Thanks to all the people that have been sending photos of the de young museum to archinect, we've been able to see it come to conclusion and of course generate a lot of expectation.
I hope to someday be able to visit it, but for now I will have to settle for the pictures everyone will take and post since it will be open to public.
I don't want to sound negative at all. But in H&dM's work I seldom see architectural space, the way I understand and I'm interested in space. To clarify, let's say I'm interested in space, the way it is handled in the Rotterdam kunsthall by OMA.
I get the feeling that H&dM concentrate in a non-form + material formula, of course I've not visited many of their buildings, only prada in Tokyo. But I'd dare to say that 90% of the photos they take of their work that are available on the web and in books are all exterior shots of spectacular objects, with evermore spectacular materials, but seldom architectural space, or interesting interiors, am I too wrong?
you're only wrong to assume that only space counts. what space is not material, not matter in the literal sense anyway? besides isn't the TATE modern turbine gallery one of the most palpable spaces, as evidenced by the success of the work by anish kapoor, rachel whiteread, and Olafur Eliasson? of course HDM concetrates on material. more architects should be seduced by the physical milieu of architecture.
i see your point and i agree, but i'd say that projects that cost hundreds of millions and that lack spacial qualities is i dunno .......not my kind of stuff.
I would agree with you, mau. I went to europe recently and was really looking forward to visiting their buildings. I was extremely disappointed by the stadium in Munich for exactly the reason you mentioned: all of the attention was focused on the exterior skin and the interiors were very rough. The approach was disfunctional, more than any stadium I have ever visited (everyone is forced through one entrance and the ticket offices are below grade and become horrible cages for huge crowds). The Tate Modern was a decent interior space but the concept is not revolutionary in any way. The circulation in this building is also totally disfunctional. I came away with the feeling that this firm is very overrated. I agree that what OMA is doing is far more interesting in terms of the interplay between function and space.
i like the tate but the kapur piece is what made the space, not H+deM. the rest of it is pretty blah. It would have been nice to see Ando's version built instead, with the glass boxes extending out of the facade and all.
Prada is amazing, spatially just so-so, but the workmanship is incredible. haven't seen any other stuff by them but agree their work looks mostly about surface and object-making rather than the promenade architecturale that OMA does so well. Then again Rem has always been about continuing the Modernist agenda. The influence of Mies and LeCorbusier is always quite strong in his stuff, so no surprise. H+deM come from somewhere else.
personally oma seems more consistently better than H+deM, and i prefer the former, but both are quite interesting.
I've been inside the DeYoung and it indeed has some compelling spatial moments -- the entrance's spatial 'cut', the integral garden void spaces, the beautifully inflected stairway space to lower galleries, the carved out space under the big stair in the lobby that forms an entry to auditorium, and especially the space defined by the big canopy facing west (where subtractive cuts continue the space of the voided courtyards within to become exterior cuts through the canopy). This is one of their most spatially conceived projects -- even though the attention usually focuses on the skin.
And many other of their works are spatially driven or at least spatially very compelling: the Kochlin House (beautifully dynamic, adjustable central courtyard void), the Dominus Winery (whose famous gabion skin is dependent on space itself for its effects of porosity, not to mention the spatial sequence through vinyards into carved portal/porte cochere, upstairs to the more fluid glass wrapped rooms nested within the deep facade cutouts, where skylights puncture through to the sky), or the Cartoon Museum (inflected, reflective central glass-bridged courtyard), Schaulager (carved out entry with 'slice' aperture overlooking sunken interior), Laban Center (water void upper light court, curving step ramp trajectory, and facade curve responding to St Paul's beyond), Barcelona Forum (light well cutouts) and Prada Tokyo (the main urbanistic diagram of object building on connective berm/plynth that brings the space of the street around and into the building, the skewed stair spaces along glass skin, and the other stairs as cutouts leading into the dressing room 'tubes'). At the Walker addition, there is also a distinct deployment of poche, out of which lounges, etc are 'carved'.
If you don't think H&DeM's work acheives great spatial interest/complexity (admittedly not as amazing as OMA's Kunsthalle, Dutch House, Dutch Embassy in Berlin, Bordeau House, Porto etc) you are not looking close enough, or not reading the drawings alongside perusing the typical photos...don't get blinded by the skin jobs they are so famous for, they know how to make space where/when they want.
