What did you think about the 10 rejected WTC memorial submissions featured on February 1 in the NYTs? I was wondering if you would link to it but your decision not to makes me ponder your thoughts..
oh, and don't worry you can be candid, I am not "invested" in any way. And archnewsnow is a great resource.
...hmm, thread is fraying, but...
The NY Post had this weird story about Maya Lin influencing the selection process. Not sure that she’s an “architect” per se, but her Vietnam memorial is one of very few successful public works using the vocabulary of contemporary art (contemporary as of the 70s, anyway.) Her only mistake was not putting a commercial/residential tower on top of the wall. The irony of her success is the devaluation of her grammar for the next generation, leading to the stale, “friendly minimalism” of so many of these designs.
“friendly minimalism” is that like “architectural humanism?”
I was struck by the fact that so many of the WTC memorial proposals, shortlisted or not, read as temporary installations. Aren't memorials supposed to last forever, or well, longer than even a building’s lifetime?
your right memorials should out live their surrounding buildings. unless the memorial is the building. "remember the alamo."
I like the idea that even buildings have a lifetime.
All 5,201 submissions:
http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/submissions.html
thanks selma wtcsitememorial.org
does anyone else remember maya lin publicly proposing north and south tower footprint shaped reflecting pools of her own ?
"Mr. Eisenman was becoming preoccupied with his standing in architectural history. What imprint would he leave on the culture when he was gone? He came to the conclusion that mere architecture was not enough. "You know, our Arizona stadium will be torn down in 30 years because it will be useless," he said. "All the great stadiums get torn down." Books, he decided, could deliver a more powerful and lasting impact. Even if their print run is tiny, even if their terminology is comprehensible only to a rarefied minority, they communicate ideas more clearly and widely than any single building can."
Can we call him THE "armchair architect?"
I understand his building in Ohio, the Wexner Center, is falling apart, literally. And that his DAAP building at University of Cincinnati is not holding up so well either. Maybe he should be worried about his "imprint." Of course, one can always blame the contractor...
http://www.wexarts.org/ex/
http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0701/ob/ob09.html
what do you call a "paper architect" in a cad world. thanks for the links
LOL
"Perhaps the most far-reaching implications for the profession, however, lie in formalism’s emphasis on the making of often compelling architectural images. Imitating conceptual art’s attempts to negate the material aspects of the artwork, architecture has premiated its schematic diagram and photogenic appearance, suppressing the material particulars of its construction. The invocation of conceptual architecture seemed to be accompanied by, or interpreted as, a marked lack of care given to the fabrication of the architectural object, the exigencies of the construction process, its material components, their methods of assembly, climate, weathering, and so on. Buildings constructed from these drawings often yielded a host of problems (like peeling paint, cracked tiles, water damage, and sloppy construction)."(8)
8. D.K. Dietsch here discusses the deteriorating condition of Michael Graves’s Portland Civic Building in “Postmodern Ruins,” Architecture, July 1997, 13, while Suzanne Frank recalls the various weather and construction related issues of Eisenman’s House VI in “The Client’s Response” in Peter Eisenman’s House VI: A Client’s Response (New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1994), 49–72. To be sure, many of these problems were a direct result of budgetary limitations and contractors unaccustomed to unconventional designs, but aren’t these factors also part of the architect’s professional responsibilities?
Architectural students seem to be learning only on the computer and do not seem to know how to imaginarily walk through a space 3-dimensionally. I met a graduate student from Columbia the other day who had not built a model since high school. There is also the problem of contractors – although I have the suspicion that this cause is overrated and provides architects too much of the high design excuse - and unions. While an architect might take off the blinders of “building,” a contractor can sometimes not imagine the materials needed to facilitate the architectural vision. But all in all, I think they get a hard time (and ultimately, most importantly, as you point out, it should be the responsibility of the architect).
Do you know the story of the “wobbly bridge” in London? Maybe it is a bad example though, because it is the case of the engineer getting blamed, not the contractors…
Sorry, another link (without the link):
http://www.structurae.de/en/structures/data/str00603.php
|
- anonymous 2-10-2004 9:19 pm
oh, and don't worry you can be candid, I am not "invested" in any way. And archnewsnow is a great resource.
- anonymous (guest) 2-10-2004 9:22 pm [add a comment]
...hmm, thread is fraying, but...
