Architecture

[Miklus]

I am just curious what you guys think of this building:

Warning: large image

http://i67.tinypic.com/212d5zc.jpg


The view from the top:

http://i67.tinypic.com/2qd09ac.jpg
]

[2D8HP]

I don't like the look of it, but I have plebeian tastes.

I reminded that people with unpopular tastes are more passionate about their tastes, and how when people get deep into a subject their tastes get more "avant garde".

Back in the 1980's (the traditional start to my stories) I volunteered for a college radio station, and we were much more into "punk" than was generally common then.

Thomas Kincaid's art is popular, but not among art students.

Similarly, when you poll Americans and Britons on which buildings please their eyes, the most commonly picked style is "Tudor revival", while architecture students will be more likely to pick "Bauhaus", "International", and stuff from Dwell magazine.

I'm sure that the character of Howard Roark (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheFountainhead[I) would approve of the building, because, "the common mob doesn't matter".

In other news "Oscar bait" movies usually aren't the ones most people watch during the year.

[Gravitron5000]

I can't say that I'm a fan. It seems too sterile.

My opinion of distaste is increased given the character of the neighbourhood that it is in. It doesn't seem to fit in with the surrounding buildings at all.

[ve4grm]

Building on its own:
I think it's an interesting building, definitely stands out, which they clearly want it to do. It's very modern, and neat-looking, while still looking like a traditional building due to sticking to certain angles. I wouldn't be surprised to see this as an office building in a modern section of town. All in all, I get a very "Ikea" feeling from it.

Given the neighbourhood:
Oh...
Oh no...
Oh wow...

Like installing an ikea lamp (https://www.ikea.com/PIAimages/0472162_PE613967_S5.JPG) in a tudor manor, it just doesn't fit.

I mean, without someone taking the first step a neighbourhood will never modernize. Someone had to be the first person to build an apartment block in a residential area, for example. But this step is a bit drastic. A standard modern glass office building would have been just as noticeable in this neighbourhood (and been a more efficient use of the space).

It's a bold choice, though. I'll give them that.

[Miklus]

Thank you for your answers, I was deliberately vague in the OP because I didn't want to color any ones opinion.

It has gotten quite bad press here in Copenhagen. Words such as "container terminal" was used. Others defended it. It attracted extra attention from the press because it is the brand new home of the Danish Architecture Centre (DAC). Go figure. So this is where great minds will formulate the future direction of Danish architecture... The building is named BLOX btw.

This building opened yesterday may 6th with an "open house" invitation and I shoved up and got the "ant-walk" through most of the building. Inside it is all raw concrete, galvanized steel and glass everywhere. They even left the "piles" (?) that they ram down around the edge to keep water out exposed on the inside on the below-ground floors in all their rusty-red glory. There is nothing in the building that could have been made cheaper without affecting functionality, except maybe they did not have to dye the concrete black.


My opinion of distaste is increased given the character of the neighbourhood that it is in. It doesn't seem to fit in with the surrounding buildings at all.

I agree, the biggest selling point on this building is the great view over the harbour and the better looking buildings around it. But it hangs out over the water and steals the view from the existing buildings. In that sense, this building is a parasite, it creates value for itself at the expense of its surroundings. Very real value, the 22 apartments on the top will be rented out for up to 30.000DKK per month, that's $5.000. This is despite having raw concrete and exposed steel H-columns everywhere.

More pictures here
https://www.blox.dk/galleri/billeder

[factotum]

My opinion? It looks like the architect swallowed a load of Tetris pieces and then vomited them onto the blueprints. :smallsmile:

[ve4grm]

Right, so just FYI, I'm not an architect, but I am a civil engineer.

You first impression is that nothing could have been made cheaper?

After checking out those photos, believe me when I say that "cheap" is not an apt description of that building. In fact, there's a lot about it that could have been made significantly cheaper, but wasn't in order to get a certain aesthetic.

There's a reason that most buildings are wood or concrete cubes. It's far cheaper to do a standard style building than it is to do this.

