New Shenzhen images from OMA



Office for Metropolitan Architecture have given us new images of their competition-winning design for Shenzhen Stock Exchange Plaza.


The Rotterdam architectural firm, headed by Rem Koolhaas, seems to have enjoyed the controversy the building has generated since dezeen broke the story last month.


Comments from dezeen readers so far include this from Chris: "Just another urban atrocity by OMA. Nothing more then a falic [sic] representation of their lack of ability to do good architecture."


And this from Gabo: "Una caca. Inmoral y perverso (translation: "A turd. Immoral and perverse").


"I've got to say I always enjoy reading what people have to say about our office and Rem in particular," says OMA press officer Hausi Abdul-Karim.

>> Read dezeen's original story on this project, plus more readers' comments, here

>> OMA's fact sheet on the project is pasted below:


Project: Shenzhen Stock Exchange Plaza
Status: Competition
Client: Shenzhen Stock Exchange
Location: Shenzhen, China
Budget: NA
Site: 132,000m2 land in the downtown area of Shenzhen
Program: Total 175, 000m2: Rental office 86,000 m2; Registration & clearing house 20,000 m2; Accessory area 15,000 m2; Securities information company 15,000 m2; SSE office area 14,500 m2; Trading floor 14,500 m2; Technical operations area10,000 m2. Height 200m

OMA Rotterdam
Partner in charge: Rem Koolhaas
Associate in charge: Shohei Shigematsu
Team: Anna Little, Christin Svensson, Jason Long, Carlos Garcia Gonzales, Joao Bravo da Costa, Mauro Parravicini, Mariano Sagasta, Bart Schoonderbeek, Konstantin August, Klaas Kresse, Kengo Skorick, Katharina Gerlach, Mendel Robbers, Hong Yong Sook, Beatriz MInguez de Molina, Martti Kalliala, Andrea Bertassi, Daniel Ostrowski, Yuanzhen Ou,

Todd Reisz, Brendan McGetrick

OMA Beijing
Partner in charge: Ole Scheeren
Team: Dongmei Yao, Hiromasa Shirai, Anu Leinonen, Tieying Fang, Pei Feng, Xinyuan Wang

Design Consultant: (Nervecorp) Alain Fouraux
Trading Floor Design: (Asymptote) Hani Rashid, Alexander S. Pincus, Laura Trevino
Structure: (Arup) Chris Carroll - London Director, Rory McGowan - China Director, Andrew Grant, Chas Pope, Jonathan Kerry, Liang Xu

MEP: (Arup) Andrew Lerpiniere, Michael Bradbury, Kenneth Sin, Lewis Shiu
Fire: (Arup) Mingchun Luo, Dagang Guo,
Security: (Arup) Simon Brimble
Lighting: (Arup) Francesco Anselmo
Cost: (DLS Hong Kong) Kenneth Poone, Lysander Lam
Model Making: Vincent de Rijk, Alain Fouraux
Photography: Frans Parthesius
Rendering: Crystal CG

Shenzhen Stock Exchange Tower Text

Located in the Shenzhen’s Central District within the Administrative and Cultural Center and adjacent to the CBD, the new SSE will be a financial center with civic importance.

For millennia, the solid building stands on a solid base; it is an image that has survived modernity. Typically, the base anchors a structure and connects it emphatically to the ground.

The essence of the stock market is speculation: it is based on capital, not gravity. In the case of Shenzhen’s almost virtual stock market, the role of symbolism exceeds that of the program - it is a building that has to represent the stock market, more than physically accommodate it… It is not a trading arena with offices, but an office with virtual organs that suggest and illustrate the process of the market.

All these reasons suggest an architectural invention: our project is a building with a floating base. As if it is lifted by the same speculative euphoria that drives the market, the former base has crept up the tower to become a floating platform—like a platform, it supports and launches the area which it liberates on the ground.

Lifting the base in the air vastly increases its exposure; in its elevated position, it can ‘broadcast’ the activities of the stock market to the entire city.

The space liberated on the ground is used as a covered urban plaza, large enough to accommodate public festivals, creating an imposing forecourt for the building…

Financial information streams down digital banners hanging from the elevated platform. The performance of the market is continuously graphed by computer-controlled fountains.

The tower is flanked by two atria—a void connecting the ground directly with the trading floor. Staff enter to the west, public to the east.

Inside the platform, a mixture of information and (economic) entertainment orchestrates the representation of thtany, highlights special events and amplifies its daily life.

Posted on Thursday January 11th 2007 at 9:51 pm by . Copyright policy | Comments policy

  • rad louda

    I just want to say to all the people leaving their comments that this builiding is just a building, a tree in an architectural forest of possibilities. If you don’t like it make an other architecture but don’t talk about good or not good architecture because every architecture is important.Each building created or not is here to shake our ideas to make us evoluate. A building like this is interesting, for me, in a subjective way, they are things that I find interesting an others not, but the whole building an the concept behind it show us what architecture is now done and where is it placed on an historical line of architecture.