if you are actually interested in space, and some ideas of architectural promenade, in architecture, I would presume you must also interested in time. as in the promenade, the most interesting architectures arrive in time, not in space. it is not so much that HdM is preoccupied with materials and surface as they are seduced by materials and time. OMA, no matter spatial their practice may fundamentally be, they are fundamentally restricted to three or so dimensions. It is their hubris of their slacker details, their utter indifference to time, that makes them ultimately so unspatial. Despite all the hand waiving about the culture of congetsion and bigness, there is little in the architecture that arrives in time since their indifference to the matter of architecture (like the IIT student falling apart already) precludes the possibility of congestion occuring. There is a big difference between an architecture that creates events (OMA) and and architecture that anticipates events (HdM anticipating big art at the Tate). bothands lists several compelling spaces. to this list i would add temporal dimensions to the list. again, the most compellin architectures arrive in time, not space.
please to all photographers who visit H&Dm's works, take pics of the spaces not only the spectacular materials.
i've no interest to deffend OMA vs H&Dm i just posted that example because spatial qualities are often portrayed in OMAs work, and not so in H&Dms, and i will study their plans more deeply and hopefully visit more works.
temporal dimensions to the list. again, the most compellin architectures arrive in time, not space.
yes i agree wholly with this as well. i saw the rust colored elements of hte building and this is what came to mind . i thought it was a very poetic and practical statement. also this awareness of temporality is interesting because time is also one of the main components of any architectural experience.
spatial effect trumps material sexiness any day. Now, when space is considered primary, and developed with these other issues in mind, namely materiality and its temporal dimensions, that's what Outkast would call "SpotieOtieDopalicious" space. I'm thinkin' Zumthor's thermal baths...
oh man, I just looked at that slide show...the spaces look very interesting. especially that long stramp (stair/ramp) and vertical void at the entry...the layer of copper skin hangin' over the glass, helping to frame the view of the city...hot.
if you haven't heard walter hood speak about the landscape at the de young yet, it is worth finding/hearing/reading. spatially, temporally, and materially, HdM + Walter Hood envision a park where everything, eveything is green. from the tint of the glass, to the weathered copper, to the green slate, the SF veggies. taken together as a whole (building, tower, lightwells, gardens, park, vista to city/water) it is most certainly spatial, material, and temporal when considered as a continum, as green-hued mileu.
(i also don't wanna defend the vanity of either HdM or OMA. they both have profound merits and questions. best that they provoke good questions and discussions.)
so please post pics in a few years too.
The "De Young"
Thanks to all the people that have been sending photos of the de young museum to archinect, we've been able to see it come to conclusion and of course generate a lot of expectation.
I hope to someday be able to visit it, but for now I will have to settle for the pictures everyone will take and post since it will be open to public.
I don't want to sound negative at all. But in H&dM's work I seldom see architectural space, the way I understand and I'm interested in space. To clarify, let's say I'm interested in space, the way it is handled in the Rotterdam kunsthall by OMA.
I get the feeling that H&dM concentrate in a non-form + material formula, of course I've not visited many of their buildings, only prada in Tokyo. But I'd dare to say that 90% of the photos they take of their work that are available on the web and in books are all exterior shots of spectacular objects, with evermore spectacular materials, but seldom architectural space, or interesting interiors, am I too wrong?
you're only wrong to assume that only space counts. what space is not material, not matter in the literal sense anyway? besides isn't the TATE modern turbine gallery one of the most palpable spaces, as evidenced by the success of the work by anish kapoor, rachel whiteread, and Olafur Eliasson? of course HDM concetrates on material. more architects should be seduced by the physical milieu of architecture.
i see your point and i agree, but i'd say that projects that cost hundreds of millions and that lack spacial qualities is i dunno .......not my kind of stuff.
I would agree with you, mau. I went to europe recently and was really looking forward to visiting their buildings. I was extremely disappointed by the stadium in Munich for exactly the reason you mentioned: all of the attention was focused on the exterior skin and the interiors were very rough. The approach was disfunctional, more than any stadium I have ever visited (everyone is forced through one entrance and the ticket offices are below grade and become horrible cages for huge crowds). The Tate Modern was a decent interior space but the concept is not revolutionary in any way. The circulation in this building is also totally disfunctional. I came away with the feeling that this firm is very overrated. I agree that what OMA is doing is far more interesting in terms of the interplay between function and space.
i like the tate but the kapur piece is what made the space, not H+deM. the rest of it is pretty blah. It would have been nice to see Ando's version built instead, with the glass boxes extending out of the facade and all.
Prada is amazing, spatially just so-so, but the workmanship is incredible. haven't seen any other stuff by them but agree their work looks mostly about surface and object-making rather than the promenade architecturale that OMA does so well. Then again Rem has always been about continuing the Modernist agenda. The influence of Mies and LeCorbusier is always quite strong in his stuff, so no surprise. H+deM come from somewhere else.
personally oma seems more consistently better than H+deM, and i prefer the former, but both are quite interesting.
