i argue hard for modern design most of the time, but am also a proponent of preservation, believing that it's important that our legacy buildings and urban environments and the new ones we build can work together to present a backdrop/armature for contemporary life and culture. sensitive integration of modern with existing work is my own gentile(/polite?) preference.
so, i'm having a problem with this project - not an extreme dislike, but a strange sort of ambivalence at the sense that it represents a violence or damage more than it does create any new beauty. certainly compositionally interesting, but i wish it had remained a drawing and the building had been restored instead.
I think the violence you describe in the new facade is a beautiful way to connect to the violence of the Haussmann intervention in Paris which also cut abruptly through the existing city fabric of Paris.
i have to agree; the realized is much less attractive than the rendering. the rendering is light and displays a much greater depth than the finished project. it's missing all over.
For me that is the main thing thatd doesn't "fit". Especially as when you look at the rendering it seems as if the windows are smooth and in the end result it looks like cinder bloack (meaning you can make out the bricks, it sin't "smooth).
but aren't those Haussmann blocks monolithic in essence but with some variation in decorative elements. I believe in this project Edouard François copied a couple of neighbouring or opposing facades to get a similar variation only executed in one material.
I think the way they squeezed two additional habitable floors out of what was essentially a four story building is quite genius from an efficiency of existing building volume standpoint, but I agree that it is quite a "violent" intervention.
It always fascinates me that our young country with much buildings not nearly as old is so much more stringent with how we treat our historic structures, while architect's have much more freedom to design interventions like this one.
like a cancer spreading over what's suppose to be natural; some initial thoughts on the facade, not knowing the program, restraints, etc.. probably feel differently if i experienced it in person.
wonder what the locals think about it? probably hate architects even more now...maybe it will be "restored" to it's original glory after another 100 years.
I like it. A lot. It makes the nature of the Haussmanian facade very obvious, and shows it for what it is - applied ornament. To some degree, this is a project with a lot of humor, something Paris can't have enough of.
Jun 17, 09 2:09 pm ·
·
the real:
great design, very 21st century, consummate use of the assimilating and metabolic imagination.
the virtual:
the renderings are now inconsequential.
My first response was a quick disgust, but the more i look the more I like it.
The thing I don't like is that in some of the photographs the existing building looks fake - it's TOO monochromatic, like it's made of painted wood and plaster, like it's a stage set. I imagine a few years' worth of grime on the facade will help it look old again, which will be to the benefit of the new windows *if* the maintenance is kept up and they stay sparkly and clear.
One of the reasons I'm thinking i like it is I'm imagining it 100 years from now. When I did the Attigham School, a 3-week study of British country houses, much of what impressed me most was the over-the-top iconoclastic nuttiness of some of those homeowners. Something bizarre - like a shell-covered grotto, or a crazy gargoyle in an unexpected place - made the whole house feel so personal. You know there's a personality bhind the intervention, right?
Which in a way is what Hausmann was - a strong personality. but while the same could be argued of Rem or Zaha or whoever, their all-new projects are often so bombastically ego-filled. This renovation of something existing feels much more to me like a curious person looked at the building and said "Huh. What if I tried this."
That line of thought also reminds me of the Gehry project that most impressed me when it was published: the DZBank in berlin, where Gehry had to be SOOO restrained compared to his normal approach due to strict facade requirements - at least that's how I recall it.
In other words, I think for all the so-called "violence" to this facade, it's a remarkably restrained and well-tuned intervention. Also, just technically, it's pretty dang cool. Makes all those stone curlicue embellishments read like the puzzle pieces they are!
i think my problem with it, now that we have comparative visuals on one page, is that the renderings show the interventions as more of a "box" which for me is more violent and implies more depth, whereas the built version seems more like "frames" and appear flat and two dimensional.
the other problem with the rendering, i say problem because i like the images more, is the manipulation of color and perspective; it lends more of dramatic distinction, and the illusion of more "depth."
Like bunch of flat screen tv's attached to an old self storage building. Very voyeuristic idea.
Storefront reminds me the famous Norman Rockwell painting.
There is too much blue in second and third renderings which makes it cold.
Classic case of architect came up with 'something different.'
If someone took the flat iron building and slapped a bunch of random storefront windows on it, I don’t think the locals would appreciate it.
When Pei designed his “pièce de résistance” (…er, pyramid) at the Louvre, at least he took care not to impact the overall essence of the historic façade.
And what’s up with the birds in the night-rendering? Birds don’t fly at night.
man that Ed Hopper is just great, and seeing it in this thread makes me like it even more.
