this link I post for purely nostalgic reasons; Maiden Lane once a start for something that is now over.too bad I can't see myself managing to go to London while the exhibition's still on.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
song for a friend
this link I post for purely nostalgic reasons; Maiden Lane once a start for something that is now over.too bad I can't see myself managing to go to London while the exhibition's still on.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
you know I'll miss you when you're gone
here's a link to an inaccurate but most beautiful section of Slussen made as a collage of innumerable photos:
www.urbananatomy.se
Slussen is a modernist traffic-circus sited between Gamla Stan (Stockholm's old town) and Södermalm due to be replaced by an incredibly bland proposal courtesy of Foster + Partners and Berg Arkitektkontor.
View Larger Map
even if the section doesn't show the actual Slussen it captures the Piranesian feeling of the place: the criss-crossing passages, the suddenly appearing depths, the vast empty spaces, the darkness and the damp. of course Slussen will be replaced, it would have to, wouldn't it? after all it isn't the bland and brightly lit white space we in this ambitiously middle-class part of the world like to identify ourselves with.
don't get me wrong – I like what they've done to that arcade below Hamngatan – but there comes a time when you just have to find a new way, when repeating the same formula once more is one time too many. and I'm pretty sure we're past that point a few years ago. rather than trying to raze to forget we should actively try to re-build and re-adapt. there can be times and places where a total rebuilding might be ok, but doesn't it all feel a bit too early 20th century?
to me Slussen is a weird breathing space between the posh/touristy Gamla Stan and the über hip Götgatsbacken – a semi-dilapidated piece of artificial ground entirely out of context with its present surroundings, full of weird holes and corners housing a diverse range of activities and businesses that could never afford to be anywhere else in the inner city. I guess the rock venue Debaser is the main exception to that rule, but on the other hand Debaser probably couldn't have started out anywhere else.
it's not that I'm against a redevelopment of Slussen per se, but when the proposal is worse than what is there now we have an obligation to stop it – to demand something better.
still, I know the battle is already lost - and it seems I'm on the losing side together with what's been dubbed 'the cultural elite' - but this is a major disgrace and the last straw in turning Stockholm into the upper middle-class reservation it has actually become (partly because of that 'cultural elite'). and that could be a great thing, if what's being forced out of the city centre could resurface somewhere else but the City doesn't really seem too interested in creating plans for anything but housing in the suburbs. thus the living city centre surrounded by dormitory suburbs will become an un-affordable dormitory city-centre surrounded by dormitory suburbs.
www.urbananatomy.se
Slussen is a modernist traffic-circus sited between Gamla Stan (Stockholm's old town) and Södermalm due to be replaced by an incredibly bland proposal courtesy of Foster + Partners and Berg Arkitektkontor.
View Larger Map
even if the section doesn't show the actual Slussen it captures the Piranesian feeling of the place: the criss-crossing passages, the suddenly appearing depths, the vast empty spaces, the darkness and the damp. of course Slussen will be replaced, it would have to, wouldn't it? after all it isn't the bland and brightly lit white space we in this ambitiously middle-class part of the world like to identify ourselves with.
don't get me wrong – I like what they've done to that arcade below Hamngatan – but there comes a time when you just have to find a new way, when repeating the same formula once more is one time too many. and I'm pretty sure we're past that point a few years ago. rather than trying to raze to forget we should actively try to re-build and re-adapt. there can be times and places where a total rebuilding might be ok, but doesn't it all feel a bit too early 20th century?
to me Slussen is a weird breathing space between the posh/touristy Gamla Stan and the über hip Götgatsbacken – a semi-dilapidated piece of artificial ground entirely out of context with its present surroundings, full of weird holes and corners housing a diverse range of activities and businesses that could never afford to be anywhere else in the inner city. I guess the rock venue Debaser is the main exception to that rule, but on the other hand Debaser probably couldn't have started out anywhere else.
it's not that I'm against a redevelopment of Slussen per se, but when the proposal is worse than what is there now we have an obligation to stop it – to demand something better.
still, I know the battle is already lost - and it seems I'm on the losing side together with what's been dubbed 'the cultural elite' - but this is a major disgrace and the last straw in turning Stockholm into the upper middle-class reservation it has actually become (partly because of that 'cultural elite'). and that could be a great thing, if what's being forced out of the city centre could resurface somewhere else but the City doesn't really seem too interested in creating plans for anything but housing in the suburbs. thus the living city centre surrounded by dormitory suburbs will become an un-affordable dormitory city-centre surrounded by dormitory suburbs.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
cemetry gates
I just saw a post on Tony Wilson's nicely asymmetrical gravestone as designed by Peter Saville and Ben Kelly. it made me think of the great concrete headstone at Patrick Caulfield's grave at Highgate Cemetery in London. at the time I saw it I hadn't got a clue who it was for, but it is a great gravestone indeed. during my visit I did all I could to find Sandy Wilson's grave. unfortunately, though, I had no luck. it would've been interesting to see.
