As LiG said, a 44-story building should not be totally engulfed in flames in 20 minutes, ever.
But as I said earlier, since this is a construction site, not an occupied building, I don't think we can necessarily know that once occupied it would have burned this way. And sadly I doubt we will ever know, as I don't imagine there will ever be an official truthful inquiry.
I think there's a lot more to 9/11 than what's been made public, but I don't buy these stupid conspiracy theories for a second. 7 WTC collapsed because it had already been structurally damaged by the collapse of 1 WTC, and was further damaged by fire from burning jet fuel. Apples and oranges compared to the TVCC fire.
Another fire at the WTC site might be worth making a comparison to, though: Several floors of the gutted Deutsche Bank Building caught fire during demolition, killing two firefighters because a standpipe was not connected. The demolition company (named after John Galt, a character from Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- go figure) is facing criminal and civil penalties for not maintaining the standpipe as required by law. Even without the standpipe, and with the building covered in plywood and netting, the fire didn't spread to more than a couple floors.
If the titanium siding is to blame for creating a wind tunnel that spread fires quickly, wouldn't all of those super green sustainable double-skin dynamic energy saving curtain wall be even worse? Just one floor of fire and the fire will be sucked up to all over the place.
LIG, there are more entities than just an architect responsible for a building. This is what i hate about most of our kind. We are ready to pounce upon someone without understanding the full extent of the situation.
"ah yeah the auto industry fought for years against mandatory safety features." ------who is the "auto industry"? manufacturers? R&Ds? Dealers? Buyers?
May I read your assumption as:
1. more people would be killed and hurt in accidents and more cars would be totaled by eliminating the mandatory safety requirements.
2. And this is what the "auto industry fought for" --- they can sale more cars since the cars on the highway have been keeping crashed.
If this is true, I have to say you are evil minded.
It's no secret that the auto industry has actively fought against improved safety (and fuel economy) standards.
See: Ford Pinto. Ford was aware of serious design flaws that made the car prone to gas tank explosions, but executives made a decision that paying out a few million in wrongful-death lawsuits would be less expensive for them than redesigning the car.
Yes the construction industry is not only about architects. But, if the architect is not the the position as a "general", at least he should be the position as a "coordinator", which means he is the information hub and the decision making key person.
On the day of Sept. 14th, 1812, the Grande Armee of Napoleon occupied Moscow. Several weeks later they failed the war and were expelled from the soil of Russia. The major reason is believed that Napoleon was not well prepared for the brutal cold winter. One of the famous book talking about this story is Napoleon's Buttons: How 17 Molecules Changed History. (http://www.amazon.com/Napoleons-Buttons-Molecules-Changed-History/dp/1585422207)
As an emperor and a general, would Napoleon say "there are more entities than just a general responsible for a WAR"?
Vado, could you please consider your thesis as: Rem's Rubber Membrane: #%^&%$@#$^*
Digger, he's partially correct. High caliber jet fuel like JP-7 won't even ignite if you throw a match in it. I doubt that's true for commercial jet plane fuel though.
cowgill, the coop was burning according to your photo. How could you know this is the first part on site to burn? More news is said the fire started from the roof. However the photo is shot from the bottom of the building, seem so. Any further informations?
dlb, i have finally realized that the criticism towards the tvcc building and oma is actually directed towards China. Lets see some criticism for the Norman Foster bleep in Las Vegas. Mostly sour grapes, seeing that nothing of any remarkable architectural stature is going on in the US.
Although I am quite glad when I read comments like LIGs "Fuck off, sameolddoctor.", that the intellectual quotient of people like LIG is near nil, and driven by hate towards other architects. I wonder if so much hate would be garnered on this forum, if these were designed, by, say SOM or RTKL or Gensler, or any of those pupppy-mills. I think, not.
I make no assumption about the auto industries reluctance to embrace safety. Lee Iacocca was taped in the oval office in 1971 telling the president that "safety has really killed our business."
you best get on back to the other side of the berezina.
covered it briefly this morning. Nothing in depth, but they did say that the firework that caused the blaze was actually part of the construction company's Lantern Night fireworks display - I had not heard that detail yet - and that they did not, of course, have permits for the fireworks. They did also say the building had not passed its fire inspection yet.
"cowgill, the coop was burning according to your photo. "
...because it burnt in 1980 in Graz to make a point.
