Dubai Tall Emblem Structure / Francois Blanciak Architect

By — Filed under: Skyscrapers , ,
 

Here’s Francois Blanciak Architects proposal for the TyssenKrupp Elevator Award to develop an iconic tall emblem structure for Zaabeel Park in .

This is one of the 926 proposals submitted for the competition.

Seen at designboom. More images and architect’s description after the break.

The tower is conceived as virtually reversible, its top and bottom parts having similar circular characteristics. In sharp contrast with the surrounding office buildings, the circulation core here is not the focus of the plan but an element around which the program of the tower oscillates. The lower part of the project contains a children’s library on level 1, and a series of 3 conference rooms on level 2.

As a reference to islamic architecture, a shaded arcade surrounds the ground level courtyard that leads to the entrance of the children’s library. Hosting an art gallery and designed as a prolongation of the movement induced by the rest of the building, the generously cantilevered top-level viewing platform offers a 270° panoramic view of the most scenic part of the dubai skyline.

Structurally, the tower is engineered as a continuous steel cage which transmits the load to the deep central foundations of the circulation core. As the two opposite horizontal parts of the tower are basically symmetrical, the weight of the podium is used to balance and stabilize the cantilever of the viewing platform.

 
 
Thumb up Thumb down 0
kc says:

this is an insult to architecture. what to they think with? honestly.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 20:13
Thumb up Thumb down 0
arch critic says:

looks like a hug branding iron…wtf

 
# May 13, 2009 at 20:19
Thumb up Thumb down 0
tommi says:

well, it’s in dubai anyway. no 1 cares whether they have architecture.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 20:22
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Juan Luis Burke says:

Pretty dull, no?

 
# May 13, 2009 at 20:45
Thumb up Thumb down +1
Peter says:

I’m a little concerned with the widespread over-use of that simple photoshop technique Color Halftone. It’s used here to, seemingly, hint at the surface representation of the underlying structural matrix (a la CCTV). In another posting today the same technique is used to superimpose a bamboo forest onto glass panels.

Both are fine, the structural one is far more troublesome than the other to me, but both are also simply photoshop button pushing…and I think that’s a little troubling.

We’ve all been led, specifically by the stunning work of Herzog & DeMeuron to desire these graphic/architectural fusions. HdeM graphic fusions go through stage after stage of refinement and study (given their notoriously rigorous aesthetic requirements). But rarely (maybe the Tenerife waterfront aside) do they allow a simple photoshop trick to be the final result; and even in that case, the technique is reinvested into the design process to produce a mutually reinforcing design.

Having used this graphic procedure in my own practice, I realize how easy it is to do…and how surficially good it looks. I also understand how expensive and time consuming it is to really take the initial results and refine them to become more of a component of the development of the overall design, and to be more generative. However I also see how quickly it drifts into visual cliche. If a designer doesn’t invest the time and energy to turn these simple photoshop techniques into something more fundamental to the concept undergirding a design it’s use immediately becomes no more interesting than those postmodern, or deconstructivist (guh!) cliches that are so much fun to for us to deride.

Here in China, I see frequent similar thoughtless re-applications of such project specific elements as the slashing windows of the Berlin Holocaust museum, or torqued diamond steel grid of the CCTV tower. Almost never are these reapplications anything but an expensive and glorified wallpaper. And nearly always they telegraph the underlying laziness of that stage of the design process.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 20:55
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Fino says:

I just hope this is possible, or better yet…..safe. I can’t lie about being very impressed if this can be pulled off. I would give this one a chance out of all the ridiculous feats that are going on in Dubai. This is actually something worth wasting money on.

that is all.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 21:52
Thumb up Thumb down 0
arch critic says:

peter peter pumpkin eater.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 22:42
Thumb up Thumb down 0
dustin says:

