Page 2 of 2
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-05 10:50am
by madd0ct0r
Ahhh, shit.
Just wrote a long post explaining the long winded process of site detailing and how it's normally a specific subbie who hands it in for approval.
If Gehry was riding roughshod over his engineers he's a pillock. Helping architects to avoid embarrassing themselves is part of our job.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-05 12:10pm
by Alerik the Fortunate
RogueIce wrote:
Seriously, that looks like Gehry crumpled some pieces of colored paper together and cried, "GENIUS!"
You do realize this is actually a major part of his creative process? He can spend years crumpling, recrumpling, and rearranging paper and odds and ends until the massing is just so. Then his modeling team makes a 3d scan of the pile, and under his oversight, begins the process of mapping something resembling a building onto the resulting volume, and then figuring out how to build it. He's really more of a mad abstract sculptor than an architect.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-05 02:38pm
by Crossroads Inc.
Alerik the Fortunate wrote:RogueIce wrote:
Seriously, that looks like Gehry crumpled some pieces of colored paper together and cried, "GENIUS!"
You do realize this is actually a major part of his creative process? He can spend years crumpling, recrumpling, and rearranging paper and odds and ends until the massing is just so. Then his modeling team makes a 3d scan of the pile, and under his oversight, begins the process of mapping something resembling a building onto the resulting volume, and then figuring out how to build it. He's really more of a mad abstract sculptor than an architect.
Yes, which is one of the reasons I hate him so much... He
IS[/i] an artist, but there is a difference between putting art ON a building, such as ArtDeco, and making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"
Again, Gehry's "work" would be better shrunk down and put on display in MOMA then with people living it.. I imagine each time he "designs" something, Structural Engineers the world over look at his plans and widdle themselves.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-05 03:53pm
by Alerik the Fortunate
I'm all in favor of building as art, but the concerns of making a building a work of art must be greater than the concerns of making a piece of crumpled paper into art, if you have any intention of the building being used and appreciated.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-05 07:28pm
by salm
Crossroads Inc. wrote:
Yes, which is one of the reasons I hate him so much... He IS[/i] an artist, but there is a difference between putting art ON a building, such as ArtDeco, and making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"
That´s quite a general statement. Why would " making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"" necessarily be a bad thing?
Not in this case particularly but in general?
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-06 12:05pm
by Crossroads Inc.
salm wrote:
That´s quite a general statement. Why would " making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"" necessarily be a bad thing?
Not in this case particularly but in general?
Well in this case, when I use the phase "Making a building a work of art" I am referring more about sculptural and modern art...
If you walk through an art gallery, and see some abstract twisted sculpture, try to imagine it being made into a five story building... That is what Gehry does at heart.
Now other buildings could be "Work of Art". Frank Lloyd Wright and Pablo Solari are two Architects I can think of who design buildings as "Works of Art" However... The design them with the intent of making a building as art... As in:
"Here is a building where people work and live... How can I make it artistic?"
Gehry's approach is the reverse:
"Here is a abstract work of art, how can I turn it into a building where people work and live?"
Does that make sense?
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-06 07:13pm
by aerius
Alerik the Fortunate wrote:RogueIce wrote:Seriously, that looks like Gehry crumpled some pieces of colored paper together and cried, "GENIUS!"
You do realize this is actually a major part of his creative process? He can spend years crumpling, recrumpling, and rearranging paper and odds and ends until the massing is just so. Then his modeling team makes a 3d scan of the pile, and under his oversight, begins the process of mapping something resembling a building onto the resulting volume, and then figuring out how to build it.
You cannot be serious. He actually designs buildings that way? Jesus fuck, I was gonna say someone needs to break his fingers so we don't get inflicted with any more of his buildings, but it looks like we'll have to do some serious amputations to make him stop. Son of a bitch.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-07 12:25pm
by Zixinus
That´s quite a general statement. Why would " making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"" necessarily be a bad thing?
Because buildings are supposed to be buildings, where people live and work. They are supposed to stand and work for (preferably) a very long time. Designing one should involve a careful balancing act of function, structural integrity, safety, aesthetics, etc with consideration given to budget, location, history and whatnot of the spot.
Not, you know, taking the crumpled-together meshes of paper some madman made and having actually qualified engineers start from there.
Come on, I am not an architect-nut, but if this is seriously how he designs
buildings, he should be kept to making sculptures.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-07 08:46pm
by Starglider
Crossroads Inc. wrote:He IS[/i] an artist, but there is a difference between putting art ON a building, such as ArtDeco, and making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"
It is perfectly fine to make a building that is primarily a work of art; this has a long tradition, but the key point is that no one is required to use such buildings. Follies historically existed in parks, remote areas or even people's back yards. The problem here is that (a) the buildings are being marketed as highly functional despite this not being a priority in the design and (b) they are taking up (a lot of) highly-demand urban core space, such that practically leaving them unused is not an option.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 06:54am
by madd0ct0r
to be honest, techniques are expanding so fast now, we probably can make almost anything in any shape you ask for.
Hell, i've got some notes next to me right now talking about High Strength DSP concrete, talking about the possibility of 32km high structures.
Small scale structures - like furniture, materials have outclassed the engineering challenges for so long now that nobody thinks twice about a piece of art that doubles as furniture.
When was the last time you looked for a purely functional chair, instead of one that looked really good and was still comfortable to sit on?
