Architecturally Rocco's proposal looks the best,
but in terms of developmental and economic mind, OMA's looks more attractive to developers.

I am just wondered how in OMA's proposal the west district would be connected with the rest of parts by automobiles...It looks isolated by the park.

I think the economic potential is most important for Current Hong kong. After 97, HK is gradually losing its asia trading center status to ShangHai. It seems there is no other new economic engine for HK except the old times tourism.

So if anyone could boost HK economy, he would be the winner.

Thanks for your comments, I didn't take a look at these schemes yet. I will check them out today and post my comments.

i like the three clusters of dense development. wish they were better connected. can't get a great sense of scale, but looks like both the pedestrian and vehicular circulation between clusters is under-developed. and the models make the space between buildings in the three clusters look a bit too suburban for my taste (and too suburban for the density of hk). but in general it looks highly realistic and well considered.

btw the rooco design looks like a huge outdoor mall design to me. really bad and not at all urban in any respect.

I really hope OMA wins it. Foster's proposal is the same old. Rocco's is a huge mall.

Yes, it looks like a street mall. but that is the key.
It preserves asian traditional spatial value like intimate labyrinthine alleys, and at the same time it preserves open green spaces on the roof with views toward the ocean.
Moreover, the labyrinthine alleys play a role of urban filter between the ocean and green space and the dense central urban space.

I like OMAs a little bit.

But that arc suspension bridge will be a monumental expensive piece of crap for what is essentially a cul-de-sac.

Severe guesstimating? Probably in the realm of $200-400 million. $200,000,000 can build a lot of other stuff.

Thank you guys for the participation, this has to be an exciting and educational criticizing process.

Here is my overview thought after checking out three schemes:

OMA:
three sectors in village setting make phasing development easier.
three parks connected with new bridge, ferry and subway.

Rocco:
huge park in the ocean front. Victoria park used to be the center of HK. Rocco want to challenge this? This scheme like the one done by Dominiques perrault did for ShangHai Lujiazui proposal. What happened if HK boom again and need new land? Will those green land be kept?

Norman Foster:
similar with Rocco. Didn't find much drawing yet.

I like OMA adding an new bridge but I don't know the reason yet. Need to dig more. This huge park is very hard for people to be accessed. So it helps with various of transportation access. The smaller scale of village make the development easier. More commerce potential. The planning let all the single building development to be very flexible.

I think OMA will win this round.

OMA




Rocco


Norman Foster

"i like the three clusters of dense development. wish they were better connected. can't get a great sense of scale, but looks like both the pedestrian and vehicular circulation between clusters is under-developed. and the models make the space between buildings in the three clusters look a bit too suburban for my taste (and too suburban for the density of hk). but in general it looks highly realistic and well considered. "

Good point. I would like to do more research and reply to your posts.

from rem
"
“The distance between script writing and architecture is very small,” he adds. I ask him to elaborate. “Both are about narrative and surprise,” he replies, “about creating intrigue; for me the move felt very smooth.” "

Rem usually creates a contrast in his project. The talk he gave for FT.com clearly expose his strategy of success. In this HK scheme, where is the spark?

Ouch! Another disappointment for Remmy!

what a political scam. Because of "content", Rem lost his chance in China this time.

but you do know that eventually the parcels for all the different buildings will be split up and yet another competition will be held for all those different cultural venues...

Hi cmrhm, May I ask why Content has damaged OMA's chances to build in China?
I don't read Chinese, and wonder how things have been going for OMA since the TVCC burned. Friends tell me Ole Scheeren is doing well?

leeben: But master planning is the OMA's strength. I guess the jury think Norman's scheme cheaper and easier to develop. the result is easily to be seen. Also no doubt there is pressure from China.

job: You don't know the story about Rem book content and cctv? here is one picture.

CMRHM, I know cctv was burned, but what did happen with "Content"?

Thanks for the photo, but I already know that the tower caught fire last year.

I am asking why you think the book Content - written by Koolhaas and published in 2003, with the yellow cover and photo of Bush with McDonald's french fries on his head - has damaged OMA's chances in getting work in China?

Is there an anti-Chinese idelology in its contents? Is it because of the pornographic images? Is there a masked racism in how they diagram? I don't know, but perhaps you do, and that is why I am asking.

I was talking about the splitting up of parcels in a more cynical tone - of course it would have been great if OMA had won it.

The government's reason about Foster winning is about flexibility of parcels and 'site swapping'...which I think is really an euphemism of saying that the scheme will get watered down in the future, with some 'cultural venues' mysteriously changing into 'residential' and so on.

Also, OMA's plan included a bridge which ran across one side of the site. That was criticized about being unnecessary and extremely expensive.
Finally, its because the general public in Hong Kong know more about Foster than Rem (because of the HSBC headquarters and the airport).

I don't think (and I hope) that OMA didn't win is because of political issues - if it was then it would have been very apparent from the onset, they wouldn't have even got into the door into China.

It is hard to understand that if the juries are going to choose the most safe option why they invited the star-architects.

I am not a big fan of OMA's scheme, but I definitely see some good aspects in their design.

The bridge looks too enormous, but it is a main traffic loop and might be really a beautiful drive way in night looking toward the downtown on the ocean even though the amphitheater is totally ruining the view toward the park coming from the bridge.

Hi job, Chinese weren't happy about the metaphor Regarding CCTV tower and it's service buildjng. Penis and pussy. Cmrhm pictures illustrates it.

Thanks nypencil, I found this article that explained it all:
http://www.danwei.org/architecture/rem_koolhaas_and_cctv_p*rn.php (archinect is blocking the real link)

searchwords rem+content+China and presto - a link to the firestorm. I have the book, and remembered those images as embarrassing. Similar imagery is in smlxl but not directed at any people.

Interesting that a nation of a billion didn't find it clever or amusing. Cautionary tale?

one explanation of why OMA didn't win the competition:

"I personally think, the OMA entry is the best of the three projects. But it is also the most naive, trying to create an urban fabric, which in fact is really for the people, urban fragmentation, variety, scalar and programmatic change. Despite its naivety, it reminds me positively of a quote by Niemeyer, I read, when I started studying architecture. When Niemeyer was asked about his membership in the communist party, he said it is a duty for an architect to be communist, because his foremost responsibility is for the user, for the people. Unfortunately, naivety is a high value, most of the architects have lost in the last 20 years of accelerated property activities."


http://icebloghk.blogspot.com/2011/03/west-kowloon-cultural-district-oops-he.html