And orhan, although i agree that the concept is very voyeuristic in reality it just doesn't come off that way. Too much mass for me..
Jun 17, 09 10:17 pm ·
·
It's seventeen years old now, so it's time to update the Hotel Pia. Delete over half the windows and add the elevation of another building to the background. Voilà!
I love it, if only for the bizarre 'what?" factor people must think when they see it. paris is full of dull gray buildings, why not be ironic about it?
What many here seem to overlook is that this isn't an existing building. It is actually a concrete cast of a building on the other side of the street - hence the monolithic plasticity of the facade.
The story behind the building is as such: the building restrictions in that area of Paris are pretty strict. So strict, that basically every rule and guideline is aimed at copying exactly the structure, grid and look of the existing buildings. Even if that totally doesn't fit the programme of the new building (amount of floors, floor height, amount of windows etcetera.
As a reaction to that, Eduard Francois pretty much went for the "if they want a replica, they can get it"-approach: and designed the skin of the building like a cast of the building across the street. Everything is cast in prefab concrete panels - up to the cast iron balconies - all are made in fake facade elements. Behind this facade, there's a completely different kind of structure. The "new" kind of windows pop on through the skin of the "old", thus emphasising the difference between structure and skin.
Considering this is not a renovation/restauration project, but a completely new, I especially appreciate it because of the radical irony it expresses towards the building guidelines...
Okay, don't rail this too hard... i did this in about 12 hours to meet the competition deadline. But it's kind of funny that this thread had happened after I forgot about it.
The people holding the competition wanted something like the hotel... completely old but completely new for some new flagship store they're opening.
I hope to god my design doesn't win. It is so gaudy.
fouquet's barriere hotel
i argue hard for modern design most of the time, but am also a proponent of preservation, believing that it's important that our legacy buildings and urban environments and the new ones we build can work together to present a backdrop/armature for contemporary life and culture. sensitive integration of modern with existing work is my own gentile(/polite?) preference.
so, i'm having a problem with this project - not an extreme dislike, but a strange sort of ambivalence at the sense that it represents a violence or damage more than it does create any new beauty. certainly compositionally interesting, but i wish it had remained a drawing and the building had been restored instead.
anyone else?
http://spaceinvading.com/entry/project_id/Fouquet’s_Barrière_Hotel200906161245185800
I think the violence you describe in the new facade is a beautiful way to connect to the violence of the Haussmann intervention in Paris which also cut abruptly through the existing city fabric of Paris.
i have to agree; the realized is much less attractive than the rendering. the rendering is light and displays a much greater depth than the finished project. it's missing all over.
Why would you brick over all those windows?
For me that is the main thing thatd doesn't "fit". Especially as when you look at the rendering it seems as if the windows are smooth and in the end result it looks like cinder bloack (meaning you can make out the bricks, it sin't "smooth).
if he wouldn't brick over all those windows he would be just making a Haussmann facade, for me that would be much less interesting.
it also depends on which rendering you are referring to:
or
or
I guess a big part of my problem is it's kind of dull and monolithic (of course maybe in person) looks different.
but aren't those Haussmann blocks monolithic in essence but with some variation in decorative elements. I believe in this project Edouard François copied a couple of neighbouring or opposing facades to get a similar variation only executed in one material.
I think the way they squeezed two additional habitable floors out of what was essentially a four story building is quite genius from an efficiency of existing building volume standpoint, but I agree that it is quite a "violent" intervention.
It always fascinates me that our young country with much buildings not nearly as old is so much more stringent with how we treat our historic structures, while architect's have much more freedom to design interventions like this one.
i don't like it.
like a cancer spreading over what's suppose to be natural; some initial thoughts on the facade, not knowing the program, restraints, etc.. probably feel differently if i experienced it in person.
wonder what the locals think about it? probably hate architects even more now...maybe it will be "restored" to it's original glory after another 100 years.
thanks for posting.
I like it. A lot. It makes the nature of the Haussmanian facade very obvious, and shows it for what it is - applied ornament. To some degree, this is a project with a lot of humor, something Paris can't have enough of.
the real:
great design, very 21st century, consummate use of the assimilating and metabolic imagination.
the virtual:
the renderings are now inconsequential.
Wow - that's pretty amazing!
My first response was a quick disgust, but the more i look the more I like it.
The thing I don't like is that in some of the photographs the existing building looks fake - it's TOO monochromatic, like it's made of painted wood and plaster, like it's a stage set. I imagine a few years' worth of grime on the facade will help it look old again, which will be to the benefit of the new windows *if* the maintenance is kept up and they stay sparkly and clear.