I've been inside the DeYoung and it indeed has some compelling spatial moments -- the entrance's spatial 'cut', the integral garden void spaces, the beautifully inflected stairway space to lower galleries, the carved out space under the big stair in the lobby that forms an entry to auditorium, and especially the space defined by the big canopy facing west (where subtractive cuts continue the space of the voided courtyards within to become exterior cuts through the canopy). This is one of their most spatially conceived projects -- even though the attention usually focuses on the skin.
And many other of their works are spatially driven or at least spatially very compelling: the Kochlin House (beautifully dynamic, adjustable central courtyard void), the Dominus Winery (whose famous gabion skin is dependent on space itself for its effects of porosity, not to mention the spatial sequence through vinyards into carved portal/porte cochere, upstairs to the more fluid glass wrapped rooms nested within the deep facade cutouts, where skylights puncture through to the sky), or the Cartoon Museum (inflected, reflective central glass-bridged courtyard), Schaulager (carved out entry with 'slice' aperture overlooking sunken interior), Laban Center (water void upper light court, curving step ramp trajectory, and facade curve responding to St Paul's beyond), Barcelona Forum (light well cutouts) and Prada Tokyo (the main urbanistic diagram of object building on connective berm/plynth that brings the space of the street around and into the building, the skewed stair spaces along glass skin, and the other stairs as cutouts leading into the dressing room 'tubes'). At the Walker addition, there is also a distinct deployment of poche, out of which lounges, etc are 'carved'.
If you don't think H&DeM's work acheives great spatial interest/complexity (admittedly not as amazing as OMA's Kunsthalle, Dutch House, Dutch Embassy in Berlin, Bordeau House, Porto etc) you are not looking close enough, or not reading the drawings alongside perusing the typical photos...don't get blinded by the skin jobs they are so famous for, they know how to make space where/when they want.
"H&DeM is kicking everyone's ass"
-annonymous
I must say, I just read the Times review and looked at the accompanying slide show and...
I'm about to cream my pants! I need to get there and visit that building! Oh so sexy!
if you are actually interested in space, and some ideas of architectural promenade, in architecture, I would presume you must also interested in time. as in the promenade, the most interesting architectures arrive in time, not in space. it is not so much that HdM is preoccupied with materials and surface as they are seduced by materials and time. OMA, no matter spatial their practice may fundamentally be, they are fundamentally restricted to three or so dimensions. It is their hubris of their slacker details, their utter indifference to time, that makes them ultimately so unspatial. Despite all the hand waiving about the culture of congetsion and bigness, there is little in the architecture that arrives in time since their indifference to the matter of architecture (like the IIT student falling apart already) precludes the possibility of congestion occuring. There is a big difference between an architecture that creates events (OMA) and and architecture that anticipates events (HdM anticipating big art at the Tate). bothands lists several compelling spaces. to this list i would add temporal dimensions to the list. again, the most compellin architectures arrive in time, not space.
please to all photographers who visit H&Dm's works, take pics of the spaces not only the spectacular materials.
i've no interest to deffend OMA vs H&Dm i just posted that example because spatial qualities are often portrayed in OMAs work, and not so in H&Dms, and i will study their plans more deeply and hopefully visit more works.
i like what you say about time
temporal dimensions to the list. again, the most compellin architectures arrive in time, not space.
yes i agree wholly with this as well. i saw the rust colored elements of hte building and this is what came to mind . i thought it was a very poetic and practical statement. also this awareness of temporality is interesting because time is also one of the main components of any architectural experience.
spatial effect trumps material sexiness any day. Now, when space is considered primary, and developed with these other issues in mind, namely materiality and its temporal dimensions, that's what Outkast would call "SpotieOtieDopalicious" space. I'm thinkin' Zumthor's thermal baths...
yummy.
oh man, I just looked at that slide show...the spaces look very interesting. especially that long stramp (stair/ramp) and vertical void at the entry...the layer of copper skin hangin' over the glass, helping to frame the view of the city...hot.
if you haven't heard walter hood speak about the landscape at the de young yet, it is worth finding/hearing/reading. spatially, temporally, and materially, HdM + Walter Hood envision a park where everything, eveything is green. from the tint of the glass, to the weathered copper, to the green slate, the SF veggies. taken together as a whole (building, tower, lightwells, gardens, park, vista to city/water) it is most certainly spatial, material, and temporal when considered as a continum, as green-hued mileu.
(i also don't wanna defend the vanity of either HdM or OMA. they both have profound merits and questions. best that they provoke good questions and discussions.)
so please post pics in a few years too.
GREAT SPACES BUILT POORLY
the new walker addition is incredibly spatial in addition to the skin, visit if possible
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.