"...We want architecture to have more. Architecture that bleeds, that exhausts, that whirls and even breaks. Architecture that lights up, that stings, that rips, and under stress tears. Architecture should be cavernous, firey, smooth, hard, angular, brutal, round, delicate, colorful, obscene, voluptuous, dreamy, alluring, repelling, wet, dry and throbbing. Alive or dead. Cold – then cold as a block of ice. Hot – then hot as a blazing wing. ARCHITECTURE MUST BLAZE"
As I made clear earlier (and despite whatever strawman motives some may wish to ascribe to me), my ire isn't directed so much at Rem/OMA as it is toward the mentality that allows such trophy structures to be built in the first place... Rem is just being Rem, but I have a problem with repressive regimes willing to spend billions to impress the jet set crowd while much of their own population continues to live in horrific poverty and suffer human rights abuses. If I believed in karma or divine justice, I might be tempted to see this fire as an example of such.
Regardless, there's no excuse for a 44-story building to incinerate like a match, under any circumstances, at any time. Whether it's the fault of OMA, the contractor, or the Chinese government (or some combination thereof) remains to be seen, but somebody should hang for this. I somehow doubt that will happen, though.
As for the Foster project in Vegas, that's a big disappointment, as I generally have much higher expectations for Foster's projects. Unlike some celebrity architects, Foster seems to have a genuine interest in detailing and construction, and an overriding concern for the broader social implications for what he's designing. Some of his projects are more successful than others, of course, but I'm generally more willing to give his firm the benefit of doubt.
It sounds like the contractor fucked up on the Vegas project, assuming the one-line explanation in the article can be taken at face value. But part of me suspects the decision to chop off the residential portion of the building has as much to do with the current housing market as it does with any issues relating to the rebar.
So, no, I don't hate architects, or even all celebrity architects. Just the ones who make it all about their own brand, rather than making a positive contribution to society. I'll take Rural Studio any day over Frank Gehry, just to name an example.
Can we be even clearer, Living in Gin. Yours is a problem of design and work for oppressive regimes in the glorification of their identity. Architecture, particularly at this scale, is politically tied to the reification of the policies and practice of its government. This is your argument, yes?
Secondly, you don't hate architects, but those who choose to work for the oppressive institutions in the world.
Another leitmotif of yours is that shoddy construction and management, endemic of such an institution, is at fault for the speed and ease with which the fire spread.
ok
I don't mind the first part. I like to see architecture and design flourish in any environment. As for working for evil or for good - can design be separated from this discussion? I wonder. Do oppressive institutions (and I make a point to discuss the corporate over the individual right now) hold designers to an oppressive formal criteria? Do oppressive regimes dislike or actively choose against the beautiful or sublime, and go for the ugly and miserable (which may also be sublime)?
As for fire spread due to poor construction - well, I don't think the government has much to do with this. Unless you are inferring that from top-down the whole of China is a model of corruption and bad practice. Therefore all occupants would be at risk of being killed by their building's poor construction methods, further proof of how little the oppressive regime cares for its citizenry. I disagree. No one knows why an unfinished building, without its safety systems activated, burned out.
This is a question for you and mantaray - what's up with your China?
Can we be even clearer, Living in Gin. Yours is a problem of design and work for oppressive regimes in the glorification of their identity. Architecture, particularly at this scale, is politically tied to the reification of the policies and practice of its government. This is your argument, yes?
That’s a portion of my argument, yes. Albert Speer may or may not have been a great architect, but history can’t separate him from the guy who hired him. Nor should it, IMO.
My other argument – which I may or may not be expressing clearly here -- is about the problem I have when architecture becomes all about the cult of the designer, rather than about the built project. For example, I was living in Chicago when Frank Gehry’s concert shell at Millennium Park opened up. For weeks, the local wags (including many people who should know better) were yapping on and on about how Chicago finally has a Frank Gehry building, as if the city had just gotten indoor plumbing for the first time. One article even went so far as to say that Gehry’s project “finally put Chicago on the map” in terms of architecture. Yes, that’s an actual quote. WTF? A century of Sullivan, Wright, Mies, Burnham, and many others apparently doesn’t count for shit, but Frank Gehry put Chicago on the map by gracing the city with some swoopy bits of shiny metal. Is Gehry’s project well-conceived and well-detailed? How does it respond to its context? Does it express honesty of structure and material? Is it appropriately scaled? Would the reaction be the same if a relatively unknown architect had produced the same design? Who cares! We finally have a Frank Gehry building!
