(Almost) daily reviews of architecture books
:: Join and add photos to the archidose pool, and/or:: Tag your photos archidose
It's a very nice photo. The buiding on the other hand is an abortion on toast. It lacks scale, does not relate to it's urban, city context. The grid "skin" is interupted to create openings so you can enter the "cage", but the openings completely deny the grid structure.
whats wrong with being different?
Different is fine if it is good. Different, simply for the sake of "showing off" is an abomination. OMA is just not that good. They have great publiscists so they are in the press alot, but their buildings suck.
That building is flashy, trashy, and famously delicious, it sounds like someone is jealous. No one likes a playa' hater.
Floyd,If you haven't seen/heard this presentation by Joshua Prince-Ramus, it is worth 15-minutes of your time...http://tedblog.typepad.com/tedblog/2006/07/joshua_princera.html#
Thanks, I did watch it. My criticism is not so much with how the building functions as a library, in that regard it is adequate. Even the book spiral is nothing new though and doesn't solve the problem of how do you add a book to the middle. You still have to move all the books to add one. A good building needs to do more than function. Louis Kahn said the difference between a good architect and a bad one is that they both solve the problem they set out to solve. The difference is, the good architect solves the right problem. The major flaw with the library is that it doesn't fit the urban fabric. John Portman got ripped in the 70's for building those flashy Bonaventure Hotels because they had no realtionship to the street and human scale. The library has the same issues.
The Seattle Library is the best project of Rem Koolhaas. And your Blog is great.
The human scale is boring, and urban fabric is so 5 years ago. I long for the days of John Portman, the ankel bracelet of the urban wardrobe.
Comments are moderated for spam.