Republic Square / Eric Owen Moss Architects
Eric Owen Moss Architects created a mixed use tower that neighbours the capitol building in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The republic square is part of a large-scale development across the city of Almaty.
The tower itself is 126,000 square feet that will be divided up between retail, office, hotel and residential spaces. The building is a long tower which is anchored to the ground by a 38 meter diameter spiral. This feature will enclose an indoor plaza or ‘winter garden’ connecting the two sides. The spiral provides major support for the structure and encapsulates the five public venues near the ground level. In between these five spaces, four courtyards let natural let in and are each shaped to represent the four seasons of the year.
Seen at designboom. More images after the break.
Related articles:
30 comments »
Why are architects allowed to present these buildings with magical sheets of glass that require no structure! what is it really going to look like??? I have a feeling all of those bubble shapes will appear as a ball of mullions and supports.
Disappointing….to say the least.
This to me looks agressive, hostile, ugly.
I would be very sad to have so much money spent on a building like this in my city.
Really the more I look at it the more I CAN’T STAND IT
I think his office hired some SciArc/Columbia grads who are pimping 3ds Magic 2009. The section is compelling if the building would actually cut away like that. Otherwise these courtyards are going to be pretty dark chambers.
It seems like this complex is designed for extraterrestials…
Is this art? Or an attempt to be original at any cost?
please archdaily do not publish this kind of proyects, is this a joke?
hmm, I don’t like this project :D
Mars attacks again!!!!!:))))))
I think ArchDaily should post these projects. It is by a well known and respected architect and is a major project. we need to see this so we know what awful architecture is happening in the world
mmm its nice… i like.
the building hang loose like mouth of tired dog or the vajeen of my sister.
You’re all correct they should only publish “architecture” as the world has known it for the last few thousand years so no new dialogue ever occurs and cad monkeys that just reuse details can continue to call themselves architects. Not saying I’m a huge fan of the project but at least pretend like you have a brain, can think independently, and can discuss a project that may not fit Webster’s definition of architecture. Lame.
Yeah, K! you go girl/guy. I agree completely.
K. there is a BIG difference beetwen NEW DIALOGUE and brainless EXHIBITION like in this case, where main or only stuff that motivated this architecture is “To be different no matter what!” CAMP Architecture!!!!!!!!
This isnt brainless, this is his style. I think it is ugly but that is my taste. It is far from brainless
I didn’t mean to say that he didn’t use his brain to create this shape..etc. But in my point of view design should be a tool which should improve the use of the objects and to create more and more efficient ways to do some functional process inside the structure. That is such a big field to explore in architecture which will definatelly lead to NEW DIALOGUE in architecture. That’s why I said brainless since no creativity have been put into that part of design only in the shape of structure. Architecture is a tool that should help improving living and pushing borders in that way. Today we see that it is mostly forgotten and serves only in a way of selfpromoting. Sad but true!
“design should be a tool which should improve the use of the objects and to create more and more efficient ways to do some functional process inside the structure” –Balkan
I agree efficiency and functionality are important aspects of architecture but when that is the only criteria you use to judge a project, you are operating more like a traditional engineer and not an architect (I say traditional because many engineers are now a driving force for innovative design.) There is a lot more to architecture than efficiency, so I would suggest forgeting some of the rules you learned in books, look at the world around you, and enjoy the fact that you are in a field that gives you the freedom to express yourself. Just my opinion.
I like the discussion but let me take this opportunity to ask the above contributer “PARTICK BATEMAN” to stick to nudie magazines and not bother visiting this site anymore you loser.
Point01: “…“PARTICK BATEMAN” to stick to nudie magazines and not bother visiting this site anymore you loser.”
Point02: “…and enjoy the fact that you are in a field that gives you the freedom to express yourself.”
hm……….:)
Of course they should publish this kind of projects. I think they should publish every project they can. Is up to us then to judge the architect. I guess that’s the point of ArchDaily.
No one said that Eric Owen Moss isn’t contributing to the ongoing dialog in global architecture. The question centers on exactly what that contribution is. Yes, not every comment in a public blog is going to make sense, but many of the regular posters here do make sense and many more make an effort to do so across substantial language barriers.
It is going on 30 years now that I have been seeing E.O.M. projects and I cannot think of a single one that didn’t mystify me completely. Here I absolutely fail to see any point whatsoever. If anything, this seems to be a project about erecting barriers (linguistic, semantic, and physical access, etc.).
At the end the question is just why? Who can be convinced to sign a check to build this kind of a building in Kazakhstan?
As for the blog, I would rather look at this than Barbie’s house in China, which is just silly.
Terry Glenn Phipps
nice one nanoNone..!
The wrong building at the wrong time. Since there is no purpose in the design, I’m blind to appreciate it.
This was a competition about 2-3 years ago – EOM lost to Zaha Hadid, with NBBJ coming in second place. NBBJ submittal here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=570680
I think this would be fully buildable. The glass sheets can be like that roof in italy with triangles, light and beautiful.
I also think it shows a whole new approach to the modernist block. Traditionally there was some pillars in the bottom, creating a space. This is the same shit, only with some huge circles as structure.
The project, to me, seems pretty basic. Even without all the 3ds magic shapes, it has an obvious idea. I actually prefer the odd shapes, as opposed to a tube in the bottom.
I would also add that taste is a ridiculous term in relation to architecture. I agree that there is some non-functional part of a project, and for now I’ll call it poetry. This building is one scary poem, -and those are needed too. This project has some serious friction, -imagine breeding it with something smooth, like a hotel or what would happen if it was a hospital ? Exciting !
you are a tumbling, tumbling dickweed k.
“I agree efficiency and functionality are important aspects of architecture but when that is the only criteria you use to judge a project, you are operating more like a traditional engineer and not an architect (I say traditional because many engineers are now a driving force for innovative design.) There is a lot more to architecture than efficiency, so I would suggest forgeting some of the rules you learned in books, look at the world around you, and enjoy the fact that you are in a field that gives you the freedom to express yourself.”
K. I have no further comment on this since it seems like you have no knowledge in History of Architecture and it’s development. Enjoy your freedom!
More from that competition…it’s been a while now.
http://aesthetechtonik.com/2007/04/16/building-almaty-republic-square-competition/
It’s a really Borat Sagdyev project – he came from Kazachstan too! :-)
From one side it looks like a massive row of silos, dumping out heaps of grain. Based on that as my first impression I find it very cold and aggressive looking and definitely something I would want in my city.
Links to this article »