I recently took a trip to Denver, where I had the opportunity to walk under Libeskind’s new addition to the art museum. Denver is now apparently on the map because they have a Libeskind building. Is it a good building? Does it work? Why does it look just like his Holocaust Museum in Berlin? Who cares, it’s a Libeskind building. All hail Libeskind!
In a similar manner, so much of the discussion about OMA’s recent projects – the CCTV complex being foremost among them – seem to be along the lines of, “Well, look at what ol’ Rem is up to now!” rather than how appropriate the design is for its site and program. Yes, the CCTV headquarters building has some incredible structural gymnastics, and the hotel had some of Rem’s trademark disjointed forms. But why, other than saying to the world, “Hey, look what we can build!” Is there some logic to these building forms that doesn’t take a 500-page book of heavy theory to explain? What does society gain by building such buildings, other than giving tourists something interesting to take photos of?
Secondly, you don't hate architects, but those who choose to work for the oppressive institutions in the world.
“Hate” may be too strong of a word, but when architects – especially those who are in the fortunate position of being able to pick and choose their clients – accept commissions from oppressive institutions, my respect for them will typically drop by a notch or two.
Another leitmotif of yours is that shoddy construction and management, endemic of such an institution, is at fault for the speed and ease with which the fire spread.
I think that’s a fair statement. As I mentioned previously, this isn’t the first time a high-rise building under construction (or under de-construction, in the case of the NYC’s Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero) has caught on fire, but it’s the first time one has become totally engulfed in a matter of minutes. Whether it’s the result of a design flaw or a construction flaw remains to be seen, but it’s a pretty shocking breakdown of due diligence on somebody’s part.
As for fire spread due to poor construction - well, I don't think the government has much to do with this. Unless you are inferring that from top-down the whole of China is a model of corruption and bad practice.
Given the performance of China’s public buildings in the recent earthquake, and with repeated problems of contaminated exports and lax safety measures in China’s factories, one can be forgiven for not having the greatest faith in the central government’s enforcement of proper health and safety measures.
there should always be safety systems of some sort activated during construction. IBC chapter 33. read it, learn it, live it. ignore it at your own risk.
"Is there some logic to these building forms that doesn’t take a 500-page book of heavy theory to explain? What does society gain by building such buildings, other than giving tourists something interesting to take photos of?"
The problem with this argument LIG is that this is Beijing, which is undergoing rapid transformation. What would be a form that works in this case according to your standards? I guess you are arguing for either (a) a post-theory type logic which disavows the need for critical thinking, (b) some type of vernacular which just does not exist in such a rapidly urbanizing place.
What would be a form that works in this case according to your standards?
I think there's more than one possible solution top this design problem, and Rem's design may or may not be the ideal form. (I'm trying very hard not to cast judgment on it, despite the fact that I think it's ugly as hell.) But it's worth asking the questions, rather than just blindly assuming that because OMA did it, it therefore must be good.
In looking at other examples of Western architects building high-rises in rapidly-growing Asian cities, I personally find Foster's HSBC building in Hong Kong to be far more nuanced and responsive to its program than Rem's CCTV complex. I'm sure others may disagree.
My point is this: The problem I see with a lot of current architectural discussion is that from the looks of things, there seem to be a few superstars that stand out against an otherwise mediocre backdrop. Rather than glorifying the elite exceptions to the rule, maybe our efforts would be better spent improving the baseline.
To use more metaphorical language, we should spend less time worshiping the flamboyant rock stars, and more time learning how to appreciate good music in general. Less time trying to hit a grand slam whenever we step up to the plate, and more time developing a consistently good batting average.
Living in Gin, thanks for the response - I understand your point about celebrated work by architects coming to a city that was doing just fine without it.
4arch - here is the paragraph from IBC (btw I am my own little person) - Section BC-3313. Flammable and combustible mixtures, compressed gases, and other hazardous materials. This section is a cross reference to the Fire Code and other sections of Chapter 33 that deal with flammable and combustible mixtures and materials. It does not contain any technical provisions and is the same as the current code.