That is good insight Peter, I have to agree.
As for the Tower, when I first saw it I thought it represented some sort of Islamic or Arabian symbol. Something that the people of the middle east would identify with. If this was the case the project would seem a lot better justified to me. If not well… nice try.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 23:29
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Bonus says:

This sucks.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 23:46
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Ultra man says:

Peter, you are right for some case (Berlin Holocaust museum), but not for CCTV tower, Herzog & DeMeuron or more avant garde projects (read HONEYCOMB TUBE ARCHITECTURE-The spatial potentialities of hexagons) because there are not really a photoshop trick, but a real research into non-standardisation of winodow fabrication.
A lot of architect are too lazy to understand that it is beyond a photoshop trick, some would just copy the trick, others would just laugh about it, like a lot here.

 
# May 13, 2009 at 23:57
Thumb up Thumb down 0
gx says:

this building looks like the old school mosquito repellent you have in your room. SO IMPRACTICAL.they have to spend a lot more for the top impractical portion of this building. the skin of the building , that has gradient change in its hexagon or dont know what shape, is a copy.Go and check out, MAD architects has done it before, a lot more ppl has done it before. no originality, lol perhaps its ugly shape. architects these days tend to take peoples design idea, induce it into their design and say its their design. Worse, they dont even modify it. think of a new skin for your building of your own copy cat. this is a disgrace. dont even pubish this kinda work , cause its not worth to read.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 01:39
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Partick Bateman says:

Photoshop – Proof you CAN polish a turd.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 03:26
Thumb up Thumb down 0
David says:

Dubai is the graveyard of architectue. Architecture was never meant to be a circus, clownshow, freakshow, sad, very sad…

 
# May 14, 2009 at 03:46
    Thumb up Thumb down -1
    George says:

    Dubai is an amazing city with amazing architecture! What are all these hater comments about? We in the U.S. should be so lucky to have as many cutting edge buildings planned and in the process of being built. These comments in general have the air of being motivated by envy and jealousy.

     
    # September 5, 2009 at 18:43
Thumb up Thumb down 0
jiri says:

Wow. Cool. This is ingenious. Especially the section.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 04:13
Thumb up Thumb down +1
YS says:

Com’n Guys~ The skin of these buildings are just a T-shirt on person.

I do not think the designers of this tower care much of the skin. What he paid attention to is the iconic shape of it and the spatial feelings of the shape. The skin is just a beautiful wallpaper on the volume. You know, money is alway not a problem for those dubai clients, haha.

You can understand it like this: She has sexy legs and she picked a pretty fishnet stocking designed by others.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 04:24
Thumb up Thumb down 0
JasonW says:

This should not be here.
This is not Architecture.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 04:49
Thumb up Thumb down 0
francis says:

A cul-de-sac in every sense. Yet another consignment of meaningless trophy-type … thingy.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 05:12
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Jonjon says:

I think some giant has lost his cuff-link???

 
# May 14, 2009 at 05:39
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Anon says:

so fugly it hurts.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 06:12
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Abdullah says:

Looks like a huge bone!! Too bad to have it in Dubai, along with other ugly buildings,.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 07:27
Thumb up Thumb down 0
JJ says:

My soul is quietly weeping…

 
# May 14, 2009 at 08:48
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Davide says:

The question nowadays is NOT “can we do it???” BUT “do we need it???” I mean: we’re so fu…..ing far away from what those great pioneer of the concrete might have thought with such great new technology in their hands. I hope somebody will raise up his head and think one of these days.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 09:41
Thumb up Thumb down 0
scarpasez says:

Great points, Peter, though I understand that the patterning of the diagrid on the CCTV is in fact a direct diagram of the forces operating on the building. It is an operating structural response to the loading conditions.