Exposed steel carries a cost. Galvanizing is expensive. Concrete walls and floors of the type they have isn't your standard structural concrete (it's smoother than structural concrete for one thing). There are tons of little visual flourishes, each of which is a cost. All the overhangs and balconies are way more expensive than just making a cube.

So yeah, while it may not be to your taste, and it's probably the wrong choice for that neighbourhood, it is by no means cheaply built. It would be a rather expensive undertaking, and it was done purposely to elicit a specific style.

In other words, it makes perfect sense for an architect's association building. :smallwink:

-

Also, the fact that it's on the waterfront makes a big difference. It looks far less out of place in this image:
https://www.blox.dk/~/media/bryghus/galleri/billeder/20180430_press/downres/r_hjortshoj_blox%20north%20facade.jpg

and also less out of place compared to the building across the river, and in the background of that image. From here, it looks like a more natural expansion of the distant business district, rather than the only building even remotely like it in a very old neighbourhood.

None of this changes my prior opinion that this is a weird neighbourhood for it at this time, but it does give it a bit more context.

[InvisibleBison]

I think it's a pretty cool building. I like the uneven, asymmetrical nature of the upper parts, though I think the big gap in the bottom part is not a particularly efficient use of space.

I agree that it doesn't look much like the other buildings nearby, but so what? There's at least 6 distinct styles of buildings in the neighborhood already. I don't see how having this building around would change anything.

[Vinyadan]

I think it looks cheap. However, from the photos, it seems clear that the more important façades are the ones to be seen from the river/sea, and those are pretty cool. But, then again, if those sides work because of the water, the rest should have been made in a way that doesn't need the water. I also oppose this kind of material they surrounded the building with; it will end up looking dirty and inhospitable. The road passing through will make it worse. They should have made an underpass for cars, but, clearly, with a bridge nearby, that was impossible.

I have seen worse in the same style in central to northern Europe. But, in general, there is only so much you can do by putting rectangles together, especially if you don't want to go very high. I mean, once you turn windows into walls, you deprive yourself of an element for breaking monotony or to create a rhythm. So, instead, the attempt here seems to have been of putting together many boxes in an effort to create a feeling of lightness and open space. Which only partially worked, because #1 lightness and openness do not create beauty on their own, and #2 the black, windowless parts look like the back of a supermarket.

I'll add a link to the ING House, which was my "wait, what" of the day (although I think it makes some sense) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:ING_House

For good-looking modern architecture: the new concert house in Hamburg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Elbphilharmonie

[ve4grm]

I think it's a pretty cool building. I like the uneven, asymmetrical nature of the upper parts, though I think the big gap in the bottom part is not a particularly efficient use of space.

If you look at the first picture that OP posted, he's standing on a road that leads underneath the building. It actually spans from one side of the road to the other. The "gaps" at the bottom are likely transport requirements, as you can only get so close to a roadway. (My main job is roads engineering, though not in Denmark)


I'll add a link to the ING House, which was my "wait, what" of the day (although I think it makes some sense) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:ING_House

It looks like a docked starship! Or a cruise liner in drydock. I kind of like it, from a purely "ooh pretty" view.

[Goaty14]

I think that the owners of the building should get good insurance in the event of a tornado. :smalleek:

[Miklus]

If you look at the first picture that OP posted, he's standing on a road that leads underneath the building....

Yes, Maybe I should have made that clearer, but that is a major road with some 25.000 cars per day right through the building. That must make some noise.

It was hot today here in Copenhagen, the Sun was relentless. I could barely keep cool at work and we have tiny windows with outside shades. Two out of four walls have no windows at all. We had windows open on opposite sides of the office to made a draft. How hot do you think the offices on the south facing part of the BLOX building will be with glass from floor to roof? With no blinds or shades that I can see and no way to open the windows? Maybe it is sour grapes, but I hope the Danish Architecture Center got the building they deserve. :smallamused: Even if they have a whopper of an AC, it must still be unpleasant to sit in the sun for hours and the glare on the computer screens must be bad.

Maybe BLOX was not cost minimized as hard as I thought, the shape of the building could have been a cube.

