How Big Can We Get?
Personally, I don’t mind the work of BIG for the most part.
I think in a lot of his projects he has found a pretty good balance between the
diagrammatic and his signature Iconic element. Even in his most Iconic projects,
one can see the organization and the rational behind it. I think this is why I
appreciate Bjarkes work more than Gehrys, It keeps the Iconic element without
losing the consideration for the building user or its surrounding context. It makes
me wonder why can’t we all design projects like this, and then I must ask,
should we? At what point does an Iconic building or style became the standard? Would
a street full of BIG buildings just become congested and cause a sense of over
stimulation? Personally, I’m on the side where too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
I think building architectures with iconic form usually cost more, especially if you invited a star architect like Bjarke. Such is case in many big cities in China, Iconic buildings are usually function as the attraction or the name card of the contemporary city. even if China are called the lab for architects, still the leadership would make a considerate plan for the urban development. For a well-planned city,responsible urban planners or the decision makers would limit the space for such iconic building out of the respect of context and keep the city development in order.
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason many of us appreciate BIGs work more than Gehrys is the ability to understand it as well as the showmanship and craftsman ship of the process. BIG has succeeded in explaining their projects as well as stimulating excitement in most everyone that observes it. This, I believe, is why it is more appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of view. I personally am not a fan of Gehry's work for the reason that you mentioned, you cannot easily find reason behind it. Now, im not going to say that there isn't some sort of rational behind his designs. When I look at many of them though, I am unable to find them and it appears that he made the form simply because he could and he wanted to see how complex of a form he could construct. On the one hand, I think pushing those boundaries is important, but I think as architects we cannot lose sight of having some sort of reasoning for our methods.
ReplyDeleteI do think a lot of the projects done by BIG have been successful in continuing out a specific concept and making the project work for the context and the users. Their projects have to ability to completely transform a space that become engaging and gives the community a different perspective on a particular place.
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of BIG and agree with your post. Most of their projects have a strong sense of purpose and design that goes beyond the form. I think the arguments shown through diagram that they have behind their designs makes the project even more powerful. They show their method of pushing and pulling for this reason and that reason and one can't help but think "of course!" Obviously, when done after the fact, architects can find a way to justify any design element. But BIG incorporates cultural and environmental elements as well as form and space to create powerful buildings.
ReplyDelete