Posted by Paul Malo on September 11, 2002 at 11:41:17:
In Reply to: Re: ArchWeek - Anniversary of Disaster posted by Paul Malo on September 11, 2002 at 09:20:53:
Maybe (as suggested previously) it's not worth the time, but rather than dismiss the proposal(s) summarily, here's more substantive comment:
We we got was a zoo--a world's fair sort of exhibition of OBJECTS, each autonomous. This is the malaise of architecture today--it's vestigal modern architecture, which is to say, It's about making interesting objects. Where's the SPACE?
This is not urban design. Whatever space there is (and there's sure plenty of it) means little, since it's unintentional, residual space--the area merely left over after the OBJECTS are placed.
What's better about this new approach than the six earlier proposals? Are these objects more "interesting"? They're still no more than a collection of objects--and in fact the earlier proposals had MORE spatial definition--the parts added up to a more coherent whole.
Look at Mier's contribution. Mier is a fine architect--of elegant villas and ceremonial civic objects. But what does this little jewel have to do with the time or place? This diminutive schoolhouse could be anywhere--it's mere all-purpose Mier, that is. In this situation, which is loaded with grave meaning, Mier's polished finesse seems trivial, style without substance, form without content.
Muschamp berates the authorities for falling back into the practice of subdividing the project into parcels, let our to separate developers--but this is precisely what Muschamp has done: given a handful of signature architects the opportunity to do individual projects. We might have expected more but, in truth, I didn't.
This is architecture today.
Free 3D Models