Comments on: New Shenzhen images from OMA

By: XL

XL — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:21:39 +0000

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.

By: nazmy

nazmy — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:53:12 +0000

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.

By: kanit

kanit — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:16:59 +0000

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?

By: johnson

johnson — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:38:52 +0000

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.

By: Santiago

Santiago — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:49:36 +0000

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.

By: renante solivar

renante solivar — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:30:32 +0000

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.

R-

By: Rutger

Rutger — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:42:18 +0000

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.

By: Palladio

Palladio — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:33:43 +0000

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.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:08 +0000

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.

By: uki

uki — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:48:07 +0000

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.