"...designed to route water to the ground instead of inside the outer wall."
Ah yes, because water should always drain into the building, not away from it. Guess back in the decon days, water run-off was a taboo topic- too postmodern.
So are they just replacing the facade with the same design or are they just boarding it up with metal panels? It was hard to tell the intent in the article.
I don't agree with 'never', but I do think he has fallen off.
I mean, the house series, particularly House VI, was very nice. And I do enjoy his reflections on Terragni. [Let's face it, Guiseppe Terragni probably would have been bigger than Mies or Corb, if he had lived to a ripe career, dude only lived to 39]. He {PE]was probably the best architect in the world in the late 1980's.
However, I agree PE hasn't been able to keep up. I thought 'Diagram Diaries' was pedantic, even for 1999. I also think his ideas about 'negation' [regarding the 'true' architect vs the construction industry] were disastrously wrong for our profession, particularly in the US. And I think Sarah Whiting and Richard Somol [both past pupils of PE] agree.
I do still like 'Log', which I believe is still edited by his wife, Cynthia Davidson. Though, of course, I don't think much of Log finds it's way into Eisenman's work. It's too tangental.
I dont know what all they are going to do, but as of 7 years ago there was serious water infiltration into certain parts of the building. I would think that much of the steel framing (even though galavanized) would start to rust from the water
i really hope the era of PE's influence on the young and brilliant minds of architecture is over, maybe we can bring the profession back once we quit dicking around with irrelevant bullshit.
i agree that eisenman created a problem, but who were the hacks that put the construction documents together? I don't believe that it was eisenman who stamped those cd's for a minute.
But Vado, you gotta be able to do both. Look at what happened to Gehry at MIT. More after the next paragraph.
Phyllis Lambert has bailed Eisenman out twice out of bankruptcy. She champions him the way she championed Mies. And, I think, deservedly. Lambert recently took some shots Renzo Piano for being a "safe" architect. And now Elizabeth Diller is receiving her support. (OK, she has for a while. Her 35th, or was it 40th?, birthday was at the CCA in Montreal in 1994. I was a fly on the wall.)
More importantly small practice has changed drastically and if you cannot roll with punches and do multiple things or show expertise in multiple fields, you're dead. Disciplines like waterproofing and mechanical systems are key to staying solvent. This goes to another discussion where Donna talks about kitchen design. It's not that difficult to do and we need to be good at a lot of things.
Without good waterproofing, all of those mowed-down-rainforest rosewood veneers will certainly curl in all of our new environmentally-friendly LEED buildings!
Not to mention, rainwater pits flawless open-pitted-mined zinc coatings on our low VOC upholstered furniture!
at what point should waterproofing and overall building performance be compromised for the 'architect's vison' to be realized. I really doubt that Eisenman gave a shit about how the building held up after the initial photos were taken. This makes him a bad architect and an asshole in my book
He is not an architect in my book (even if he passed his exams) as long as he doesn't follow thru to the last detail and worry about such frivilous shit like waterproofing.
This is why a category called Architectural Designer should be allowed, because as someone mentioned he probably didn't do the CDs or stamp the drawings, so he really didn't do the architecture just the Conceptual Design.
And peter eisenmans conceptual design isn't that exiting to begin with, convoluted and up to my knees in you know what.
I'd like to see PE diagram the practice of architecture for us all to review and see how accurate he is.
No one has the attention span to absorb more than that vado.
Hot rendering with lens flare, cool techno, cultured people, expensive bottled water, photos of event on event, post on web, monograph in bookstore...say something derrodean and deluzian, drop out, tune out...fuck the public, let the concepts leak let them leak
what does the public know about anything? the public is the problem. social engineering through the built environment worked. now everything is committees and boards and nice and public opinion. the public doesn't know what's good for them.
This is true, but you can makes lots of money charging them hourly for fixing their own stupidity, but you must earn their respect first...they must feel stupid and grab for the wallet at the same time as you save them from hiring Peter Eisenman to dsign more than an idea.
and as far as the DAAP goes. if we are all so concerned about the "education" of the architect to include such drudgery as waterproofing, i would argue that a building that is fundamentally not waterproof is the perfect learning environment.
"He is not an architect in my book (even if he passed his exams) as long as he doesn't follow through to the last detail and worry about such frivolous shit like waterproofing."
It's interesting you should make this comment, given your evolo thread, which in all likelihood would have been the type of publication that would have featured Petey back in his wild deconstruction days.