The NY Post had this weird story about Maya Lin influencing the selection process. Not sure that she’s an “architect” per se, but her Vietnam memorial is one of very few successful public works using the vocabulary of contemporary art (contemporary as of the 70s, anyway.) Her only mistake was not putting a commercial/residential tower on top of the wall. The irony of her success is the devaluation of her grammar for the next generation, leading to the stale, “friendly minimalism” of so many of these designs.
- alex 2-10-2004 9:50 pm [add a comment]
“friendly minimalism” is that like “architectural humanism?”
I was struck by the fact that so many of the WTC memorial proposals, shortlisted or not, read as temporary installations. Aren't memorials supposed to last forever, or well, longer than even a building’s lifetime?
- anonymous (guest) 2-10-2004 11:17 pm [add a comment] [edit]
your right memorials should out live their surrounding buildings. unless the memorial is the building. "remember the alamo."
- bill 2-11-2004 6:04 pm [add a comment]
I like the idea that even buildings have a lifetime.
- anonymous (guest) 2-11-2004 6:14 pm [add a comment] [edit]
All 5,201 submissions:
http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/submissions.html
- selma 2-23-2004 7:18 pm [add a comment]
thanks selma wtcsitememorial.org
does anyone else remember maya lin publicly proposing north and south tower footprint shaped reflecting pools of her own ?
- bill 2-23-2004 7:40 pm [add a comment]
"Mr. Eisenman was becoming preoccupied with his standing in architectural history. What imprint would he leave on the culture when he was gone? He came to the conclusion that mere architecture was not enough. "You know, our Arizona stadium will be torn down in 30 years because it will be useless," he said. "All the great stadiums get torn down." Books, he decided, could deliver a more powerful and lasting impact. Even if their print run is tiny, even if their terminology is comprehensible only to a rarefied minority, they communicate ideas more clearly and widely than any single building can."
- bill 2-14-2004 9:56 pm [add a comment]
Can we call him THE "armchair architect?"
I understand his building in Ohio, the Wexner Center, is falling apart, literally. And that his DAAP building at University of Cincinnati is not holding up so well either. Maybe he should be worried about his "imprint." Of course, one can always blame the contractor...
http://www.wexarts.org/ex/
http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0701/ob/ob09.html
- anonymous (guest) 2-17-2004 9:09 pm [add a comment] [edit]
what do you call a "paper architect" in a cad world. thanks for the links
- bill 2-17-2004 11:05 pm [add a comment]
LOL
- anonymous (guest) 2-17-2004 11:11 pm [add a comment] [edit]
"Perhaps the most far-reaching implications for the profession, however, lie in formalism’s emphasis on the making of often compelling architectural images. Imitating conceptual art’s attempts to negate the material aspects of the artwork, architecture has premiated its schematic diagram and photogenic appearance, suppressing the material particulars of its construction. The invocation of conceptual architecture seemed to be accompanied by, or interpreted as, a marked lack of care given to the fabrication of the architectural object, the exigencies of the construction process, its material components, their methods of assembly, climate, weathering, and so on. Buildings constructed from these drawings often yielded a host of problems (like peeling paint, cracked tiles, water damage, and sloppy construction)."(8)
8. D.K. Dietsch here discusses the deteriorating condition of Michael Graves’s Portland Civic Building in “Postmodern Ruins,” Architecture, July 1997, 13, while Suzanne Frank recalls the various weather and construction related issues of Eisenman’s House VI in “The Client’s Response” in Peter Eisenman’s House VI: A Client’s Response (New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1994), 49–72. To be sure, many of these problems were a direct result of budgetary limitations and contractors unaccustomed to unconventional designs, but aren’t these factors also part of the architect’s professional responsibilities?
- bill 2-18-2004 9:11 pm [add a comment]
Architectural students seem to be learning only on the computer and do not seem to know how to imaginarily walk through a space 3-dimensionally. I met a graduate student from Columbia the other day who had not built a model since high school. There is also the problem of contractors – although I have the suspicion that this cause is overrated and provides architects too much of the high design excuse - and unions. While an architect might take off the blinders of “building,” a contractor can sometimes not imagine the materials needed to facilitate the architectural vision. But all in all, I think they get a hard time (and ultimately, most importantly, as you point out, it should be the responsibility of the architect).
Do you know the story of the “wobbly bridge” in London? Maybe it is a bad example though, because it is the case of the engineer getting blamed, not the contractors…
Sorry, another link (without the link):
http://www.structurae.de/en/structures/data/str00603.php
- anonymous (guest) 2-19-2004 12:25 am [add a comment] [edit]