ORDOS 100 #12: RSVP
This villa is located in plot #71 of the ORDOS project.
Architects: RSVP
Location: Ordos, Inner Mongolia, China
Design year: 2008
Construction year: 2009
Curator: Ai Weiwei, Beijing, China
Client: Jiang Yuan Water Engineering Ltd, Inner Mongolia, China
Constructed Area: 1,000 sqm aprox
While the search for paradigms in architecture is not a recent one, the conscious pursuit of utopia seems to be another species in danger of extinction at a moment when architecture and God are rumored to no longer exist. Still, when faced with the challenge of designing one of 100 villas in the middle of Inner Mongolia–in the context of the exiting pragmatism of the contemporary Chinese architectural production–we decided to relocate our faith in architecture in terms of the discipline itself. We removed ourselves from any sarcastic, ironic or cultural contextual position in order to “Design” a house that will not only respond to the program but also to a more abstract order of complexities.
Because our site culminates the perspectival axis framed by the main street, we decided to lift the house in order to allow the landscape and views to go through, while idealizing the building in its detachment from the ground.
We separated the ludic programmatic components and buried them inside the landscape, objectifying the private wing as a floating element. Finally we proceeded to rotate the upper bar to allow both the main living area and master suite a generous southern orientation. This spatial and formal maneuver generated an open courtyard that connects both the underground and the hovering components of the Villa Long. The name is meant to evoke both the dwelling occupying the longest lot, but also symbolically, the “dragon” as a concept and a provider of meaning.
In terms of language, we developed a mathematical model based on a module that is rotated and displaced and a scaled skin of pre-cast concrete panels with a slight angle that orient the bedroom windows towards the south. The house will be build with a double layer of exterior concrete with brick interiors in order to properly respond to the extreme weather conditions of the area. We are also proposing green systems like geothermal and low consume artifacts to ensure a minimal environmental impact and energy consumption.
-
- site plan
-
- basement floor plan
-
- ground floor plan
-
- second floor plan
-
- roof plan
-
- elevations 01
-
- elevations 02
-
- sections 01
-
- sections 02
-
- section + detail
-
- details
-
- windows details
-
- diagrams 01
-
- diagrams 02
-
- diagrams 03
Related articles:
38 comments »
Bibe-xe bem na mongolia…também queria ter uma casa assim dada pela câmara.Vamos todos ser mongoloides.
too much 3ds max or rhino . loft and sweep tool.
the result is interesting. i remember when i played a lot with 3ds max and did similar forms. but of course “playing”.
we have to see that “booger” builded. then we can judge the results.
finally a house in Ordos…
yet one more object in Ordos…
finally we know what it would look like to go for a swim in a flooded basement
Ordos=too much freedom for good design
+ these plans are unreadable
are these ever going to be built?
i wouldn’t be too bummed out if they weren’t..
i think this is one of the best projects so far, it is inspiring by just looking at it!!
This is the sort of project that comes out when you become the victim of your drawing instrument. In this case the computer, respectively the cad software.
Lets try to identify the architectural idea behind this “cool shape”. (that isnt cool at all, but it tries so hard to be it)
Besides the celebration of stairs, i cannot see any interesting space, that is generated by the expressive knot.
The rest is an additive series of hotel rooms. Right, it looks like a Motel rather than a “Villa”
The technical capability to realize this hspae was the main driving force of this design, and not the architectural concept.
green, luxury home in china = absolute hypocrisy. one of many sorry excuses for this object that should be placed in outer space where it could be safely blown to bits. now that would re-ignite my faith in god
cool sections though!
can’t agree more with carlo! get a bit lost by all these “cool” images… and hoefully for people living inside ultimately, they won’t get lost too..
Hey , Carlo,
Why there always has to be a concept, especially for a form? I believe architecture is creating a habitable space
(along with social spaces), with minimum impact on the environment/our world, being made into a form/shape whatever the designer/architect feels like to as long as the client wants it.
I believe everyone has different opinion. I would not judge them (RSVP) as “victim of drawing instrument.” At least I hope we could all agree on the fact that they are creative, which is a good thing, no matter we like it or not.