This, of course, is for countries who adopt the Int. Building Code, and the section deflects the assignment of responsibility outside of itself. Typical.
peridotbritches - who??? I like to think it's opus dei. they know. They know everything
On the first page ryukyova speculated whether the TVCC building had been constructed with "kerosene-soaked haybales".
If the building had, in fact, been constructed with kerosene-soaked bales of hay, we can be certain there would be a chorus of deep thinkers praising Rem for his innovative flaunting of conventional building materials, and lauding his unorthodox reinterpretation of the nature of flammability.
8 years ago, we had a project in a Caribbean country. When the local people celebrate their festivals, you know, with music and alcohol, it is a common scene that they fire guns (even submachine guns) to sky in a cheerful atmosphere. However the problem is that there would be someone get hurt, even killed, accidentally when the bullets coming down, even inside the building. Well we were designing a fairly important building and it's unbearable any bullet would penetrate the roof and fall into the interior. So, the deal is, we detailed the roof as a "bullet-proofing" shelter for the clients. Many years passed and I never heard any news after the opening ceremony about our project - I am glad - no news is good news.
Our project had no "WOW" effect comparing to starchitect's works. But for the detailing, we are happy that we made it work in another country with different codes / standards. And we considered the local culture not only in the graphic composition, but in the daily life. And it is important to make your project stand in the real world, rather than make it be twisted / distorted on your computer screen, or TV screens. That's what I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters.
No, not yet. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to attack my credibility without actually addressing my argument? I wasn't aware that visiting China was a prerequisite for participation on this thread.
I haven't held the office of President of the United States yet, either, but that doesn't stop me from expressing an opinion on those who have.
Now these houses are not projected on a TV screen, and this is more than just twisted forms and expensice curtain walls. What's wrong giving the form possible, if that cost exactly or maybe even less than the box ? Still I see more to it, regression happening.
Im'e surprised how boring the steel core display now you can see it. Sorry but I find the structural issues ther, sadly boring, -- the fact it hold, more or less don't tumble, only prove, a strong basic structure are presant, -- but the engineering of it, also seem to result a rigid grid.
It is not strange, that it is both expensive and demanding, to add plus another feature such as allowing one building frame to carry multible water pipes addressed to various floors, -- that ask a complatly different structural aproach, and that from the beginning.
No, LiG you do have a right to say whatever you want on the internet. The reality is that the Chinese government, while guilty of many abuses (like our own) has enabled more people to be lifted from poverty than at any other time in our history and they've done it faster than any other nation in our history. All I hear from those with a leftist leaning in "The West" is how terrible they are.
It is an argument that pisses me off in the extreme because it ignores 90% of the story and it is an argument that has no sense of history. Don't you think the U.S. cut corners when we industrialized and did some things too hastily?
I'm not defending the Chinese government but I am very tired of Americans, who elected a man like Bush (well, once at least), calling out the Chinese on their bullshit when we have so much to shovel at home.
And for the record, Tibet is NOTHING compared to Iraq.
You must have missed the thousand or so posts I've made on various political threads over the years criticizing abuses of the US government, especially those of Bush & Co.
PerCorell, as I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters. You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms. There are thousands of possibilities what the form could be for a building. And you could have hundreds of concepts how the building works or looks. But once you lack the basic knowledge and skills to make the building stand firmly, sorry, it's a truly disaster for people who are, or will be, using it.
TVCC ON FIRE
The TVCC fire didn't have burning jet fuel and airplane parts as a fuel source.
As LiG said, a 44-story building should not be totally engulfed in flames in 20 minutes, ever.
But as I said earlier, since this is a construction site, not an occupied building, I don't think we can necessarily know that once occupied it would have burned this way. And sadly I doubt we will ever know, as I don't imagine there will ever be an official truthful inquiry.
Perhaps some young engineering student will figure it out as a case study someday.
jbc: Love your poem!
jet fuel doesn't burn when there's a flame... it needs high compression to do anything
I think there's a lot more to 9/11 than what's been made public, but I don't buy these stupid conspiracy theories for a second. 7 WTC collapsed because it had already been structurally damaged by the collapse of 1 WTC, and was further damaged by fire from burning jet fuel. Apples and oranges compared to the TVCC fire.
