Comments on: Housing for New Orleans by David Adjaye, Morphosis, MVRDV, Shigeru Ban and others

By: Bear in Amsterdam

Bear in Amsterdam — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:45:36 +0000

I am fascinated by the lack of understanding of the MVRDV’s aim which is to fit the people we presently have on earth onto the earth. The dominant culture continues, like a runaway train, to project their own historical viewpoints onto both the present and future. The obvious fact that this will not work is of no consequence in a spitting match, such as these folks spend their lives in. On the other hand, the notion that we would require at least four earths to actually accomplish even a fraction of this vision of life (all of earth’s people living as American’s have become used to) and that if we were able to start with virginia planets, not ones which have already been savagely “mined?”
In fact, the only solutions which have a chance of being useful are those which provoke this sort of reaction.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:18:17 +0000

The comments on this blog are a perfect example of what is right and wrong in philanthropy today.

There are a lot of “experts” who either know more than the architects or rate political correctness higher than usability.

At the same time, there are people who are willing to give of their time and energy to solve big problems and ask the hard questions, critics be damned.

An interesting thing is that when articles like this are written, the subjects often lurk and see what people are thinking. It’s a great opportunity to ask questions from people that are talented enough to merit Mr. Pitt’s attention. Who knows, maybe more people will learn that they can be snarky and ask smart questions (and get thoughtful, insightful answers), all at the same time.

By: Brooklyn

Brooklyn — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:48:53 +0000

Blake,

I’m sure the architects know of the demographic they’re building for. The furniture is only used to articulate the program and scale in the drawings. As for it being modern, it is only because it is whats provided in their archives of 3D furniture. I doubt they would spend time modeling new furniture that is of appropriate price.

As for the MVRDV proposal,

Please find a better criteria of judgment if you are to take such a negative stance.

By: openminds

openminds — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:33:48 +0000

indeed… there are missing projects which focus on the community…. moderne houseing projects in such an environment needs to integrate the social factor… why not try to create housing forms which helps people to profit from the community… why no invest time in these aspects instead of making superb roof forms which are completely worthless in an economic sense… spatial quality is important.. but it should be the result not the starting point…

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:27:41 +0000

To contribute to the argument surrounding MVRDV, and all the projects, I think we should take into consideration what is exactly the context of the project? In one regard, the local built environment has been ravaged and mostly destroyed, so relating to what already “exists” could be considered irrelevant. On the other hand, there is history to that specific location and I believe firmly in designing for specific location, since the act of building there implies importance to that spot. Without being able to fully resolve my initial question of the context, I would forge ahead to ask, what is the environment/surrounding/context we desire to create? B. Pitt claims “ecologically responsible, safe, affordable and have a high quality of design” . If it is the case that MVRDV is meeting this criteria, and there is individual interest of one owning this house, my assumption is that the end-users have some if not large amounts of choice in the end result, then the project is successful. Additionally, because of its curious, if not strongly argued nature, has it not contributed to the architecture as a whole? All in all, I would not mind living there after studying the section, and I could imagine that the eclectic and eccentric city of New Orleans may just want to continue is that fashion.

By: Thumb

Thumb — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:49:40 +0000

I just hope they let the families choose which design they like the best, and let them customise the colours — as you would with your own house normally. This project has a dangerous capacity to end up with a gated community feel.

By: yulisri

yulisri — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:55:28 +0000

NICE DUDE,

you do job not just to keep people save,
but also make them care with their environment,

and you do that with architecture style,
nice job Mr. pitt

By: gelb

gelb — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:21:34 +0000

I believe that MVRDV’s design approach is a reflection of the growing trend with contemporary Dutch designers today, a response to Individualism -a principle which has been stressed out by Bart Lootsma on his book “SUPERDUTCH”. Housing projects doesn’t have to look monotonous. MVRDV’s WoZoCo Apartments for instance is an elegant deviation to the conventional monotony of doing housing projects. And the apartments were made for elderly people!
I would understand that some people prefer to see their houses in New Orleans with a very strong sense of connection to the place which we all should respect. We have different views though.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:35 +0000

tiffany, you are most certainly not an architect!

By: Katrina

Katrina — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:05:19 +0000

i think i blew out some peoples brains!