Reed Kroloff gives us a new lens for judging new architecture: is it modern, or is it romantic? Look for glorious images from two leading practices — and a blistering critique of the 9/11 planning process.
Nguồn: https://ibet.com.vn/
Xem thêm bài viết: https://ibet.com.vn/category/cong-nghe/
c'est beaucoup trop moderne
There were two proposals. One representing Frank Gehry formerly known as Frank Lloyd Wright and The Wright Brothers that made planes and one representing Mies van der Rohe skyscarpers. Why do they want to fight all the time. Frank Lloyd Wright is dead. Some one has to make us belive it and who else than Yale S. Kroloff and Bill Clinton.
Why was Reed Kroloff sent to TED to apologize on behalf of the Bush Adminstration. Is it because they all went to bangladesh together for a vacation together? Why would you want to thank Debra Pattern.
Dude? Apple Sauce! Think and David Rockewell are the same guys.
There the bad guys. Get it?
Carpet Burns or Ed Burns and Christy Turlington.
Sounds like Construction and Modeling.
What kind?
What was the point??? A simple commercial about architecture.
Deconstructing a battery operation starts with the skin.
Is this guy an architect…. because he has no idea what romactic architecture is….
this guy is just BRAGGING…. talking about something he doesnt undertand
Yeah-No I agree, the stuff on Shop and Rockwell were interesting.
do you think it was that bad? could you elaborate? i thought what he said about shop was quite interesting.
The trouble with Reed's brain is that it races at such a speed that his brain and mouth are sometimes out of synch, and hence, the stammering. The side effects of being brilliant and pointless.
Instead of giving architects a clean canvas of "you can do anything you want." They need to be given a blank canvas with a narrative, setting the correct tone, idealogy and philosophy behind this project. Otherwise, some lost soul with some cool moves and no big shakes may come up with his nifty version of what it should be. Hence, the most competent firm/architect with an exciting promise and design should be the one suited to design this one, ideally, void of any negative political influence.
The rest of the world is waiting and watching to see what will eventually erect itself on ground zero as a physical response to the attack. As Architects it is our responsibility to educate our clients with the appropriate ideals and philosophies that best suit the needs and functions of the present task at hand. Hence, Architects and Architectural firms and practices need to participate in a charette or competition once again or assign a famous American Architect to present a new design.
Today is 911, seven years later, still nothing, on the sacred land of ground zero. I think it's high time America got its act together in the search for the best design America has to offer to eliminate the dead spirit of all those that lost their lives into a thriving, very much alive spirit of the human minds present in the city, New York City. Also, all Architects throughout the United States need to come together,focused on one of the most important decisions that will confront the U.S.
As architects it is our duty to design buildings that not only are meaningful and functional but enlightens the mind, delights the senses and nourishes the soul. The new architecture by their very existence should reassure the American people that their grieving has been acknowledged. The new architecture should be a tribute to all those lives lost, all those that took an active role in helping to restore New York City of it's debris (both human and material), dust, fire and pollution.
Thank you and have a nice day.
The new WTC's should be a beacon of hope, a pillar of power, a landmark for courage, perserverance, strength, integrity and the unrelentless pusuit of the uman spirir which when inspired can or is capable of achieving and obtaining the highest possible ideals, goals and aspirations of mankind and the human condition.
Why was Daniel Liebskind the selection of Governor Pataki as a project like this so important required someone who was able to deliver under critical circumstances. Further, how come all the influential architects of the United Sates, the 60,000 members of the American Istitute of Architects and Faculty and members of Academia in Architecture coudn't advise on the simple notion that two architects who clearly do not get along cannot by any means produce any kind of meaningful architecture.
If your final design is a confused interpretation of the statue of liberty (Isn't the stautue of liberty someone else's idea?) then you really know something is seriously wrong. That's not thoughtful, nurturing, comforting, enlightening, aspiring or even exciting to the millions of people in the U.S and around the world who are waiting to see how the United States responded to a state of emergency.
The divorced collaboration of Daniel Libeskind and David Childs of Skidmore, Owings and Merril produced a failed attempt to re-design a plan for the "sacred" premises of ground zero. The design presented by these two architects to the American people is a clear example that there is, by no doubt, a lack of fertitle ideas flowing through the creative thought processes of these designing minds which were paralyzed due to the testy working relationship these two architects had with eachother.
Just because Reed Kroloff craved an Audi TT, does that mean the whole entire audience has to crave one. What was Reed Kroloff actually craving, that's what I want to know.
Is he also the only person you've heard using the words "utter boobs" to describe. What did you think of his "grabbing his balls" on stage?
What's the joke, your royal foodness.
Where's the poster posted smartass?
PS You completely missed the joke.
But I wasn't talking about the speak, was I? ^_-
I think the speaker is not concerned and already knows what the risks are of tagging it as "911 world trade center." As his bio reads "he has a fearless eye for design." Besides, someone like him obviously has security and bodyguards following him around,24/7. The speaker is a man, I didn't see any breasts hanging from his chest and the poster for his topic is big, bold and not worried.
Obviously the poster of this video isn't familiar with youtube or he/she'd know what the risks of tagging it as "9/11 world trade center" are. ^_^