If you do not reside in Vals, you do not truly understand the impact of the bathhouse on the people. It’s not just about beautiful looking pieces of stones stacked in an orderly manner. It is a public piece of work, it brought tourism to the small town, it brought a new culture to the people. This IS an urban approach to the concept of bathhouses, while still managing to retain i’s spiritual and cultural significance. You may argue that Vals is well, too rural to consider it as a city, hence this project is just a rural piece of less important architecture. So then, I don’t get it… what exactly is your idea of urbanism? It seems rigidly defined by statistics and human-constructed boundaries, but really, urban projects can happen anywhere, whether Vals or Manhattan. It is urban, because of design approach and strategy, NOT because of context.

And to those who are truly, sincerely concerned about sustainability… Sorry, I need to ask again.. What is your definition of sustainable architecture? Because I see this bathhouse being utilised by the residents for decades to come, but jeez, just because there are no solar panels it’s not sustainable? For me, sustainability is about permanence. Yes, you may approach it technologically such that your building eats what it breeds, hence it is sustainable in that sense. But there is another aspect of sustainability that I believe is being clouded by all these hit-tech gadgets – which is very simply vernacular architecture. Using local materials and resources/skills, reinventing traditional wisdoms about efficient architecture… For me, Zumthor represents the highest form of sustainability. He is being true to each individual site, each individual cultural context. I really don’t care if the air-conditioning you chose is the most energy efficient. What I care is whether your monstrosity of a building is able to dwell in a site for long, in a manner that is unobtrusive and harmonious.

i appreciate everyone’s passion for the discipline, though harsh… its good that somebody cares or bothers about architecture and its impact.

i think zumthor deserved the pritzker, he is a clear headed architect who does his architecture with a clear soul, single powerful strokes that opposes the current stylistic approach of architecture with all the bling blings! fashions and graphic mojos. his architecture is very tactile and of course very personal. though his architecture is not something new and has been done by many architects before him, his works are eternal, straight forward, and with no fancy, sugar coated words.

old methods but very effective. human-oriented but not complexity addressing. absolutely not contemporary but emotionally moving.

“i dont answer questions like that. why i do something is very personal, i dont explain why i do things”

then the question and answer session ended abruptly and everyone went home.

Congratulations to your clear picture of the world. How about that: I do not consider Tadao Ando to be a great architect. Because i strongly believe architecture is not about shaping light and the beautiful haptic sensation of a concrete texture, but once again about urbanity, creating and dealing with contradictions ( moneywise , clientwise, culturally ), incorporating contemporary technology and being pragmatic, then have nice surfaces and lightning as the icing on the cake. Toyo Ito is one guy who is mastering to get all those issues together to form great projects, in my opinion.

To all the Zumthor lovers i am just expressing my opinion, RELAX ! He got his Pritzker Price, what more do you want ?

Man, you are one generic poet. Graffiti moves if you do a wholetrain ! Shadows really do move ? i was always wondering how those old sun clocks were working, thanks for the enlightment.

“a simple shed, on the outskirts of a small town,
adds as much to urbanity, as a highly anticipated
drag-queen show coming to the neighborhood !”

First of all that is exactly: “the rhetoric and
posturing taught in schools” And it says : nothing.

Why would i want to talk to a farmer about urbanity ?

“Unless you’re dealing with the demands of the
Client, and the Client’s or City’s money, you
have little or no idea what really shapes architecture
and the building of a city”

Exactly what i was critizising about Zumthor, hey, man we actually seem to have the same opinion.

I don t know what made you unhappy with the world. But if you want to call other comments stupid you should deliver some clear arguments why you think so. Generic Philosophy and sharing your disappointment with mankind may have been advised to you by your psychiatrist, but it doesn t serve for an architectural discussion.

Get a life !

I know, for one, I wouldn’t walk into this building and think “nice bit of craftsmanship”, im pretty sure my first thoughts would be “amazing atmosphere”, and “beautiful & subtle light”,