Anyway, don’t get me wrong, Carlo. Just want to throw in a different opinion, which of course you are not deterred from disagreeing with it.
do you have some commission from ORDOS? please let us see Architecture not software geeks! Cummon so far….nothing WOW yet. Unless of course ORDOS are some first year or maybe second year architecture students. I invite you all here to come over at our local University to see some more similar works. There is much more to see out there….Architecture (with a capital ‘A’)please!
It looks indeed like a flooded basement. Maybe it is part of their sustainability concept for recycling rainstorm waters. It doesn’t worries me too much the appearance of this artifact, although it makes one wonder if its architects think they are “too cool for school”. What is truly laughable is that when you look at the technical drawings it becomes obvious that they have no idea how to build this prehistoric python. And I don’t think Cecil Balmond will be lending himself to this child’s play in which the Ordos enterprise has become.
Nice spatial approach. It is one of the few houses that have an interest for the habitable space. A good reminder that formal experimentation doesn’t have to threat spatiality. The funny thing about this kind of projects is that architects forget about space, a paradox of a discipline that claims to worry about space but concerns only about its containers. On the formal experimentation it seems like a personal approach, somehow like the interest that Ben Van Berkel finds in the Blob + Box relationship. This house is some kind of möbius strip that opens to the south, which is a nice strategy knowing the importance of this for Asian Culture. Is good for the discipline to find projects that encourage architectural experimentation. Ordos is an unique opportunity for architecture to get outside the paper. If the architects fail to test the limits of their architectural philosophy, then they are missing something. It is not about experimenting in a competition for social housing; it is a hundred villas in Mongolia. So thumbs up to RSVP for testing form and encouraging space and thumbs down to all the haters that complain for everything.
Funny how Mr. García defends this project given the fact that he worked on it…
“thumbs down to all the haters that complain for everything?”
Pardon? Are you serious?
“Testing form…” what, at the expense of the environment?
“encouraging space” now there you are contradictory. (formal experimentation doesn’t have to threat spatiality)
What it seems you are complaining about is called critique. Something that we should do more, eypecially in this virtual, technology driven design moment.
Please, let’ s interchange opinions without being hostile.
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?
To be more clear… I gave a critique… meanwhile you complain
@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”.
;-)
@Mr Garcia, easy…
Luigi Snozzi: “Every intervention requires destruction, destroy with reason!”
(Ogni intervento presuppone una distruzione, distruggi con senno.)
“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.
Im understand clearly what Ala meant.
@Carlo: Im just having an argument with somebody who’s second sentence was “Pardon? Are you serious?”
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.
yes, I agree with your argument – yet it is set in the sort of positive fiction that I mentioned previously. Indeed in the knowledge-based scenario you describe, which is a very interesting thought, form would indeed be free. it is a state we all strive to attain, I would venture to guess. But in the vast majority of projects, if we chose to take a degree of environmental responsibility, our formal options become more limited due to the building & commercial culture constraints that I tried to enumerate.
Also, and at the risk of further muddying the waters, what would be the “optimal” performance? And who can really tell that there isn’t, in fact, an “optimal” solution that wasn’t reached and simply isn’t known? I believe with the upcoming “green grab” that will label every single project with cross – vent windows as “bioclimatic”, “sustainable” and “optimal”, we’ll run the risk as a profession of further debasing our credibility in a bad mixture of verbal (eco-)hyperbole, bold (untested) statements and irresponsible claims to fame forming a cacophony of vanity. Now adding to formal Archispeak, we have ArchiGreenSpeak like this quoted from the project description:
“We are also proposing green systems like geothermal and low consume artifacts to ensure a minimal environmental impact and energy consumption.”
So, all is well, then, yes! Amen!
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?
cummon, are you practicing architects? can you make sense of the plans? ergonomics? just start playing with some software and you get those results, but its just play! case closed.
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.
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 …
men
previous should have read…
‘Amen!’
architecture is boring,
so is ORDOS.
“People only criticize, they never create”
lack of control, and agreed, plans are totally unreadable. the overall concept of such a house is interesting but the central mobius-like fold is too forced and formally underdeveloped.
Links to this article »