“New York Horizon” would be virtually impossible to implement in the real world, given the actual urban landscape of the proposed site, which includes some of NYC's subway lines for starters. That being said, the criticism “New York Horizon” has sparked in recent weeks raises bigger questions — particularly involving the rise of “meme-tecture”, the cultural value of landscape architecture, and re-evaluating the setup of open ideas competitions. — Bustler
Previously on Archinect:
2016 eVolo Skyscraper Competition winners revealed
2015 eVolo Skyscraper Competition winners imagine the potential of vertical architecture
19 Comments
http://design-milk.com/wooden-lakes-sculpture-maya-lin/
there's equal amount of love and hate in there.
This is design in the absence or criticism and or critical thought. Even when you are working on a commercial project you have someone demanding a justification for your design such as a client or a building code official, when you don't have criticism you get crap like the New York Horizon.
Design and creativity are different in that design should operate in the realm of some practical real world limits such as gravity, cost, and culture. If you try to design as if criticism has no importance on our built world and you are free from any limitations you should not be calling it architecture. If you can not possibly justify it, it should have not have been selected as a finalist yet alone a winner. Unless this was intended as some sort of science fiction poster contest this design and this competition is a failure.
Peter N
Honestly, what a load of bullshit Peter. Anyone could cite any number of architects; Hejduk, Abraham, Woods, that operate outside your narrow framework for what an "architect" is, or isn't.
Practical real world limits. Please.
q, you think so? i mean, most of his built work does, but diamond houses, masques, vladivostok, operate at a human scale, seem to operate as an exercise of the spirit of architecture, about the human, and not so human condition, and defies "gravity, cost and culture" well the last part, seemed inextricably linked to his eastern european culture and faith. i agree with you in a sense, but i guess i am questioning by whose definition of "practical real world limits". as i don't get the sense that Hejduk ever made a distinction between built, or unbuilt.
But the likes of Hejduk explores critically - there is rigorous analysis in drawing, iterations, the use of color etc. The work has depth and thought to it besides looks. Evolo has always been more about cosmetics than innovation and this year's edition is no different. Good work doesn't have to deal with real world constraints, but it should at least provoke thought about its intent and effect. In the case of NY Horizon, the best that can be said is that it presents a very pretty looking vision - but even then it is a missed opportunity as it could be that and more if it had tackled specificities to NYC or dealt with genuine urban problems. Architecture is awesome as it has the capacity for one to do pretty things and also address the issues of our time.
Ideas competitions aren't about developing practical ideas to apply to real projects. They're a form of architectural entertainment, a way to play with the poetry of design. Some of the better ones get beyond architectural ideas and become a cultural commentary on par with musicals or theater.
It's amazing how many architects don't get what the art of architecture actually is, or why it's worthwhile. I think this is one area where the general public probably gets it better than many architects.
Back before memes were discovered, 'polemic' was a big meme in academia. It applies well here, and in most of these kind of 'big ideas' competitions. If you're not looking at this project for Central Park as a critique of the relation between our built environment and nature the point has missed you.
mid, i was thinking the same thing. the evolo competition, is mostly uninteresting, this is the first one i actually enjoyed.
It is revealing the bedrock. It is revealing that which is unseen but which Manhattan is founded upon.
I agree with midlander and b3. I disagree with the idea of built work being more "real" than paper architecture...we experience most architecture in our imagination. I've never been to most great buildings and places... Yet I feel that I have experienced many internally...in my mind... through images, film, and literature. Architecture can be perceived in many ways. Film, paper architecture, and literature can be valid ways to communicate and experience architecture...built or imaginary. Sometimes, in an even more vivid and intimate way than physically visiting a building...When virtual reality becomes close to, or indistinguishable from "reality" the difference between "real" and "paper" is going to get really blurred.
The problem here is not the design itself, while ridiculous, reminded me of some fanciful early OMA renderings. While probably tongue in cheek, the issue is that inside architecture jokes are now distributed as "serious" by dubious media outlets. Then, in cue, we have discussions about how stupid it is.
While some "critics" use it as fuel to say, "see architects are so silly" it's really just a problem that social media has been designed to focus on the strange rather than what is good.
Architecture is somewhat silly though. These kind of pie in the sky or hole in the ground 'concepts' are constantly 'explored' in our schools at the expense of the kind of problems graduates will encounter. Then the 1% of architects who get the few commissions that encourage this kind of approach get 99% of the coverage because it's outlandish and innovative. It's like the Republican party wondering how things got so screwed up when it was happening right under their noses. This is what we see because this is how, by and large, we've taught architecture students to admire.
I half agree with you: the 1% of architects get 99% of the coverage, but most architecture schools are not of this ilk. What architecture schools are we talking about? If you go to local schools across the country, they are designing and building things. In many ways media is incapable of talking about these smaller schools, or local issues, and so architects need to develop new ways of addressing this issue. Surely it won't be some NY editor or demogauge critic. If I have to read another piece about how "architecture" is failing....is it?
Yes, virtual has its place, whether Hejduk, Woods, etc. even a sci-fi with zero potential can be interesting if there is a point behind it (maybe an ironic look at meme-tecture?). Even as paper architecture, it isn't as interesting as a Lebbeus Woods where there is some kind of artistry involved. But for me the problem is in how the public is being brought into these discussions.... The design itself looks cynical and ironic vs. a sci-if rendering that is utopian. And the attention given this is disproportional to many other architectue topics.
^but is it simply an aesthetic?...a picture to look at? or is it more like literature where the reader is experiencing the story through imagination...? I would argue that some unbuilt work (the good stuff), like fictional film or literature, can be as enriching as built work.
I think jla-x sees this in the same vein as myself. Not all architectural works are tectonic experiences. Some, like this, are more of a narrative idea, or maybe you could say a metaphorical planning concept. Most of Rem Koolhaas's early projects were of that genre too. EG the walled city featured in Exodus had nothing to do with walls as Hejduk appreciated them, despite being entirely about walls.
It's not beautiful, and we all know as a real building it would be bad. This isn't an exercise in figuring out how to make nice buildings. I am sympathetic to Thayer-D's sense that this aspect of architecture gets too much play in schools, or at least too much coverage.
But is it surprising that a narrative idea that's easy to describe in written form is more widely discussed and debated? There isn't really much you can say about good architecture in the tectonic sense. Have you ever read a good book about any single built work? Even the really good monographs are stiflingly boring and useless without graphics. The best most writers can do is describe the context and background of a project. Architectural experience is axiomatic and inexplicable.
There are buildings from history that were once built and are now long gone that have no Potential to be built again, either because they have lost their functional relevance (temples to ancient gods), or that they were built with materials and techniques that would be insanely expensive to replicate today. Still, when we read about them, look at archeological drawings, and imagine them, we can take something away that is applicable. paper architecture may be impractical in its totality, but can contain some applicable traits. Boullee's cenotaph for instance is as real to me as the hanging gardens of Babylon...and both, whether they existed at one point or not, can inspire design ideas for generations...
Excuse the grammar...typing while in traffic...
This Central Park wall, there is nothing I can take from it. Nothing interesting except shock value. Between this and that game of thrones tower, there's a battle for most dumb rendering, and we all lose.
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.