Re: dead languages
For me as an architect, the liberating part of hypertext (and here I mean specifically HTML and its application via the internet) is that I can design a virtual building with just my two hands. There are very little costs involved, and no one can stop me, nor a can anyone deny that I'm doing it. That is very liberating, especially for an architect. Furthermore, virtual architecture via hypertext has no real need for a client, thus liberating all design possibilities.
My work as a hypertextual architect/designer can be judged by anyone, just like it can be utilized by anyone. So far, the architectural 'establishment' chooses rather to pretend it's not there, or judge it something lacking or even just unimportant.
The worst possible thing that an architect or designer can do in terms of interactivity is to somehow try to control it, and that includes trying to qualify it. The second worst thing an architect or designer can do in terms of interactivity is to not recognize interactors for who they really are.
my, what big eyes you have
...browsing through the December 2001 issue of Architecture magazine:
Rem Koolhaas/OMA's proposed (and controversial) San Francisco Prada store is no more. Citing financial difficulties, Prada Group NV has decided to can the project, nicknamed the "cheese grater" by those who disapproved of its perforated steel skin. On a brighter note, Rem has won a five year long plagiarism lawsuit. Former OMA employee Gareth Pearce sued the architect and his office, claiming they copied the scheme for the Kunsthal in Rotterdam from Pearce's 1986 thesis project for the Architectural Association. Pearce, who has also taken legal action against Kunsthal engineer Ove Arup and the city of Rotterdam, lost the case when a judge in the London High Court threw it out, calling Pearce's claim pure fantasy."
Anyone here reading that new book entitled The Architecture of Nimiety: an Abundance of Redundance in Architectural Education, Theory and Practice? I've heard conflicting reports that it is either exactly 197 words long, or 197 pages long, or 197 chapters long. One critic hailed it as "a monument to "déjà vu all over again," absolute proof that what comes around is usually what was missed the first few times it came around."
Re: WTC & Real Estate Development
Cities have always been centers/engenderers of vitality. The word vitality relates directly to life, as does (the word) metabolism. Are cities always metabolic then? To many degrees, such as the day to day goings on, the answer is yes. But what of cities and their processes in the long term? Are cities metabolic over time as well? A safe answer is that many (if not most) large cities throughout the 20th century have manifest enormous creative/destructive dualities, i.e., metabolic natures. Berlin is a perfect 20th century example, and Baghdad is well on it way to being a perfect turn-of-the-millennium example. Even (North) Philadelphia has gone from one of the largest manufacturing (creative) centers of the world in the late 19th and early 20th century to now being a large urban area where huge factory complexes are long abandoned and 'decaying' and even 'disappearing' (ultimately destroyed) month to month. Given that capitalism has itself been described as "creative destruction" (or really destructive creativity as well), any city that is likewise a center of capitalism is by default metabolic--and here the mega-cities of so-called Communist China cannot really deny their capitalist natures because of their undeniable creative/destructive natures.
All this also makes me wonder what the USA will be like when so-called 'urban sprawl' begins to age/show its ongoing metabolic nature over time. Perhaps therein lies a forthcoming perfect example of real estate development's undeniable metabolism.
For millennia, the tallest building in the world was the Great Pyramid at Giza (roughly 480 feet), whose 'world record' was first beaten (by about 20 feet) by the tower of the Cathedral of Bauvais. Alas the Bauvais tower collapsed c. 1575 after maybe 50 years of being the world's tallest. So, then the Great Pyramid was again the tallest in the world, except at some 'point' the second pryamid at Giza became taller than the Great pyramid due to the second's tip still being there, while the Great's tip having somewhat crumbled away.
Funny how another ancient Egyptian form in 1855(!) finally superseded the Pyramids in height--the Washington Monument at 555 feet.
Now, making a long story short, the Eiffel Tower brought 'buildings' close to 1000 feet, and then the World Trade Center towers brought buildings close to 1500 feet. Given all that, seeing buildings at 2000 feet appears to be more than a stretch.
It is probably not at all outlandish to think that some day, perhaps in some millennia to come, that the pyramids at Giza will again be the world's tallest buildings.
09062001 Villa Savoye Tower of Shadows superimposed plans
09062002 Tower of Shadows elevations
09062003 Villa Savoye Tower of Shadows superimposed models
Old Styles with a Modern Twist
"She suggested I make it look more current (funny how new, creative architecture is defined as anything done in current styles, and anything done in a previous style is imitation)."
Yes, it is funny, because almost all of it boils down to imitation. Even nonneutral's well intentioned advise above imitates (reenacts) what previous others have prescribed as a 'rational' way to justify design decisions.
My advise is to further pursue your initial approach, and when it comes time to justify your rationale, tell them you sincerely think your design solution has a better chance of success at ultimately achieving what it's supposed to.
12062001 Eclectic Houses with Gooding House Vanna Venturi House St. Peter's Basilica window plans elevations