Creative Arts Center / Diller Scofidio + Renfro
Diller Scofidio + Renfro‘s Creative Arts Center for the Brown University campus is slated for completion in 2010. The new 36,000 square foot center will include a 200 seat recital hall, 35mm screening facility, recording studio, multimedia lab, gallery space and large multi-purpose production studios.
More about the Arts Center and more images after the break.
Three uninterrupted floor plates provide spacious interiors for the center’s varying programmatic elements. A loft condition occurs as the major floor plates are cut along a sheer line and displaced in sections. The misalignment allows the spatial conditions to overlap and structurally, the placement allows the floors to interface two others, conjoined by a glass wall.
At the ground level of the center, the landscape is inclined toward the lobby entrance and partially descends along the rake of the recital hall. This space welcomes students and passersby, inviting all to enjoy an outdoor theatre.
As seen on designboom. Image courtesy of Diller Scofidio + Renfro.
any one knows the software they use for the renders?
thanks
sketch-up…pencils…and photoshop…
Good to see the next evolutionary step of the Eyebeam strategy.
*Fingers crossed that this one gets built*
Whatever they use there seems to be heavy Photoshop in all of them
wish there was more interaction between each level, instead of a cut that splits the building in two…
a second year student can do it better.
Are you serious?
It’s sad when the first comment to a post is what rendering software they use. I suppose it is a practical question. With that said…
I agree with GS, there should be more interaction between the two sides. The idea of a “loft condition” along the line of displacement is intriguing, but the renderings always show this condition separated by glass. This glass denies interaction between the lower and upper floors.
I know what is the deal with all the rendering software questions? