Alexandre Gady, conservationist, historian of French architecture and professor of modern architecture at the Sorbonne, argues that changing or “renewing” Paris diverts from its real need to look outwards. Paris, he says, is a “finished” city that does not need improving or anything more doing to it. “It’s not that we should be doing this or that – we should not be doing anything in central Paris ... any plan is a diversion from the need of the city to grow outwards,” [...] — theguardian.com
30 Comments
Sprawl frogs SPRAWL!!!
The picture we need to see is the one with the very center and identity of Paris - the Eiffel Tower - in the frame. Paris is a low-rise city, and all the better for it.
here it is:
It will probably turn out to be a lovely addition. This is Herzog and deMeuron, not Gene Kaufman. Paris is so spoiled.
^ Clueless.
The very last thing Paris needs is an ego tower by Hurtz & DeMoron competing with Eiffel's masterpiece.
Miles,
Clever nickname. Thank you for elevating the discussion.
Do you think that starchitects are the only people with egos? Why are those the only egos you care about? What about the egos of politicians? What about the egos of very wealthy people who are protecting their own views? or protecting their own elite and fragile old money "character"?
although davvid, if Karl Fisher did it, it would be much better. ;)
actually the H&M proposal looks just like this, it looks like old money to me.
It will probably turn out to be a lovely addition. This is Herzog and deMeuron
So it will be good just because those two clowns are doing it? Fuck context? Please tell me you're not an architect - they aren't fanboys, they think critically (in theory, at least).
When the work comes first it at least has a chance to be good. When ego (or money) comes first the result is a stinking pile of crap because decisions are made in the wrong context.
Good catch, Olaf.
The problem may not be if H&DM build a thing that breaks with the existing requirements and maybe sticks up a bit more. For argument's sake let's say that H&DM builds a thing, and it's a new wonder of the world and everyone finds it exceptional. Hypothetically.
The problem will arise when the 18th-rate "architect" gets a bucket of money from a developer (who takes a bad design and makes it worse) and winds up building a monstrosity that is permitted because the existing rule has had an exception made in this case.
Look at Philadelphia. City Hall was for a long time the height limit. Now look at the skyline there. Is anything the sticks up over City Hall really worth looking at? Those Liberty Place things? Anything? If Paris breaks now, in 20 years the city will be dotted with little steeples of crap, the H&DM building (which is fine), the Eiffel Tower, and Sacre Coeur.
Miles,
" This is Herzog and deMeuron, not Gene Kaufman."
I am much more comfortable with the idea of a stand-out building with Herzog and deMeuron as the design firm. This is a firm that has demonstrated its skill over and over again. Sorry if that doesn't adhere to your anti-starchitect ideology. We can, to some degree, predict the quality of the building based on a firm's portfolio. Thats why large institutions, governments and business hire firms like H&deM. Because they can deliver a consistently high level of quality.
Regarding context, this building obviously not ignoring its surroundings. It willfully stands out in order to look out over the city. The echo of the Eiffel Tower in its singular ancient iconic form is not accidental.
Your obsession with the egos of people who go into the profession of architecture is strange but maybe that has something to do with your personal history. I'm not sure. I personally see ego everywhere. I see it in your comments and I see it in my comments. Its unavoidable. The real concern is with the quality of work.
I see from your portfolio that you make a lot of furniture. In architecture, since its very expensive, we need clients. More specifically, we need clients with money and vision.
The idea that sprawling outward is *good* is ridiculous. I used to be a huge fangirl of HdM; as their work has gotten bigger it's become less pure - both more complex and more shallow, less about one simple material idea explored fully. The proportions of this tower, in the first image, look clunky, but in the second image (with Eiffel in the background) it looks very interesting and ephemeral.
I'm less worried about Paris than I am about Havana.
Menona nailed the context, specifically the transformation of a city and it's identity.
" This is Herzog and deMeuron, not Gene Kaufman."
Some people like Gene Kaufman. It doesn't really matter what name you put there. Some guys like skinny chicks, some guys like fat chicks, some guys like other guys. Personal taste is a measure of nothing beyond yourself. To judge architecture you have to understand many things from building performance on multiple levels to the wider context of physical, social and cultural environments.
Based on their horribly dysfunctional turd of a museum here I think H&D are 18th grade architects. Cue Steve Miller Band.
Donna, in my experience bigger budgets actually preclude quality design. My father started out doing houses that were jewel boxes and ending up running away from residential work that was vulgar and bombastic.
Miles,
Some architects are actually BETTER than others. Its a popular cliche to act like it's all subjective. It's also a convenient cliche that allows mediocre architects to pretend theyre misunderstood or undiscovered geniuses doing great work in a modestly private way.
What makes them better?
there are 400+ projects in their website, many built. we're talking about high octane and consistently influential projects. nobody has to like this or that but there are some exquisite and highly gutsy work to their credit. anyone can say "but that doesn't mean much," but it does.
Exquisite and gutsy is a subjective measure. Popular is as much - if not more - the result of marketing as anything else. The Pritzker is a certification of greatness about as much as the Nobel is after they gave one to oBOMBa.
Roll the dice again. What makes them better?
I think Herzog and deMeuron are able to create designs that succeed on multiple levels. From the detail, to the ways that a building acknowledges its moment in history. Generally, I think that good architecture succeeds when it achieves a extrodinary level of appropriateness. When everything about it seems to be perfectly aware of the conditions in which it is situated.
Entirely subjective architecture school bullshit. You might as well have just said firmness, commodity and delight. I had a girlfriend like that ...
Roll the dice again. What makes them better?
Miles,
You're not being serious or thoughtful.
