Tower Town / Visiondivision

© Visiondivision

When the Tower competition in Taichung asked participants for an iconic skyscraper, Visiondivision responded with a cluster of over 100 slender towers that challenges the expected experiences within and aesthetics of a 21st century tower.   Tower Town, a result of examining the traditional skyscraper and questioning its spatial offerings, creates a dense urban environment with its fragmented massing.

More about the project after the break.

© Visiondivision

This field of towers will create an experience that vastly differs from the single skyscraper.  The 100+ skyscrapers will form a network on the ground level of narrow streets with different vertical views, and in the sky, with different observation decks for communication purposes (in addition to structural demands).

© Visiondivision
“With our proposed typology, we wanted to make a truly unique experience for anyone visiting, working in or living in the new tower.  Our solution was to separate the building into over a hundred of sleek towers; this will make the complex more into a highly interactive and intimate city district than into one large building mass that has little to no interaction with its users,” explained Visiondivision.

© Visiondivision

“The sensation seeking of a high solitaire object has been the predominant show-off for the last century where the height has been limited to a combination of building technique and money…The tall lone building has been done so many times before, it doesn’t matter if you tweak it, swirl it, punctuate it, clad it with new materials; it still will more or less be the same. To make new world wonders, new typologies must be found, making architecture and spatial experience once again the main key to success,” added the architects.

© Visiondivision
© Visiondivision
Cite: Cilento , Karen. "Tower Town / Visiondivision" 05 Sep 2011. ArchDaily. Accessed 19 May 2013. <http://www.archdaily.com/166432>

20 comments

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      I think it looks like a 21st century rendition of Sagrada Familia. Silhouette-wise at least. If you look at Hans Scharoun’s drawings from the 1920s its the same crystalline vision…

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      It’s a terrible idea , never really think for the resident in the city. I live in Taichung, and I hate to see my city like this. dear designer, you want your city like this?

  1. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I don’t get it.

    Is there a floor plane showing how it can work ? (Don’t bother with impossible structure issues, juste typology and maybe fluids)

    Because right now everthing we can see is another attempt to get the “bilbao effect”.

    Funny thing the text is realy critical about formal operations. I don’t understand why exploding the tower is so different of twisting it.

  2. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Apparently you people don’t understand the scope of Visiondivision’s work. It is hypothetical… it starts a conversation. They are today’s Archigram in many ways. Fantastical is a shunning word. There are lots of implications to this spatial arrangement, both positive and negative. At least their exploring it, while you cowardly internet critics keep baking the standard modernist recipe for your designs.

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      Your’re right I don’t know Visiondivision’s at all but this article is clearly about high rise issues (even if just formal ones). So I think I’m not being “a coward internet critics” asking for more informations going in that direction.

      You seems to appreciate this office a lot. Maybe you have some answers.

      About the Archigram comparison. I would mind go in that field if there were any social background or some storytellingn that article wich again I don’t see and therefore I can’t understand.

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      I think that’s a foolish argument. The context for Archigram was entirely different. It was a time when architectural possibility was quite straight-jacketed by modernism. Now there are really no limits to what is formally acceptable. What you’re suggesting is a kind of retro-avant garde posturing, which is a silly position to take when people ARE building totally crazy looking buildings in inappropriate locations.

      I generally like visiondivision. They’re kind of sketchup OMA. But this has none of Archigrams critical bite.

  3. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    It’s a wonderful thing to create conversation starting visions of architecture. Surely, there are some fundamental aspects that need to be addressed and illustrated. This proposal could never work based on the lifting requirements alone. Each tower will need a separate bank of lifts and stairs and I guarantee you that there won’t be anything left for lettable space. Tall towers are a product of commercial realities and you can’t ignore that.

  4. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I clicked cause I thought I saw a sagrada familia-like structure, at the end it was disappointing

  5. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    This competition was about creating a landmark first and foremost, a place to attract the tourist crowd, and I mean, ofcourse this will get a lot of attention. I like the concept quite a lot, it is a landmark and a neighbourhood at the same time. I wouldnt mind exploring those narrow streets. Its futuristic and sort of medieval both at once. Good!

  6. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    I like it as an icon with spatial qualities, dont think archigram and visiondivision is to compare. I think the vd guys operates in a totally different time and I would rather compare them to some hiphop duo that likes fat beats and like to piss off turtlenecks stuck in the 60 s.

  7. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    May I ask why? Reason it, please someone.

    Or the towers are just nice? Nice for science fiction movies, yes.

  8. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    It was a enjoyable but challenging competition to take part in. I am quite sure each firm made their best efforts to create a landmark observation.

    The overall concept that was chosen is quite surprising and has some interesting qualities and our firm looks forward to seeing the other 4 teams designs.

    After taking part in both stages of this competition (this one and the first in October 2010) it is quite difficult to understand what the judges were looking for as a conceptual design. Last October’s winner was an impressive submission but it did not seem buildable.
    This years submission seems more realistic and thought out but did they actually build within the 1 Hectare requirement? Also the Taiwan government may enjoy this scheme, but do the people of Taichung City want this kind of tower in the skyline?

  9. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Might I add to my last comment that I was mistaken, and this team wasn’t even sort listed. Let us all wait and see what the winners schemes look like.

Share your thoughts