Overall it reminds me of Mr. Blobfish, but I'd give Mr. Blobfish a hug before I'd hug that building.
Non Sequitur
Jan 24, 17 3:52 pm
so slimy
x-jla
Jan 24, 17 3:54 pm
Blob fish always frowns.
Marc Miller
Jan 24, 17 5:53 pm
Tate Modern?
Donna Sink
Jan 24, 17 7:39 pm
Careful it might bite you.
Have you ever heard the sound of an alligator's jaws snapping shut? Terrifying.
tduds
Jan 24, 17 8:12 pm
*sheepishly* I kinda like it...
archietechie
Jan 24, 17 9:58 pm
The interior wall panels are specially designed to optimize acoustic properties though so that should count for something.
Look for their work in progress images, it's a work of art actually.
b3tadine[sutures]
Jan 25, 17 12:49 am
Not sheepish about it, love it.
midlander
Jan 25, 17 3:56 am
Do you only like huggable architecture?
As a personal preference that's fine, but it's a bit like saying you only watch feel-good movies. Fine, but you're going to miss out on a lot of the good stuff.
I might question it if this was a hospital or elementary school, but for a concert hall wedged at the corner of a post industrial redevelopment hard-edged is totally fine. To the point of being formulaic, though in this case there is some redeeming weirdness going on. Better than caixa forum in barcelona x 1,000,000.
Donna Sink
Jan 25, 17 7:52 am
Excellent use of sheepish, tduds.
midlander, I definitely don't only like huggable architecture. Sometimes I want to hug architecture that is downright unhuggable, because it's apparent unhuggability is what makes it awesome!
Outside of metaphors, though, I'm curious why you dislike Caixa Forum more than this ? I don't like it either, for similar reasons to this, but I haven't really compared them yet.
randomised
Jan 25, 17 7:55 am
The Philharmonie facade reminds me more of the surface of a cheese grater:
archiwutm8
Jan 25, 17 9:18 am
One to One designed the interior for acoustic didn't they? Every part of the wall acoustic barrier was custom.
I want to throw myself at the wall and bounce off it.
Donna Sink
Jan 25, 17 9:37 am
Nice, randomized. But imagine if that cheese grater mated with a squid. Or with the cutest octopus, the Opisthoteuthis adorabilis.
Non Sequitur
Jan 25, 17 9:55 am
.
randomised
Jan 25, 17 10:04 am
Ouch, that would be painful.
chris-chitect
Jan 25, 17 12:38 pm
Sharp edges to cut through the fog.
randomised
Jan 25, 17 1:11 pm
That's an amazing photograph.
Donna Sink
Jan 25, 17 1:15 pm
<cue shark approach music from Jaws>
Erik Evens
Jan 25, 17 3:52 pm
I'd love to hear what people love about that building.
Erik Evens
Jan 25, 17 3:53 pm
And Donna, that is a damn cute little octopus. I can just hear my daughter when she sees it, " Aaaawwwwwww!"
Volunteer
Jan 25, 17 5:15 pm
I thought it was the Burger King headquarters.
tduds
Jan 25, 17 7:15 pm
...and not a crumbling pile of rubbish.
Donna Sink
Jan 25, 17 10:33 pm
What?!? David Curtis, WHAT?!?!?! Graves' Portland building is magnificent compared to this mashed-up ice queen humping a tree stump!!!*
*That's my story andI'm stickin' to it.
sameolddoctor
Jan 25, 17 10:47 pm
screw architecture
Wilma Buttfit
Jan 25, 17 10:49 pm
At least they are doing their own thing and not copycatting.
will galloway
Jan 26, 17 5:06 am
donna i cant believe your inability to hug this building. It's beautiful. I cant say why though, only an opinion.
tduds
Jan 26, 17 12:51 pm
Regardless of it's merits as a statement, the Portland Building - as a building - is a total failure.
tduds
Jan 26, 17 2:01 pm
I mostly agree.
go do it
Jan 26, 17 9:42 pm
Why can't clients see ugly architecture and say "damn that is some ugly architecture" and not drop the check?
If that architect could sell the Portland Building he could probably sell Trump a Prius limousine.
Erik Evens
Jan 27, 17 5:39 pm
"Do you only like huggable architecture?
As a personal preference that's fine, but it's a bit like saying you only watch feel-good movies. Fine, but you're going to miss out on a lot of the good stuff."
This is an interesting subject. It seems to me that architecture is really different than movies, or frankly, different than a lot of fine art. Architecture exists in the public realm, and is a civic enterprise. You can not buy a ticket to a movie, or walk out if you bought a ticket and find the experience unpleasant. In your own house, you can surround yourself with art you personally enjoy, or visit a museum to see it. But architecture is by it's nature almost always part of the civic environment, and I believe that the architect bears a duty to design in a way that is, in some sense, "huggable".
What huggable means, is of course debatable, especially in 2017. A hundred and fifty years ago, that would have meant creating beauty. Since 1915 or so, that concept has been a challenging one for many artists, and architects. But I think, at a minimum, the architect should understand that they are contributing to an environment that is shared by all.
tduds
Jan 27, 17 5:41 pm
at a minimum, the architect should understand that they are contributing to an environment that is shared by all.
+++
b3tadine[sutures]
Jan 27, 17 6:31 pm
Bah. If we want hugs, get a stuffed bear.
I want architecture that provokes provocation. This, clearly does. The public voted for a douchecanoe, I have zero faith in an educated consumer.
Donna Sink
Jan 27, 17 8:14 pm
Architecture that provokes provocation? Is that like choking on your own tongue?!?
I love bourbon. I would hug alllll the bourbon.
