Critique is based on giving options, for example you say what you don’t like and you say why and give an example or alternative if available. What I see often in architecture blogs are not critiques, are destructive comments.
Now to make it clear, testing form at the expense of what?
Now tell me how can you build something without taking as expense the environment. Sustainability and ecology are not related to form. And by “encouraging space” I mean that are taking into account space, as architecture should be. Now where is your critique?

@Ala: why should i get you wrong? I respect your opinion! ;-)
On the question if there has to be concept or not, i think that as an architect you need to have an idea, or you risk to act arbitrary, which i find inappropriate in the domain of architecture. in fact you’ d need to develop social sensibility, rather to be just creative, especially in this case, where there is an emphasis on an urban idea. (garden city)

Designing a shape just for the sake of it is called formalism and it doesn’ t show any interesting aspect to me.

I would like to point out that Architects should not be “service providers” thatsell a product under a brand, instead they are called to advise their clients in a responsible, thoughtful way, rather to just realize “what he/she wants”.

;-)

“Sustainability and ecology are not related to form”

you are seriously mistaken to make such a blanket statement.

while from a purely intellectual view this may be intuitively correct (à la “the form doesn’t matter, only what materials we build it with”), upon closer inspection of building culture constraints (cost & efficiency, material availability, context of building site etc.) the argument fails – take, for example, Ken Yeang’s argument that the skyscraper will never be sustainable in a deep-green mode of thinking, despite years of effort of many practices to greenwash them. Simply put, its scale is its ecological downfall – and scale is but one dimension of form.

What many here are criticizing is formalism, and seeing its effects in the work discussed.

Freq: interesting point, but I’m insisting in the statement. Sustainability and ecology are not related to form, even more when we see the methods by which architecture is designed aujourd’hui. In one side computer aided design like this house, can achieve a harmony with its context in an almost infinite array of forms. As long as the designer knows how to take advantage of the site and/or make a contribution to it he is free to decide which form he is going to utilize. On the other hand we can see as an example the “dutch way” of designing with foam models. Ducth architecture is known for experimenting with forms. They can basically do whatever form they want, but the technical knowledge allows them to achieve optimum performance. So in these terms the form is free. But the consideration for important and necessary issues such as spatiality and sustainability are not “form” related, but knowledge related. That’s why I think this is a good example of good experimental architecture in a place where architecture was aiming to be experimental.

I don’t know… Mr. Garcia’s comments really strike a dissonant chord in this discusion. Could it be that he really sees something that escape us all in this odd looking, lamely rationalized digital artifact. I wont try to engage you in a futile argument concerning this particular project. I think the most reasonable thing to do here is to conclude that Mr. García’s grievances may stem from the fact that he had something to do with the development of this project. Now, how is that for a disqualifying, conspiracy theory?

Mr. Smith: I can assure you, I am not. And that is a way to escape from intellectual discussion, arguing “it’s a conspirancy”. That is the easy way. In order to have an intellectual discussion we have to start from the point that we are all qualified to have, pardon the redundancy, an intellectual discussion. Because if we don’t assume that, everybody will start pointing fingers instead of proposing ideas and postures. So if I say that you are part of the design team of other house and you are jealous, then I wont be taking into account wherever good ideas you could argue.
Mr. Freq: Interesting points. But at the end of the day the discussion lays in an ontological discussion. Because if we consider Architecture with a capital “A” to be product of experimentation like what the masters of the avant-garde have done, then we will consider the implications of the design process. If otherwise we consider architecture to be a 100% environment dependant discipline, we will be judging it in different ways. Now in another point, I believe the value of architecture could lie in the process, the ideas or the building. A perfect act of architecture includes all three. But that happens not so frequent, and also we cannot impose our way of seeing things to everybody. Now, in my view a sustainable building is not necessary architecture. And architecture is not necessarily sustainable.

this is so sad….saw the physical model @ the architecture league and it was a unfortunate attempt of a model… i learned something a long time ago… if you cant even build a model don’t bother… so lets not bother discussing this project… it is predictable and a simplistic attempt to understand 3d software. Let others do the job when you simply either dont have time or simply technology is way ahead of you …

previous should have read…
‘Amen!’

“People only criticize, they never create”

it looks like cristiano ronaldo house in benavente, portugal by eduardo souto moura