Kanzlei Balkenhol / Ecker Architekten

1.   0

   realy like the style and simplicity of this addition…

   Reply
2.   0

   Brave approach and bravo. But oh my gosh how it badly does not match the rest! Do we really need to use fist to the nose principle to get attention?

   Reply
3.   +1

   i don’t think the addition is to get attention … i think the modern addition really accentuates and highlights the original building. Would you prefer some addition that defers to the original, and thus degrades both majchers? I love projects like this. well done.

   Reply
   •   0

     There are many other choices other than deferring to the original. And yes, you have a right to like this project

     Reply
4.   0

   There are many other choices other than deferring to the original. And yes, you have a right to like this project.

   Reply
   •   0

     When will architects stop tacking modern boxes onto old buildings, separated by vertical glazing? it is just too easy to mask the lack of thought, ingenuity and care for the original under facade of ‘wanting to make a contrast’

     Reply
     •   0

       When will ArchDaily readers stop complaining about projects that they don’t like, unsupported by countering solutions, positive criticism, or proper grammar? Isn’t it just too easy to mask one’s laziness in building a specific architectural critique, the general misunderstanding of project parameters, and the irreverent and rote dismissal of the work of a colleague under the rubric of ‘knowing better’?

       If I understand this project correctly, it is a service building, housing toilets and a staircase, built in 21st century, adjoining a historically listed building built in 1824. The modern box replaces a former addition to the building. There is, without a doubt, a difference in the construction methods used today versus those prevalent in 1824. How could or should this self-evident ‘contrast’ be approached?
5.   0

   Dear Lou Reed,
   Every person has a right to express his/her opinion, especially in the forums. That’s what forums are all about.
   As to the said project – there are countless examples of how one can add ‘a service building housing toilets and a staircase’ to the historical building using modern techniques and construction methods not necessarily making it to look like an axe in a forehead.

   Reply
   •   0

     Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

     I simply don’t understand the hyperbole, the poor rhetorics, the agressive idioms used here. I read ‘forums’ for an intelligent discourse about architecture, not a whiny trashing of other colleagues work. Why don’t we begin by pointing out just one or two from the ‘countless’ examples you mention. You know, show some intelligence for once.

     Reply
6.   0

   Lou,
   Not every person commenting here on this forum is as brilliantly eloquent as you are. Never mind as fluent in English so your comments on grammar are cheap shots. So are those on intelligence.
   Additionally – since when saying that this design does not match the rest is whiny trashing?
   P.S. When I will find time I will get you few links to prove my point.

   Reply
   •   0

     majchers
     you are absolutely right. Although not exactly constructive criticism, ‘fist to the nose’ and ‘axe to the forehead’ does not qualify as whiny. I was refering to micah’s whiny comment.

     Reply
7.   0

   Here is a decent example of what I had in mind saying ‘countless examples’… http://www.archdaily.com/140323/the-university-of-pennsylvania-music-building-ann-beha-architects/

   Reply
8.   0

   And, Lou, here is the answer to your “How could or should this self-evident ‘contrast’ be approached?” : http://www.archdaily.com/138151/parasite-office-za-bor-architects/. I do not mind this one at all.
   ;-)

   Reply

Share your thoughts