I thought this building was cool...
-
Might take a while to download.
-
No, really, come on. Another big pointy building which is a monument to someone's ego.
But this one is different, it's like a stretched pyramid, and it's made of glass.
Please, no. I don't think so.If you want to see really cool buildings, look here http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=hadid&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi.
Don't bother visiting the company website though. Biggest load of obscure, self-indulgent trash I have seen in ages.
-
i agree with bigstick about the first point he made. but, jim, have you seen where your link leads one to? to a bunch of zaha hadid's buildings!!! without wishing to enter in any polemics, she is the mother of all bullshitters in architecture! ego-driven architecture practically starts with her!
do not bother telling me off. it is just my opinion, which is nothing compared to the star status she enjoys.
regards to both.
-
Haha...Edson I remember the last discussion
-
Obviously I am no architect, but I must agree with Edson on Hadid.
The 'big pointy building' doesn't appeal to me either. Looks like something from a seventies sci-fi flick. In other words: I think it's ugly, and a cliché.off to leaf through a book on Neutra
-
I like the building. It has come character. The animation is excellent. I wish I would present my projectw this way one day.
Talking about Z.Haddid, I though her buildings were inspirational, but this what she has done is, in my view, a big mistake.
Tomasz
-
@sepo said:
Haha...Edson I remember the last discussion
yeah, me too. there is no point in arguing in favor or against today's media stars, at least not here. perhaps in an architectural context this could benefit someone, but not in a forum dedicated to something else.
-
@unknownuser said:
I like the building. It has come character. The animation is excellent. I wish I would present my projectw this way one day.
Talking about Z.Haddid, I though her buildings were inspirational, but this what she has done is, in my view, a big mistake.
Tomasz
a lot of what has been done in recent years has to do with mediatic impact, with who wields more power or has more money. very much in tune with the artificial world which is now crumbling to pieces.
-
All a matter of taste then, but I'm no architect just a humble mechanical engineer.
It just appealed to me, and the name reflected the shape and construction material. I also felt it was a change from the towers on the other side of the river.
-
@unknownuser said:
I like the building. It has come character. The animation is excellent. I wish I would present my projectw this way one day.
Talking about Z.Haddid, I though her buildings were inspirational, but this what she has done is, in my view, a big mistake.
Tomasz
Now the "wow" architects even start to resemble each other:
http://www.hafencity.com/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=projekte_detail&show=projekte&item=1
Herzog and Meuron also have a hotel project to destroy the view into Helsinki harbour.
Anssi
-
Guys, I'm really not a Zaha Hadid fanboy. Some of her stuff I like, some I don't. The reason for me posting the link, was because it was full of some buildings which are superficially stunning.
I actually agree with Edson - up to a point. She is totally self-indulgent, and really seems to revel in her star status like almost no-one else. However, I like some of he work. Like Gehry she has popularized a sort of dynamic architecture which gets non-architects interested in our subject.
Gehry is another architect is have big reservations about. Bilbao Guggenheim is truly great (and I quite like his Norton House), but most of his other stuff is crap IMO.
Glenn Murcutt and Renzo Piano are my favourites.
-
Interesting you say that because the Shard is I think designed by R Piano
-
I pity the poor window washer, hanging from a rope at the top, washing all that bird carp stained glass.
-
@sepo said:
Interesting you say that because the Shard is I think designed by R Piano
You are right, but it's not one of his better buildings
-
@bigstick said:
@sepo said:
Interesting you say that because the Shard is I think designed by R Piano
You are right, but it's not one of his better buildings
architects, as all human beings, have ups and downs, good and bad days. in a practice as busy as piano's some projects are bound to be better than others. besides, his output is so large he is forced to delegate design tasks to his associates. perhaps the "shard" was designed by some lowly employee...
-
@edson said:
perhaps the "shard" was designed by some lowly employee...
this is most likely the case..
but still its regarded a Renzo Piano design... if he didnt like it he could have shot it down right at the concept level.. then again.. he must have done the concept himself...
-
I am not a fan of the 'Shard' however Zaha does have her merits. She is no doubt one of the most egotistical architects around however that doesn't mean her buildings should be dismissed as pure ego, especially when she is pushing a few boundries of what is conceivably buildable. I don't know if you are still following the modernist mantra of form follows function to make such critical judgement of her work. I personally find some of her work quite asthetically pleasing. Institutions require 'Starchitects' to give them 'personality' in the public realm.
-
-
dear chango,
i am not going to argue with you over ms. hadid; her architecture does not deserve such effort.
@unknownuser said:
I don't know if you are still following the modernist mantra of form follows function to make such critical judgement of her work.
however, am afraid you are reading the wrong people... if there is a mantra going on out there it is sung by the chorus of people who accuse modernism of a lot of things without really knowing the first thing about it. function has never determined form: forget about what architects say, look at their work instead. no one in his right mind would say function is not important and that form should not bear some relation to it. or would you?
-
As architects designing spaces with prescribed function is our primary goal without a doubt. However the deliberate way in which modernism (international) went against aethetics (see Ornament and Crime) is in hindsight a mistake and an over-reaction to certain historical circumstance. You say function never determine form but what if the function can be stylized into a formal set of language? Even Le Corbusier in his late period began to move away from the formal language of international modernism. To many young architects Zaha's irreverence to prescribed form can be a breath of fresh air. At the end of the day a building doesn't have to be architecture just because it performs a function. It is its tectonic and form that makes it so. I am not dismissing function, its just that it isn't the most important thing either. I actually really like architects like Ben van Berkel of UN Studio fame. He combines function, form and tectonic into one seemless whole. It is what really inspires me. I am not a Zaha fan, but I do feel she has her place in the spectrum of architectural production. Why dismiss her just because you don't agree with her? I feel such hostility when you talk about her work. She isn't the worst of the 'Starchitect' bunch. What is it that you can't get with? Does her building perform really that badly? I will have an opportunity to visit the Phæno Science Centre in Wolfsburg, Germany in March. Perhaps I will yet come around to your view
.
Advertisement