News

Architecture Food for Thought

Architecture Food for Thought

Ourfirst entry, from Telegraph.co.uk dares to say that architects shouldplease the public, not spite them.  SimonHeffer looks at a Daniel Liebeskind project in Dresden. “I cannot decide whether Liebeskind has been brilliant or utterlyappalling.” And he points out the importance of context in the matter of ZahaHadid’s design for a proposed extension to St. Antony’s College, Oxford.  The “cross netween a 1970’s telephonereceiver (in white) and a beached whale…might have been feasible in the ArabianDesert,…but this planned building would be surrounded by the Victorian villasof north Oxford.”  What’s your take?  How much do architects owe their clients? Us?Themselves?

And let’s cast our gaze back on these critics who have aplatform to praise or criticize architects and their work.  Alexandra Lange explains “WhyNicolas Ourossoff Is Not Good Enough.” Lange challenges The New YorkTimes critic on several fronts and how he “is not making a case for keepingthe breed.” Nancy Levinson continues andextends the conversation, worrying that architecture reviews as artscriticism is missing a critical point.  It’snot about how a building LOOKS, but how it fulfills its need.  It’s an interesting thought when applied tothe Dallas architecturethat has been getting so much ink these days.  Whether or not you like the Winspear or Wylyor Cowboys Stadium, how do they “work”?  Hmmm……..

Site by Loudthought