City Hall on Thursday rejected the designs of the Kimball Art Center's expansion proposal, determining they do not meet the municipal government's strict Old Town guidelines.
It was a significant setback as the not-for-profit organization attempts to press ahead with an ambitious redo of the high-profile intersection of Main Street and Heber Avenue. [...]
The Kimball Art Center selected a renowned Danish architectural firm, Bjarke Ingels Group, to draft the designs.
— parkrecord.com
20 Comments
How dare they?
It's a lame design compared to his other works. Looks depressing.
Lame it is. Looks like a run of the mill 3rd year studio project.
That's what most of his work looks like. He just has that winning personality could sell just about anything. Reminds me of all the studio crits where the student started their presentation with..."my concept originates with the notion that (fill in the blank)..." Regardless of how good the work was (hard to say when there's no real criteria) you could always tell who was gunning for the big leagues. The ones who where oily and sales like, except they tended to be thin and dressed in black.
Could the age of starchitecture be coming to a close?
Nah, just small town politics. If it was a big developer instead of a non-profit everyone would have been paid off the first time around.
This is the kind of architecture that comes from those annoying foam models they do for process sketches. Definatley part of greater trend of infantilized culture.
Wonder what happens when he gets older and can't play the young and hip card anymore....
Thayer-D is spot on. I'm sure he won the competition jury over during the oral presentation when he offered his "I'm so cool, brah!" frat boy way of talking, whereas the more "mainstream" architects in the competition like Tod and Billie looked old-school by comparison. But now that reality has set in, Bjarke demonstrates once again that he is the infantile boy band of architects.
The Kimball would be smart to call up one of the other firms they turned down for this misadventure. How ANY sane architect could think that this concrete bunker monstrosity would win over the city board once the log cabin scheme was deemed to aggressive / insensitive is simply beyond me.
That's not at all what any of big's work looks like. Im sorry you seems to have gone to such a shit architecture school Thayer. So is byarckee a frat boy or black-clad wanna-be? oh, im so confussed! The only sales pitches I ever heard in (any) school were from the people who were clearly lost and thought things like "hard to say when there's no real criteria."
regardless, hard to fathom how big let this out the door. is there a plan? a section? something that clues us in to how they thought this was a winner?
signed,
curious in park city
yeah, I'm not really big on BIG but this doesn't look like one of theirs. BIG mistake?
"regardless, hard to fathom how big let this out the door. is there a plan? a section? something that clues us in to how they thought this was a winner?"
It's so bright, I can't see a thing!
boy in well,
My school, Pratt Institute was no different than most schools at the time I went in the late 80's except that you had to watch your step at night and that it was in the most amazing city in the world. That and its Tiffany library gave me hope that I didn't have to learn archispeak to practice my craft. There where even some professors who didn't buy into the starchitect pitch, but people like Bjarky where all the rage back then, so in many ways, this tradition of looking for the next glib-ism is still going strong. The irony is that anyone who thinks outside that box is percieved as being in the box. So I can see how you might be confused by Bjarke's project. It's not about such mundane things like a plan or section...it's about your concept.
"Be true to your work, and your work will be true to you." Charles Pratt, R.I.P.
I like it - it's very simple but does a lot of things:
it's hungry hungry hippos, gehry's tumbling cube, an earthquake-induced mountain, a bland box, a pitched 'historic' roof, and an open yet strong perimeter. bjarke you rjock!
The image above is a redesign from the original scheme, this:
The only "twisting torso scheme" I've ever liked - in this use it was really clever.
I like this older scheme way better.
I live in a ski town (Vail) and I did not move here because I fell in love with mountain architecture. Designers of ski resorts largely import their architecture much like all the Audis and Bogner ski wear. Although I do loath an impotent design industry that is largely fueled by the real estate market rather than design or innovation, the almost instantaneous counter-reaction to insert “modern” architecture into the traditional Bavarian landscape has been largely ineffective. The biggest urban and architectural problem in mountain communities is… you have city dwellers bringing their urban style problems into the mountain towns.
Massive opportunities in tourism are exploding around the world. Nostalgia and tradition alone are no longer potent enough to sustain the i-phone toting consumer. Modern destinations, no matter how hot they are in the moment, require a constant flux of innovation. Buildings are always part of the experience. Some destinations have attempted to improved on the “destination” part by employing starchitects in order to generate publication in some glossy travel magazine. At least the tourists are becoming somewhat more informed about what’s worth the trip, or not – and that corresponds to actual design awareness. It comes to the point where it will take more than the current standard of luxury condos, spas, and faux European villages to wow them. Vail was cool until all the other ski resorts became another Vail.
Iconic buildings have always remained commonplace in any successful culture, town, or industry. These buildings in our modern consumer context continue the tradition of cathedrals, museums, and resorts in becoming tourist magnets. Engaging design gives both locals and tourists a new reason to center their vacation around a particular ski village (resort.) At the same time, at what level is modern architecture compatible with the traditional constructs of this place. This level of modernism - a minimalist box - looks as much like a wastewater treatment plant or utility building for the ski resort or city.
And modern architecture in itself has a problem inherent of any great idea…
The Law of Raspberry Jam: The wider any culture is spread, the thinner it gets. ‑Alvin Toffler
The original scheme is nicer, what type of anti-gravity system where they proposing?
Just doesn't look structurally stable...
anti-gravity? :)..like sky hooks? or floating helium roof?
the appearance of structural instability is another reason why it's cool
It's really cool, and it has some of that self supporting masonry spiral staircase to it. Infact, the whole bending spine on the log cabin corner detail thing is really compelling. What happened?
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.