Some of the issue here is that although we consider this a "peter eisenman" building, that's not really the whole truth. Yeah, he designed it (or someone in the office, hard to say), but then a different office did all the detail work. So who to blame? To me, this sounds like a problem with the CD office, whoever that was. Although, maybe all this "postfunctionalism" was part of the contract with the other office and they were forbidden to use waterproofing materials.
I do love this particular passage from the Wiki Page on House VI:
"Consequently, the use of the building was intentionally ignored - not fought against. Eisenman grudgingly permitted a handful of compromises, such as a bathroom, but the staircase lacks a handrail, there is a column abutting the kitchen table, and a glass strip originally divided the bedroom, preventing the installation of a double bed."
Seriously, a bathroom was a compromise? Does the man not shit (aside from his writing)
More than anything, I have to say my biggest complaint about Eisenman's work is his color selections. All pastel, all the time. Why does every project have the color palette of a woman's health clinic? Why Peter, Why?
Interestingly enough, the local firm partnered on this project - Lorenz & Williams no longer has a functional website, although it doesn't appear as if they shut down.
Further, the University started this process last year by sueing the 2 contractors responsible for the project. Interestingly, the GC uses the project on their website, the building envelope contractor does not.
It seems like the root issue is improper EIFS installation. I guess it's a good thing it doesn't rain much in Vegas.
Anyways, the only reason I brought this up was because the Monte Carlo suffered around a $100 million in lost revenue (albeit no one luckily died). From what I understand, the Monte Carlo and many hotels on the strip have decided to change out portions of their facades.
it's as simple as this - a football coach has coaches under him who coach key player who execute the game on the field. Peter Eisenman is a quarterback who calls his own plays regardless of the game results. he def. isn't a coach, a coach would be able to kick the project architects ass into gear.
CC you're a funny man or woman...but not a unicorn?
it's as simple as this - a football coach has coaches under him who coach key player who execute the game on the field. Peter Eisenman is a quarterback who calls his own plays regardless of the game results. he def. isn't a coach, a coach would be able to kick the project architects ass into gear.
steelstuds, repair and renovation work is always more complicated and costly than new construction, you have staging issues, building system issues, mobilization issues, etc...
let's break this down theoretically, off the cuff:
1. restoration architect or forensic A/E guys involved are probably charging by the hour with constantly renewed not to exceed proposals, assume $200-$300/hr, if anything restoration architect has consultants on at that rate
2. attorneys charging thereabouts and then some
3. demo and removal has to probably be greenified
4. all contractors have huge exclusions and contingency numbers due to unknowns and will charge Change orders out the ass
5. possible structure damage?
6. insurances for all people higher than usual
7. more letter writing than usual (fees thus higher) to CYA
8. many meetings with manufacture reps
9. only the best are being hired, so higher rates for everything than the first time around...which means Foster and Associates should of been hired the first time duh.
it is a bit high though, but house prices were about half what they are now back in 96
the fundemental question is should the design have been changed (compromised) in order to save money that could have been on materials that would have potentially preformed better.
I dont know what was know abou EIFS at the time that the building was being built (early 90's), but cermaic panels were origionaly spec'd for the project
ninjaman: "let's break this down theoretically, off the cuff:"
I would add 'the original insurer' to the list. My guess would be that it's Factory Mutual or equal. These insurance guys know their risk management well. Their list of additional requirements for roofing alone is impressive: You can't adhere certain roofing elements. They must be mechanically fastened, etc...
Still $20M sounds like it includes a few Christmas bonuses for the higher ups.
"house prices were about half what they are now back in 96"
Up to three times as high depending on location. If you take in back another decade, you are looking at a total hike of 6-10 times. I know a number of homeowners that are living in 1/2 million $ houses. The ones that bought them in the 80's paid $50-90K. For em. I'm waaaay off topic here. Stop.
Another note on Eisenman: Where was all this hate against him back in the '90? Saying you didn't like his work could get you to lose all your friends and get you expelled. It's a modern equivalent of saying OMA sucks and needs to be stopped. I can't wait another decade to see all the OMA haters come out of the closet.
kidding, never met Eisenman but every video i've seen of him makes you want to smack the guy, if he was some jolly fella who cracked jokes and didn't bother pretending to be a philosopher i probably wouldn't rag on him so much
Well, the university gets what they pay for - anyone who has been involve with EIFS - knows what they are getting - only have to travel to the cloverleafs of any US highway and see the 'temporary' hotel, motel 6's, strip malls etc.
Architects are always backed into doing it - take on the risk or off your bike -
I am surprised at you all - one can only put so much perfume on a pig!
