Comments on: Republic Square / Eric Owen Moss Architects

By: m

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:02:03 +0000

Almaty?… Kazakhstan? .. wow.. its a seismic zone!!!
Good Luck ;)

By: Eric Owen Moss Construction Manual 1988-2008 | ArchDaily

Eric Owen Moss Construction Manual 1988-2008 | ArchDaily — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:33:41 +0000

[...] the Multimedia Tower and 3555 Hayden Studios, and projects such as the Warner Parking and Retail, Republic Square and Glass [...]

By: rotorvision

rotorvision — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:00:48 +0000

sexed out!!!!….. i love this thing

By: angus

angus — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:50:38 +0000

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.

By: VisualBloc.com # On with the show! » Republic Square / Eric Owen Moss Architects

Thu, 07 May 2009 06:51:46 +0000

[...] Found on http://www.archdaily.com/21304/republic-square-eric-owen-moss-architects/ [...]

By: Borat

Borat — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:53:46 +0000

It’s a really Borat Sagdyev project – he came from Kazachstan too! :-)

By: ƒormæ

ƒormæ — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:07:58 +0000

More from that competition…it’s been a while now.

http://aesthetechtonik.com/2007/04/16/building-almaty-republic-square-competition/

By: Balkan

Balkan — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:15:04 +0000

“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!

By: Partick Bateman

Partick Bateman — Wed, 06 May 2009 07:55:05 +0000

you are a tumbling, tumbling dickweed k.

By: Mr. Cheap

Mr. Cheap — Wed, 06 May 2009 07:14:54 +0000

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 !

By: cmess

cmess — Wed, 06 May 2009 04:37:40 +0000

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

By: guido

guido — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:57:24 +0000

The wrong building at the wrong time. Since there is no purpose in the design, I’m blind to appreciate it.

By: flip

flip — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:01:29 +0000

nice one nanoNone..!

By: Terry Glenn Phipps

Terry Glenn Phipps — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:35:20 +0000

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

By: archiman

archiman — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:24:46 +0000

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.

By: nanoNone

nanoNone — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:13:17 +0000

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……….:)

By: K

Tue, 05 May 2009 20:46:45 +0000

“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.

By: Balkan

Balkan — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:11:51 +0000

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!

By: Daniel Con

Daniel Con — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:51:18 +0000

This isnt brainless, this is his style. I think it is ugly but that is my taste. It is far from brainless

By: Balkan

Balkan — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:43:22 +0000

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!!!!!!!!