Comments on: Bryghusgrunden Project by OMA 2

By: AussieArch

AussieArch — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:50:53 +0000

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.

By: Jeff Sipe

Jeff Sipe — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:59:27 +0000

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.

By: JZ

JZ — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:59:38 +0000

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..

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:30:38 +0000

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.

By: Név*

Név* — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:46:40 +0000

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.

By: pop

pop — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:15:44 +0000

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

architecture is becoming degenerative.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:46:17 +0000

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 ?.

By: MIRTEC

MIRTEC — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:38:59 +0000

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!!

By: leandro locsin

leandro locsin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:06:51 +0000

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 ?

By: Pablo

Pablo — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:43:51 +0000

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