Also, the photos I linked are the official promo material, it does not show the uglier parts of the building.

http://i66.tinypic.com/16k98pi.jpg

That is the kind of stairwell where you halfway expect homeless people to be living near the bottom.

[sktarq]

Honestly I think it looks horrid.

All those things that make it more expensive than a simple concrete actually make it look worse.

The neighborhood is far from ideal for it and from the water side I think it makes usable space rather unattractive.

If you want to lower traffic flows in the area then good job.

Then again I think Frank Gerhy's work is basically abysmal. This in fact somewhat reminds me of his Prague hotel in how badly it fits the local area.....may or may not cause the flickering anger of Gehry's work of just how ugly I find it, I would have to see it in person.

[Dodom]

I'm fine with the building itself, but it needs landscaping. There isn't much room for greenery, but at least get some of those big flower boxes that can hold small trees, something to visually separate the great gleaming glass from the dirty asphalt. All the fences, poles, cables, signs make it look like a mess, some need to be where they are, but some could use to be rethought.

[Tvtyrant]

Looks awful to me. Boxy, false austerity, still clinging to unadorned glass.

[Celestia]

I think it looks awful, but I am biased. I think everything should be made in Medieval or Neo-Gothic style.

[Rockphed]

I'm reminded of a Dilbert strip where the team is informed about their new office space being "a marvel of modern architecture". The words "avante garde" may have been used. Asok, the perennial intern, asks why the voices in his head are screaming about "no storage space". This building looks like it lacks storage space.

At the same time, having 3 different exterior finishes (mirror, clear, and black) does the building no favors. If they had stuck to 2 (probably mirror and black) the building would have significantly more cohesion of design. As it is, I missed some parts of the building because of the clear finish on the windows. I still think it looks like the monstrous child of a disco-ball and a retail store, but I see that it isn't also completely asymmetric.

[Teddy]

My analysis of contemporary architecture is that it's too attention craving. Architects, especially star architects, seem to be obsessed with designing buildings which stick out, while the people who have to live with those buildings rather prefer them to mesh in with the surroundings. Even when given directives to make their designs better meld into their context, there seem to be quite some effort to twist those rules.

An example, when Uppsala University needed a new administrative building, the directives were that it should mesh with the 16th century bastion on the hill above it, and that the facade had to be made covered with natural rock. For reference, here's a section of the bastion they were supposed to liken:
http://www.uppsala.com/handlers/ImageHandler.ashx?id=4235112&width=540&height=304

Now, what was their choice of rock? Chinese granite. I dare you to find any more bland, more concrete-like rock in existence!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Segerstedthuset_Uppsala_okt_2016-1.jpg/800px-Segerstedthuset_Uppsala_okt_2016-1.jpg

That said, I'm fairly okay with the shape of the building itself. It's got that bastion-esque feeling with the triangular corners and it stands in a position that can handle a building which sticks out a bit, but the perfectly light grey stone and the long, straight lines of windows don't look like the local stone at all!

[Ninja_Prawn]

I like the building well enough. It's bold and clean, and looks like it will age fairly well.

It's not a great fit for the neighbourhood, but I've seen worse.

The lack of landscaping and greenery definitely detracts from the overall picture. Really the whole neighbourhood looks short on green space.

I'm an M&E engineer by trade, and I can confirm that the 'exposed services' style, where the building is bare concrete and you can see all the pipes and wires, costs more to install (quite aside from the increased civil/structural costs that ve4grm mentioned). You have to get the most competent tradespeople and pay them extra to take their time so that it's done neatly, which isn't a concern when the services are concealed. I dread to think how much it adds to the weekly cleaning bill...

Final thought: if this is where students are learning architecture... It seems uninspiring. I'd have expected them to go for something a bit more adventurous, you know?


but the perfectly light grey stone and the long, straight lines of windows don't look like the local stone at all!

Perhaps it doesn't now, but what's it going to look like after a hundred years of decay, erosion and lichen growth? Natural stone façades evolve in ways that other materials don't (either because they are unchanging, or they need to be replaced every 50 years), so perhaps it'll fit in better after it's been given chance to age.

