Bryghusgrunden Project by OMA 2

| 34 comments
More:

square071025-closeup1.jpg

Here are some more renderings and plans of the Bryghusgrunden Project by Office for Metropolitan Architecture.

071216-camera03.jpg

For more information see our previous story.

071216-dac-interior-auditor.jpg

071216-dac-interior.jpg

interior-passage.jpg

interior-entrance.jpg

waterfront-camera02.jpg

citysquare_highres.jpg

night-view-square.jpg

bridgeview-008-copy.jpg

080214-cam07.jpg

080214-cam15.jpg

2p1010915.jpg

3p1010971.jpg

p1010923.jpg

071128-p6.jpg

071128-p4.jpg

071128-b1.jpg

071128-p0.jpg

section-c.jpg

section-a.jpg

080110_final_v3.jpg

2waterfront-park.jpg

topview_b1-v3.jpg

topview_b1-v3d.jpg

080107-brewery-site.jpg

| 34 comments

Posted on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm by . See our copyright policy. Before commenting, please read our comments policy.

  • blue

    Thanks dezeen! Lovely to have such detailed info! It is very very useful. Pity rarely we get such details. Not so keen on the form of a building here i’m afraid.

  • eyeontheworld

    Just because you post more pics, it doesn’t make things better. Stop it…

  • a_non

    i know he just keeps doing it and will do it until it is built, but this is just so refined! i like it.

  • Gilf

    nice images, bit pushy to project the content exhibition within your own building though.

    spacially better than the black diamond i think, but this confetti of oma projects is beginning to get on my nerves. It seems that nothing really mathers anymore. every project that has the oma tag on it is fine. isn’t is about time for some fresh blood?

  • JuiceMajor²

    Like the presentation!

  • tom

    thank you for such good details.
    like Blue says, it’s good to have details on posted projects. we would like to have more of these…

    i do like the building form. i think it is quite well ‘framed’ withing the landscape (last picture). if the 9th picture shows how it looks at night (colourwise) i love it.

    leave OMA to build the world… why not? they are good, and having such big projects means something, no?

  • size does not matter

    it means this is the age of capitalism… and we build because they tell us to build.

    This submission is disgusting.

  • Dan-Arch

    Oh, come on! What are they teaching you at school? Being an architect means dealing with materialism and capitalism, as well as politics, demographical and sociological issues, rules and regulations, the client’s program and demands, building costs, time scedules, right next to the meta-physical aspects of building.
    If you can not deal with these issues and put them in the balance with each project you will do professionally, I’m afraid you’ll become a very frustrated person or just an unemployed architect.

    I presume you’re not paying yourself to get your work built, now do you?
    Speak of submission? Let’s talk human rights! That’s where the real submission issue’s are!

  • J

    @size does not matter: Go and read the Fountainhead from Ayn Rand and than come back.

  • tom

    well said.
    that’s it.
    architecture is about what you said dan-arch. actually, i think the world is about all of that. not only architecture is influenced by that but everything…

  • Arch

    OMA, OMG!…..kinda reminds me of the Seatlle Public library.
    To J: Miz Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead is so one-sided. Just my opinion.

  • sayerazif

    to be honest. i think this project signifies maturity of material usage in urban context by OMA, which is a rare case for OMA. Where form used to matter, it is more like what SANAA would do.. a more democratic form to surrounding, in a more cultural background setting for post-modern times… as by the entrance it makes the building more pedestrian friendly. . building for public.

    i like it.

  • mnesia

    more boxes !!

  • Frederik

    sayerazif: That’s the most intelligent comment on this project so far. Couldn’t agree more.

  • NaRa

    OMA, I love you!

    what made you to introduce more images of this masterpiece? do you
    know Paul Rudolph or not? you could do more narcissist thing. you could take some photos from your people in the office and put them in the images visiting OMA : Loom exhibition held in DAC :D

  • Someone

    Would love to see bigger pictures and more!!!!

  • John

    Not really liking the form of the building. That area of Copenhagen is already filled with box-like buildings.

  • size does not matter

    i was not talking about capitalism in term of managing a project or getting paid for the services of the artchitect or engineer.

    i was talking about this consumerist society….

    i dont think in your academy they teach you anything about human rights.

    can you please tell me how human it is that the danish architecture center looks like a shopping mall?? maybe this is how shopping mall should be!!

    what i call submission is when you consider architecture as a business enterprise.

    “architecture is a discipline not a profession”

    i suggest you read this:www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631229445/Ballantyne_C01.pdf

  • Frederik

    The more renderings I see the more I am convinced, that this project will be truly fantastic

  • monika lima

    love it !! ♥

  • http://archipelagoes.blogspot.com/ Tim

    Dan-Arch has a spot-on analysis.

    And as far as the building is concerned: I kinda like this iconic un-icons that OMA seems to turn towards. It’s sophisticated and not screaming. However, I somehow get the feeling that most of the relations they propose in the building, and many of the spaces inside, are pretty similar. But I’m sure that during the design process a bit more variation will be introduced in the spatiality, the materiality will develop a bit more, and it will be a lovely building. Especially because it connects well with the pedestrian level. The threat is, of course, that the budget will be cut down, making for a less ambitious public waterfront near the building.

    And other than that: if anyone really believes this building looks like a shopping mall: please tell me where you live, I want to do my shopping in your place!

