I have been watching that giant glass tube through the window of my parents' house for over ten years if not longer now. You are right. I was completely dumbfounded every time I looked at that thing. Looking from afar, say from ¦w¥¥j³ù , the tower sprouts up in the landscape as if the downtown is calling. But once you get near, except the front entrance to the department store, the streetscape morphed into chaotic existence packed by food stands, street venders. You would never imagine that image of blue tower from afar is right above you hollow like a ghost.
Who is responsible for that? And what kind of government should tolerate this absurdity for so long? I have heard people who lost a lot of money over the investment of the tower. I mean common people.
The other irony is the fact that with CK University and its vibrant environ, "we the people and professors and experts" couldn't do anything to either boycott the project or channel the planning and design toward a more reasonable and satisfying solution at the beginning. And when it has proven itself to be a disaster, we could still do nothing.
As if the tower is always already a ruin even before it was built. Yeah, let's take it down.
你覺得台灣哪些建築物應該被摧毀呢？2004年台灣憂質建築厚里豆獎
-
曬月亮的人
我覺得中台禪寺比較噁心!!!-
shaohsiin
binbin Wang:
Thank you for your opinions, I think it was penetrating. I have tried to reply the message during the past few days but found it is a little bit difficult to me because, first, my English is pool; second, you have good points comes from carefully study and observing, Therefore, I don't want to say meaningless things to make myself stupid
Let’s continue the issue about "Lee" & "Architecture"...
You mentioned that “traditional culture" is primary issue to Mr. Lee. Well, I can see that and might be able to understand why he (as well as clients and others rise in a same society background) thought it is critical. However, what I think more important is "contemporary culture" or "The way we live”. In my opinion, if traditional is still a part of our life, than make it parts of our building. Otherwise, build what we need for modern life style and it will become "tradition” or “classic" in the future. I think, “form" of most great Architecture came in this way, for example, Gothic Churches featured Flying Buttresses in order to support higher walls and longer (heaver) roof span which based on the demand of extension of church organization. The invention of "dome" in some other cases, serve the same purpose. Even pyramid, its form was based on the technology and function of sky observation.
Therefore, I believe Western Modernism has a nature and spirit even closer to ancient or classic architecture. A Modernism building applies new technology and material, created in a process that suited to our society and economy, built by person has today's skill and serve to modern people's modern life. These are the same things that those ancient and classic architecture did when the time they first completed.
I also believe, if skyscrapers reflecting "contemporary culture" and "The way we live", they may be, again, good to response to the issue of "global web". I think Hong Kong is a good example. Those sleek modern skyscrapers plus bustle and exciting alleys (and more), together, is the HK we know: a financial power and “gate to ancient China”. Its position and mission is clear here, and the image is suitable to its role in the world.
So we might have to think: what is the value of “Taiwan” to the world…..And I think the answer might be also valuable when designing a skyscraper in a scale like T101.
As what I said above, Mr. Lee’s “新東方主義” is meaningless in T101. Its form and space neither reflects the traditional value of Chinese culture nor represents the style of modern life. So, the only good thing left that he can do is simply creating beautiful form in his favor(whatever it is) with his passion. He failed to do so either. The ugly form comes from coarse details, bad proportion and even terrible color, make me believe there is no passion involved(or he lack design skill?). Lee probably just wanted to get through the design process quickly and get his huge amount money fast. Everything he talks about (like tradition, symbolic) sounds like only for ingratiating politicians and clients.
In 1892, Louis H. Sullivan built the Wainwright Building in St. Louis, Missouri. Many believe it was a respectful transition, "for the steel frame rises through every second column, and the cornice remains, like the capital of a column in which the first two stories are the base, the next seven the shaft, the setback windows are alternated with terra-cotta panels ornamented with relief designs varied at each floor", It became the template for western skyscrapers in the following one hundred year (but with fewer decorations later of course)…..This is probably a good example to make tradition form into modern needs that Mr. Lee should look at. But again, he need to spend more time involved in schematic design stage, if he continue design his projects carelessly, nothing would help. Although, I think that our society (politicians, business leader, ordinary people…) needs learning to care the quality of our living space more, but for a famous architects like Mr. Lee, there is much more to do than just finding excuses.
Wow, I wrote a lot in English….Thanks for reading.
Finally, I'm glade for your positive comment to my studio works. I was graduated from Washington University in St. Louis last year and I 'm now working in a firm in San Diego, CA.
Thank you for your opinions, I think it was penetrating. I have tried to reply the message during the past few days but found it is a little bit difficult to me because, first, my English is pool; second, you have good points comes from carefully study and observing, Therefore, I don't want to say meaningless things to make myself stupid
Let’s continue the issue about "Lee" & "Architecture"...
