Comments on: Astana National Library by BIG

By: Roka

Roka — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:39:39 +0000

I think this is an erlier example of the structure ınvented by sculptor Ilhan Koman:

http://www.koman.org/work/work_1980-86moebius.html

By: j

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:36:56 +0000

This looks cool, but i would apriciate seeing how the books will be stored

By: fahad

fahad — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:11:04 +0000

nice concept of twist the donut and make it introwarded but i have issue by huge n massive structure its not giving respect to its surroundings and trying other to see look i m da structure by force … structure must be that be look by itself not by forcing others to just see it n say wow wat a structure ??? hmmm

By: prattler

prattler — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:31:46 +0000

why Kazakhstan? this ‘object’ can be placed anywhere …

By: Waleed Ghanem

Waleed Ghanem — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:35:23 +0000

mmmm .. cool project, i like it ..

By: abcs

abcs — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:25:13 +0000

french ise, the criticism has less to do with the fact this project is by BIG, but the fact that BIG’s approach tends to be outrageously narrowminded

By: French Ise

French Ise — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:31:38 +0000

amazing how people jump on BIG… reminds me how people are jumping on Zaha everytime she reveals a design… people like to jump on you when you are BIG…

like the design a lot and think, it’s a great public space!
of course, a huge square reading hall would do, but isn’t it a great opportunity, to shape a public space, which provides you with the amazing atmosphere and surprising elements as this one does?

p.s. where can we see the other entries?

By: pepe

pepe — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:36:26 +0000

There’s only one person reading in all of the big bling library images. . and he’s forced to lean against a column to get some decent natural light.

Strange that a circular building doesn’t have a strong communal space, just a lot of very generous circulation space surrounding a large empty core.
Seems that most of BIG’s recent work is based on a circulation gimmick of some kind and unfortunately the innovation ends there (check out ‘the mountain’; inclined lift, ’nuff said). The awkward 2nd section proves how shameless the form making is here. Unfortunately we learnt how harmful these contextless object studies can be back in the sixties and seventies.
Lovely images though, pity they’re garnished with empty rhetoric about the sickeningly literal but ultimately irrelevant influence of the yurt, followed with a list of failed design aspirations.
There’s very little here to suggest that there was any consideration of the end user at a smaller scale, just the BIG scale.

By: gaque

gaque — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:41:13 +0000

a few of you calling this a “great building” need to really hold your horses. great buildings are timeless, rigorous buildings tied to a culture… this is just a formal play stuffed with boxes and then scaled up. you can call it a nice design or an interesting computer play, but please do not call it a great building.

obviously the comparison to UN studio’s moebius obsession is important. but whereas UN develops this idea quite thoroughly, in the spatial organization and considerate of program, this project is so sloppy…the section showing the envelope skewed off from the floor plates discredits the entire thing.

so, i pose the question:
if this formal investigation is so exciting, why make every room a 6 sided box?

By: MrCoolTeapot

MrCoolTeapot — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:13:37 +0000

Cool!
At first it appeared to me to be more of NOW than of time and place but the more I look at it I see the yurt connection. Not so much the abstracted “inside becomes outside” but simply in the roundness and the overall skin texture.

In truth, I’ve created a texture that somewhat resembles the outer skin of this building: think this would be cool as a bowl form on your living room table?