  • Dan-Arch

    I very much appreciate your reply to my post, Size… But I guess we differ in our opinion about the roll of an architect. Studying architecture is all about understanding why there is this change in the stance of architects, which came with the industrial revolution and the socialist and human rights movement in the early stages of 20th century culture. Modernism in architecture was also a way of allowing accessibility of a reasonable standard of living for the “masses”. And with it came a shift in production from heavy human labour to prefabricated, catalogue production and better wages and conditions for workers. That’s why human rights are so clearly important in this issue.
    To cut it short, it all ended here and now, with consumerism and capitalism, accessiblity of a relative comfort for many here in the West. And of course there is a price to be paid…

    Yet, I’m an architect who believes one has to engage in the modern and current condition, to deal with it instead of turning your head in disdain and disgust. I do believe architecture is as well a discipline as a profession. It deals with both.
    Good architecture is one of the most imporant cultural containers and carriers man can produce, it mirrors society in it’s nature. I think OMA are very much into that at their best. This might be exactly why this project might look like a shopping mall.

  • F

    This is a great democratic building bringing the cold and unwelcoming Danish modernism at eye level with the public.

  • http://www.pablocastrorabade.blogspot.com Pablo

    more boxes to living in. that bored that the architecture is, nothing evolves a few decades ago.

  • http://www.pablocastrorabade.blogspot.com Pablo

    the image from the water is like an enormous mountain of containers for exterior commerce.

  • leandro locsin

    i remember how OMA presented the seattle public library scheme to the public on its earlier stages… boxes just like this. these are boxes of programme, im waiting for the skin OMA !

    meron bang balat ?

  • MIRTEC

    well.. everybody is talking about it, so you could say this is good architecture in some way.. isn’t ar(chitec)t(ure) about provocing discussions? sometimes anyway.. sometimes it’s also about being subtile, or at least provocing in a subtile way.. and that I don’t see here.. same attitude as the shopping-centre-architecture and that’s a little bit too easy for a centre for architecture!!

  • http://www.pablocastrorabade.blogspot.com Pablo

    Mies , corbu ,Barragan, Lucio costa, Oscar Niemeier, clorindo testa, Aalto, da Rocha, francesco borromini, Whrigt, Utzon, Horta, Gaudi, Bustillo, acevedo becu moreno….. and some more.
    Who really thinks that the architecture has evolved towards something better than what these people have already done ?.

  • pop

    architecture will keep on evolving in a circle turning around itself.

    architecture is becoming degenerative.

  • Név*

    to Pablo: It isnt about architecture is getting “better” (as it’s not a hard science), it’s just about (always) evolving into sg. that it is reflective to it’s own time.

  • Jim

    Again, famous architect but not promissing architecture. The whole thing will be black when it done and interior will be opressive.

    No idea how cold be accepted by the office like OMA internally.

  • JZ

    another anti-iconic proposal by OMA…its clearly a statement of disapproval towards the way architecture is heading..Its neutrality deals successfully with the mixed use program and the sites peculiarity…It also offers nothing new, nothing that hasn’t been done before.Its what Wright would design if he was born 50 years later.
    Is that enough for an architecture center(even if it is danish)?I wonder if Rems games on boredom can withstand time..

  • Jeff Sipe

    Architecture by OMA is exclusive, and usually not accessible by the ordinary of the mind, politic, or the soul (wallet). In the ” modern business-world” of returns-on-investment, the demand on architects, or architectural gurus, these days … and probably all time, is for these great expectations … ROI. ROI is king, not just in French. An the reason architecture is king related, or used by them to affect market forces or propogandize regimes of economic development, is it is as if to raise from dust, from really nothingness, the past forms of the “formally” dead. Whether this dead be modernism or classicism. We learned to love these as students of architecture, both the cleanliness and openness of the modern box and the comfortableness of the classic niche. The crisis, the debate, the balance between the two or other theories, was not that they competed. The crisis, was that they stopped. That one or another, singularly controlled the others, effectively stamping them out.

    Like national economies in crisis due to lake of investment in risky unique, architecture like OMA’s currency, still implies that we see the need for modern buildings as an investment to measure away the crisis of banality we are constantly faced with in our cities and landscapes of old. Banality became king, whether in modernist or classic clothes.

    No? Too pessimistic?

    Great Expectations! Architecture in Crisis! One more time.

    I remember, when I attended the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London in the 80′s, that gurus, such as Rem Coolhaus (OMA), Zaha, and even Mostafavi (known more as educator and critic), would describe the state of architecture … as if it were in “crisis”. They would use Tafuri’s newest and latest book from Italy, to openly discuss the “operative criticism” lacking in the argument. What I found lacking was the examples of architecture that exhibited the crisis. The texts, the debate, were in fact this, just words. But the wave was coming. Tafuri was just talking about the “banality” that historically followed the Renaisance, and in fact, enveloped much of its ending sequence … to be found even in the some of the most prized works we view today as great.

    One could say, that OMA’s recent work, suffers too from this crisis, in that reaching for a “style to use” such as modernism, it is subjected to the style as regime, where all of the descisions made are “logical” and reinforced by the formalism. You would not find a palladian window or a second empire chest of drawers in an OMA perspective, let alone a Harry-Christna handing out “cards”.

    So what I think might make OMA’s work better, and in this case, more critical to the present, would be to step back to what Corbu might have offered: to unresolve the debate with images that seem normal to the regime, and present images that offer to pose questions of intent, questions of juxtaposition, and questions of perspective that have not been used for a time.

    This operative criticism, as Tafuri would suggest, might help make architecture a little bit more accessible to various classes of humans on the planet, as opposed to the exclusive “roi” we so aim to please, but seldom ever seem to understand.

    Thansk for listening, if you happen to have read this far.

  • AussieArch

    Fantastic, something not grossly monumental for a change.
    Why should architecture have to “evolve”?
    How wrong would a futuristic blob look amongst the heritage buildings around it?

    More of this.