You mentioned that “traditional culture" is primary issue to Mr. Lee. Well, I can see that and might be able to understand why he (as well as clients and others rise in a same society background) thought it is critical. However, what I think more important is "contemporary culture" or "The way we live”. In my opinion, if traditional is still a part of our life, than make it parts of our building. Otherwise, build what we need for modern life style and it will become "tradition” or “classic" in the future. I think, “form" of most great Architecture came in this way, for example, Gothic Churches featured Flying Buttresses in order to support higher walls and longer (heaver) roof span which based on the demand of extension of church organization. The invention of "dome" in some other cases, serve the same purpose. Even pyramid, its form was based on the technology and function of sky observation.
Therefore, I believe Western Modernism has a nature and spirit even closer to ancient or classic architecture. A Modernism building applies new technology and material, created in a process that suited to our society and economy, built by person has today's skill and serve to modern people's modern life. These are the same things that those ancient and classic architecture did when the time they first completed.
I also believe, if skyscrapers reflecting "contemporary culture" and "The way we live", they may be, again, good to response to the issue of "global web". I think Hong Kong is a good example. Those sleek modern skyscrapers plus bustle and exciting alleys (and more), together, is the HK we know: a financial power and “gate to ancient China”. Its position and mission is clear here, and the image is suitable to its role in the world.
So we might have to think: what is the value of “Taiwan” to the world…..And I think the answer might be also valuable when designing a skyscraper in a scale like T101.
As what I said above, Mr. Lee’s “新東方主義” is meaningless in T101. Its form and space neither reflects the traditional value of Chinese culture nor represents the style of modern life. So, the only good thing left that he can do is simply creating beautiful form in his favor(whatever it is) with his passion. He failed to do so either. The ugly form comes from coarse details, bad proportion and even terrible color, make me believe there is no passion involved(or he lack design skill?). Lee probably just wanted to get through the design process quickly and get his huge amount money fast. Everything he talks about (like tradition, symbolic) sounds like only for ingratiating politicians and clients.
In 1892, Louis H. Sullivan built the Wainwright Building in St. Louis, Missouri. Many believe it was a respectful transition, "for the steel frame rises through every second column, and the cornice remains, like the capital of a column in which the first two stories are the base, the next seven the shaft, the setback windows are alternated with terra-cotta panels ornamented with relief designs varied at each floor", It became the template for western skyscrapers in the following one hundred year (but with fewer decorations later of course)…..This is probably a good example to make tradition form into modern needs that Mr. Lee should look at. But again, he need to spend more time involved in schematic design stage, if he continue design his projects carelessly, nothing would help. Although, I think that our society (politicians, business leader, ordinary people…) needs learning to care the quality of our living space more, but for a famous architects like Mr. Lee, there is much more to do than just finding excuses.
Wow, I wrote a lot in English….Thanks for reading.
Finally, I'm glade for your positive comment to my studio works. I was graduated from Washington University in St. Louis last year and I 'm now working in a firm in San Diego, CA.
-
訪客
"The way we live", now
During the early Modern Movement, the architects not only struggled to cope with the new mode of production, sea-change of social structure, the demands of new building types, new technology & materials, and structural change of the profession, they were also at war with themselves. To a degree, they often changed their given name to foster a sense of a modern identity. Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. Neue Mensch was a constant inner drive for a lot of artists and architects since the C-20. To be "modern" is a self-conscious act, and it requires constant renewal of the awareness since "God" has left earth. One of the pleasure for me to study the history of modern architecture, other than all the beautiful buildings and objects, is to learn the personal journeys of the architects. I favor a kind of architecture "formed" by the tradition of building and building industry instead of cultural demands. Culture inevitably connotes certain theological characteristics, faith or belief rules kind of situation. Tradition literally means traditio, trade, trader, to transmit; "the act of delivering into the hands of another; delivery." It has a direct relation with the everyday life. If without the mediation of building tradition (not as living tradition but the tradition of making), culture can only produce dead formalistic architecture. Sorry, I don't have time to give examples to back up my point. I am leaving for Sydney in two hours then Tainan. Will continue my thoughts when I am there, in Taiwan.
Finally, I am impressed by your knowledge of modernism in architecture. Yes, the "Classical Rationalism" and the competing form of Greco-Gothic and Neo-Gothic, as Frampton as argued, originate certain tectonic forms practiced by the architects in the early Modern Movement. Modern cannot be reduced to a style, whether in the East or West. Every building tradition demands its own history of modern architecture. Modernity, modernization, and modernism, as first articulated by Marshall Berman, are a constant, on-going historical phenomenon.
