Report a Comment

You're right MLD, I wasn't getting into the meat of the buildings because I didn't think it was worth it. They designed some sculptural form (speaking of the larger one mostly) and made the function work with in it. Nothing wrong with that, but somewhat arbitrary.

As sculpture they seem ok. As buildings (the larger one mostly), it sucks because of many reasons. The cantilevered floors not only rob the units below of light, but will make people feel uncomfertable below. The "transparent" library won't be, because as everyone knows, the light glare will make it impossible to see through, yet people continue to make this assertion. It won't be inviting either becasue there's no obvious entrance, from what I can see.

I hope that's enough for you, but it all seems kind of irrelivant. Unlike the Newsmuseum that is modern, glass and excellent, this is just trendy sculpture with function stuffed into it, starchitect or not. Eisenman's article just prooves how much people wanting to seem cutting edge will buy into complete nonsence, no matter how much one tries to "actually critique the buildings involved".

by Thayer-D on May 5, 2011 10:10 am • link • report