I saw a better picture of it today (more from the side and from above). It was much better. The criticism here reminds me of the uproar about having a “wall” for the Vietnam War Memorial. They were ready to riot over that one.
[ul]
[sup]Funny thing about hind sight[/sup][/ul]
Wasn’t there some discussion on that here a while back?
Still, the Vietnam Memorial is a bit different than a replacement for the WTC.
I just can’t believe they are considering doing something that’ll piss away so much valuable real estate. Dumbasses.
Why is everyone throwing around their baseless opinions on the designs in GQ?
This is not IMHO people, and even if it was you try putting some thought into your opinions on the building design rather than just ‘deciding’ you don’t like the look of it.
Buildings effect everything you do. The average Joe spends, on average, 93% of his time inside an artificial environment designed by an architect. (at home, work, shopping, pubs / clubs etc…). Architecture is the mother of all arts. Buildings are the only works of art in which you can walk around in and freely interact with.
Good or bad, the spaces you inhabit effect you in many, many ways. The design of a building is far more than just how it looks in one particular perspective or sketch. It is more than the space created, it is more than the materials used. It is important for designers to have a strong grasp of the nature of space, the user perspective, the emotional quality of the experience. And no one does this better than Libeskind.
The building will be much more than the sum of its parts. Don’t fall into the trap of judging it based on a single perspective view. There is much more to consider.
And which two designs would your vast knowledge of architecture and design lead you to choose? And what does your personal scheme design look like? Post a few pictures of your design for the buildings and spaces and we’ll all judge those against the existing entries. If not, you are in no position to judge so harshly.
It was never in the competition. It was a red herring, thrown in for no apparent reason. Who could come to their senses and decide to use it, discarding the works of six other architectural practices at a whim. Doesn’t work like that.
No, it was nearly not built because 1: It was thrown out of the competition early, and only later revived, and 2: When it was chosen, the technology to actually build it as initially designed was not sufficiently advanced - the original had more ‘sails’ - what was built was a compromise between weight, cost and aesthetics. Nothing to do with being ‘too out there’
Also, remember this - the competition is only to decide which architectural practice the judges feel has expressed the correct amount of depth, quality and expertise in their submission. Once they are officially chosen and are on board with the project, the designs will change greatly. Don’t expect the final buildings and spaces to even closely resemble the competition entries. That also does not happen. See the Scottish Parliament buildings (by Miralles) for an example of this.
Aro, as you may know, I respect your opinion on architecture greatly, but I do think there’s a median to be drawn between what knowledgeable architects think is worthwhile, and what the public likes.
You and I know that most once-publicly-reviled structures are now loved by the public, but occasionally once-publicly-reviled structures are still reviled (e.g. Dublin’s Busáras, which is adored by many architects, but sucks, IMO). I think Joe Soap should be given some credit for an aesthetic disagreement, without a demand that they provide their own designs. If you don’t like a painting, you’re not required to be a painter yourself to have an opinion. To say otherwise smacks a wee bit of elitism.
I think you might be right.
My vex is that architects train for seven years (two more than doctors), and if you go to your GP you don’t start debating with him the type of treatment or drugs he administers, yet everyone with a voice complains about professional designers and thinks they know better. It seems to be something everyone has an opinion on yet never spends the time to respect the level and quality of thought the architects will spend in creating their proposals. They should not be flippantly dismissed after a cursory glance.
But, I’ll retract all of that part of my post (which was in itself not the right tone for GQ) , and apologise to Michael Ellis. Sorry.
I’m having a pissy day, but GQ is not the place to bring it all up.
I do understand your beef: city planners don’t receive the same harsh criticism, yet they probably deserve it more than arthictects; I guess it’s that architects have higher profiles, and the effects of their work are also very prominent.
These are finalists? :rolleyes:
It could be worse – it could look like this.