Eric Owen Moss explains that the discussion was supposed to start with a discussion by Jeffrey Kipnis of the entries to the competition for the expansion of the Universit?t f?r angewandte Kunst/University of Applied Arts in Vienna. But as Kipnis is delayed, Hernan Diaz Alonso will begin questioning the participants. Noting that the competition was for an school of architecture, Diaz Alonso notes that there have been only a few schools, such as the Bauhaus and IIT, whose building expressed their design sensibility. He asks the participants if this is necessary, or is some degree of disassociation inevitable and OK. Patrik Schumacher responds that the Angewandte under Wolf Prix’s leadership had a uniquely clear direction, and the selection of Wolfgang Tschapeller’s entry spoils a great opportunity to build a manifesto. Wolf Prix clarifies that the Angewandte is a school of several disciplines, including architecture. He points out that during his tenure at the Angewandte his attempts to collaborate with the other local architecture programs were rebuffed. He stresses decisions like the competition result can destroy a carefully cultivated cultural atmosphere. Eric Owen Moss adds that Prix attempted to replace authoritarianism with dialogue at the Angewandte, and the competition decision reads like an attempt to return to that earlier state. Jeffrey Kipnis discusses entries to the competition for the expansion of the Universit?t f?r angewandte Kunst/University of Applied Arts in Vienna, including those of Wolfgang Tschapeller, Asymptote, Coop Himmelb(l)au, Reiser + Umemoto, Next Enteprise, Eric Owen Moss. Wolf Prix expresses his exasperation with the bureaucratic mentality which obstructs new architecture in Vienna. Kipnis responds by stressing the importance of architectural discourse, about which bureaucrats have no control. Moss contrasts the deliberate obstructionism of Vienna with the indifference of Los Angeles. Diaz Alonso asks if architecture as a cultural discipline is really so fragile. And if it is, what weapons can it develop. Prix sees the expanding power mediocrity. Kipnis counters with the example of the Soviet avant-garde, which is still relevant despite being short-lived and limited in built works. At his mention of the state of contemporary classical composers, Schumacher objects that his goal is to try to translate the internal discourse into something public. Moss adds that part of the task of extending the discourse is engaging new audiences. The panelists respond to a question about how schools might train architects to deal with obstructionism, and the necessity of building.
Brendan MacFarlane describes a housing project which employed a ratio and ruling system. He talks about the program and circulation, and the unique spaces within the units. He outlines how his office typically handles competitions.
Nathan Bishop presents a competition entry for a new school of architecture in Melbourne. He addresses the formal organization of the building, characterizing the project as a distribution of events that encourage encounters between different groups of students.
Andrew Holder documents a selection of five recent projects completed by his office. The first is an outdoor movie screen. He reviews the selection and development of the structural system and discusses the relationship of vehicle with the ground plane. Holder describes “Loftway,” a small real estate office in downtown Los Angeles, as inspired by the topology of the Sperry Topsider shoe. The third project re-examines the use of diagramming techniques in a series of retail stores for Surefoot. Holder reviews a competition for a project for sustainability and storm water remediation. He concludes with a residential project titled “Villa Down the Rabbit Hole,” This project takes an existing house with an open floor plan and investigates the proliferation of structural consequences under static loads.
Julie Eizenberg presents her design for a civic development in Lake Elsinore, California. It was submitted in a competition in which all three of the finalists ended up dropping out.
Yansong Ma announces that his talk will be structured around his recent book, MAD Dinner. He discusses the history of the office, noting their engagement in over a hundred competitions over the last two years. He then documents the contributors to MAD Dinner, including writers, artists, architects and filmmakers. Ma questions what it means to represent China in a fast-changing global landscape.
Suha Ozkan presents an overview of his experience as an organizer of a competition for the master plan of Istanbul as well as another competition for the redevelopment of the Kartal district. Three offices competed for each project, each with a different strategy for re-imagining Istanbul’s position within it’s complex geo-political and historical setting. The winner of the competition, Zaha Hadid, faces unique challenges in realizing the project, which Ozkan is charged with navigating.
In his introduction, Eric Owen Moss contrasts historical awareness in Turkey with historical illiteracy in the U.S. He then...
Suha Ozkan surveys the site of Istanbul, noting recent population growth and immigration as important issues for the urban design...
Ozkan documents the history of the competition for the redevelopment of Istanbul and Kartal. He explains his intention to invite...
Ozkan introduces another competition with a focus on the Kartal district of Istanbul, and describes three proposals. Some of the...
Ozkan reviews the issues that arrise after selecting Zaha Hadid's plan. One involves private versus public financing. Another...
Suha Ozkan surveys the site of Istanbul, noting recent population growth and immigration as important issues for the urban design competition. The city is broken down by Ozkan into discreet zones. Ozkan concludes that a “tragic urbanization” occurred in the last half century, one that he hopes to correct by using the competition as a starting point.