Finally, the Wainwright Building by Sullivan, 1890-1891. It is wonderful for you to remind us, the readers, That Tall Building has its own history of making. Sullivan began to "give form to the skyscraper" from this particular building. He moved away from his "masonry" period of refining, subtilizing, complicating, abstracting, and ultimately transforming Richardson's Marshall field Wholesale Store (1885-1887). The first preliminary sketch of the prospective Wainwright Building is done by Charles K. Ramsey on 11-29-1890. The perspective carries a Richardsonian look of a large masonry box. Legend had it, Sullivan placed over it a piece of tracing paper, in few minutes, he had the design for its facade: smooth surface replaced Richardson's rustic stone facing, so as to emphasize the vertical shafts giving tall building an expression. The intersecting ornate bends in-between windows signify the repetitious crossing of columns and beans in a skeletal structure. The later, "sister" building in Buffalo, the Guaranty Building (1894-95), reaches an effect of "etching" in terms of the articulation of a skeletal structure, building expression and ornament. One of my favorite buildings.
Your English writing is fine. Keep in mind, as long as you have something to say, language will be "your B*tch" (no offend to women) as Eminem would say.
Finally, I am impressed by your knowledge of modernism in architecture. Yes, the "Classical Rationalism" and the competing form of Greco-Gothic and Neo-Gothic, as Frampton as argued, originate certain tectonic forms practiced by the architects in the early Modern Movement. Modern cannot be reduced to a style, whether in the East or West. Every building tradition demands its own history of modern architecture. Modernity, modernization, and modernism, as first articulated by Marshall Berman, are a constant, on-going historical phenomenon.
Finally, the Wainwright Building by Sullivan, 1890-1891. It is wonderful for you to remind us, the readers, That Tall Building has its own history of making. Sullivan began to "give form to the skyscraper" from this particular building. He moved away from his "masonry" period of refining, subtilizing, complicating, abstracting, and ultimately transforming Richardson's Marshall field Wholesale Store (1885-1887). The first preliminary sketch of the prospective Wainwright Building is done by Charles K. Ramsey on 11-29-1890. The perspective carries a Richardsonian look of a large masonry box. Legend had it, Sullivan placed over it a piece of tracing paper, in few minutes, he had the design for its facade: smooth surface replaced Richardson's rustic stone facing, so as to emphasize the vertical shafts giving tall building an expression. The intersecting ornate bends in-between windows signify the repetitious crossing of columns and beans in a skeletal structure. The later, "sister" building in Buffalo, the Guaranty Building (1894-95), reaches an effect of "etching" in terms of the articulation of a skeletal structure, building expression and ornament. One of my favorite buildings.
Your English writing is fine. Keep in mind, as long as you have something to say, language will be "your B*tch" (no offend to women) as Eminem would say.
-
APPLE
-
da_davided
對於這個活動,還有大家對於李祖原的中台禪寺和101的反感, 我想問些問題.
1) 中台禪寺與台北101有什麼讓大家覺得想吐或是想把它摧毀的原因?
2) 這個厚里豆活動, 只有"反對"票可以投嗎? 那有什麼人(對於建築藝術喜好者, 並非建築業主或所有者)可以透過這個活動為大家想要摧毀的這些建築物發聲呢?
3) 這個活動有沒有一個宣判建築死刑的"標準"或是"法條"? 投票是唯一的程序嗎?
4) 投票者對於想摧毀的建築物是否有理性的判斷呢? 我想在這一點, 個人喜好是絕對因素吧!
5) 想摧毀某棟建築物, 空間設計或是外觀設計是否為絕大多數人判斷的依據? 那對於非建築或藝術愛好著的使用狀況在考量的範圍嗎? 經濟及商業考量在範圍內嗎? 政治與文化考量在這個範圍內嗎?
在此, 我要位中台禪寺叫冤, 或許大家不信佛道, 絕得這種以符號為主題的建築設計噁心, 那麼當西方中古世紀想把建築蓋高目的只是想要跟接近上帝的行為而產生的建築物, 充滿著宗教的符號, 同樣也令人覺得噁心嗎? 難道現今的宗教建築, 只能夠玩"意境"這種比較"popular"或是比較"全球化"或是比較"高級"的東西才令人尊敬嗎?
還有
站長大人說道, LONELY PLANET Taiwan 封面的照片用的是醜爛的招牌一點.