Or maybe not. When you're importing stone from China or India there's always a risk it won't be suitable for the local conditions.

[ve4grm]

Yes, Maybe I should have made that clearer, but that is a major road with some 25.000 cars per day right through the building. That must make some noise.

Holy crap! Yeah, there better be some good soundproofing in there.


It was hot today here in Copenhagen, the Sun was relentless. I could barely keep cool at work and we have tiny windows with outside shades. Two out of four walls have no windows at all. We had windows open on opposite sides of the office to made a draft. How hot do you think the offices on the south facing part of the BLOX building will be with glass from floor to roof? With no blinds or shades that I can see and no way to open the windows? Maybe it is sour grapes, but I hope the Danish Architecture Center got the building they deserve. :smallamused: Even if they have a whopper of an AC, it must still be unpleasant to sit in the sun for hours and the glare on the computer screens must be bad.

It may not be as bad as all that, as some glass treatments are decent at reducing glare and keeping heat out. But in general, I'll agree with you. There will need to be blinds installed, as a minimum.


Also, the photos I linked are the official promo material, it does not show the uglier parts of the building.

http://i66.tinypic.com/16k98pi.jpg

That is the kind of stairwell where you halfway expect homeless people to be living near the bottom.

Yeah, that railing is ugly as sin. And looks super uncomfortable to put your hand on. Ugh.


I think it looks awful, but I am biased. I think everything should be made in Medieval or Neo-Gothic style.

I mean, this is the sort of opinion you'll get when you ask about modern architecture on a forum dedicated to a comic about a fantasy RPG. :smallbiggrin:


My analysis of contemporary architecture is that it's too attention craving. Architects, especially star architects, seem to be obsessed with designing buildings which stick out, while the people who have to live with those buildings rather prefer them to mesh in with the surroundings. Even when given directives to make their designs better meld into their context, there seem to be quite some effort to twist those rules. [etc]

Wow, yeah. That's a pretty egregious example of following the letter of the client's instructions, but not the spirit. It's a fine building, but not what was asked for.

That said, there were probably tons of discussions that let the client agree on it, which we aren't privy to. But it's still a weird result given the initial impetus.


I'm an M&E engineer by trade, and I can confirm that the 'exposed services' style, where the building is bare concrete and you can see all the pipes and wires, costs more to install (quite aside from the increased civil/structural costs that ve4grm mentioned). You have to get the most competent tradespeople and pay them extra to take their time so that it's done neatly, which isn't a concern when the services are concealed. I dread to think how much it adds to the weekly cleaning bill...

Exactly. Think it's ugly all you want, but it's deliberate, and it's certainly not "cheap".

[sktarq]

Oh it is cheap just not inexpensive

[Peelee]

The building doesn't look fantastic, but it doesn't look bad at all. On its own, that is; it absolutely clashes with the town's aesthetic, and if I lived there, I wouldn't like it.

[Miklus]

... Now, what was their choice of rock? Chinese granite. ...

Importing granite from China to Sweden, are you kidding me? Sweden is nothing but granite, no offence.



Oh it is cheap just not inexpensive


*Sound of a whip cracking*

That would explain the 2Bn DKK ($300mil) price tag.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Importing granite from China to Sweden, are you kidding me? Sweden is nothing but granite, no offence.

Still might be cheaper to import from China, for various political-economical reasons I won't go into due to the first half of that adjective.

GW

[Teddy]

Perhaps it doesn't now, but what's it going to look like after a hundred years of decay, erosion and lichen growth? Natural stone façades evolve in ways that other materials don't (either because they are unchanging, or they need to be replaced every 50 years), so perhaps it'll fit in better after it's been given chance to age.

Or maybe not. When you're importing stone from China or India there's always a risk it won't be suitable for the local conditions.

It doesn't show in the pictures, but those stone panels are rifled on the outer surface (no idea why, perhaps to kill even more of the natural texture?). If they manage to survive a hundred years without cracking from ice expansion, I'll be impressed.

Also, it might evolve, but one single type of stone is never going to reach the diversity found in the full plethora of local rock types combined in the old walls.