I thought this building was cool...

bigstick · 31 Jan 2009, 14:27

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.

sepo · 31 Jan 2009, 16:03

Interesting you say that because the Shard is I think designed by R Piano

tomot · 31 Jan 2009, 16:25

I pity the poor window washer, hanging from a rope at the top, washing all that bird carp stained glass.

bigstick · 31 Jan 2009, 18:13

@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

Edson · 31 Jan 2009, 18:37

@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...

jenujacob · 31 Jan 2009, 18:59

@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...

chango70 · 1 Feb 2009, 01:56

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.

Double Espresso · 1 Feb 2009, 02:01

Why the architects' societies love that Royal title

The Architects' unions can be rather pompous compared to their engineering cousins.

(www.archsoc.com)

Edson · 1 Feb 2009, 09:16

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?

chango70 · 1 Feb 2009, 11:03

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 .

Edson · 1 Feb 2009, 11:15

dear chango,

this is a looooog discussion, one that i have had with sepo a long time ago in this very forum. it confronts two ways of seeing architecture which, by their very nature, can hardly agree on any matter.

let me just say one camp has the looks of the building as its main goal, the other sees appearance as the result of a long process of adjustment to a series of circumstances and constraints.

regards.

p.s.: i shall be away for a couple of days so do not take my silence as disrespect.

chango70 · 1 Feb 2009, 11:18

@edson said:

dear chango,

this is a looooog discussion, one that i have had with sepo a long time ago in this very forum. it confronts two ways of seeing architecture which, by their very nature, can hardly agree on any matter.

let me just say one camp has the looks of the building as its main goal, the other sees appearance as the result of a long process of adjustment to a series of circumstances and constraints.

regards.

p.s.: i shall be away for a couple of days so do not take my silence as disrespect.

Surely that rests on if her buildings are functionally poor performers. Whilst there are certain evidence of that being the case I feel i'll have to go see for myself so I am reserving judgement. Perhaps I will have a more informed opinion after my visit in March.

Edson · 1 Feb 2009, 11:36

visiting a building beats knowing it from pictures, that is for sure. looking forward to your opinion after the visit.

tomot · 1 Feb 2009, 19:39

@chango70 said:

I will have an opportunity to visit the Phæno Science Centre in Wolfsburg, Germany in March.

chango70 you twicked my interest, and I found this unflattering photo.

I have seen a lot of badly cast architectural concrete. This one certainly tops my list.
I have pictures I took of Unité d'Habitation in 1979 which showed how concrete
exposed to the elements has behaved, which up to that time was 30 years.
Those pictures don't look as bad as this recently completed oversized proctology device.

At least Le Corbusier had some understanding of casting exposed concrete.
Why don't these technical issues ever get discussed in Architectural Schools?

You can't cast exposed concrete monolithically without considering the following:

one needs to consider the type of formwork one is using.
one needs to know that each joint in the formwork provides a source for leakage while the concrete is setting.
one needs to know where to place the form ties.

There are many many more issues, and I don't intend this short observation to become a lecture on the technical issues involved in casting exposed concrete.
Hence it appears to me that none of this seems to have registered with this Architect.
I'm also curious, when you come back, please tell us what that windowless interior space at the pointy end is being used for?

chango70 · 1 Feb 2009, 23:20

Thats the naughy corner for all those Zaha detractors.

bigstick · 2 Feb 2009, 20:21

@chango70 said:

Surely that rests on if her buildings are functionally poor performers.

Actually I don't think so. This goes to the heart of what people think constitutes 'architecture'. If you look at some of Anthony Caro's work url[/url], you can see that the boundaries between architecture and sculpture are a little blurred.

This tricky little issue is often skimmed over by use of the word 'architectonic', which seems to me to mean purely the sculptural qualities of architecture.

I personally think that there is more to architecture than some cool-looking shapes. Even when they give rise to some really interesting spaces, I wonder how much these are due to accident rather than design.

There are lots of different interpretations as to what architecture is. If you take the most basic definition as a structure designed and constructed for habitation by people. In these terms, Hadid creates striking architecture. If on the other hand you consider elements like culture, function, context and creation of space (among other things) as being essential constituents of architecture, Hadid is little more than a flashy sculptor.

This neatly brings me back to the reason I posted the links to Hadid's work. Regardless of what you think of her work in terms of 'Architecture', they are undeniably 'cool buildings'.

sepo · 2 Feb 2009, 22:11

Well put Jim....you are talking my language.

chango70 · 3 Feb 2009, 01:43

Hear hear.