CharlieRose asked:
An hour about the future of architecture with:
Peter Eisenman, Architect/Eisenman Architects
Jay Chaterjee, University of Cincinnati Sen. Stanley J. Aronoff, (R)President, Ohio Senate
David Childs, Architect/Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Henry N. Cobb, Architect/Pei Cobb Freed & Partners
Michael Graves, Architect/Michael Graves Architect
Charles Gwathmey, Architect/ Gwathmey Seigel & Associates
Richard Meier, Architect/Richard Meier & Partners
Stanley Tigerman, Architect/Tigerman McCurry Architects
Sanford Kwinter, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Ralph Lerner, Princeton University
Greg Lynn, Columbia University
Donna Robertson, Illinois Institute of Technology
Bernard Tschumi, Columbia…
May 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am
learnv: Le Cobusier’s ” Toward An Architecture” “…Auguste Perret’s Tower-city (1922)sketched but not planned bridges link the towers to one another.(P.126)— “for what purpose?”— The reporter of L’Intransigeant argued. But there was no 9/11 then. Now, it is about time to look into what they thought about and did not have been examined yet.Instead of wasting the resources to build rotating towers,etc., why don’t we do something wonderful to the world, save the green space….dancewu(dot)net
May 4th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Such a brilliant knowledge.
Just what i needed to know.
Thank you Charlie Rose!
May 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
hosweetim89: if you go to my web-site, you will see the future of the housing will be like the Great wall of China, “Great Wall Village” I called it, to be built over the million miles of existing highways with sound and fume insulation….To save green space!— dancewu(dot)net
May 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I think its safe to assume that the future would be the introduction of Green Buildings. As people are now more concerned about the planet’s health there is more emphasis on plants and energy consumption. I look forward to seeing buildings with some kind of unique form that blends in nature with structural design.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
It’s like hearing a conversation with ascended beings. Everything just falls in place.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:37 am
I think that this instills a great insight into architecture.. I love seeing “intelligent” people debate with eacother.. some of these people are just arguing to argue.. and some are only declaring points with questions.. in other words :I just want to hear myself talk, and I have no idea where I am going with this”.. I found this as a result of potential persuit of future in architecture.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:16 am
Read “Choosing a Skyline:How intelligently are we recognizing urban context as a feature of environmental responsibility?” by Nicholas J. Slabbert — it’s available online on the “Virtual Adjacency” website. (You can also look it up in the British Library’s list of online articles by N.J. Slabbert.)
May 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
JackRussellTerrier2: “help preserve open space?” Three drawings in my web-site “dancewu(dot)net” of three different ways to preserve open space. 1/ GREAT WALL VILLAGE: Triangular housing over highways and railroads to Tibet in China. 2/single loaded corridor housing flanked highways in China. 3/World Trade Center II on Hudson river outside the WTC former site with 8 sky-bridges connecting 4 towers in case of another 9/11.
I hope each scheme would help to preserve open space.—dancewu(dot)net
May 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
e:What is the purpose to twist the *** of the functional supports?! In and out of a surface just cost more time, material,and labor to build!It did not add a bit to the function of that structural support! Then why did it? Wrinkled the architectural surfaces here and there just to pretend as the decoration of the past simply does not make sense to me! Without twisting the *** here and there, the building can still stand up.Adding all those “decoration”just did not make it to function any better!
May 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
l: First of all,the architects should do our homework, working closely with the intelligent structural engineers,utilizing the long neglected air space over the highways and between tall buildings,etc. Secondly, the public has to be educated of the danger of the existing fire codes are not sufficient, like a time bomb to go off and demands more fire safety protection! Yes! WTC would have to come down by the thousands of gallons of fuel anyway; but not necessary the 2,700 people!–dancewu(dot)net
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
that is right; we cannot anymore waste the space above roads between skyscrapers…
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
l: You put it more beautifully than any one there in the panel! You are courageous! You should have been in that panel!— to speak your mind! Others have different motif to go all the way out there! To suuport a “friend” or whatever. If professionals did not speak out, and the public did not know better, therefore, we have such a mediocre world for so long since Corbusier and Wright! Pei said it once that”No controversy; no architecture”, but he has been so quiet recently!—dancewu(dot)net
May 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
that was what i meant =) this building is not a series of profound questions (or whatever) leveled towards architectural axioms… it is the result of an average man terrified of ‘blending in’…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
He looks a bit like John McCain, lol.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:07 am
If SWASTIKA is a cliche to the great architects Le corbusier, Wright, Mies, Pei, Rudolph, Yamasaki,and Holl, then Eisenman has been trying all his not to do the SWASTIKA. But I called SWASTIKA a CHINESE SQUARE or a Buddhist symbol, not a **** sign, therefore I, and all the great architects have no trouble using it! SWASTIKA was a great design tool, I found that out since I was in college in 1958. Avoiding it because people thought it was related to **** missed the boat entirely!–dancewu(dot)net
May 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I’m not trying to be dumb and may be dumb, but do u mean that peter eisman is cliche by avoiding the cliche or do you mean something else?
June 1st, 2009 at 5:58 am
Genius: Le Corbusier; Wright./ Successor: Holl./Theorist:Kahn;Eisenman;Venturi; Johnson;Graves;Foster;Hadid;/Elegance:Pei;
Mier;/Utilitarianism:Mies;Bunshaft;…….
dancewu(dot)net
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
scottishlowoflow: I admired Le Corbusier so much even now I am STILL in the middle of his book “Toward An Architecture” to learn more about the two genius I admired very much, the other is Wright whose Falling-Water told me: ” That is ARCHITECTURE!” which started me to study architecture! Too bad there are just too many talkers; not enough real talent!—dancewu(dot)net
June 4th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
If you wanted to be “Disturbed”or “Challenged”,you could go to Sichuan,China,the region I lived during the WW in 1944. You could see thousands and thousands of otherwise normal,functional buildings after the earthquake! They are NOW trying to re-construct the area to be like what it used to look like before the earthquake, definitely NOT GOING TO BE like this Eisenman building–(the future of architecture?!!!)—- I am sure about it!—dancewu(dot)net
June 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
J: You have the answer there already! Now we have to build over the highways to save the green space!—dancewu(dot)net
June 9th, 2009 at 3:50 am
As open space continues to be eaten up by sprawling development the question present it’s self: Do his buildings help preserve open space?
June 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Nice interview charlie is kinda multidisciplinary guy … Or ?
June 12th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Beautifully put.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:23 am
They are famous, rich,etc. But their architecture is not good. I know people will laught me but it is thrue.
There is no aesthetical relationships in their buildings. They are ugly, not proportioned, not elegant, not perfectioned, not critic architecture. Their architecture is like fast food.
The most important thing about the future of architecture is to be critic whit this people, like always, to be critic with the recent past and the actual time, to understand it and belong to it: zeitgeist
June 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
the true artists realise that there is nothing more cliched than trying to avoid the cliche