I love wasted space. My split level has high ceilings in the living room and kitchen–completely useless, but not claustrophobic. But the Disney? The feeling of spaciousness is compromised by things like long, narrow rooms and walls curving in at head height. Someone should’ve reminded him he was designing a building, not a 747.
Tall buildings have enough trouble fitting enough rental space to pay the way, what with needing room for elevators, stairs, utilities, etc. Those concavities steal square footage. There’s a lot to be said for 90 degree angles.
I’ve heard the Chrysler Building referred to as “the world’s tallest brick structure.” What does that claim mean, if the Empire State has the same sort of walls? Or is it simply inaccurate? I’ve seen it repeated in several places.
Architects like FLW considered proportion to be of paramount importance in their designs. If the proportions were right, it creates natural beauty that wouldn’t need useless or frivolous ornamentation to pretty it up. The problem is, most architects don’t come anywhere close to the brilliance of FLW and a few others when it comes to designing with these beautiful proportions. When you have a design that doesn’t get its beauty from that, and doesn’t get its beauty from ornamentation, you just get blah.
At least, that’s my take on it.
This I would agree with. I think also when you forget that ‘humans’ use these buildings and forget human scale that the buildings fall apart under critical examination. People don’t view buildings through floor plans, or elevations–you interact with them through walking through them and interacting with the spatial and tactile qualities of the space.
I think that jarring your preconceptions about what a lobby should be or what an office should be CAN be a good thing. But if it crosses the line and forgets that someone still has to use that lobby or work in that office that I personally have a problem with.
My office strives to create people places, and it is what I personally enjoy doing. I love going down to the grand openings of my projects anonymously and hearing what people say about the spaces I have created. Some good and some bad–but if I provoked them into thinking about something in a different way, then I feel I have succeded as an Architect. But if all I did was create some funky thing to be funky–well I guess I would have become a sculptor or something. People live and work in my buildings and I think that the building should reflect this reality.
Frankly, I suspect that the lost rental space won’t much matter. In this uncertain post-9/11 world, I have to admire the investors’ optimism in backing “the world’s largest all-residential building.” Because if there’s one place people will want to live, sleep, and raise their families, it’s inside the tallest building in North America.
My favorite part of the Wikipedia article: *“Calatrava has been inspired by themes and designs in nature for the tall, twisting skyscraper. For the design of the building, he likened the structure to an imaginary smoke spiral (…)” * You just don’t hit upon imagery like that purely by accident.
Oh Calatrava, you imp! I applaud you, sir. Your magnificent prank is coming together even more perfectly than you could possibly have imagined. They actually fell for it! The city of Chicago boldly entrusted this grand historic project to your unique artistic vision. You took their money gladly, and offered them in return… a gigantic screw.
laughing My only regret is that I’ll have to look at it every time I drive east.
Well, a lot can happen in four years. There’s a slim chance that Chicagoans will realize that Calatrava was just fucking with them all along. He very plainly doesn’t expect the project to succeed; the entire design is a blindingly obvious advertisement to that effect. “Attention, Chicago! I am DARING you to call my bluff. If you are collectively too stupid to realize this, then you deserve this building. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that it’s a BIG SCREW? Haven’t I been telling everyone that the design is supposed to suggest a giant building-sized column of smoke? Doesn’t all this suggest anything to you? You’re still not getting the joke, Chicago; it’s starting to not be fun for me anymore. Do I have to hang up a goddamn neon sign for you people? My building is a GIANT SCREW. Get it? SCREW YOU, CHICAGO.”
I’m sure he’s already been paid off, though, so he’ll be happy however it falls out. He’s probably got a whole list of excuses ready for every phase of the project.
“It would have been a timeless masterpiece if only the backers hadn’t pulled out.”
“It’s a timeless masterpiece. It’s not my fault people are afraid to live in it.”
“It was a timeless masterpiece, until it abruptly sheared itself to pieces. I blame the builders for not adequately reinforcing my dramatically sculpted twisty design. Has Chicago always been known for its high winds?”