Quite the opposite. I'm being quite serious and thoughtful, and I'm looking for someone to have some reasonably objective measures on which to discuss this proposal. All we have from you so far is a fanboy attitude about H&D. If you want to complain about subjectivity you'd better have more than
Exactly what is that supposed to mean - do buildings only have a moment in time, or is it that their importance diminishes over time?
Who defines what is appropriate or even how appropriate is defined? How is the proposed structure appropriate when there is so much resistance to it - did you read the BBC article, or even the title of the it?
So Paris should be unspoiled with a huge modern building that flies in the face of development restrictions (37m height limit) that have been in place for decades just because developers want to cash in?
And thus we return to ego, both the developer's and the architect's.
acknowledges its moment in history
Exactly what is that supposed to mean - do buildings only have a moment in time, or is it that their importance diminishes over time?
I think you misunderstood davvid's point. I read as -HdM capture 'the times' well and interface their architecture in that context.- In no place he/she saying or questioning any of the points in your reactive answer.
As to my previous post, I was stating the numerous projects the firm has been commissioned and successfully completed, deserving a lot of credibility. They design projects involving huge amount of orchestration. They are consistently pursuing their game.
Plus, I wasn't saying they are better but credible. Better or not better seems to be your argument/inquiry.
Every building captures the times. The prison at Guantanamo Bay, for example, or Hadid's High Line condos. That doesn't mean they are good in any particular sense, just that they are reflective of the times. In other words, capturing the times is more a measure of culture than architecture.
In regard to having a track record of completed projects, both HdM and Gene Kaufman fit that description. One's subjective taste regarding either is not a valid basis for a thoughtful analysis of their work.
Every building captures the times.
Not in a dictionary sense. I like their visually communicative hyper formed, pursued and delivered buildings. They've successfully carved an influential and commodified practice with extremely high end Basil Miami type of context that offers no more and no less than that. They do highly publicized work that supports their brand and they are decorated with highest awards to "higher authority" status in an ironic double tone from my critical eye. There are already thousands of students and graduate architects practically influenced by them and it has not stopped yet.
"Is that better for architecture" is a more engaging question for me.
On the other hand Gene Kaufman, Architect, P.C. is way more popular that his buildings are all over in most downtowns. I just passed a few in Los Angeles this morning or did I? I like that too as a built environment conversation and how pretty much mainstream real estate industry speak carried out with few details of architectural capital sneaked in and looking like the derivatives of other buildings. It works and delivers something akin to a safe bet.
influential and commodified
Precisely. Who's exploiting who?
There are already thousands of students and graduate architects practically influenced by them and it has not stopped yet.
Another crisis of values: idol worship as a substitute for architectural education.
I find it reassuring that Paris is building provocatively again. They were so safe for so long (except Jean nouvel and a few others). The last time I went I saw a lot of great stuff that was 50 years old and 100 years old and very little that was contemporary and brilliant. I did see a lot of generic stuff that was like a drivethrough architecture, complete with starbucks, pre-gentrified, safety wheels ready, semi-modern boxes of bleck. That felt wrong for the city.
This is the city where a woman sued an architect for designing a building she thought looked like shit (its still there, but she was compensated apparently for visual suffering or something). Architecture is culture and should be fought over, not allowed to wallow in the lowest common denominator. Architects should be pushing those buttons, otherwise what is the point?
The stuffed dead body approach to urbanism that some prefer is more worrying. Its weird mummery. Like superstar face pinned up by plastic surgery, the smile is there, but it doesnt fit. Paris has enough of that. This is at least aiming for more. Of course I like it, cuz i think context is what the public makes of it, not architects, but that is just me. The form is great.
Anyway. everyone hated Eiffel for being so out of touch with the grande past, so its bizarre to consider it in defence of un-changing nowness.
isnt it?
It seems like there's a facet to the arguments against the proposal that seem to question the validity or competence of H&DM. I would offer that H&DM are highly capable, competent, and influential. They have done work that is important to the discipline and is of quality and worthwhile.
So are they incapable of working their magic at 36.9 meters? Of course not. Give them the brief with the zoning requirements spelled out and the height restriction in place. You will still get some of the H&DM glitter. The issue isn't "Can H&DM only build buildings that are taller than 37m."
The issue here is the Developer problem. Some developer sees (or has had an accountant or value engineer quantify for him/her) that 'Thar's Gold in them Thar Skies." The Developer sees an opportunity to maximize profit from a footprint of real estate. They want to start building over the existing limit, so they hire a respected, high-end, quality Design Firm to try to break the barricade.
The problem with H&DM is that they are allowing themselves to be used in this fashion. To them however, they see it as speculative design practice - every right to do that. That's a significant (and important) part of their practice. But does a respected design firm have any responsibility to the public at large to see that their powers aren't used (by someone else) as a pry bar to open up the sky to every and any Talent-ful or Talentless developer/architect that has a few hundred million Euro to throw around.
H&DM are allowing themselves to be used as pawns (or rooks or bishops - they're more powerful) in some finance guy's greedy-eyed vision of the future.
37m. Plenty of room.
@Donna not sure if this is correct but re: growing outwards one could read (I did) Mr. Alexandre Gady's comments as speaking to need to densify/grow services in outer suburbs/banlieues and integrate inner and outer Paris more closely together...
illuminati
but yeah Nam, i think the political guy was pointing out the obvious and correct solution, but let's get distracted...
Ah, thank you for that clarification, Nam. Nope, I did not read those comments; my knee-jerk reaction to "grow outward" was "sprawl". Densifying outer areas of the already-developed city is a good idea. Mea culpa if that's what he meant.
alternatively i could just be reading his comments from an overly optimistic/here's what i would do perspective...
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.