A spec office is not how a superstar usually makes a debut. [...]
Ingels hasn't reinvented the form with 1200 Intrepid, but he does manage to inject it with an impressive level of pizzazz, imagination, and even refinement. [...]
The optical effects are mesmerizing. If you stand at the corner and look across the breadth of the facade, the front wall appears to be tumbling to the ground like a collapsing row of dominos. The curves are reminiscent of a Richard Serra sculpture.
— philly.com
Related on Archinect:
57 Comments
BIG caulk joints.
Oof... She can't be serious. Looks awful.
Guess if you are a small town local critic, you make your bones when the big stars come to town
the solid/glazing pattern itself is very nice, not sure why warping the facade was done, seems excessive.
Actually, for an office building, it's actually pretty good for a type that is usually ignored. Just BIG caulk joints.
It looks like a pretty good mid-century modern office building that melted a little. Not bad, but pretty meh. Like most of BIG's stuff.
BIG fail
How does the curvy facade make office life better? Why is it facing the parking lot with a flat side facing the street? Wouldn't a regular facade with a nice courtyard be better for the people who work there, thus a better use of funds? Is that not fancy enough for BIG? Worst building I've ever seen. Worse than a Taco Bell.
I can definitely say you guys don't know what you're talking about. Except for the BIG caulk joint comment which is right on LOL!
I've been to this building and it's really, really good, not only but *especially* for being built at $375/sf. It's very subtle - you approach it and it looks unremarkable but elegantly proportioned and tightly composed. The you round the corner and the curved facade falls away like glimpsing the Grand Canyon through the trees and whoa! It's a very physical experience.
The interior atrium space is, again, really effective on a tight budget: limited materials, simples moves, huge (BIG) emotional and physical impact.
Here I am at it, with my wonderful friend Ken, fucking thrilled and having one of the best archi-touring visits ever.
Also, Nate, you've embarrassed yourself: Inga Saffron is a Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic, but you go ahead and feel tough, anonymous internet commenter, even though some small-town girl is smarter and more successful than you.
The curving wall is a pretentious waste of resources. There is nothing modern or innovative about it. I'll admit that I haven't been there in person, but I can't imagine enjoying that silly facade...it's non-tactile and basically underwhelming imo. Just my opinion though.
Not my cup of tea but the warped façade does respond lyrically to the curved street. It must create quite a captivating experience. But again, personally not my thing.
I'm not sure Ive ever clearly formulated for myself a reason why there is something about BIG's architecture that, well, if seen as being interesting in one way is also uninteresting in another way. It is not kitch, but it is not too far either.
So the purpose of architecture is as a cheap thrill backdrop for some selfie-taking morons? Well then
Maybe if you read this Pulizer Prize winning critic, you'd take her opinions with a grain of salt, as she regularly insults and generalizes people and places she's never been. Makes me think Pulizer probably reads a single submission and goes by some narrative...politics as usual.
Just because someone is a "local critic" doesn't make them good or interesting.
Is there anything worse than starting a review with the "state of starchitectue" rant... Just presupposes a level of distain for audience
put your hand on the left facade and jusy loom at the right. i think the warp takes aways from the succes of the facade pattern
Have you seen the building in person, Nate?
I mean you're *clearly* more intelligent than those Pulitzer prize juries, so I'd really love to get your opinion.
/sarcasmforfuckssakestopembarassingyourself
Ew I don't want to visit Philadelphia, I'd rather stop in Delaware. Let's face it, Inga Saffron owes 60% of the Pulizer to having a cool name, and because nobody goes to sad Philadelphia so it's seen as charity reporting.
What is this idea that you have to visit? Maybe that's true for complicated, layered architecture, but that's not what BIG is about... It's always about a megaform. And when there's not enough room, a gimmick shape
Delaware? Really? Nothing like reading rants from an assblower, that would rather visit the only state in the union that is essentially a rest stop, before you hit Baltimore.
jlax, can you read a basic photo? the curve isn't facing a parking lot, it's facing a Field Operations designed green space. The short side faces the street, and the parking lot is on the west? side. In fact, the approach to building is quite deceptive, and lets nothing on about what it's hiding on the east side of the building. Quite refreshing take. Given that Anthropolgie, the old Navy Yard is here, scraped destoyers, and carriers; this place is kick ass.