To expand on your points, I think that your concern regarding this frivolously overused and undisciplined technique is echoed in a great deal of the criticism I read about Rhino, Maya, Generative Components, Grasshopper…all the various computer and parametric-driven design procedures that pervade the scene right now. What’s interesting, I think, is that this concern for misapplication of a tool or idea-du-jour is really nothing new…that one can find lesser derivations (this project, for example) of well-pioneered and deeply considered works (HdeM’s de Young Museum in SF, for example). This has been true for all time, really. I think that the larger criticism lies not necessarily in the specific technique that is misapplied as in the failure of mediocre designers to understand or synthesize them.

I also think there is plenty of room for lesser designers to utilize the ideas and explorations of the greats. I’m no Herzog or de Meuron, certainly no Peter Zumthor, yet I aspire to properly apply or emulate their approaches in my own work. I would, however, cautiously avoid overstepping my boundaries, and strive to keep my aspirations within the realm of my ability. The risk in today’s educational environment is that every young designer is taught that he or she may well become the next Zaha Hadid.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 09:47
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Bo Lucky says:

I think the Client deserves this kind of “architecture”. Money well spent…

 
# May 14, 2009 at 10:15
Thumb up Thumb down 0
BROSALIN says:

ybabuf? это крутейшая говнина!!!!!!

 
# May 14, 2009 at 12:20
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Someone from somewhere says:

take a look at the winners and laugh:

http://www.e-architect.co.uk/awards/thyssenkrupp_elevator_award.htm

 
# May 14, 2009 at 13:02
Thumb up Thumb down 0
JJ says:

Davide, I agree with you completely. I’ve been finding more and more that the simplest and best way to weed out the crap from the real architecture is merely to ask the question “why?” If that can be answered meaningfully in one sentence, then I think you have a piece of architecture. I imagine the response to the question for this thing would be a long pause and a befuddled expression.

Oh, and BTW “because you can” does not qualify as a response in my book.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 13:05
Thumb up Thumb down 0
o+c says:

Peter writes:
“We’ve all been led, specifically by the stunning work of Herzog & DeMeuron to desire these graphic/architectural fusions. HdeM graphic fusions go through stage after stage of refinement and study (given their notoriously rigorous aesthetic requirements). But rarely (maybe the Tenerife waterfront aside) do they allow a simple photoshop trick to be the final result; and even in that case, the technique is reinvested into the design process to produce a mutually reinforcing design.”

Actually in some cases HdM has handed over Photoshop files to subcontractors, and the subs have done all the work that you are referring to as ‘technique’.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 14:40
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Dweld says:

Sorry, making something big does not make it monumental or great. Really, not a very good object even if small, would make a bad sculpture at any scale and as for a building well… I think most everyone agrees.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 19:43
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Peter says:

Ultra Man, I think we agree on this point. In no way was I suggesting that HDeM were just button pushing, much the opposite. Also, as for CCTV I’m aware of where from, how, and the role of those at Arup had in the generation. I should have been clearer, i wasn’t trying to imply they were just making a graphic doodle. There’s a great interview in Domus with Rory McGowan, of Arup-China, specifically about the genesis and challenges of that facade.

O+C, actually I didn’t know that specifically about HDeM, but I don’t begrudge them for it. I don’t think one should consider the subcontractors somehow less invested or complicit in the design process…any quick look at an el croquis presentation of one of their project seems to imply that there’s more going on then just chucking a half-idea to some disinterested sub.

 
# May 14, 2009 at 19:47
Thumb up Thumb down 0
ct says:

Here is another interesting tower design by the same architect:
http://www.blanciak.com/Incheon3.html

 
# May 16, 2009 at 10:23
    Thumb up Thumb down 0
    George says:

    Bravo!

     
    # September 5, 2009 at 18:47
Thumb up Thumb down 0
francis says:

Hold on a min… I take my comment back. 100K USD 1st prize, 50K 2nd, and 3 x 20K prize …. who sucks, weep, half-toned, meaningless now aye?!? See my meaningless cul-de-sac winner in the next comp. Ha ha ha ha AHHH ha ha ha! Yes, I am a whore. 5 years and more I’ve given architecture … I weep.

