[Amager Bakke] is a work that revels in its own contrivance, a condensation and celebration of the surrounding artifice, a creation of what might be called hypernature. It is at once an energy facility, converting refuse into electricity, and a ski slope. It is arresting and striking. It’s an emblem of a culture of why-not and because-you-can that currently pops up in a number of modern cities [...] — The Guardian
Writing in The Guardian, architecture critic Rowan Moore heaps praise on Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) and the firm's founder in a write-up of the firm's recently completed Amager Bakke project in Copenhagen.
Describing the architect's ability to impress clients, Moore writes, "He learned the power of shock from his former boss, Rem Koolhaas, without the scent of intellectual and psychological complication that major clients sometimes find off-putting about the latter. He presents himself as a seer, intoning about the future he means to shape, about the 'world-changing power of form-giving', but a cheeky one."
Love the building, love Bjarke. Fight me if you like.
What specifically is the problem with the work of BIG? I went to see his Copenhagen projects and a few others, like the serpentine etc, really wondering if they would hold up to the hype, and could only say they were pretty much just as billed. The Copenhagen park project is simply brilliant. and 8 is super cool. Details are not refined I agree. They are cheap and appear slightly mindless (I guess this is a style choice?), and yet the effect is still strong, and authentic, in a way that a lot of contemporary architecture does not achieve. That is a very serious skill to have. Its not as cool and cerebral as Mies or Rem, but it has a character worth looking at with some care.
In this case, after all those generic LEED buildings out there it is nice to see a project that actually engages with the public so powerfully. Up until now sustainable design with large project like this tend to be about reducing energy use, which is cool. Now its about how we live our lives. Who else is out there doing that kind of work? That is significant.
I don't think its reasonable to shut this project down so easily without saying more than BIG is not good at architecture. Never do understand this kind of discomfort with the office. Is it because architecture looks different than the high modernism a lot of us were raised with? Or something more? Too much pop?
All 8 Comments
The lack of "intellectual and psychological complication" is the problem with most architecture today.
Rem is way better though. Let's be real.
Theme park gimicks are more fun for journalists though... which is the whole marketing game.
As if Rem's designs Star Wars based designs aren't gimmick marketing. At this level everything is marketing.
IIT, Seattle PL, Maison Bordeaux, Prada, are masterpieces. CCTV is also, but unfortunately started the XL phase of Rem semi-retirement and mediocrity (including Star Wars). Bjarke’s W57 and Denmark apartments are good by developer standards, but most else is gimmicky drivel. This building is a complete waste and irresponsible — like building a golf course on a homeless shelter ... waste of material
The homeless should be able to enjoy golf too.
Bjarke is hated by high-minded Architects for the same reason he's loved by journalists & the public: He doesn't take himself seriously and he injects whimsy into most of his high-profile work. People who take themselves too seriously hate to see people both refusing to be serious and succeeding because of it.
I can name project after project that is a complete failure from a social / cultural / functional point of view that is glorified by corporate media. Rem is highly overrated and the Seattle Public Library is atrocious. Starchitects live on the Pritzker the way pop music lives on Billboard. It's all marketing: substance not required and in many cases would seem to be detrimental to the intended result.
Seeing Rem's projects in photographs is completely different than seeing them in person. Spending a day using the space as it was intended is completely different than walking through it as an architectural observer. That article you linked Miles is spot on. Every time I go back inside the Seattle Public Library, the more I am disappointed. It has not aged well. It's great as an object to be photographed, but not so much to be used as intended. I also expected more from IIT, but it left me unsatisfied. It would not surprise me if Bjarke's designs did the same. Rem at least had the theory to keep things interesting in the intellectual world, I've yet to see it translate well into the real one.
Love the building, love Bjarke. Fight me if you like.
No fighting required. Your allowed to like any architect or building you like, but "intellectual and psychological complication" is exactly what's wrong with architecture. No user knows or cares about the blarney folks like Rem peddle, whether one can make sense of it or not.
Bjarke has perfected marketing.
Architecture not so much.
What specifically is the problem with the work of BIG? I went to see his Copenhagen projects and a few others, like the serpentine etc, really wondering if they would hold up to the hype, and could only say they were pretty much just as billed. The Copenhagen park project is simply brilliant. and 8 is super cool. Details are not refined I agree. They are cheap and appear slightly mindless (I guess this is a style choice?), and yet the effect is still strong, and authentic, in a way that a lot of contemporary architecture does not achieve. That is a very serious skill to have. Its not as cool and cerebral as Mies or Rem, but it has a character worth looking at with some care.
In this case, after all those generic LEED buildings out there it is nice to see a project that actually engages with the public so powerfully. Up until now sustainable design with large project like this tend to be about reducing energy use, which is cool. Now its about how we live our lives. Who else is out there doing that kind of work? That is significant.
I don't think its reasonable to shut this project down so easily without saying more than BIG is not good at architecture. Never do understand this kind of discomfort with the office. Is it because architecture looks different than the high modernism a lot of us were raised with? Or something more? Too much pop?
Not too much pop, but definitely not as cerebral as Mies. Here's one of Mies's most cerebral projects. Lot's to think about, like WTF?
late 90s/early 00s Rem is turning in his grave!
Good architecture or not - in short, I think he's the perfect illustration of being a product of our times, and someone who understands our times.
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.