Comments on: Copenhagen Culture House + Library by COBE and Transform

By: chakijs

chakijs — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:45:30 +0000

i’m wondering about moderate scale of the project. i like it

By: nana

nana — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:21:16 +0000

des livres superposé pour une bibliothéque :une belle métaphore ,elle est dans ca place

By: tanaka shin

tanaka shin — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:44:14 +0000

A very simple, clear and elegant execution by the architects to accommodate a set of complex programs. The concept of books stacking up to form the volumetric spaces is a good strategy.

By: Niels

Niels — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:47:31 +0000

Very much with very little. The principle of stacking volumes produces a lot of interesting spaces.

By: carmelo

carmelo — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:15:31 +0000

Good work Eric de Broche and company!

By: batman

batman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:26:10 +0000

looks like the work of a young beebe, tormented by older pran

By: james webb

james webb — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:34:18 +0000

jin, most often render houses don’t get credited. in the case of luxigon i guess most ppl know its them anyway

By: nprn

nprn — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:41:16 +0000

in a provocative perspective, F.N., an italian architect,during a conference, said: >>we have to build our constructions with dynamite in the pilars<<. i think it could be a funny thought. there are many different principles of spatial conceptions, principles that could represent a personal interpretation of the spatial solutions by the architects. are you speaking about ‘rules’ of architectonic planning?

By: :0

:0 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:33:35 +0000

neoprene,
hopefuly your idea of architects as stylists of seasonal elements (decorative?) in architecture will pass. A thoughtful conception of space (locus) and its relationship to the surroundings, as well as intelligent dialogues between structure and form will always remain. everything else can be decadent and vain, stylistic and seasonal one may say, and therefore, indeed, passes. Confusing strong principles of spatial conception for a passing style is quite alarming! I’m afraid you’re misinformed! bye

By: neoprene

neoprene — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:27:34 +0000

x AL architecture is not timeless, as you know. the ’spirit of time’ change costantly and become rapidly something different. I loved this project, but it seems something who belong to an ended cycle. the skin of the building? ok … the armony of the volumes? (OMA’s boxes?) ok – what’s new? architecture is fashion intended, ’cause contemporary architects had become stylists , and architecture had become seasonal ! bye