# Worst contemporary architects



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I'm starting to think Zaha Hadid although I'm not impressed with Cesar Pelli's offerings.

Zaha's designs seem to repeat itself over and over again, albeit in different forms of the same curves and fluidy designs. Not really any breakthrough whatsoever in every subsequent project.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

CNB30 said:


> I think Ghery's work belongs in this thread. I would say that is certainly looks both hideous and seems very dysfunctional too.


I disagree. Gehry is certainly one of the best architects out there, sure he has his signature look, but its a good look. Considering that 90% of modern stuff is incredibly bland, Gehry and other Deconstructivists are a breath of fresh air.



Sweet Zombie Jesus said:


> I could go on, but essentially this building has no depth. I've heard people complement it of course, but I've never heard the remarks go beyond "that's cool". That's all. I never hear _why_ it's cool. Once the initial idea or image of the building flashes past there is nothing left.
> 
> But then isn't this the case for so much contemporary architecture? Well yes but Bjarke Ingels fucking _revels_ in this stuff. He pushes these bullshit concepts on the world with that enraging smirk taped to his face. This to him is how the world should be. To anyone who values thought and depth and complexity in their architecture this man ought to be a menace.


I understand what youre saying, but to be honest Id really rather have his buildings, even though, they do appear somewhat clumsy, than the typical random-cladd plasticy crap with tiny windows that seems to be the default of most resis these days.


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

Sweet Zombie Jesus said:


> Bjarke Ingels. His whole fucking ethos is...
> 
> -take a "fun" diagram based on some abstract concept.
> -cram windows and doors and rooms into it.
> ...


Heresy!

Even though I completely disagree with you reading your post was entertaining enough to almost make me choke on my lunch.
You should critique architecture for a living.

Also I'm now very interested in what you think of BIG's Vancouver proposal.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I actually love Hadid, and Bjarke *E*ngels. And that BIG proposal is fab.

:runaway:

The one's Im not keen on is Foster (bo-ringg!), occasionally Rogers (at times his industrial aesthetics are superb, at others, grating), and even.. dare I say it... Tadao Ando.

His forms are great but sometimes too simple for the context, especially if it's outside Japan, and his love of bare concrete weathers horribly unless youre in a desert.

This is Manchester's centre-piece public square, Piccadilly Gardens, people are wanting to knock it down barely a decade later. A movement by locals to completely green-wall it in flowers and plants has even been approved by the architect himself:

Nice idea from above, as a giant looming over an architectural model:










A bit different at ground level.

Note the outdoor urinal, as it's a favoured spot for drunks:
















See if you can spot it - its the lowrise single storey building at bottom stretching across the parK:




















































The green-wall idea:


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

the spliff fairy said:


>


I Must say, I love the Architecture in this photo, the beautiful buildings in the background really catch my eye.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

Vanman said:


> Heresy!
> 
> Even though I completely disagree with you reading your post was entertaining enough to almost make me choke on my lunch.
> You should critique architecture for a living.
> ...


Haha, I'm glad you liked it but I doubt I'd be a good critic. I started a blog once and managed 2 posts, a month apart before forgetting about it. Also I have a fairly specific view on what architecture is and ought to be, and I don't think my ranting would make much of a difference to other peoples views. (if I had a lot of money I'd build what I know works, and then no-one could argue  ) I just saw the title of the thread, thought of Ingels and then got very angry inside.

As for the Vancouver proposal I'd have to split it in two. The lower level complex of buildings and 'podium' actually seem to work quite well overall being mainly a product of site considerations. All very sensible, as Vancouvers urbanism tends to be. The tower above it is typically formed by a 'gesture'... the triangular plan morphs into a rectangle further up to, as the blurb on the website puts it...



> maximise its mass where it has the most impact... It then expoits the opportunity to overcome the setback and reclaims the valuable area. It provides an icon for the city's skyline and a generous public space at it's base.


The logic seems to be to use the tower as a landmark for those entering the city. But increased mass on the top of the tower is something that can only be viewed from afar, not appreciated by those driving or walking directly besides the building. The effort is all in the one big statement and there seems to be little attention paid to the smaller, human scale actions that reinforce a buildings identity and experience, i.e. in windows, shopfronts, entrances, balconies, etc. Also why is the rectangular top plan its 'logical' footprint? Surely the logical footprint is the triangular one it sets off with? It may have to be taller but I'd be amazing if increased height was much more expensive than cantilievering the structure out like that.

All in all though I actually prefer it to the New York proposal, it doesn't seem to be trying to subvert its city's native building typology to its own whims to nearly the same level.



El_Greco said:


> I understand what youre saying, but to be honest Id really rather have his buildings, even though, they do appear somewhat clumsy, than the typical random-cladd plasticy crap with tiny windows that seems to be the default of most resis these days.


I hear what your saying, but the tragic fact of contemporary architecture _is_ that those are our two main options. The lack of thought in high-design and the lack of quality in mass-development, seems to me linked.


----------