Why not stand up for ol' Peter on this one and put blame where blame is due -
......not the contractor
......not the architect
but the owner!
Peter is one on the most influential thinkers of the 20th century and you all each should thank him for what he has done!
My building leaks, horribly I might add. Does that make the architect suck? I don't think so, this building is one of the best designs in town (imho). The issue is being resolved. I'll take my nice space with a minor imperfection vs. an ugly poc.
If we are to chastise someone that contributed so much, then we should publicly hang all those architects that build ugly crap and still the buildings leak!
Could we also, while we are at it, penalize all those that design horrible buildings out there (and those the continue to design it)? That's far more offensive to me, leaks or no leaks.
As with MIT the details will never be known. Obviously, though, in this case they didn't think it was necessary to sue.
not as interestingly pig-happy in my defence of PE, but...olaf i guess you have not really worked in an office before? architects are not in charge. if they were, VE'ing would never have been invented.
i don't know the whole story but if it was the client pushing the expenses down with unhappy substitutes, well i have been there before and understand the frustration. not everything gets to be done at the level we like. that is just the way it goes.
at least he was not asked to dumb down his design as well.
yet another Eisenman f' up
this guy should have never been allowed to build...he is a hack
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101104/NEWS01/11050323/1196/NEWS/UC-s-DAAP-building-to-get-facelift
"...designed to route water to the ground instead of inside the outer wall."
Ah yes, because water should always drain into the building, not away from it. Guess back in the decon days, water run-off was a taboo topic- too postmodern.
So are they just replacing the facade with the same design or are they just boarding it up with metal panels? It was hard to tell the intent in the article.
I don't agree with 'never', but I do think he has fallen off.
I mean, the house series, particularly House VI, was very nice. And I do enjoy his reflections on Terragni. [Let's face it, Guiseppe Terragni probably would have been bigger than Mies or Corb, if he had lived to a ripe career, dude only lived to 39]. He {PE]was probably the best architect in the world in the late 1980's.
However, I agree PE hasn't been able to keep up. I thought 'Diagram Diaries' was pedantic, even for 1999. I also think his ideas about 'negation' [regarding the 'true' architect vs the construction industry] were disastrously wrong for our profession, particularly in the US. And I think Sarah Whiting and Richard Somol [both past pupils of PE] agree.
I do still like 'Log', which I believe is still edited by his wife, Cynthia Davidson. Though, of course, I don't think much of Log finds it's way into Eisenman's work. It's too tangental.
Had to do the same thing to the Wexner..
I dont know what all they are going to do, but as of 7 years ago there was serious water infiltration into certain parts of the building. I would think that much of the steel framing (even though galavanized) would start to rust from the water
Im sure Dryvit aint using the project in their marketing brochures any more
well thats why we have water infiltration consultants..
I'm certainly glad I had Eisenman's sturdy styrofoam building to take refuge in during last week's tornado warnings.
see what diagrams will get you...
i really hope the era of PE's influence on the young and brilliant minds of architecture is over, maybe we can bring the profession back once we quit dicking around with irrelevant bullshit.
Eisenman should be asked to make waterproofing diagrams.
The day our concerns shifted from championing architectural ideas to a focus on the drudgery of waterproofing, was a dark day indeed.
Hi vado!
i agree that eisenman created a problem, but who were the hacks that put the construction documents together? I don't believe that it was eisenman who stamped those cd's for a minute.
But Vado, you gotta be able to do both. Look at what happened to Gehry at MIT. More after the next paragraph.
Phyllis Lambert has bailed Eisenman out twice out of bankruptcy. She champions him the way she championed Mies. And, I think, deservedly. Lambert recently took some shots Renzo Piano for being a "safe" architect. And now Elizabeth Diller is receiving her support. (OK, she has for a while. Her 35th, or was it 40th?, birthday was at the CCA in Montreal in 1994. I was a fly on the wall.)
More importantly small practice has changed drastically and if you cannot roll with punches and do multiple things or show expertise in multiple fields, you're dead. Disciplines like waterproofing and mechanical systems are key to staying solvent. This goes to another discussion where Donna talks about kitchen design. It's not that difficult to do and we need to be good at a lot of things.
Take care!
Without good waterproofing, all of those mowed-down-rainforest rosewood veneers will certainly curl in all of our new environmentally-friendly LEED buildings!
Not to mention, rainwater pits flawless open-pitted-mined zinc coatings on our low VOC upholstered furniture!
at what point should waterproofing and overall building performance be compromised for the 'architect's vison' to be realized. I really doubt that Eisenman gave a shit about how the building held up after the initial photos were taken. This makes him a bad architect and an asshole in my book
He is not an architect in my book (even if he passed his exams) as long as he doesn't follow thru to the last detail and worry about such frivilous shit like waterproofing.
