TADA!
#1: SHoP Architects -
On their website SHoP architects have a flash intro on their basic beliefs.
"Efficiency and great design are not mutually exclusive"
"Push Design, embrace responsibility"
These two statements are clearly a reference to sustainable design. I have to complement them on the fact that they could touch on sustainability without having to use a word that is getting simultaneously tired and taboo: Green. Throughout my time in architecture school one of the driving points was to create a building that was as "green" as possible, that is, environmentally friendly. This often meant that the grand gestures were either:
a. diminished
b. bullshit.
This lead me to believe that the only truly environmental building is this:
I think SHoP design follows a great change in the discussion about sustainability: through these two dogmatic statements they explain that environmentalism is not the goal of architecture, it is a method in which architecture will flourish. I believe this method that will become standard. Just like steel 100 years ago.
they also had another one:
"Building Buildings is better than talking about buildings"
ooooh SHoP you're so edgy. You know, I like this.....I especially liked it when Frank Furness said it in 1880.
nice try.
SHoP Architecture Projects:
this one is almost a little too much Shigeru Ban. But I buy it.
#2: Architecture Research Office
"ARO communicates ideas clearly in a consistent language. It frames city life as well as natural beauty. Ideas about site, program, and daily activity are conveyed through its use. Compelling to look at, appealing to touch, this architecture is as sensuous as it is intellectually rigorous."
How retro. Architecture that is concerned with texture and materiality more than their statement about texture and materiality. The other thing I find interesting about this particular firm is that they're not afraid to have an individual style. Sometimes it's nice to look at a building and know whose behind it.
.jpg)
#3 Michael Maltzan
"Michael Maltzan... creates progressive, transfomative experiences throughout the concentrated exploration of movement and perception, charting new trajectories for architecture, urbanism and the public realm"
Transformative? I'm sorry but if spell check is confused by your word choice: I start getting suspicious.
So I began to research: going strictly textbook, the word "Transformative" comes from Transformative Learning Theory. which is:
"becoming critically aware of one's own tacit assumptions and expectations and those of others and assessing their relevance for making an interpretation"
So let me get this straight: you are "critically thinking". No matter how usefull you think your thesaurus is, there is only so far you can go with it. The only thing Maltzan really proved with that statement is that he likes to make cool forms and thinks that he needs some Mezirowian filler to make it legitimate...that and he passed freshman english 101.
Michael Maltzan Projects:
I had one other problem with Maltzan:
Can you tell who was the architect between these buildings? On the left is Michael Maltzan on the right is another, much more famous architect. I know it's sometimes considered unsporting to base an opinion solely on aesthetics and I don't even know if Maltzan is influenced by the other architect. But all I can say about Michael Maltzan's aesthetics is that:
= 
I can't believe it's not Zaha.
No comments:
Post a Comment