Another fire at the WTC site might be worth making a comparison to, though: Several floors of the gutted Deutsche Bank Building caught fire during demolition, killing two firefighters because a standpipe was not connected. The demolition company (named after John Galt, a character from Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- go figure) is facing criminal and civil penalties for not maintaining the standpipe as required by law. Even without the standpipe, and with the building covered in plywood and netting, the fire didn't spread to more than a couple floors.
If the titanium siding is to blame for creating a wind tunnel that spread fires quickly, wouldn't all of those super green sustainable double-skin dynamic energy saving curtain wall be even worse? Just one floor of fire and the fire will be sucked up to all over the place.
anybody else notice the ad for nitroplanes - gotta love google ads picking up the key words in LiG's post.
yeah TK.. i might have to order one...
LIG, there are more entities than just an architect responsible for a building. This is what i hate about most of our kind. We are ready to pounce upon someone without understanding the full extent of the situation.
vado
"ah yeah the auto industry fought for years against mandatory safety features." ------who is the "auto industry"? manufacturers? R&Ds? Dealers? Buyers?
May I read your assumption as:
1. more people would be killed and hurt in accidents and more cars would be totaled by eliminating the mandatory safety requirements.
2. And this is what the "auto industry fought for" --- they can sale more cars since the cars on the highway have been keeping crashed.
If this is true, I have to say you are evil minded.
It's no secret that the auto industry has actively fought against improved safety (and fuel economy) standards.
See: Ford Pinto. Ford was aware of serious design flaws that made the car prone to gas tank explosions, but executives made a decision that paying out a few million in wrongful-death lawsuits would be less expensive for them than redesigning the car.
sameolddoctor
Yes the construction industry is not only about architects. But, if the architect is not the the position as a "general", at least he should be the position as a "coordinator", which means he is the information hub and the decision making key person.
On the day of Sept. 14th, 1812, the Grande Armee of Napoleon occupied Moscow. Several weeks later they failed the war and were expelled from the soil of Russia. The major reason is believed that Napoleon was not well prepared for the brutal cold winter. One of the famous book talking about this story is Napoleon's Buttons: How 17 Molecules Changed History. (http://www.amazon.com/Napoleons-Buttons-Molecules-Changed-History/dp/1585422207)
As an emperor and a general, would Napoleon say "there are more entities than just a general responsible for a WAR"?
Vado, could you please consider your thesis as: Rem's Rubber Membrane: #%^&%$@#$^*
LIG, that's why Ford is on the edge of bankrupt.
: "jet fuel doesn't burn when there's a flame... it needs high compression to do anything"
do you ever check any facts before posting crap like this ?
read this: Material Safety Data Sheet - Jet Fuel
Digger, he's partially correct. High caliber jet fuel like JP-7 won't even ignite if you throw a match in it. I doubt that's true for commercial jet plane fuel though.
coop was the first to BURN!
Keep in mind the fact that the jet fuel was already burning when it hit 7 WTC.
cowgill, the coop was burning according to your photo. How could you know this is the first part on site to burn? More news is said the fire started from the roof. However the photo is shot from the bottom of the building, seem so. Any further informations?
Digger, i said he's partially correct
okay guys lets start bitching about this one now:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/08/adaptation-or-disaster/
another failure by a star-architect to pay attention to the construction. architects are responsible for everything.
must not know how to detail a building.
must have been because the workers are part of an authoritarian regime.
must be based on greed and lack of sophistication.
- sorry, i thought we were talking about China again.
dlb, i have finally realized that the criticism towards the tvcc building and oma is actually directed towards China. Lets see some criticism for the Norman Foster bleep in Las Vegas. Mostly sour grapes, seeing that nothing of any remarkable architectural stature is going on in the US.
Although I am quite glad when I read comments like LIGs "Fuck off, sameolddoctor.", that the intellectual quotient of people like LIG is near nil, and driven by hate towards other architects. I wonder if so much hate would be garnered on this forum, if these were designed, by, say SOM or RTKL or Gensler, or any of those pupppy-mills. I think, not.
You're obviously an expert on psychology and mind-reading, but you need a bit of help with your reading comprehension skills.
I make no assumption about the auto industries reluctance to embrace safety. Lee Iacocca was taped in the oval office in 1971 telling the president that "safety has really killed our business."
you best get on back to the other side of the berezina.
covered it briefly this morning. Nothing in depth, but they did say that the firework that caused the blaze was actually part of the construction company's Lantern Night fireworks display - I had not heard that detail yet - and that they did not, of course, have permits for the fireworks. They did also say the building had not passed its fire inspection yet.