One of the reasons I'm thinking i like it is I'm imagining it 100 years from now. When I did the Attigham School, a 3-week study of British country houses, much of what impressed me most was the over-the-top iconoclastic nuttiness of some of those homeowners. Something bizarre - like a shell-covered grotto, or a crazy gargoyle in an unexpected place - made the whole house feel so personal. You know there's a personality bhind the intervention, right?
Which in a way is what Hausmann was - a strong personality. but while the same could be argued of Rem or Zaha or whoever, their all-new projects are often so bombastically ego-filled. This renovation of something existing feels much more to me like a curious person looked at the building and said "Huh. What if I tried this."
That line of thought also reminds me of the Gehry project that most impressed me when it was published: the DZBank in berlin, where Gehry had to be SOOO restrained compared to his normal approach due to strict facade requirements - at least that's how I recall it.
In other words, I think for all the so-called "violence" to this facade, it's a remarkably restrained and well-tuned intervention. Also, just technically, it's pretty dang cool. Makes all those stone curlicue embellishments read like the puzzle pieces they are!
i think my problem with it, now that we have comparative visuals on one page, is that the renderings show the interventions as more of a "box" which for me is more violent and implies more depth, whereas the built version seems more like "frames" and appear flat and two dimensional.
the other problem with the rendering, i say problem because i like the images more, is the manipulation of color and perspective; it lends more of dramatic distinction, and the illusion of more "depth."
Like bunch of flat screen tv's attached to an old self storage building. Very voyeuristic idea.
Storefront reminds me the famous Norman Rockwell painting.
There is too much blue in second and third renderings which makes it cold.
Classic case of architect came up with 'something different.'
Edward Hopper
i appreciate that painting more, having it placed in this thread.
If someone took the flat iron building and slapped a bunch of random storefront windows on it, I don’t think the locals would appreciate it.
When Pei designed his “pièce de résistance” (…er, pyramid) at the Louvre, at least he took care not to impact the overall essence of the historic façade.
And what’s up with the birds in the night-rendering? Birds don’t fly at night.
thanks rita. that's who i meant sorry. long day...
You're welcome, Dick.
reminds me of diller and scofidio circa 1996. not a fan.
man that Ed Hopper is just great, and seeing it in this thread makes me like it even more.
And orhan, although i agree that the concept is very voyeuristic in reality it just doesn't come off that way. Too much mass for me..
It's seventeen years old now, so it's time to update the Hotel Pia. Delete over half the windows and add the elevation of another building to the background. Voilà!
I love it, if only for the bizarre 'what?" factor people must think when they see it. paris is full of dull gray buildings, why not be ironic about it?
i'd love to see the inside - any photos?
hmm. similar effect to the caixa, no? only taken further (and in a much more refined way, i think)
i love that project holz, my idea of re-use/mis-use.
caixa feels very effective...
i like it.
Via Bruce Sterling's Flickr stream
I like this version of the concept better...
Ha, oh man, I did a facade design competition two weeks ago that look like these for a clothing store.
Let me re-render it.
I dislike Caixa very much and think it far more "violent" than the Hotel. It's degrading and clumsy and mean.
Just my opinion.
What many here seem to overlook is that this isn't an existing building. It is actually a concrete cast of a building on the other side of the street - hence the monolithic plasticity of the facade.
The story behind the building is as such: the building restrictions in that area of Paris are pretty strict. So strict, that basically every rule and guideline is aimed at copying exactly the structure, grid and look of the existing buildings. Even if that totally doesn't fit the programme of the new building (amount of floors, floor height, amount of windows etcetera.
As a reaction to that, Eduard Francois pretty much went for the "if they want a replica, they can get it"-approach: and designed the skin of the building like a cast of the building across the street. Everything is cast in prefab concrete panels - up to the cast iron balconies - all are made in fake facade elements. Behind this facade, there's a completely different kind of structure. The "new" kind of windows pop on through the skin of the "old", thus emphasising the difference between structure and skin.
Considering this is not a renovation/restauration project, but a completely new, I especially appreciate it because of the radical irony it expresses towards the building guidelines...
hm, description doesn't make that clear. that would change things somewhat...
Okay, don't rail this too hard... i did this in about 12 hours to meet the competition deadline. But it's kind of funny that this thread had happened after I forgot about it.
The people holding the competition wanted something like the hotel... completely old but completely new for some new flagship store they're opening.
I hope to god my design doesn't win. It is so gaudy.
interesting…
fake.it.tecture in paris of all places. thought this was only done is vegas type destinations.
thanks for the clarification.
it's actually extremely well done, taking the issues/restrictions into consideration.
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.