4 ms·

Without questioning her skill and professionalism, I don't really like any of her buildings, because I don't like unnecessary, uncalled-for shape. Today, archit

by chicob 8y ago

Without questioning her skill and professionalism, I don't really like any of her buildings, because I don't like unnecessary, uncalled-for shape. Today, architecture has a whole new range of possibilities thanks to new materials and technologies, but just because one can doesn't mean one should. And when I say this, I also have in mind other kinds of design, from cars, furniture, shampoo plastic bottles, fonts and GUIs. If any shape is possible, aesthetics usually goes down the drain. In the particular case of buildings, these are made to last and have an imposing quality of their own, given their size and location. And famous architects have an visionary aura that only adds to the disappointment and dismay of the common citizens that will have to live in the shadow of those behemoths, whether they like it or not.

tremon 8y ago
I'm not very partial to any of the big, prestigious buildings (by any architect), but I think that apartment building on NY 520 West 28th is a thing of beauty. The all-glass facade also gives a lot of options for playing with natural lighting inside.
- lambdadmitry 8y ago
  It's just an expensive exercise in modern construction practices and a vehicle to sell luxury flats. Just notice how generic it is. Can you tell which city (or which part of NY) it is if not for the caption? How is it different from any other luxury apartment development except for the looks?
lambdadmitry 8y ago
I think it boils down to the lack of grand vision. "Celebrity architects" nowadays mostly focus on the looks, slapping a fancy sculpture of a building into an environment they don't care about (like that one [1], the block might just as well "fit" literally anywhere else) and splitting it into the same old office/apartment boxes on the inside. Surely it looks good on renders, but there is no idea, it's just pure ornament. Compare and contrast with Barbican Estate [2] [3], which is a social experiment and an embodiment of a vision first and housing project second. None of those generic house-sculptures will be revered and studied in 40 years. It's a shame the current crop of star architects is so obsessed with bling. [1]: https://www.archdaily.com/907124/zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21st-century/5c06607408a5e5c711000669-zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21st-century-photo https://www.archdaily.com/907124/zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21s... [2]: https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/the-barbican-estate-book-stefi-orazi https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/the-barbican-estate-b... [3]: https://robots.thoughtbot.com/barbican-estate-walking-through-lessons-learnt https://robots.thoughtbot.com/barbican-estate-walking-throug...
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  The UK is interesting because we have award winning architects like Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Terry Farrell et all yet we produce the most dismal housing for people to live in. There is a new housing estate behind my house that looks like it was designed by the foreman one Friday afternoon, everywhere I look it's the same.
- chicob 8y ago
  > there is no idea, it's just pure ornament Exactly. It feels like a complete void. I was trying to find examples of a kind or architecture that is the complete opposite, thought of F. L. Wright, and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture

by chicob 8y ago

tremon 8y ago

I'm not very partial to any of the big, prestigious buildings (by any architect), but I think that apartment building on NY 520 West 28th is a thing of beauty. The all-glass facade also gives a lot of options for playing with natural lighting inside.

lambdadmitry 8y ago
It's just an expensive exercise in modern construction practices and a vehicle to sell luxury flats. Just notice how generic it is. Can you tell which city (or which part of NY) it is if not for the caption? How is it different from any other luxury apartment development except for the looks?

lambdadmitry 8y ago

I think it boils down to the lack of grand vision. "Celebrity architects" nowadays mostly focus on the looks, slapping a fancy sculpture of a building into an environment they don't care about (like that one [1], the block might just as well "fit" literally anywhere else) and splitting it into the same old office/apartment boxes on the inside. Surely it looks good on renders, but there is no idea, it's just pure ornament. Compare and contrast with Barbican Estate [2] [3], which is a social experiment and an embodiment of a vision first and housing project second. None of those generic house-sculptures will be revered and studied in 40 years. It's a shame the current crop of star architects is so obsessed with bling. [1]: https://www.archdaily.com/907124/zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21st-century/5c06607408a5e5c711000669-zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21st-century-photo https://www.archdaily.com/907124/zaha-hadid-maker-of-the-21s... [2]: https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/the-barbican-estate-book-stefi-orazi https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/the-barbican-estate-b... [3]: https://robots.thoughtbot.com/barbican-estate-walking-through-lessons-learnt https://robots.thoughtbot.com/barbican-estate-walking-throug...

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
The UK is interesting because we have award winning architects like Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Terry Farrell et all yet we produce the most dismal housing for people to live in. There is a new housing estate behind my house that looks like it was designed by the foreman one Friday afternoon, everywhere I look it's the same.
chicob 8y ago
> there is no idea, it's just pure ornament Exactly. It feels like a complete void. I was trying to find examples of a kind or architecture that is the complete opposite, thought of F. L. Wright, and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture