Comments on: Providence Chapel by Jonathan Tuckey Design

By: NICO ROLA

NICO ROLA — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:01:47 +0000

nice house

By: fly

fly — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:19:27 +0000

The rendering is fine – it gives a raw impression of the material qualities of the design and that is all thats required.
Painstaking renderings often throttle the spontanaity out of a drawing and demonstrate nothing more than obsessiveness.

By: ind

ind — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:29:27 +0000

I like the way zeh is so critical of the render. . . . .What an officionado of ‘real’ projects!
It is perhaps symptomatic of our age that someone can express such definitive opinions based on renders. . . .

By: jakb

jakb — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:22:16 +0000

To aut: A though itself can not be (good, bad) architecture. It is only a sketch or a project; compare projects of buildings and final real buildings – the main idea stay, mostly, But everything changes (materials, technologies, matter, colors etc.). See Branly Museum in Paris!

Projects are always raw (and this project above is extremly raw!), they are interesting only when you visit or see real “house”. Project itself is nothing. If you do not work on it. Sorry.

Design magazines are full of this raw projects – they are nice, wonderful, boring etc. But they are not dangerous, they do not confront us with a architecture.

It is only a beginning of architecture.

By: phatphatty

phatphatty — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:15:38 +0000

This is not virtual architecture. It says constructions to be completed in 2008. Virtual architecture would have to consist of something that was never meant to be built. I think UN studio did a virtual guggenheim museum. I may have the wrong architect.