I wonder how it is on energy usage? Regardless, its a nice building. Nicer I'm sure than anything Nate Cornholer ever built, or he'd be on here posting under his real name
the facade pattern alone is subtle and nice. in a way its a siphisticated BIG job..... beta I know you all about the BIG caulk!
quondam you are bringing me around on the warped facade
if you look at Donna's pic does seem like a boat?
We're seeing the usually tired complaints by the anti-BIG anti-Gehry anti-Zaha crowd.
So...we're not allowed to not like BIG davvid? I just don't like their brand of work. I'm entitled to my opinion. I admit that I was wrong about the parking lot comment though b3...The facade does make more sense now...Still, there is just something about their work that bothers me.
jla, I think the problem with BIG is that the personality seems to precede the work, but maybe he is a good guy, I don't know. After what I hear about Zumthor being a total asshole, I'm not inclined to take a dump on his Baths project, let alone in, his Bath project.
If this is a SOM or HOK project or worse, some local name firm it gets zero coverage
Also, just a general comment about photography...Donnas pic makes a much more convincing argument for the project. It would be interesting to see more human centric architectural photography...where the architecture is more of the environmental condition rather than the subject/object.
it does reminisce me of a SITE - Best store project rather than Serra.
Nate, If this were SOM, HOK or some generic local firm, the design wouldn't look like this. I don't think that those firms would have allowed this to be as singular and evocative of a gesture. And the detailing wouldn't be this minimal. Perhaps the windows would have a thicker frame, or maybe louvers or something. Maybe it would be a clumsier form. Maybe it would be less "melting warp" and more "swooping or soaring." There are artful subtleties that people are noticing with BIG's work that set it apart.
NATE & davvid
SOM
davvid: Nate, If this were SOM, HOK or some generic local firm, the design wouldn't look like this. I don't think that those firms would have allowed this to be as singular and evocative of a gesture
Had BIG designed this, wouldn't you still be saying that the design wouldn't look like this had SOM, HOK or some other generic local firm designed this?
Chatter of clouds,
Its an awkward building. If BIG had designed this, I would consider it a weak project by them. The shape is awkwardly showy even though its trying to seem graceful. The combination of exterior finishes doesn't seem imaginative or magical in any way. The window perforation pattern on the central "cavity" isn't charming or interesting, or even consistent. Theres also a stepping back of that perforated surface near the top that seems poorly resolved.
I think that the issues of BIG's PR and their architecture should be completely dissociated from each other or else we arrive at this confused mishmash where people's distate for the PR colours their perception of their architecture and vice versa. If the architecture présents its prétentions, then why should reference be made to the purported architect's prétentions?
Furthermore, I am sure that BIG is hardly the first PR-opportunist architect. Le Corb must have been just as much a self-promoter. In passing, the French intellectual climate encouraged just that, self-promotion. Chomsky makes this point somewhere about how even French intellectuals' ideas aimed firstly impress within the insular intellectual circles of Paris, thus, according to him, leading to a culture of intellectual stardom and posturing that spread elsewhere and continues in the tradition of Slavoj Zizek and the likes.
But, concerning architecture, perhaps now one can suggest that PR-led architecture is nothing but the equivalent of an architecture that responds and capitalizes on the zietgeist of the period. And similarly architectural posturing. "The house is a machine to live in", "less is more", "less is a bore" are all architectural prétentions feeding off concurrent associations. Why is BIG's any less allowable than the rest? This is not in defense of BIG's architecture or his posturings (and here I don't mean that posturing is necessarily a bad thing).
But, if one chose this route of negatively viewing BIG's architecture as a PR-led architecture (a view that has its own risks) calculated to impress, then one must also review the accomplishment of others, including those of iconic figures.
Perhaps, the dislike of BIG is a masked confused and subconscious dislike of a far more general worldview (architectural and beyond). For instance, not so much BIG's PR but rather the system that allows this, and any,PR to propogate without serious critical questioning.
davvid, similarly one can claim that the repetitive pattern of windows and panels in the BIG project is uninteresting and that the building is a one-trick, maybe a two trick, pony. I am not saying that it is but I can easily see that being stated.
Furthermore, however you (subjectively) evaluate the SOM project, it is clearly "singular and evocative of a gesture"; something that you suggest SOM does not do.
And if anything, there is a special place in hell for the big (not necessarily BIG) "generic" " firms who produce such iconic gestural architecture :)
I liked 3XN's version better.
