A hotel.. A paradise...
there a difference between well designed building and a pretty building --this structure is like an ugly lady presented in a nice beautiful sari with all the make up possible to hide her ugliness.....this doesnot deserve to be on this site---------------its a nightmare in the name of architecture not a paradise..........-any 1 of a different opinion?? contact me firstname.lastname@example.org.....we ll have a good debate....bye
hmm.. must say that her sari is beautiful but i am really interested to know about her ugliness. Can you please explain why you are saying so?
ok lets look at the architecture of the 1960s period ,look at indian vernacular or any other foreign architecture,i find a hell lot of rationality,sensible use of space,being true to the materials,consciousness towards environment, they were planned by taking into consideration the context,the climate,the people for which it was built........etc etc ........u know all that rit?........so now look at that structure..it is a beautiful painting......everything in it is soooo "IMAGE" oriented,even the interiors .........have u seen ..it sucks.....it is made for laymen who get impressed by the very face value of a building..........we architects atleast should realize this ....realize such a difference between a good architectural space and a pictorial space .......................so wat u think????/
I don't get whats "bad" in being image oriented (if its a good image). I think its rather an achievement to convert the "beautiful painting" into reality.
And talking about external views, i think that is also a very important part an architect must work upon.
Although, the functionality of structures can't be sacrificed for views, but if a structure is perfectly functional and has good views with least use of resources then that's quite a big achievement (i suppose).
What do you think about Burj, isn't it a megapiece?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32aaRDyLPxo --check out this video, its Peter Eisenman talking something really very important, everyone should listen to .
He talks about problems in being image oriented and how that approach has nothing to do with architecture.
This approach is not converting "a beautiful painting" into reality but converting one beautiful painting into another beautiful painting, and since the latter one can be seen in 3D and lived in ,that does not add any thing to its credibility.
I liked the Burj the first time i saw it but as architects we don't stop there, we think "WHY" we liked it and then when i studied the whole thing -- the beautiful sari over an ugly face is what i was left with.
So you may call it an engineering marvel or what ever but not an architectural mega-piece....
So, what say??
Architects & Their Works
Arts in Architecture
Building Materials & Services
Building & Their Structure
Earthquake Proof Construction
History of Architecture
Old City Settlement Studies
Other Case Studies
Public Spaces & Squares