 
# May 16, 2009 at 11:03
Thumb up Thumb down 0
dustin says:

I just realized this is the same guy who did the pile of terds proposal for the Tapei Performing Arts building… Wow.

 
# May 16, 2009 at 11:40
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Ralph Kent says:

Has it really come to this? Some people clearly have no shame.

 
# May 26, 2009 at 03:27
    Thumb up Thumb down 0
    George says:

    Men with no vision and a negative outlook on life as yourself are the shameful ones!

     
    # September 5, 2009 at 18:51
      Thumb up Thumb down 0
      David says:

      then what is the name for a man who calls somebody expressing his thoughts shameful? creating architecture is a process of thought, not a whimsical act of fancy encouraged by BIG money,

       
      # September 6, 2009 at 04:36
Thumb up Thumb down 0
Ralph Kent says:

George – what *precisely* is the vision here? As far as I can tell, as David said, this is just folly, building in a climate that increasingly will not be fit to inhabit, a crass one-liner of an attempted icon, a cynical five minute thought process diagram which the architect lazily wants translated verbatim into a building, funded exclusively by oil money, using huge amounts of air-con no doubt, so ex-pats from Microsoft and the like can go out to the Middle East and earn out their share options free of income tax / capital gains whilst living in gated communities insulated from all those nasty, aggressive arab people who want to kill them for being American or European. Sounds like nirvana, eh, never minding the 45′c heat which means you can’t step outdoors during the day. But Dubai wasn’t the point of my ‘shame’ comment.

All jokes aside, if you think that’s vision and architecture, I think you need to do a little more reading. Where, specifically, is the architectural merit of building a donut on a stick in the Middle East.

 
# September 9, 2009 at 12:56
Thumb up Thumb down 0

9:54 PM May 14th

OK. crazy building http://bit.ly/15JE5D

Thumb up Thumb down 0

5:13 AM May 15th

ARCHITECTURE NEWS: More Dubai crazyness: http://bit.ly/15JE5D

Thumb up Thumb down 0

5:45 AM May 15th

It seems a giant dog at Francois Blanciak Architects lost his bone in Dubai! http://bit.ly/15x49Y

Leave a Reply »

 

Latest Comments »

like this one most :D[+]
Facebook Funny Pictures on The C114 House / Postarch
It is the best time to make a few plans for the future and it’s...[+]
a very good work[+]
Completely awesome![+]
Must try harder. Or stop.[+]

Upcoming Architecture Events »

got events? invite us! click here

Architecture Books & Magazines »

Event: Tom Kundig and Mark Rozzo – Architectural Explorations in Books, a conversation presented by New York Public Library

Photo by Tom Bies | Courtesy of OSKA Architects

[ January 25, 2012; 18:00 to 20:00. ] Tomorrow, the New York Public Library will be hosting a talk between architect Tom Kundig of Olson Kundig Architects and Town & Country Executive Editor Mark Rozzo that will discuss “the role of place, nature, materials and craft in creating Kundig’s bold and…

 

Architectural Lighting: Designing with Light and Space / Hervé Descottes with Cecilia E. Ramos

Architectural Lighting: Designing with Light and Space / Hervé Descottes with Cecilia E. Ramos

As part of Architecture Briefs series, produced by The Foundations of Architecture, this short book on lighting gives a very good introduction into architectural lighting. The authors start by explaining the six visual principles of light; illuminance, luminance,…

 

KieranTimberlake: Inquiry

KieranTimberlake: Inquiry

We recently received KieranTimberlake’s newest book, Inquiry. Instead of listing one project after the next, as in most monographs, this book is organized around ten gerunds: bending, coupling, filtering, inserting, offsetting, outlining, overlapping, puncturing, reflecting, and tuning. This is…

 

Our partners »

AD on iPad via Pulse

Browse by date »

Browse by category »

Friends »