Article Review
#1: A Philosophy of Tall Buildings, as
Public Assets
This week’s 'article review break’ seeks to highlight an
intriguing paper, published last month by Rafael Vinoly Architects. It highlights several points I’ve attempted
to promote or disseminate in other writings, and has incredible psychological
implications towards those whom seek to design (or navigate) the current metropolitan
environment. While I personally don’t want
to get in the habit of reiterating postings from other publicly available sources, this article
is one of the first (and best) I’ve seen describing the intricacies of Public
Space within and around forthcoming
tall buildings, and a good starting point for future discussions to come. With luck, we here at HeightsRising will be
able to build off of such emerging topics, or else highlight additional suggested philosophies or
theories, and their intricacies.
In the attached paper, Vinoly’s team make a strong argument about integrating public space into and around skyscrapers. It offers its own subtle critique on
corporate skyscrapers of old, while encouraging means and methodologies by
which several of their past teams attempted to link public/private spaces. The paper almost
goes so far as discussing a quantifiable measuring stick by which to
rate/rank such buildings and corresponding spaces….but leaves it for other designers
to expand upon at a later date. While
the last portion of this paper mostly flirts with self-promotion, the general topics it initially incurred remain worthy of discussion. The Samsung Jongno Building alone was
worth reading about by itself, and offers an interesting case study for
aspiring spatial designers seeking to capitalize off of such lessons.
In fact, the first four paragraphs were so well written, I
was tempted to post them in their own entirety….yet perhaps will save them for
a later date.
While unfortunately none of these case studies end up being
“true” examples of complete high-rise public space (admission has tended to be pricey for
Vinoly’s 20 Fenchurch in London, and tickets have run out quick[2]),
the team makes a good starting point by which to continue expanding such dialogues. Overall,
I give this Article a 7/10, and look forward to possible further discussion
from them later on. It ranks slightly
lower than average, as it could have sorely benefited from the firm discussing
limitations or failures that occurred within their experiment. Yet it stands as a
good benchmark by which to expand further discussion.
Final Verdict - 7/10
[1] http://2015.ctbuh.org/presenters/
[2]Wainwright, Oliver. London’s Sky Garden: the more you pay, the
worse the view. The Guardian. Released 6
January 2015. Accessed 22 Jan., 2016. Digital Newspaper.
<http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jan/06/londons-sky-garden-walkie-talkie-the-more-you-pay-the-worse-the-view>
0 comments:
Post a Comment