Especially for small buildings, function really can come after design now. Stuff closer to the edge of engineering (like long span bridges) are still dictated by form of function first. Skyscrapers lie somewhere in between the two extremes, but we can certainly do stuff now that would have been stupidly impossible a decade ago.
Normally compromises do have to be made, so I don't like the sound of Gehry overriding his engineering team. On the other hand, i've seen a few instances where the architect HAS to override the engineering team, otherwise you end up with nice simple to design and build boxes.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 07:55am
by Crossroads Inc.
Starglider wrote:Crossroads Inc. wrote:He IS[/i] an artist, but there is a difference between putting art ON a building, such as ArtDeco, and making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"
It is perfectly fine to make a building that is primarily a work of art; this has a long tradition, but the key point is that no one is required to use such buildings. Follies historically existed in parks, remote areas or even people's back yards. The problem here is that (a) the buildings are being marketed as highly functional despite this not being a priority in the design and (b) they are taking up (a lot of) highly-demand urban core space, such that practically leaving them unused is not an option.
YES! This is exactly correct. I really have nothing wrong with Gehry "In principal". If he had been born 50 or 60 years ago, he would have been considered an 'eccentric' architect and ended up building a few small buildings that would not have caused anyone much harm... Now, we see him being picked to build things that people will HAVE to work and live in for what may be decades. If Gehry stuck to making houses or small little buildings, he wouldn't be "that bad" We could just overlook him.. But the bastard is making massive skyscrapers now... It is ok to make a small three or four story building based on crumpled paper, but not something 40 or 50 stories tall. Especially when he is running rough-shod over the better judgment of his engineers.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 11:56am
by Alerik the Fortunate
YES! This is exactly correct. I really have nothing wrong with Gehry "In principal". If he had been born 50 or 60 years ago, he would have been considered an 'eccentric' architect and ended up building a few small buildings that would not have caused anyone much harm... Now, we see him being picked to build things that people will HAVE to work and live in for what may be decades. If Gehry stuck to making houses or small little buildings, he wouldn't be "that bad" We could just overlook him.. But the bastard is making massive skyscrapers now... It is ok to make a small three or four story building based on crumpled paper, but not something 40 or 50 stories tall. Especially when he is running rough-shod over the better judgment of his engineers.
I assume you mean if he were working 50 or 60 years ago; he's 83 now. The main problem I see is that he's a "star" architect, so people pursue him for his celebrity rather than the appropriateness of his work. As I've said before, some of his designs work spectacularly well, but those seem to be a chance coincidence of his style fitting with the surroundings, as well as him cooperating with his engineers and specialist consultants. Still, I wouldn't want him dominating a skyline.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 12:39pm
by madd0ct0r
Crossroads Inc. wrote:
It is ok to make a small three or four story building based on crumpled paper, but not something 40 or 50 stories tall. Especially when he is running rough-shod over the better judgment of his engineers.
why?
(not to the engineering side, but to the first part of the statement)
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 02:13pm
by salm
Crossroads Inc. wrote:salm wrote:
That´s quite a general statement. Why would " making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"" necessarily be a bad thing?
Not in this case particularly but in general?
Well in this case, when I use the phase "Making a building a work of art" I am referring more about sculptural and modern art...
If you walk through an art gallery, and see some abstract twisted sculpture, try to imagine it being made into a five story building... That is what Gehry does at heart.
Now other buildings could be "Work of Art". Frank Lloyd Wright and Pablo Solari are two Architects I can think of who design buildings as "Works of Art" However... The design them with the intent of making a building as art... As in:
"Here is a building where people work and live... How can I make it artistic?"
Gehry's approach is the reverse:
"Here is a abstract work of art, how can I turn it into a building where people work and live?"
Does that make sense?
Yup, that´s less general and something I can agree with. Making function follow form has a tendency to not work. It´s not like it ALLWAYS fails, though.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2012-10-08 02:19pm
by salm
Zixinus wrote:
That´s quite a general statement. Why would " making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"" necessarily be a bad thing?
Because buildings are supposed to be buildings, where people live and work. They are supposed to stand and work for (preferably) a very long time. Designing one should involve a careful balancing act of function, structural integrity, safety, aesthetics, etc with consideration given to budget, location, history and whatnot of the spot.
Not, you know, taking the crumpled-together meshes of paper some madman made and having actually qualified engineers start from there.
Come on, I am not an architect-nut, but if this is seriously how he designs
buildings, he should be kept to making sculptures.
The things you discribe in no ways contradict "making a building, as a whole a work of "Art"".
But I really don´t care how Ghery designs his building.
My statement was in a completely different context which I actually explicitly stated.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2013-06-06 06:30pm
by J
An updated model has been unveiled.
Oh dear god no!!
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2013-06-06 06:43pm
by fgalkin
Huzzah! Three rolls of toilet paper, sliding off their tubes!
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2013-06-07 08:05am
by Grumman
So... are vast swathes of the building going to be hidden from natural light by those panels? Or are floors going to jut out from the structure willy-nilly?
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2013-06-07 08:39am
by madd0ct0r
looks like a translucent facade to me
Quite useful to reduce solar gain and thus reduce air-conditioning bills. Given the step change between this and the previous image, I'd guess they're still concepting.
Re: NO!! Not another Gehry building!
Posted: 2013-06-07 12:22pm
by Irbis
I'd say it's nice impression of airburst nuclear attack, bare, twisted skeletons left with surface slowly melting off the buildings