Monday, September 20, 2010
the glasgow school
it seems Steven Holl has unveiled his design for the Glasgow School of Art. his building is for the site opposite their main building, the one presently occupied by several buildings (one of which is a dingy wooden thing by Gillespie, Kidd & Coia). I'm not exactly sure what I think of it, and never having been to visit a Holl building I'm not sure what the renderings and sketches might turn out like, but at first glance I'm slightly disappointed. it just doesn't seem to compare favourably with Mackintosh's main building and I have my doubts about all that glass. I wonder what Grafton Architect's proposal would've looked like?further illustrations of Holl's proposal can be found here.
who do you think you are?
the more I think about it, the less certain I become that architects are the ones most suited to write about architecture. architects are way too caught up in the actual making of buildings to be able to analyse them in a good way. it's very presumptious of us to not only think we're the ones best suited to design buildings but also to be able to analyse them properly. especially considering just how complex they are, both as technical systems and as the backdrop against which we all live our lives.
but who, then, would be better suited?
an art historian? the ones I've come across have always been too focused on the visuals and on the 'intention' behind different parts of a building for me to take seriously. and as we know there's a lot of post-rational explanations put forward by architects so that they won't have to say they just liked something. an architectural historian would make more sense in the way that most of them are educated as architects and thus – at least partly – aware of what it is to design a building. they are also aware of some of the constraints society put upon us in the form of regulations and maybe even the constraints procurement brings to a building. but as they're educated within the discipline they know the hidden codes (the 'lore of operation', in the words of Reyner Banham), and are thus not able to analyse a building for what it is, without an overlay of Architecture. they can be great for that, though, – analysing a building and it's relation to other buildings in the canon of architecture – but that's not what I'm after.
I'm looking for someone that writes about architecture and how it interacts with its users and its surroundings. someone caring as much about the performance as about the art of a building. maybe what I'm actually after is a novel, any novel really, or even just films. but most definately not those films so adored by architects, say Playtime. not the arty, very stylish and artificial films but films where people move about in buildings, unconsciously: most films. or maybe that's just me that having very naïve view of what it's like to make a film? maybe all films are so choreographed there's nothing unconscious about them?
I don't know, maybe I've just spent a little too much time reading history books about the Modern movement recently. it is an odd thing, though: history books dedicated to the frozen moment a building is new. history ignoring the passing of time, a history of Platonic Forms rather than of anything in the world of substances. I guess it's an acknowledgement that architecture is mainly ideas, but with the tiny problem that as soon as you start analysing built works you're no longer dealing with the idealised but rather with the incredibly mundane.
ps.
I know, I know, the theoretical hunt for someone 'unspoilt' is futile and history is full of examples of people trying and failing. more importantly architectural history is full of people trying and failing, but that's for another post some other time (and that'll be an opportunity to revisit Reyner Banham).
but who, then, would be better suited?
an art historian? the ones I've come across have always been too focused on the visuals and on the 'intention' behind different parts of a building for me to take seriously. and as we know there's a lot of post-rational explanations put forward by architects so that they won't have to say they just liked something. an architectural historian would make more sense in the way that most of them are educated as architects and thus – at least partly – aware of what it is to design a building. they are also aware of some of the constraints society put upon us in the form of regulations and maybe even the constraints procurement brings to a building. but as they're educated within the discipline they know the hidden codes (the 'lore of operation', in the words of Reyner Banham), and are thus not able to analyse a building for what it is, without an overlay of Architecture. they can be great for that, though, – analysing a building and it's relation to other buildings in the canon of architecture – but that's not what I'm after.
I'm looking for someone that writes about architecture and how it interacts with its users and its surroundings. someone caring as much about the performance as about the art of a building. maybe what I'm actually after is a novel, any novel really, or even just films. but most definately not those films so adored by architects, say Playtime. not the arty, very stylish and artificial films but films where people move about in buildings, unconsciously: most films. or maybe that's just me that having very naïve view of what it's like to make a film? maybe all films are so choreographed there's nothing unconscious about them?
I don't know, maybe I've just spent a little too much time reading history books about the Modern movement recently. it is an odd thing, though: history books dedicated to the frozen moment a building is new. history ignoring the passing of time, a history of Platonic Forms rather than of anything in the world of substances. I guess it's an acknowledgement that architecture is mainly ideas, but with the tiny problem that as soon as you start analysing built works you're no longer dealing with the idealised but rather with the incredibly mundane.
ps.
I know, I know, the theoretical hunt for someone 'unspoilt' is futile and history is full of examples of people trying and failing. more importantly architectural history is full of people trying and failing, but that's for another post some other time (and that'll be an opportunity to revisit Reyner Banham).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)