Comments on: Miyi Tower and Master plan / Studio SHIFT and SWA Group

By: YILUN ZHANG

YILUN ZHANG — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:11:46 +0000

Reading: "Miyi Tower and Master plan / Studio SHIFT and SWA Group | ArchDaily"( http://twitthis.com/p2pf6t )

By: VisualBloc.com # On with the show! » Miyi Tower and Master plan / Studio SHIFT and SWA Group

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:47:11 +0000

[...] on http://www.archdaily.com/23552/miyi-tower-and-master-plan-studio-shift-and-swa-group/ Share and [...]

By: yoonhee

yoonhee — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:52:17 +0000

Miyi Tower and Master plan / Studio SHIFT and SWA Group – http://shar.es/brwn

By: zga

zga — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:51:41 +0000

why is this facade considered fancy? it’s only angled differently than most – different than what most are used to. It probably relates to the sun more efficiently this way, but in the end, it seems just as arbitrary as a rectilinear facade. What is it about angles that disgust traditionalists so much? It does feel less rigid, more exciting, of the times.

By: borja

borja — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:43:57 +0000

these russians are pretty amusing
hi guys!

By: Tarek sakkal

Tarek sakkal — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:55:34 +0000

By: Yazdani Studio

Yazdani Studio — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:16:35 +0000

RT @archdaily (these are our friends…check it out:) Miyi Tower and Master plan / Studio SHIFT and SWA Group http://bit.ly/ZEINJ

By: 2MACoff

2MACoff — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:14:11 +0000

Я не говорю что мне не нравится В А Л А С Я Ч К А это первое что приходит на ум кода вижу этот объект…класная валасячка карочеее…

By: BROSALIN

BROSALIN — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:48:42 +0000

мне нравится….

By: Timothy

Timothy — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:08:55 +0000

Interesting discussion on the fundamentals of architecture: program, forma, material, use, artsmanship… None of these fundamentals are easy to read in a design like this. And, with the risk of being called “traditionalist”, i strongly belief that projects with a kind of design-language of “freeformbulpyness-and-no-worries” will be out of order sooner than we think. Sure, China and the new-world awaits… but what about the simplicity of a good “house”. A house, office or even church (program) is more than a shell, and needs the word ‘dwelling’ to complete it. That’s right, dwelling as fullfillment of architecture. Read Heidegger people, and projects like this are nothing more than a joke.
My goodness, think of the person making the drawings for this building; poor fellow-wannabe-architect trying to conceive the technical specifications; poor architecture, it made itself a joker.

By: viniruski

viniruski — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:15:36 +0000

Weak equation with no sum. If you’re going to build four bridges of circulation that meet in the middle of a river, the expectations are that something will happen at this meeting place. it looks like people will just make their way up to the top of the tower and jump off?

Interesting form though. Just needs more architectural development. Try thinking like a monkey working in Eisenmann’s office. EE ee ah ah [scratch armpit].

By: borja

borja — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:48:28 +0000

personally… i dislike what i see here
concerning to heritage, even though i’m not at all an expert in chinese history, i live in shanghai since more than year and a half, and this project, or what i can see of it, doesn’t recall any blink of chinese culture at all
my comment is quite straight since the beginning. like/dislike is an old topyc in arts. as i see it, this problem, in architecture at least, has a way to be treated, this is, aesthetics derive from ethics, and it’s when a design, a shape, shows in its configuration a whole logic which lies behind, it’s then when i personally (at least i’d like to do it that way) when i presonally find it “good looking”, “beautiful” or “nice”, call it as you want.
besides, for sure, there are parameters in aesthetics, which don’t always get linked to this, which work separately, which come from reasons which we don’t control much, from personal inclinations. you might like this or that color, you might like this or that shape, you feel a light inclination to a certain composition… but, at the end, if a design is coherent, it gets your attention, and makes sense, and gives beauty
personally, i don’t find anything very interesting in this case, just a fancy looking rendering work

By: le.salomon

le.salomon — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:24:31 +0000

well,in an earthquake aera……

By: 2MACoff

2MACoff — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:15:42 +0000

В А Л А С Я Ч К А ! ! !

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:08:52 +0000

I don’t see any connection of this building with Chinese heritage. Anybody? I’d guess that Studio SHIFT and SWA Group did some research to support such the claim… why it is not included in the project description? At least a summary would be helpful. As for this form being art… well everything can be art… a pile of old stinky shoes too… it’s just a question of who do you address your piece of art to… I wonder if this would be proposed to a, say, City of LA?

By: Tort

Tort — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:47:26 +0000

By the way… As I look to the Master plan I see interesting spaces in headquarters of this territory. Water is being used very efficiently, main roads are isolated by trees, individual traffic is organised well and public pathways doesn’t cross main traffic arteries. There’s a lot of green public spaces by the river. I could even see the yacht club. All public interests are concentrated in beautiful nature (Miyi building also) to be part of society, not part of individuals. Living quarters has it’s hearts with some green commercial spaces. It’s our foult if we are lasy enough to see just visualisations.

By: Tort

Tort — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:28:58 +0000

Well, I don’t know how through visualisations it would be possible to represent pure mathematics. And if we’re judging architecture as art I see visualisations handy enough to represent it. In my oppinion there’s not enough space in 5 min article to give all the answers about what problems did this building solved and how efficient it is. It’s an abstract form of what have been done. Engineers have calculated the energy efficiency, urban developers saw what effects would emerge to the surroundings… Sure, if we would see the calculations we could say what’s inside the facades, but as we’re proud of being artists we lack this ability to understand mathematics. My point is – let’s judge facades if there’s nothing else given…

By: Luis Carlos Gomes

Luis Carlos Gomes — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:06:23 +0000

Spider cibernetic project. Cool and new design. Inside the city i can image the visual impact.

Brazilian Architect

By: thiago

thiago — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:58:26 +0000

tort… i think really the opposite.. architecture must have its “art” factor, but in reality it must be a technical thing, something that solve problems… but what I see when I look at these new “facades” made by computer is that is really easy to make any ‘beautiful’ drawing and find an excuse to explain it, like “The energy producing tower, along with the ecological features of the promenade, will allow Miyi County to become the region’s leader in sustainability.”
this building is not sustainable. the facade is a mere vague representation of the heritage, and so on, but the architects keep saying that….
I’m not against this building in particular, but in the act of using this ‘technology’ to explain things without a critical though… just look at AD archives, a lot of “concept facade” buildings are here, but what they represent?
and i quoted mr eisenman with this well know phrase, but I can quote the simpsons for saying exactly the same with the monkeys that write the krusty’s show, if you ever watched that…

By: Nick Downes

Nick Downes — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:39:01 +0000

RT @jastrapko Miyi Tower clad in shimmering PV tinsel: http://bit.ly/1818L8 Visually stunning