First it was Patrik vs. Tom wiscombe, now it's Mark foster gage. Glad we're finally having this conversation.
P.S.: Mark's reply is gold.
null pointer
Oct 6, 16 9:19 pm
The funny thing is that if there is someone who can actually take a huge shit on Patrik, it's MFG.
I'd laud that guy more, but I'd out myself.
null pointer
Oct 6, 16 9:21 pm
Also, if Patrik was willing to put his money where his mouth is, he'd have ZHA acquire an architect of record in NYC, instead of paying for one... because the AOR is the one making bank on that high line building. So much for capitalism.
archietechie
Oct 7, 16 1:46 am
Coming from an individual, let alone a foreigner, who backed brexit...can expect no less.
Josh Mings
Oct 7, 16 11:42 am
Patrik's line of thinking actually isn't visionary at all. In fact, it is self-serving and ignorant of the world we live in. He wants to create icons, that supposedly fall into an a-political world when the fact is all architecture is political. It's political when you create a pet project for a dictator, a new headquarters for some CEO wanting to show off how much money he has and overcompensates with a McLaren. It's also political when you actively attempt to design to improve the lives of a specific user group, no matter how impractical and in some cases impossible to do through architecture. But you try anyway, because you want to make this world a better place, and I - like J. Irwin Miller before me (and who I learned so much from just by growing up in his town), I chose to use my gifts as an architect to make this world better in whatever way I can.
Patrik could stand to learn from Columbus. His modernist, fuck context, and fuck you thought is no longer avant garde or warranted in this society.
Josh Mings
Oct 7, 16 11:47 am
Just to add - I respect Patrik for sticking to what he believes in, regardless of if I agree with his philosophy or not. What's the old saying, if no one dislikes you, you really aren't standing up for what you believe in?
zonker
Oct 7, 16 11:53 am
Parametric processes are tools of design - not design
Dangermouse
Oct 7, 16 1:06 pm
FWIW Rem is bullish on Europe and leveraging state infrastructures to create novel architectural projects, and I'll take his opining over Patrik every time.
archanonymous
Oct 7, 16 1:46 pm
Dangermouse - this is in line with Rem, but I really like Bruce Mao's motto "Massive Change is about the design of the world, not the world of design." The design of the world is inherently political and social.
archietechie
Oct 7, 16 3:42 pm
Parametric processes are tools of design - not design
Yeah but like any tools at your disposal, it's not just about knowing how to use it but WHAT you make of it. Patrik's belief is more aligned to how he wants to code human behavior into architecture for the future with no concern to context; form; comfort; re-usability; budget etc.
I disagree with this, I'm glad Tom and MFG put him in his place and ^ Josh is right, engaging in computational design is no longer avant-garde.
First it was Patrik vs. Tom wiscombe, now it's Mark foster gage. Glad we're finally having this conversation.
P.S.: Mark's reply is gold.
The funny thing is that if there is someone who can actually take a huge shit on Patrik, it's MFG.
I'd laud that guy more, but I'd out myself.
Also, if Patrik was willing to put his money where his mouth is, he'd have ZHA acquire an architect of record in NYC, instead of paying for one... because the AOR is the one making bank on that high line building. So much for capitalism.
Coming from an individual, let alone a foreigner, who backed brexit...can expect no less.
Patrik's line of thinking actually isn't visionary at all. In fact, it is self-serving and ignorant of the world we live in. He wants to create icons, that supposedly fall into an a-political world when the fact is all architecture is political. It's political when you create a pet project for a dictator, a new headquarters for some CEO wanting to show off how much money he has and overcompensates with a McLaren. It's also political when you actively attempt to design to improve the lives of a specific user group, no matter how impractical and in some cases impossible to do through architecture. But you try anyway, because you want to make this world a better place, and I - like J. Irwin Miller before me (and who I learned so much from just by growing up in his town), I chose to use my gifts as an architect to make this world better in whatever way I can.
Patrik could stand to learn from Columbus. His modernist, fuck context, and fuck you thought is no longer avant garde or warranted in this society.
Just to add - I respect Patrik for sticking to what he believes in, regardless of if I agree with his philosophy or not. What's the old saying, if no one dislikes you, you really aren't standing up for what you believe in?
Parametric processes are tools of design - not design
FWIW Rem is bullish on Europe and leveraging state infrastructures to create novel architectural projects, and I'll take his opining over Patrik every time.
Dangermouse - this is in line with Rem, but I really like Bruce Mao's motto "Massive Change is about the design of the world, not the world of design." The design of the world is inherently political and social.
Parametric processes are tools of design - not design
Yeah but like any tools at your disposal, it's not just about knowing how to use it but WHAT you make of it. Patrik's belief is more aligned to how he wants to code human behavior into architecture for the future with no concern to context; form; comfort; re-usability; budget etc.
I disagree with this, I'm glad Tom and MFG put him in his place and ^ Josh is right, engaging in computational design is no longer avant-garde.