You must find a copy of “Architecture Today” off the album “Boot to the Head” by The Frantics. Do whatever it takes; borrow, steal, kill.
Relevant to this thread for various reasons, the Monadnock Building.
The north half - 15 stories tall - is one of if not the tallest building with load-bearing brick walls. The interior is certainly not solid brick. And (IMO) the N half is not unattractive, despite the lack of exterior ornament.
The south half is steel framed with a brick “curtain wall.” Builders were free of the need for masonry supporting walls well before 2000.
What is it with Liebeskind and abruptly angular masses being jammed into the earth?
He designed the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco (still under construction near my office) and sure enough, it’s a big blue steel box clinging precariously to a mildly historic brick building, or as they put it, “In dialog with the historic structure…”
His concept sketch is just frightening, and I’m afraid I’d get ill if I had to spend any time in the auditorium.
As someone said earlier, Liebeskind’s buildings transcend “hostile” and step firmly into “malignant.”
I just popped over there at lunchtime - a lot of the construction barriers have come down so the [del]tumor[/del] building is more visible than it was a couple weeks ago.
Holy Mother of Cinnamon, that’s not something I’d call attractive! It’s not so obvious in the artist’s rendering, but the whole “cube” portion is clad in dark blue steel - not too dissimilar from the blue finish on carpet tacks - in a sort of harlequin diamond pattern. There’s also a black chunk jutting out of the brick building, as if to echo or balance the huge blue steel block.
Something else that’s completely missing from the rendering is that the Museum is immediately next to a brick church that was built in 1851. The steel cube is directly behind the church, Separated from the church by a sidewalk, and attached to the historic power plant, Liebeskind’s creation has nothing in common with either building except a ZIP code. It doesn’t so much as clash or argue with either as it just appears to have fallen from the sky and landed there.
FWIW, the rendering greatly increases the apparent space surrounding it - about the only way you’d be able to get that view of it in reality would be from within another building.
I like how the Artist’s Statement looks you right in the eye and lies its ass off about how there’s some sort of artistic synergy between the brick building and the metal extension:
That’s the sort of breathtaking bullshit you only get from a Fine Arts education. Libeskind has generously donated the Jewish Museum ample material for their Chutzpah exhibit.
On the other hand, isn’t the original Power Station Building something else? This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It’s a freaking municipal power substation, yet the city still went out of its way to give it elements of “Classical Revival style with a towering, arched doorway and Romanesque attributes.” And cherubs! It’s a power station, and it has cherubs! Okay, maybe the cherubs were overdoing it a little.
Liebeskind seems to be particularly fond of sticking something angular onto an older building in a completely different style, given that he also did that at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
I can’t decide whether the Chicago tower reminds me more of a popsicle or a [url=http://www.glassfantasy.com/images/x382.jpg]dildo…
![popsicle or a [url=http://www.glassfantasy.com/images/x382.jpg]dildo](http://static.flickr.com/51/105596984_c099f477ce.jpg){kind=link}
(Images safe for work. One’s a popsicle and the other one is a dildo. Ok, if it’s ok to look at pictures of dildos at your work, this is totally work safe. The ASPCA has verified that no beavers were harmed, or indeed invited, during the photographing of this dildo. The entire shoot was rodent free. It’s possible that Richard Gere was on set, but we all know that’s just an urban legend, so his presence was ok.)
Heh, reminds me of this.
Thank you for that image. I now have a new nightmare: that someday I’ll be physically assaulted in broad daylight, and it’ll go to court; and the witnesses and jury will all be people who approved that thing.
Now that is sweet.
Let’s say you’re a slightly down-at-heel Victorian city, in Victoria, looking for a way to commemorate your nation’s independence - which was achieved in 1901, the last year of Queen Victoria’s reign. Have I used the word “Victoria” enough yet?
Ladies and Gents, I give you Melbourne’s Federation Square.
You guys left out Populuxe architecture, the all-American archictecture of the people! And my favorite style!
What, no mention of Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House"?
And I thought you was congnescenti!