The problem with "intellectual stardom" isn't the good work the brought them there, but the Undeserving value attributed to the shitty work that follows...can a new artist shit in a tea cup and pass it off as art?
Chatter of clouds,
The big corporate firms try for singularity and clarity, but they rarely hit the mark, in my opinion. Of course its all subjective and nobody is forcing anyone to like or hire BIG.
I remember when studio professors used "one-liner" as a pejorative, even though there are no true one-liners in Architecture. Buildings are inherently complex. But there are many architects who crave a visual expression of that complexity with a layering of clips, trusses, cables, panels, louvers, etc. Renzo Piano definitely has that niche covered, and he does it well. So does Norman Foster.
I work with a lot of graphic and industrial designers, and I can see how having a clean graphic clarity that is both beautiful but also somewhat practical/sensible can win a lot of people over. Also, in an era of placemaking and campus-like work spaces, BIG uses forms to create strong identities while also interacting with and shaping urban spaces.
I agree with you that it seems like some people struggle to appreciate work done by someone they don't like personally.
I would subscribe to the notion that individual authorship is important in making good architecture. It probably is more difficult to make an interesting form in a big corporate firm ... but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just a fact that the press doesn't really cover architecture. That selfie says pretty much everything about media in 2016. Let's hope 2017 and beyond something changes
Hornblower you're living up to your name in this thread.
"The press doesn't really cover architecture"
oh really?
The press covers architecture much in the same way that the public responds to architecture. Very few care either way. Most of the attention is spent is spent on a small sliver of high profile projects and people. Either people tend to think its amazing or its a travesty. And its usually not covered in detail. Usually its all about the exterior.
Personally, I'd rather have 1,000 happy tenants than 1 happy NY Times critic.
But I get why some people are in it for the image.
I hope that this is just a small stopgap before architecture gets its balls back. Though we may have to suffer through a bunch of 70s nostalgia before then. The trickle effect will be more damaging.. Would hate to be in arch school right now. Probably learning how to design via TED talk. Meanwhile, the NYTimes is cuckholded by FB so don't look there for measured opinion.
"Let's hope 2017 and beyond something changes"
"I hope that this is just a small stopgap before architecture gets its balls back."
Nate you might be more persuasive if you bothered to offer an alternative, instead of just arguing against. To be frank, I have no idea what you're trying to say other than you think this is bad (for unstated reasons).
do you like the way the building sits on the ground, that intersection joint?
Why is it awful? I remember seeing a lecture where Bjarke admits that all you can do now is stack banal forms together. Someone said midcentury modern, but this is more like suburban office park with a piece of corporate art in front to distract from the banality of the work
STFU Hornblower. Your "critique"so far has amounted to "I dont like it". Could you please articulate why you do not like this building? Otherwise STFU.
sameolddoctor, whether you or I agree or disagree, you can easily find an answer to your question in the last post if you wanted to: suburban office park with a piece of corporate art in front to distract from the banality of the work.
Does he really need to add more to that, given that it is, after all, a question of liking.
There is something I don't like about it either and it may have to do with those panels (subjective recollections perhaps), the small distance seperating them from the glass panels (i think a bit of depth would have given the semblance of more gravity - this way it looks closer to a uniform twisted curtain wall - except when allowance is made for terraces I suppose) , the nonchalant rather maladriot way the building sits on the ground..and, given that the pattern could not continue ad infinitum, and the lowest and the topmost horizontal array of panels and spanning between the vertical rows, not really elegant there.
@quanodam via Inga's review -
"Ingels has created a giant periscope, complete with angled mirrors, that offers a view of the Navy ships docked several blocks away. At each level, the square atrium opening rotates slightly. Each level is outlined in lights, adding to the funhouse feeling."
tduds, I went and looked at those images of the 3XN building. Hoo boy. They kinda tossed in every architecture trope of the moment, no?
Lifted skirt <check>
Warped facade <check>
Big shutters <check>
Metal mesh <check>
Prow roofline <check>
Folded plane <check, but only a half check because it's the same material as the wall>
It's not a BAD building, it's cool, but it's just way too much going on. The BIG project is incredibly stripped down, which I love.
Per the quote I read again this weekend that I love: Mies says "Less is more." Rick Joy says "Less is more work." It's really hard to do something simple!
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.