zoidberg

Not entirely sure, but I think they are pre cut in sheets and bent into place on site. have a look at this article, should bring light on how a CAD modeled form goes from computer to realized paneling. http://archinect.com/blog/article/46577432...cladding-system

Fortis, I was in LA last week and visited the Walt Disney concert hall. Its stainless steel paneling bolted and layered on to CATIA derived steel beams I mentioned earlier. Here are some pics of the structure from behind the panels:

Thanks for the kind words, Fortis. Looking forward to continue discussing topics, architecture and lamborghini related, with you.

Clearly you completely disregarded my last post, with a number of references and precedents, which disproves most of your claims that you keep reinforcing with no substance whatsoever.

The whole point of architecture is to push the envelope of fabricational technologies and spatial experiences, and always have been. Baroque architecture pushed the limits of ornamentation, Gothic vaults pushed the limit of unecessary height - All of these 'unecessary practices' were criticized, but are celebrated today. Gehry, whether one says he's doing it correctly or not, again is purely subjective. What you seize to look at is the theoretical side of architecture, which many classical examples including Etienne Boulle, Borommini was based on theorectical arguments that probably would have seem odd back in the day. I wouldn't be surprised if they had the exact same conversation we are having. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Gehry created something that is impossibly difficult to construct, so he opened a door to make it possible. The heroes are all the people who combine to design and create the building, no single group or single person. Gehry is actually part of his structural engineering team on every one of his project, so to say the real heroes are the engineers says it includes Gehry (who is the architect) as well. He is simply paving the road to the next mystery door to be open. Not very different from car technology. Take porsche for example. A lot of the technology from the 959 trickled down into the 993, and the same thing will probably happen with the 918 where we will see and KERS system of some sort in the next GT3 RS. Sure, the 959/918 are not perfect and far from practical, but their pioneered technologies will trickle down into their more common lines of cars such as the cayman or the 911. Of course while all this happening, Porsche is probably already working on the successor to the 918, maybe something with hydrogen and electric and petrol combination. Who knows. Fact is, this is the same thing with architecture. It's pushing the envelope and after that envelope is open you look for the next one to open. Some may fail, some may succeed. Slowly but surely, the cost of this 'expensive gehry fabrication' will become less and less expensive, just like how computers have since the 80s. If you calculate inflation for a 3000$ computer in the 90s that would make the top of the line macbook seem like a bag of chips, a bag of chips that 20x more powerful. Residential design is dominated by classical architecture because it has become the norm. Before classical vernacular residential architecture, we were living huts and brick shacks, before columns (styled or not) came into play. Modernism and forward is simply another cycle in architecture that will continue to cycle for as long as mankind needs shelter and wishes to make it unique. You quote Corbusier's bulding as non functional, but his practice has lead to mid century pioneers such as Meirer, Neutra, Mies, Kahn, and Eames whom created very, very functional and aesthetically beautiful homes. Fell free to look up works, I'm sure you will recognize them. The Seagram Building in NYC, which in a sense is a direct decendant of Villa Savoye, is very much functional and still is functional today. So while Villa Savoye may not have been comfortably habitable, it paved the road for buildings to come. If you live in an apartment, it's model is probably not far from Corbusier's Cité Radieuse and Mies' Skyscraper explorations. Similarly, while Gehry's buildings may not seem functional to you, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl, and even Peter Eisenman who was previously part of the Mid Century School, are working with free forms that not only prove spatially interesting, but also functionally practical. Have a look at Holl's Nelson Atkin's Museum's interior spaces, and tell me they are not both beautiful functional, and address the phenomenological aspect (that I think you are constantly referencing in your classical gothic/ornamental examples) with the use of high tech and exotic materials. Another project you can look at are the bath houses by Peter Zumthor. Side note, the Katrina houses you shows to VCR have proven to have very poor craftmanship, as many of them are cookie cutter and are made on a budget. Come back in 20 years and see if even 30% of them are still standing/in good functional condition. While many may not agree with the morphology used the MRVDV's proposal, materials would be much more solid and durable (such concrete and steel) simply because the form demands such robust material. I would rather pay a bit more initially and have things last longer than to buy a cheap house made from polyurethane panels from Lowe's put together in a week and have it come down in 3 years.

Wheels, A lot of the projects you cited are from the deconstructivist era/style of architecture, which I recommend you do some research on the theory before formally criticizing it on an online forum. You have cited works by Daniel Libeskind (Dresden Military Museum) Multiple Gehry works, and MVRDV throughout the thread. I haven't read every single post and conversation between you and other participants within this thread; however I would like to say a few words and put in my own 2 cents. Lets just start with Frank Gehry: What you seized to mention and research before criticizing Gehry's work is the amount of innovation and attention this 'starchitect' has brought to contemporary architecture. Personally, I'm not necessarily a fan of his formwork, but the logic behind his madness is comprehensible if you are familiar with his earlier works, especially his spatial delineation. Take Bilbao's museum for instance. Known as the 'bilbao effect' which is a term coined and used by many architectural critics today, the shear unfamliarness of Gehry's free form completely gentrified the small city of Bilbao, turning it into a tourist destination and boosted Bilbao's revenue exponentially due to the shear oddness of the building since everyone wanted to see it, which is still attracting visitors today. This 'Bilbao effect' is happening in many cities in North america and Asia. Just take a look at Dubai - everyone wants to visit Dubai. (Palm tree island, Burj Arab, to name a few) Good architecture draws interests, regardless of style. Another aspect you seem to be completely oblivious about (even though you mention you are highly critical of contemporary architecture) is that Gehry in fact PIONEERED HIS OWN ENGINEERING PROGRAM known as CATIA (on version 6 now i believe) that actually calculates the curvature and creates digital fabrication documents needed for the structural steel manufacturers, and streamlines the workflow between architect, engineer, and contractor. (An earlier version of program was originally used for ship building and aerospace but Gehry changed it to work for architecture) This not only brings the cost down, as Gehry's BIM system (Building information modeling) streamlines communication between each point of creating a building (less errors occur because transferring information is no longer a game of telephone with BIM/CAD Computer technologies) but it makes the building go up much quicker than it would, say, if we would construct something crazy like Gehry's form without streamlined backwards-compatible CAD programs. While the cost is still astronomical, it is much lower than it would be if there were constant mistakes made and had to be corrected due to miscommunication by shuffling giant construction documents around. This BIM system that Gehry was one of the Pioneers for has pushed competing companies such as Autodesk (Revit and AutoCAD) and Rhino to have the same backwards compatability, if not more so which pushes the digital envelope of architectural fabrication, so much so that architecture students are using these systems in their hypothetical studio projects. This has also trickled down to something as common as vernacular residential projects, and it is the reason why the same house that would've taken 3 years to building back in 2000, takes 8 months to build in 2015. So yes, Gehry does infact factor in budget and structure and doesn't just crumple a piece of paper and call it a building. One more important question: Have you ever been in any of these buildings to experience them spatially? Most of the precedents you are pulling have no reference to the interior spaces of each building, which is the whole point of architecture: to enclose someone in a space, and then make that space special. I completely disagree with your statements because each architect, contemporary or not, has created a shelter for its user, and transformed the shelter into a special experience for its users, under their own special interpretation. Whether you agree with their interpretation or not is purely subjective, just like all the examples posted by other forum members so far. Just my brief two cents. Hopefully everyone understands since my post is probably littered with grammatical errors, as I typed this up pretty quickly.