Just sad. All around sad, and scary.
"cowgill, the coop was burning according to your photo. "
...because it burnt in 1980 in Graz to make a point.
"...We want architecture to have more. Architecture that bleeds, that exhausts, that whirls and even breaks. Architecture that lights up, that stings, that rips, and under stress tears. Architecture should be cavernous, firey, smooth, hard, angular, brutal, round, delicate, colorful, obscene, voluptuous, dreamy, alluring, repelling, wet, dry and throbbing. Alive or dead. Cold – then cold as a block of ice. Hot – then hot as a blazing wing. ARCHITECTURE MUST BLAZE"
see Blazing Wing project 1980
As I made clear earlier (and despite whatever strawman motives some may wish to ascribe to me), my ire isn't directed so much at Rem/OMA as it is toward the mentality that allows such trophy structures to be built in the first place... Rem is just being Rem, but I have a problem with repressive regimes willing to spend billions to impress the jet set crowd while much of their own population continues to live in horrific poverty and suffer human rights abuses. If I believed in karma or divine justice, I might be tempted to see this fire as an example of such.
Regardless, there's no excuse for a 44-story building to incinerate like a match, under any circumstances, at any time. Whether it's the fault of OMA, the contractor, or the Chinese government (or some combination thereof) remains to be seen, but somebody should hang for this. I somehow doubt that will happen, though.
As for the Foster project in Vegas, that's a big disappointment, as I generally have much higher expectations for Foster's projects. Unlike some celebrity architects, Foster seems to have a genuine interest in detailing and construction, and an overriding concern for the broader social implications for what he's designing. Some of his projects are more successful than others, of course, but I'm generally more willing to give his firm the benefit of doubt.
It sounds like the contractor fucked up on the Vegas project, assuming the one-line explanation in the article can be taken at face value. But part of me suspects the decision to chop off the residential portion of the building has as much to do with the current housing market as it does with any issues relating to the rebar.
So, no, I don't hate architects, or even all celebrity architects. Just the ones who make it all about their own brand, rather than making a positive contribution to society. I'll take Rural Studio any day over Frank Gehry, just to name an example.
Can we be even clearer, Living in Gin. Yours is a problem of design and work for oppressive regimes in the glorification of their identity. Architecture, particularly at this scale, is politically tied to the reification of the policies and practice of its government. This is your argument, yes?
Secondly, you don't hate architects, but those who choose to work for the oppressive institutions in the world.
Another leitmotif of yours is that shoddy construction and management, endemic of such an institution, is at fault for the speed and ease with which the fire spread.
ok
I don't mind the first part. I like to see architecture and design flourish in any environment. As for working for evil or for good - can design be separated from this discussion? I wonder. Do oppressive institutions (and I make a point to discuss the corporate over the individual right now) hold designers to an oppressive formal criteria? Do oppressive regimes dislike or actively choose against the beautiful or sublime, and go for the ugly and miserable (which may also be sublime)?
As for fire spread due to poor construction - well, I don't think the government has much to do with this. Unless you are inferring that from top-down the whole of China is a model of corruption and bad practice. Therefore all occupants would be at risk of being killed by their building's poor construction methods, further proof of how little the oppressive regime cares for its citizenry. I disagree. No one knows why an unfinished building, without its safety systems activated, burned out.
This is a question for you and mantaray - what's up with your China?
"No one knows why an unfinished building, without its safety systems activated, burned out. "
yes 'they do.
That’s a portion of my argument, yes. Albert Speer may or may not have been a great architect, but history can’t separate him from the guy who hired him. Nor should it, IMO.
My other argument – which I may or may not be expressing clearly here -- is about the problem I have when architecture becomes all about the cult of the designer, rather than about the built project. For example, I was living in Chicago when Frank Gehry’s concert shell at Millennium Park opened up. For weeks, the local wags (including many people who should know better) were yapping on and on about how Chicago finally has a Frank Gehry building, as if the city had just gotten indoor plumbing for the first time. One article even went so far as to say that Gehry’s project “finally put Chicago on the map” in terms of architecture. Yes, that’s an actual quote. WTF? A century of Sullivan, Wright, Mies, Burnham, and many others apparently doesn’t count for shit, but Frank Gehry put Chicago on the map by gracing the city with some swoopy bits of shiny metal. Is Gehry’s project well-conceived and well-detailed? How does it respond to its context? Does it express honesty of structure and material? Is it appropriately scaled? Would the reaction be the same if a relatively unknown architect had produced the same design? Who cares! We finally have a Frank Gehry building!