This is why a category called Architectural Designer should be allowed, because as someone mentioned he probably didn't do the CDs or stamp the drawings, so he really didn't do the architecture just the Conceptual Design.
And peter eisenmans conceptual design isn't that exiting to begin with, convoluted and up to my knees in you know what.
I'd like to see PE diagram the practice of architecture for us all to review and see how accurate he is.
Ideas over execution!
Hi LB!
ideas are easy
Execution is hard
Earn the respect of the public young grass hopper.
this is the crisis of architecture. it has been dumbed down to flashing.
No one has the attention span to absorb more than that vado.
Hot rendering with lens flare, cool techno, cultured people, expensive bottled water, photos of event on event, post on web, monograph in bookstore...say something derrodean and deluzian, drop out, tune out...fuck the public, let the concepts leak let them leak
Eisenman is the backbone to the crisis!
what does the public know about anything? the public is the problem. social engineering through the built environment worked. now everything is committees and boards and nice and public opinion. the public doesn't know what's good for them.
This is true, but you can makes lots of money charging them hourly for fixing their own stupidity, but you must earn their respect first...they must feel stupid and grab for the wallet at the same time as you save them from hiring Peter Eisenman to dsign more than an idea.
and as far as the DAAP goes. if we are all so concerned about the "education" of the architect to include such drudgery as waterproofing, i would argue that a building that is fundamentally not waterproof is the perfect learning environment.
I am sure the forensic architects employees are earning 10 fold what Eisenmans idea makers were.
you're right vado, all those good ideas Eisenman wanted DAAP students to learn just became irrelevant.
"He is not an architect in my book (even if he passed his exams) as long as he doesn't follow through to the last detail and worry about such frivolous shit like waterproofing."
It's interesting you should make this comment, given your evolo thread, which in all likelihood would have been the type of publication that would have featured Petey back in his wild deconstruction days.
Some of the issue here is that although we consider this a "peter eisenman" building, that's not really the whole truth. Yeah, he designed it (or someone in the office, hard to say), but then a different office did all the detail work. So who to blame? To me, this sounds like a problem with the CD office, whoever that was. Although, maybe all this "postfunctionalism" was part of the contract with the other office and they were forbidden to use waterproofing materials.
I do love this particular passage from the Wiki Page on House VI:
"Consequently, the use of the building was intentionally ignored - not fought against. Eisenman grudgingly permitted a handful of compromises, such as a bathroom, but the staircase lacks a handrail, there is a column abutting the kitchen table, and a glass strip originally divided the bedroom, preventing the installation of a double bed."
Seriously, a bathroom was a compromise? Does the man not shit (aside from his writing)
More than anything, I have to say my biggest complaint about Eisenman's work is his color selections. All pastel, all the time. Why does every project have the color palette of a woman's health clinic? Why Peter, Why?
Interestingly enough, the local firm partnered on this project - Lorenz & Williams no longer has a functional website, although it doesn't appear as if they shut down.
Further, the University started this process last year by sueing the 2 contractors responsible for the project. Interestingly, the GC uses the project on their website, the building envelope contractor does not.
It seems like the root issue is improper EIFS installation. I guess it's a good thing it doesn't rain much in Vegas.
"He called it an exterior fire that consumed a foam-like building material."
Hilarious.
Anyways, the only reason I brought this up was because the Monte Carlo suffered around a $100 million in lost revenue (albeit no one luckily died). From what I understand, the Monte Carlo and many hotels on the strip have decided to change out portions of their facades.
this is one of the funniest things that i've read on archinect in quite a while...
What strikes me the most about this story is that the building only cost $35M back in '96. The renovation itself is a whopping $20M.
If salaries fallowed this rise, an average architect with 10+ years of experience should be making well over $150K by now.
Can't wait to see the discrepancy 15 years from now.
agree crosby, i'm laughing my ass off...
CC you're a funny man.
it's as simple as this - a football coach has coaches under him who coach key player who execute the game on the field. Peter Eisenman is a quarterback who calls his own plays regardless of the game results. he def. isn't a coach, a coach would be able to kick the project architects ass into gear.
agree crosby, i'm laughing my ass off...