  • will

    hell, why not?

  • Sam

    rad, you are a good man! i agree. I am sick and tired from the old ‘i like it’, ‘i dont like it’ and oh it works or it does’nt work !!without EXPLAINING WHY in a logical manner…!

  • uki

    But you might ask: why should a building be published? Because the author is famous? because it is a huge building? because it is special/has to make a statement about architecture? because the media need desparately news?
    Rad, I agree, that every building is important (because nobody spends a fortune on something useless), but I don’t think every single building is worth being published.

  • I agree that making absurd comments about whether or not a building is good based on rendered images is a little bit over the top. Furthermore, the pictures don’t show anything of how the building has been pluged in to the existing urban landscape. We only get an idea of what it might look like … this only shows that whatever critic has been given on this building, it’s more a critic directed to what Rem Koolhaas and Ole Scheeren are doing rather then a critic about the building. And about the publishing part, if an architect wants to make a living of cutting edge architecture, he or she needs to make himself known to the bigger public so as to reach the most potential clients. Everybody needs to make a living.

  • Palladio

    Well, that is simply a piece of Neo-Miesian Architecture.
    Interresting, once more, is the striking difference between theory and practice in the work of OMA. While the writings are quite stunning – maybe even revolutionary, the architecture is not at all.

  • Arthur has some good points.
    In my experience 9 out of 10 renderings have nothing to to with what will be built. A building/design cannot be judged on renderings only imo. Where are the plans and sections? Did OMA only send shallow sexy images?
    I don’t know what to think about this building other than that I would like to see a plans and sections.

  • renante solivar

    i think i comes down to opportunity and envy. those who don’t have opportunity, have envy; critize and complain about what’s wrong and don’t ask themselves, how are we making this world a better place to live in.

    if someone could please point me to the Architectural standards manual on great architecture, i’d like a copy please.


  • Santiago

    there will always be a discussion about “in and out” people… those who are in are able to shake reality by their actions (in this case, projects), those who are out have the responsibility to comment or critize as steady as their thought will let them.

    i´m sure there is a lot of bull going around with, as renante points out, the Architectural Quality Standards as their reference. but the fact of the matter is, a building like this, as many others throughout the globe have no reference point. it´s impossible to locate them on a good-bad standard. it´s what it represents in the specific location its seeded that matters. and none of the renders above show anything similar. but by only reading the project´s data can give you a slight idea that the building may have any form possible and still mean the same thing.

  • johnson

    the discussion is pointless just as most of the “trendsetting” architecture by oma, which lives on recycling former architectural movements. this does not make it any deeper than the fashion industry in most terifying form.

  • as a long time fan of OMA (14years), I am often puzzled by their recent works; CCTV, Seattle Public library, Singapore condominium, and even the Dutch embassy in Berlin. perhaps this change is due to the immense size of the office and the new design partners…
    – Does any one else miss the old works such as the kunsthal or nexus housing?

  • nazmy

    as another long time fan of OMA…i think the thinking and work of the office has proggressed beyond the kunsthal and the nexus. this is due to two reasons i think. one is that as pointed out by kanit the size or scale of the projects has grown tremendously…..Rem is now able to put his theory on bigness into actual comissions and constructions aNd OMA is not and office too fond of rehashing old ideas (to a certain extent)

    secondly i think the context of OMA’s current projects are radically different than the old projects…..that is why content was published….as a record of the development of ideas within OMA since S, M, L, XL..

    having said all the above…i must say that i am continually impressed by the proposals coming out of OMA.

  • XL

    Nazmy brings up a good point, which is the issue of scale. Has anyone got a sense of the size of the cantilever of this “floating base”? HUGE!! If you stop and actually look at the scaled figures in the renderings, you begin to understand its dimension. Otherwise the renderings are hard to parse. they do bear stylistic resemblance to Mies, which is of course completely irrelevant when you consider that the main thing here is the sensation of walking in and under this enormous volume. Its more like 90% piranesi and 10% Mies.

    the only dissappointing thing is that programmatic strategy isnt apparent (other than the floating trading floors). Perhaps at XL, we’re beyond program, and 3D urbanism is enough. but then again, we haven’t seen OMA’s requesite diagrams for this one. Not clear one how/if the public square below is programmed either.

  • psy

    I am just surprised that many of OMA’s fans here are not bothered by all the symbolic rhetoric. Maybe they are just idolizing Rem without realizing what they are doing.
    Also, to me, all the heavy trusses seem to reveal how gravity works rather than how virtual capital is.

    By the way, is capital ever symbolic?
    Too shame on today’s architecture.

  • psy

    I like the design, though…
    Conjunction of three different buildings to be a whole new building.

  • I agree that making absurd comments about whether or not a building is good based on rendered images is a little bit over the top.