I recently took a trip to Denver, where I had the opportunity to walk under Libeskind’s new addition to the art museum. Denver is now apparently on the map because they have a Libeskind building. Is it a good building? Does it work? Why does it look just like his Holocaust Museum in Berlin? Who cares, it’s a Libeskind building. All hail Libeskind!
In a similar manner, so much of the discussion about OMA’s recent projects – the CCTV complex being foremost among them – seem to be along the lines of, “Well, look at what ol’ Rem is up to now!” rather than how appropriate the design is for its site and program. Yes, the CCTV headquarters building has some incredible structural gymnastics, and the hotel had some of Rem’s trademark disjointed forms. But why, other than saying to the world, “Hey, look what we can build!” Is there some logic to these building forms that doesn’t take a 500-page book of heavy theory to explain? What does society gain by building such buildings, other than giving tourists something interesting to take photos of?
Secondly, you don't hate architects, but those who choose to work for the oppressive institutions in the world.
“Hate” may be too strong of a word, but when architects – especially those who are in the fortunate position of being able to pick and choose their clients – accept commissions from oppressive institutions, my respect for them will typically drop by a notch or two.
Another leitmotif of yours is that shoddy construction and management, endemic of such an institution, is at fault for the speed and ease with which the fire spread.
I think that’s a fair statement. As I mentioned previously, this isn’t the first time a high-rise building under construction (or under de-construction, in the case of the NYC’s Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero) has caught on fire, but it’s the first time one has become totally engulfed in a matter of minutes. Whether it’s the result of a design flaw or a construction flaw remains to be seen, but it’s a pretty shocking breakdown of due diligence on somebody’s part.
As for fire spread due to poor construction - well, I don't think the government has much to do with this. Unless you are inferring that from top-down the whole of China is a model of corruption and bad practice.
Given the performance of China’s public buildings in the recent earthquake, and with repeated problems of contaminated exports and lax safety measures in China’s factories, one can be forgiven for not having the greatest faith in the central government’s enforcement of proper health and safety measures.
there should always be safety systems of some sort activated during construction. IBC chapter 33. read it, learn it, live it. ignore it at your own risk.
Apparently only the little people need to worry about building codes, 4arch.
"Is there some logic to these building forms that doesn’t take a 500-page book of heavy theory to explain? What does society gain by building such buildings, other than giving tourists something interesting to take photos of?"
The problem with this argument LIG is that this is Beijing, which is undergoing rapid transformation. What would be a form that works in this case according to your standards? I guess you are arguing for either (a) a post-theory type logic which disavows the need for critical thinking, (b) some type of vernacular which just does not exist in such a rapidly urbanizing place.
I think there's more than one possible solution top this design problem, and Rem's design may or may not be the ideal form. (I'm trying very hard not to cast judgment on it, despite the fact that I think it's ugly as hell.) But it's worth asking the questions, rather than just blindly assuming that because OMA did it, it therefore must be good.
In looking at other examples of Western architects building high-rises in rapidly-growing Asian cities, I personally find Foster's HSBC building in Hong Kong to be far more nuanced and responsive to its program than Rem's CCTV complex. I'm sure others may disagree.
My point is this: The problem I see with a lot of current architectural discussion is that from the looks of things, there seem to be a few superstars that stand out against an otherwise mediocre backdrop. Rather than glorifying the elite exceptions to the rule, maybe our efforts would be better spent improving the baseline.
To use more metaphorical language, we should spend less time worshiping the flamboyant rock stars, and more time learning how to appreciate good music in general. Less time trying to hit a grand slam whenever we step up to the plate, and more time developing a consistently good batting average.
Living in Gin, thanks for the response - I understand your point about celebrated work by architects coming to a city that was doing just fine without it.
4arch - here is the paragraph from IBC (btw I am my own little person) -
Section BC-3313. Flammable and combustible mixtures, compressed gases, and other hazardous materials. This section is a cross reference to the Fire Code and other sections of Chapter 33 that deal with flammable and combustible mixtures and materials. It does not contain any technical provisions and is the same as the current code.
