foreign office win bbc music box

World architecture... what's happening generally....

foreign office win bbc music box

Postby what? » Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:08 pm

foreign office have beaten off zaha, future systems, ushida findlay amongst other big names to win the bbc music box commission.
what do people think of the design?
what do people think of the office?
they claim beauty is not a factor for their work and produce projects by 'injecting' data (eg people flows, programmatic height requirements, necessity for light in certain areas) into an entity which produces a design free from preconceptions that arise through our individual upbringings and educations.

is this a valid way to approach projects or does it negate the artistic skill that architects should bring to a piece of architecture.

any thoughts?
Attachments
bbcwhite1a.jpg
bbcwhite1a.jpg (11.62 KiB) Viewed 820 times
what?
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: Dublin

Postby alan d » Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:19 pm

alan d
Senior Member
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:07 pm
Location: glasgow

Postby what? » Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:29 pm

yeah, probably one of the drawbacks of sticking to the ' surface' language (which im not sure works so well for buildings which require stacking unlike yokahama).
what about their approach though? do you belive what they say about the input of data and not caring about aesthetics? or is it just an enigmatic post rationalisation of a (traditional) formal exercise?
what?
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: Dublin

Postby alan d » Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:57 pm

...not sure I yet understand the distiction between "architecture that has no signiture" and no style architects, which was a previous topic posted by Hugh.

Except that to me the BBC Concert Hall looks contrived and familiar and the Town Hall in Murcia by Rafael Moneo does not.
alan d
Senior Member
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:07 pm
Location: glasgow

Postby what? » Mon Nov 24, 2003 5:58 pm

i would say that the difference is that FOA denounce cultural values and claim that pure information creates their schemes, whereas Moneo would thrive on the cultural specifics of a site, and manifest the building out of his personal idea of the programme mixed with site.
i think what FOA are claiming is that by detatching themselves from any a posteriori relationship with the scheme (such as initial sketches or acumulated knowledge) they allow themselves a more free approach to the project.
the part that confounds me is where this information injection ends and where does designing start. i mean there has to be a point when a valued judgement has to be made. or does there?
what?
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: Dublin

no signature

Postby pepe » Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:00 pm

i dnont believe a word about their process, and even if it is true

where does the "Architect" come into the equation.

input data compute output building.

there is absolutely no way the bbc building was produced by simply inputting data into some software or other.

too many stylistic (diller and denari) gestures going on there.

i smell cow pats
pepe
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:26 pm


Return to World Architecture