Futuristic Buildings

[atpollard]

I would have to say that the buildings of Will (William) Alsop appear too much like a sculptural object (intended to create a strong emotional response in the viewer) and do not appear to address the "human scale" (would you feel comfortable sitting or standing next to it). I would need to actually visit one to be sure, but that is how they appear from the pictures.

Norman Foster appears to do an excellent job of creating people friendly, usable spaces. The Addition to Joslyn Art Museum HERE was very respectful of the existing building. (In contrast, the ROM Crystal by Daniel Libeskind appears to have hated the existing building and wanted to destroy all trace of it HERE ).

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by atpollard:
No, you are not alone. His [Daniel Libeskind's] work will quickly go the way of "lime green shag carpet". It will never be an architectural treasure and it will one day be demolished to make way for an object that understands context, form and proportion. The Royal Ontario Museum has done itself no favors.

Just one architect's opinion.

Many of his contemporaries felt that way about Frank Lloyd Wright's work; a great many people still do. That in no way diminishes its aesthetic value. If architecture were a popularity contest, there would be McMansions everywhere... uh... hmmm.

Until now, I was unaware of the Royal Ontario Museum and the controversy surrounding its expansion. I want to visit it now! So maybe, in the end, Libeskind and the Museum will have achieved the desired result, after all.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Just give all the work to Norman Foster...

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx

Wow, I have a Phaidon book of the concept art for those buildings from fifteen years ago. I never thought they had actually built them. Neat

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Arthur hault-Denger:
...Until now, I was unaware of the Royal Ontario Museum and the controversy surrounding its expansion. I want to visit it now! So maybe, in the end, Libeskind and the Museum will have achieved the desired result, after all.

There is that

Personally though I think that particular application is disrespectful and ugly at the least. But if it's art and not architecture then we're all right whether we like it or hate or anything in between. I think it's like "Voice of Fire" all over again. The public is going to wake up to the cost for this unimaginative (in the larger public opinion at least) eyesore that some level of our government has squandered and we'll have to pay even more to have the monstrosity removed (and probably warehoused for decades) before everyone forgets about it and the government pulls the same stupidity again.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Can I have a quick rant at this point?

Am I the only person who, whenever Daniel Libeskind vomits up another non-Euclidean abomination, wants to scream, "The Emperor has no clothes on! Look - you can see his willy!"? He's a talentless one-trick pony, and it's not even a good trick.

The first time I saw a Libeskind, I thought, "Hmm ... interesting ...". The second, third and umpteenth time - "Booooring!". Frank Lloyd Wright had considerably more than one trick up his sleeve, and old Norman's not bad, either.

Mind you, they're still all architects, and thus in league with the devil (a landscape architect's view).