Volunteer
Jan 27, 17 8:41 pm
"Moreover, his tiny windows (Portland Building), which were meant to also evoke the body – or "one window, one worker," as he said in his 1982 lecture – were immediately criticised by occupants as too small, leaving the interior dark and uninviting. "Perhaps they were too small, but that was the intention," Graves conceded in the League talk. Graves also lost a bid to outfit the building's interiors." De Zeen
So, in the Pacific Northwest, where light is precious, Graves designs a building with tiny little windows and blows it off when the occupants complain?
DTL DWG
Jan 28, 17 7:58 am
quick question, I am witnessing the final touches on construction of a building/space that has every cliche of "modern" or "contemporary" details. You know, like fake concrete formwork holes (not even made in concrete), veneers of fake Scandanavian wood, etc....it resembled the cliches in logic of PoMo but its not. What do we call that? (fake modern honesty of materials in abstract = fake EIFS columns) Post-Contemporary? Post Dwell Magazine? Low grade high-end modern?
It's just not friendly, and will cut you.
Overall it reminds me of Mr. Blobfish, but I'd give Mr. Blobfish a hug before I'd hug that building.
so slimy
Blob fish always frowns.
Tate Modern?
Careful it might bite you.
Have you ever heard the sound of an alligator's jaws snapping shut? Terrifying.
*sheepishly* I kinda like it...
The interior wall panels are specially designed to optimize acoustic properties though so that should count for something. Look for their work in progress images, it's a work of art actually.
Not sheepish about it, love it.
Do you only like huggable architecture?
As a personal preference that's fine, but it's a bit like saying you only watch feel-good movies. Fine, but you're going to miss out on a lot of the good stuff.
I might question it if this was a hospital or elementary school, but for a concert hall wedged at the corner of a post industrial redevelopment hard-edged is totally fine. To the point of being formulaic, though in this case there is some redeeming weirdness going on. Better than caixa forum in barcelona x 1,000,000.
Excellent use of sheepish, tduds.
midlander, I definitely don't only like huggable architecture. Sometimes I want to hug architecture that is downright unhuggable, because it's apparent unhuggability is what makes it awesome!
Outside of metaphors, though, I'm curious why you dislike Caixa Forum more than this ? I don't like it either, for similar reasons to this, but I haven't really compared them yet.
The Philharmonie facade reminds me more of the surface of a cheese grater:
One to One designed the interior for acoustic didn't they? Every part of the wall acoustic barrier was custom.
I want to throw myself at the wall and bounce off it.
Nice, randomized. But imagine if that cheese grater mated with a squid. Or with the cutest octopus, the Opisthoteuthis adorabilis.
.
Ouch, that would be painful.
Sharp edges to cut through the fog.
That's an amazing photograph.
<cue shark approach music from Jaws>
I'd love to hear what people love about that building.
And Donna, that is a damn cute little octopus. I can just hear my daughter when she sees it, " Aaaawwwwwww!"
I thought it was the Burger King headquarters.
...and not a crumbling pile of rubbish.
What?!? David Curtis, WHAT?!?!?! Graves' Portland building is magnificent compared to this mashed-up ice queen humping a tree stump!!!*
*That's my story andI'm stickin' to it.
screw architecture
At least they are doing their own thing and not copycatting.
donna i cant believe your inability to hug this building. It's beautiful. I cant say why though, only an opinion.
Regardless of it's merits as a statement, the Portland Building - as a building - is a total failure.
I mostly agree.
Why can't clients see ugly architecture and say "damn that is some ugly architecture" and not drop the check?
If that architect could sell the Portland Building he could probably sell Trump a Prius limousine.
"Do you only like huggable architecture?
As a personal preference that's fine, but it's a bit like saying you only watch feel-good movies. Fine, but you're going to miss out on a lot of the good stuff."
This is an interesting subject. It seems to me that architecture is really different than movies, or frankly, different than a lot of fine art. Architecture exists in the public realm, and is a civic enterprise. You can not buy a ticket to a movie, or walk out if you bought a ticket and find the experience unpleasant. In your own house, you can surround yourself with art you personally enjoy, or visit a museum to see it. But architecture is by it's nature almost always part of the civic environment, and I believe that the architect bears a duty to design in a way that is, in some sense, "huggable".
What huggable means, is of course debatable, especially in 2017. A hundred and fifty years ago, that would have meant creating beauty. Since 1915 or so, that concept has been a challenging one for many artists, and architects. But I think, at a minimum, the architect should understand that they are contributing to an environment that is shared by all.
at a minimum, the architect should understand that they are contributing to an environment that is shared by all.
+++
Bah. If we want hugs, get a stuffed bear.
I want architecture that provokes provocation. This, clearly does. The public voted for a douchecanoe, I have zero faith in an educated consumer.
Architecture that provokes provocation? Is that like choking on your own tongue?!?
I love bourbon. I would hug alllll the bourbon.
"Moreover, his tiny windows (Portland Building), which were meant to also evoke the body – or "one window, one worker," as he said in his 1982 lecture – were immediately criticised by occupants as too small, leaving the interior dark and uninviting. "Perhaps they were too small, but that was the intention," Graves conceded in the League talk. Graves also lost a bid to outfit the building's interiors." De Zeen
So, in the Pacific Northwest, where light is precious, Graves designs a building with tiny little windows and blows it off when the occupants complain?
quick question, I am witnessing the final touches on construction of a building/space that has every cliche of "modern" or "contemporary" details. You know, like fake concrete formwork holes (not even made in concrete), veneers of fake Scandanavian wood, etc....it resembled the cliches in logic of PoMo but its not. What do we call that? (fake modern honesty of materials in abstract = fake EIFS columns) Post-Contemporary? Post Dwell Magazine? Low grade high-end modern?
Faux(st) modern
will roll with it. done. nice phrase.