CC you're a funny man or woman...but not a unicorn?
it's as simple as this - a football coach has coaches under him who coach key player who execute the game on the field. Peter Eisenman is a quarterback who calls his own plays regardless of the game results. he def. isn't a coach, a coach would be able to kick the project architects ass into gear.
steelstuds, repair and renovation work is always more complicated and costly than new construction, you have staging issues, building system issues, mobilization issues, etc...
odn, this is hardly a renovation of Notre Dame. The scope includes re-roofing and re-cladding. Selective demolition is fairly small.
let's break this down theoretically, off the cuff:
1. restoration architect or forensic A/E guys involved are probably charging by the hour with constantly renewed not to exceed proposals, assume $200-$300/hr, if anything restoration architect has consultants on at that rate
2. attorneys charging thereabouts and then some
3. demo and removal has to probably be greenified
4. all contractors have huge exclusions and contingency numbers due to unknowns and will charge Change orders out the ass
5. possible structure damage?
6. insurances for all people higher than usual
7. more letter writing than usual (fees thus higher) to CYA
8. many meetings with manufacture reps
9. only the best are being hired, so higher rates for everything than the first time around...which means Foster and Associates should of been hired the first time duh.
it is a bit high though, but house prices were about half what they are now back in 96
the fundemental question is should the design have been changed (compromised) in order to save money that could have been on materials that would have potentially preformed better.
I dont know what was know abou EIFS at the time that the building was being built (early 90's), but cermaic panels were origionaly spec'd for the project
damn you mdler...now you present the real arguement, and all us yelling at PE look foolish. if I was PE I would of walked....
actually no I would of worked it out, i'd made some calls and found a contractor that could deliver, i'd overstep the GC, etc...
ninjaman: "let's break this down theoretically, off the cuff:"
I would add 'the original insurer' to the list. My guess would be that it's Factory Mutual or equal. These insurance guys know their risk management well. Their list of additional requirements for roofing alone is impressive: You can't adhere certain roofing elements. They must be mechanically fastened, etc...
Still $20M sounds like it includes a few Christmas bonuses for the higher ups.
"house prices were about half what they are now back in 96"
Up to three times as high depending on location. If you take in back another decade, you are looking at a total hike of 6-10 times. I know a number of homeowners that are living in 1/2 million $ houses. The ones that bought them in the 80's paid $50-90K. For em. I'm waaaay off topic here. Stop.
Another note on Eisenman: Where was all this hate against him back in the '90? Saying you didn't like his work could get you to lose all your friends and get you expelled. It's a modern equivalent of saying OMA sucks and needs to be stopped. I can't wait another decade to see all the OMA haters come out of the closet.
don't worry i hate them already....
kidding, never met Eisenman but every video i've seen of him makes you want to smack the guy, if he was some jolly fella who cracked jokes and didn't bother pretending to be a philosopher i probably wouldn't rag on him so much
Formica... Awesome!
i thought the deal was that the building was VE'd and EIFS was used against PE's wishes.
?
a good coach always finds a way to win jump...like i said he's a quarterback who calls his own games based on what suits him best.
Well, the university gets what they pay for - anyone who has been involve with EIFS - knows what they are getting - only have to travel to the cloverleafs of any US highway and see the 'temporary' hotel, motel 6's, strip malls etc.
Architects are always backed into doing it - take on the risk or off your bike -
I am surprised at you all - one can only put so much perfume on a pig!
Why not stand up for ol' Peter on this one and put blame where blame is due -
......not the contractor
......not the architect
but the owner!
Peter is one on the most influential thinkers of the 20th century and you all each should thank him for what he has done!
My building leaks, horribly I might add. Does that make the architect suck? I don't think so, this building is one of the best designs in town (imho). The issue is being resolved. I'll take my nice space with a minor imperfection vs. an ugly poc.
If we are to chastise someone that contributed so much, then we should publicly hang all those architects that build ugly crap and still the buildings leak!
Could we also, while we are at it, penalize all those that design horrible buildings out there (and those the continue to design it)? That's far more offensive to me, leaks or no leaks.
As with MIT the details will never be known. Obviously, though, in this case they didn't think it was necessary to sue.
lol.
not as interestingly pig-happy in my defence of PE, but...olaf i guess you have not really worked in an office before? architects are not in charge. if they were, VE'ing would never have been invented.
i don't know the whole story but if it was the client pushing the expenses down with unhappy substitutes, well i have been there before and understand the frustration. not everything gets to be done at the level we like. that is just the way it goes.
at least he was not asked to dumb down his design as well.
I'm so glad they are redoing the facade of DAAP. It looks like hell.
UC's current architect used to be my old boss... she is awesome so I have confidence that the improvements to it will be awesome, too!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.