This, of course, is for countries who adopt the Int. Building Code, and the section deflects the assignment of responsibility outside of itself. Typical.
peridotbritches - who??? I like to think it's opus dei. they know. They know everything
As an addendum to my treatise above:
On the first page ryukyova speculated whether the TVCC building had been constructed with "kerosene-soaked haybales".
If the building had, in fact, been constructed with kerosene-soaked bales of hay, we can be certain there would be a chorus of deep thinkers praising Rem for his innovative flaunting of conventional building materials, and lauding his unorthodox reinterpretation of the nature of flammability.
LiG, have you ever been to China?
8 years ago, we had a project in a Caribbean country. When the local people celebrate their festivals, you know, with music and alcohol, it is a common scene that they fire guns (even submachine guns) to sky in a cheerful atmosphere. However the problem is that there would be someone get hurt, even killed, accidentally when the bullets coming down, even inside the building. Well we were designing a fairly important building and it's unbearable any bullet would penetrate the roof and fall into the interior. So, the deal is, we detailed the roof as a "bullet-proofing" shelter for the clients. Many years passed and I never heard any news after the opening ceremony about our project - I am glad - no news is good news.
Our project had no "WOW" effect comparing to starchitect's works. But for the detailing, we are happy that we made it work in another country with different codes / standards. And we considered the local culture not only in the graphic composition, but in the daily life. And it is important to make your project stand in the real world, rather than make it be twisted / distorted on your computer screen, or TV screens. That's what I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters.
No, not yet. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to attack my credibility without actually addressing my argument? I wasn't aware that visiting China was a prerequisite for participation on this thread.
I haven't held the office of President of the United States yet, either, but that doesn't stop me from expressing an opinion on those who have.
you got my vote for president. president of china that is.
As long as they call me "Chairman Gin" and put my likeness on some huge billboards around Tienanmen Square.
Gin the Chair, do you think you can prevent a fire like this without, or with limited, CD experiences?
Have you finished your staircase assignment today?
Jobby - report to my cell. Your flogging commences hence.
LiG - as the new president of China, what will your first order of policy be?
Now these houses are not projected on a TV screen, and this is more than just twisted forms and expensice curtain walls. What's wrong giving the form possible, if that cost exactly or maybe even less than the box ? Still I see more to it, regression happening.
Im'e surprised how boring the steel core display now you can see it. Sorry but I find the structural issues ther, sadly boring, -- the fact it hold, more or less don't tumble, only prove, a strong basic structure are presant, -- but the engineering of it, also seem to result a rigid grid.
It is not strange, that it is both expensive and demanding, to add plus another feature such as allowing one building frame to carry multible water pipes addressed to various floors, -- that ask a complatly different structural aproach, and that from the beginning.
Give Hong Kong back to the British, and then decree the exile government in Taiwan as China's legitimate government.
I'd probably have to leave town pretty soon after that.
No, LiG you do have a right to say whatever you want on the internet. The reality is that the Chinese government, while guilty of many abuses (like our own) has enabled more people to be lifted from poverty than at any other time in our history and they've done it faster than any other nation in our history. All I hear from those with a leftist leaning in "The West" is how terrible they are.
It is an argument that pisses me off in the extreme because it ignores 90% of the story and it is an argument that has no sense of history. Don't you think the U.S. cut corners when we industrialized and did some things too hastily?
I'm not defending the Chinese government but I am very tired of Americans, who elected a man like Bush (well, once at least), calling out the Chinese on their bullshit when we have so much to shovel at home.
And for the record, Tibet is NOTHING compared to Iraq.
You must have missed the thousand or so posts I've made on various political threads over the years criticizing abuses of the US government, especially those of Bush & Co.
PerCorell, as I mentioned before, the envision of this profession matters. You seek the building as forms, while we believe buildings are way beyond forms. There are thousands of possibilities what the form could be for a building. And you could have hundreds of concepts how the building works or looks. But once you lack the basic knowledge and skills to make the building stand firmly, sorry, it's a truly disaster for people who are, or will be, using it.
Be prepared, then take your adventure.
No, LiG, I've seen them. All I'm saying is vilify the Chinese all you want, just give them some credit where its due ok?
Well, they've certainly been kicking our ass when it comes to public infrastructure investment.
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.