They also don’t “reference Paladio” per se (though they show the Villa Rotunda), but rather claim to “conflate the inverse spatial paradigms” of the Western villa’s outward focus to the landscape together and the Chinese courtyard house’s inward focus. This has to do with the complexity of the void space as much as with window types. Had they wrapped the spiral circulation around a “real patio” as you suggest, and left it at that, you’d have the standard hierarchy and purity of a central courtyard, and not the site specificity and spatial complexity they’re obviously shooting for. I’d also argue the spiral doesn’t get lost in “all the twisting” as you claim, but the twist actually registers and reiterates the spiral. You seem to prefer a purity and clarity that the architects simply aren’t interested in; so in saying “what should have been the main concept”, you must mean ‘what would have been’ YOUR main concept had it been your project.

Those inner patio and Palladio references aren’t “really” present in the proposed design.

That void in the middle isn’t a “patio” (courtyard for the non spanish speakers) It’s more a duct chase, It will get sun only at 12 m and thats it, too small in proportion to the footprint and on top of that its like 3 stories high.

And as for the palladio reference, they punched out windows in the exterior walls, and 2 areas with floor-ceiling glass, wow….how clever…windows in a wall, who knew!

I think what’s interesting, but it gets lost in all that twisting, is the “ascending spiral” scheme, that’s what should had been the main concept, wrapping an ascending spiral around a real “patio”.

my 2 cents.

Now lets talk about the project.

It looked hideous at first, but after reading the description it at least dares to try and work with a solid range of ideas.
I’m not sure what it would be like to live in it, but its certainly better than a lot of the other things we have seen.

I think the problem here is that the exciting views are internal, but I guess thats the point.

The issue seems to be how the windows are articulated on the facade. The courtyard elevations are handled well,
then it decends into a ghery-ish scheme externally with mundane square windows in a typical/familiar style. These detract us from the monumentality, especially at the entry.

Its probably far more considered and detailed than other Ordos projects, but I think that showing driveways, boring fences etc in this arena may detract from the good aspects.

This is not a easy design. People worked long on this project without getting loose on the beginning idea. (is that proper english? I have no idea)

I agree with Bothands, nice essay

First off, what exactly is desirable about “normal” in this instance? If you want “normal”, there is plenty of crappy normal modern architecture covering the earth (far more than abnormal, unfortunately). “Normal” goes against the whole idea of Ordos 100 anyway, which for better or worse assumes 100 artful and unique villas to be sold speculatively (essentially architecture with a capital A, architecture as art or for art collectors), as part of the new art-based community they’re trying to develop.

Then, aside from the fact that this particular design looks to be all about bringing in light and air, some response to local typology, site, climate and views, proposing local building materials, is arguably a pretty functionally-driven design out of the villas presented thus far, the immediate “neighborhood” and “surroundings” at this site for Ordos 100 consist of sand dunes, a couple of brand new public buildings and art studios, and ultimately 99 other wacky villas.

Lastly, the “design school” your beloved FLW did start is still churning out dreadfully formulaic, mediocre copies five decades after his death.

So maybe on top of your many yearning questions, you can add: “Why am I asking so many misguided, misdirected and unanswerable questions?”.

Why architects don’t respect neighbourhood, local traditions and harmony with the surroundings?

Why an architectural design must be strange or outrageous to draw attention to be called “good”?

Why “art” takes over functionality and common sense doesn’t count much anymore?

What happened to an old and good design school developed by FLW?

When will we get that people belong to the ground, not to the sky or underground? That we need to live and work in functionally comfortable and healthy spaces with natural (and clean) light, air, water and verdure?

Is better time coming any time soon?

And to Eric Glez and gmlgrl, I’d say that it doesn’t matter who did it, as long as it’s good design. If it’s good design or not is up to the beholder, however versed in the architectural understanding that individual might be. It only really matters how the place feels when you’re inside it. Architects should present their work as if their clients have already been to the building.