the vision to some degree. Unfortunately, I think our profession (and certainly academia and the media) values the at best innovative and thought-provoking and at worst flashy and trendy architecture over the pragmatic implementation of good design that benefits communitys, individuals, and the built environment. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir a bit, and it seems like many schools are beginning to focus less on iconic architecture and more on community design, but it still seems like we don't give enough credit to offices and architects whose contributions might be more socially responsible and realistic. On top of that, I don't really think MVRDV is all that innovative or good in the first place.
Choir-member here.
Yes, architecture's visionary mindset is crucial to help visualize possibilities, so I don't knock the wildly creative for that reason.
It's when people mistake some of the cool imagery for good design and say "let's build it!" that I get nervous.
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.