我對這個觀點產生了一些邏輯或是思維上的疑惑. 我想問, 您之所以會覺得這個封面醜, 是因為 1) 因為別的國家或地區都是使用漂亮的風景或美美的建築, 而台灣用破舊的布告當封面, 所以台灣讓您覺得....(我也不知道你想說什麼, 你只用了....)? 2) 因為別的國家或地區使用了漂亮的景色當封面, 所以台灣一定也要用漂亮的景色當做封面, 這樣台灣才跟其他國家一樣值得或是吸引旅客前來? 3) 您會覺得它醜 , 或許是您沒有注意到它下面的副標題喔 : Old world meets new economy. Indeed,台灣繼承了中國文化which 具有深奧的文化內涵, 當然是個old world. 而較台灣的經濟奇蹟亦讓人刮目相看. 當一個old world 遇上new economy, 產生的或許是一種對比與矛盾, 而這個以漢字廣告寫著成衣公司徵才的封面, 述說的不就是這個主題嗎? 台灣給知道台灣的大多數外國人第一映象就是富裕, 難道把封面擺成玉山或是墾丁或是"有品質的建築", 別人會知道那是台灣嗎?
如同大家對於中台禪寺或101的反感, 這些只是我個人的淺見和疑惑, 請大家尊重之. 我也不是anti this, anti that的人, 我只是比較喜歡在大家都向同一個觀點倒的同時, 試著提出一些"反反對"的看法. 希望大家能夠予以理性的回應, 謝謝.
1) 中台禪寺與台北101有什麼讓大家覺得想吐或是想把它摧毀的原因?
2) 這個厚里豆活動, 只有"反對"票可以投嗎? 那有什麼人(對於建築藝術喜好者, 並非建築業主或所有者)可以透過這個活動為大家想要摧毀的這些建築物發聲呢?
3) 這個活動有沒有一個宣判建築死刑的"標準"或是"法條"? 投票是唯一的程序嗎?
4) 投票者對於想摧毀的建築物是否有理性的判斷呢? 我想在這一點, 個人喜好是絕對因素吧!
5) 想摧毀某棟建築物, 空間設計或是外觀設計是否為絕大多數人判斷的依據? 那對於非建築或藝術愛好著的使用狀況在考量的範圍嗎? 經濟及商業考量在範圍內嗎? 政治與文化考量在這個範圍內嗎?
在此, 我要位中台禪寺叫冤, 或許大家不信佛道, 絕得這種以符號為主題的建築設計噁心, 那麼當西方中古世紀想把建築蓋高目的只是想要跟接近上帝的行為而產生的建築物, 充滿著宗教的符號, 同樣也令人覺得噁心嗎? 難道現今的宗教建築, 只能夠玩"意境"這種比較"popular"或是比較"全球化"或是比較"高級"的東西才令人尊敬嗎?
還有
站長大人說道, LONELY PLANET Taiwan 封面的照片用的是醜爛的招牌一點.
我對這個觀點產生了一些邏輯或是思維上的疑惑. 我想問, 您之所以會覺得這個封面醜, 是因為 1) 因為別的國家或地區都是使用漂亮的風景或美美的建築, 而台灣用破舊的布告當封面, 所以台灣讓您覺得....(我也不知道你想說什麼, 你只用了....)? 2) 因為別的國家或地區使用了漂亮的景色當封面, 所以台灣一定也要用漂亮的景色當做封面, 這樣台灣才跟其他國家一樣值得或是吸引旅客前來? 3) 您會覺得它醜 , 或許是您沒有注意到它下面的副標題喔 : Old world meets new economy. Indeed,台灣繼承了中國文化which 具有深奧的文化內涵, 當然是個old world. 而較台灣的經濟奇蹟亦讓人刮目相看. 當一個old world 遇上new economy, 產生的或許是一種對比與矛盾, 而這個以漢字廣告寫著成衣公司徵才的封面, 述說的不就是這個主題嗎? 台灣給知道台灣的大多數外國人第一映象就是富裕, 難道把封面擺成玉山或是墾丁或是"有品質的建築", 別人會知道那是台灣嗎?
如同大家對於中台禪寺或101的反感, 這些只是我個人的淺見和疑惑, 請大家尊重之. 我也不是anti this, anti that的人, 我只是比較喜歡在大家都向同一個觀點倒的同時, 試著提出一些"反反對"的看法. 希望大家能夠予以理性的回應, 謝謝.
-
貝克漢
-
ArchiFragment
-
純路人CT
Re: 中央黨部是一定要的
每每經過
都想炸垮它一遍
我投它一票
某走入歷史政黨的中央黨部[/quote]
---------------------------------------------
wah!
看到這個投票 突然提醒了我的記憶~
我是每每經過 心裡就升起一團問號
一遍...
總覺得它看起來像是還沒完工的工地...-_-'
而它又站在四處空曠的大路口, 很叫人難受呢..
我也投一票!
都想炸垮它一遍
我投它一票
某走入歷史政黨的中央黨部[/quote]
---------------------------------------------
wah!
看到這個投票 突然提醒了我的記憶~
我是每每經過 心裡就升起一團問號
一遍...總覺得它看起來像是還沒完工的工地...-_-'
而它又站在四處空曠的大路口, 很叫人難受呢..
我也投一票!
-
ian29