[...] Peter Zumthor spoke with LACMA CEO [...] Michael Govan about the concepts behind his plans for LACMA's future presentation of its collections. Peter last spoke at LACMA in 2013 in conjunction with the exhibition The Presence of the Past: Peter Zumthor Reconsiders LACMA, when we were in the very early stages of thinking about LACMA's new building. Since that time, Peter and Michael have been working on the concepts behind the building, and Peter and his team have been refining the plans. — Unframed
The building design has a come a long way since its earlier, deliberately dark "inkblot" style.
"As for the change in color from dark to light?," Unframed writes, "Peter's thinking has evolved along with the building, and he wanted it to be elemental, with a mineral tone, very substantial but not slick, and to make the outside feel like the inside."
Renderings and illustrations by Atelier Peter Zumthor (street level rendering by Atelier Peter Zumthor/The Boundary). All images via unframed.lacma.org.
31 Comments
atmospherics - he is never going to release buildable renderings; it would reveal too much and destroy the mystique he is trying to cultivate.
"Buildable Renderings"
Yes, we've arrived at the problem.
it is not possible to render a building at 99% CDs?
This project is taking way too long for so little progress.
Well, LACMA have to raise the money first.
LACMA is taking so long because acronyms. And the stakeholders are trying to design a horse, and kicking the camel they are forcing Zumthor to make.
Why are "buildable renderings" a problem?
All renderings are flawed. They over promise something that can't ever be delivered.
no
Renderings are not unlike an adolescent boy's understanding of female pleasure via pornography - and I like porn; but it has nothing to do with female pleasure.
in the case of these zumthor renderings I totally agree, but if you don't think rendering now has the capability to represent a building in an accurate way by rendering at 99% completion in photorealsim...you have no idea what you are talking about.
b3tadine[sutures], lol... are we still talking about design?
Every method of visualization is going to be misleading to some degree because we do not have a substitute for real life experience. But every method has different pros and cons. At a late stage in the process, I really do want to see a highly detailed "photorealistic" rendering of the design. I can't be confident that the materials, shadows, textures, and contextual aspects are working together without a good rendering.
I don't even understand the argument you are trying to make...the rendering vs. the real building images above are almost identical and to a laymen/non-architect they are. You are posting pictures that reinforce what I said from the beginning, look at one of those renderings next to zumthor's fantasy atmospheric composites...his renderings don't reflect anything about true construction or tectonics; all of the images you posted above do...they are completely buildable renderings. The camera does pick up on minutiae not available in the computer...but the whole other discussion is post produced/photoshopped "real" photos...which are fantasy as well - which could be the case in all of the photos you posted above of the real projects, but that is a whole other discussion.
b3tadine[sutures],
I also don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Okay, look. You guys are right, in the sense that renderings have come a long way, as a medium for representation. However, if I know anything, I know these two things; media lies, because media is a carefully crafted construct by people with an agenda - even photography lies. Two, when the medium becomes the message, we have to maintain the question, what is being stated?
I've been on professional photo shoots, as no doubt many of you have as well, we know what goes into that representation, what it's purpose is to what audience.
Many of these renderings, at 99% CDs, really? Why? To what end? 99% CDs, are you VE, at 99%? I like atmospheric, to me atmospheric still operates in the becoming, and doesn't tell the viewer, here, it's complete; this is, what IT will be. It promises nothing, and speaks more to the possibility, and less to the constructed "reality" which may never be.
Our eyes never see the draughtsmanly painting, only the painterly. Ephemeral over the concrete.
But those renderings, total Jenna Jameson.
zumthor has the jenna jameson versions - pure fantasy not grounded in reality at all - a 200 foot double cantilever supported on a glass box with sheets of glass that are 20'x100' long without a single division. A wispy curtain flowing 80 ft above the LACMA campus in an empty room with all glass and no structure. Airbrushed. If anything those are the porn. The real vs. rendering samples you posted are sex ed junior high - nuts and bolts explaining how it all works. You have it backwards.
Actually, Jenna Jameson, verrrrrrry far from "atmospheric". Zumthor's renderings are closer to Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable love making, in "It Happened One Night". The images, while the representations I've shared may not be full-on gynecological porn, my point remains; if you are spending any of your project budget, to do renderings at 99% CDs, you're not only doing it wrong, your putting money in the wrong hole.
Not if you are working in BIM.
Hehehe...you said BIM.
The new look, seems lighter, more "California" somehow. And more refined, especially when compared to the pre "pits" slick-vibe, early on.
More "Sunshine" and less "Noir" as it were...
Where-from this graph;
"Zumthor’s scheme will evolve. Some phases of that evolution may be popular, and others less so, but regardless of popularity, the architect’s portfolio of work must stand for something. Images, as becomes clear for anyone who has experienced his built work, will not tell the whole story."
I don't really see anything unbuildable in the renderings above. Maybe you can mark up some examples?
357951,
The complete absence of light fixtures is what first caught my eye.
have you not heard of natural daylighting? in fact zumthor should be commended for the sustainable approach shown here. If need be, they can always bring in some candles or ikea lamps with extension cords. Drone-mounted LEDs is another option.
357951, In the same breath you commended the "sustainability" of not installing light fixtures and recommended drone-mounted LEDs (which require more energy than fixtures and emit lots of noise; bad for a spacious museum) as a nighttime solution. The actually sustainable approach would most likely be LED fixtures with daylight sensors. I doubt Zumthor was considering sustainability when choosing to omit light fixtures in his renderings.
From the post linked above.
The interior is impressive, however—and voluminous and overwhelming. Smaller paintings will be lost. If this gallery is representative, how much art can the museum actually display?
Is this textured concrete? Regardless, holes will have to be drilled to hang paintings. Over time maintenance and keeping up its appearance will be a challenge.
Nor do I see tracks for lighting. If from the ceiling, it will take some powerful bulbs. Not all art can stand natural light, and there doesn't seem to be enough. (I worked in a museum, years ago.)
Status, trendiness, and architectural statement look to exceed function.
Board "Can you make it look like that place we all travelled to in order see your work? We liked that place and the way if felt."
I'm wondering if the added labor with the finishes is the reason the program spaces are shrinking. Forget access to collection, we want pretty spaces.
I can see why Zumthor is pissed at the final very corporate-looking rendition...
Is this typical? All the renderings I've seen have curved glazing, one of this minimal design's most salient aspects. They may well end up with a completed building that no one likes. There's a book in this, full of cautionary tales.
I mean... I still like it.
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.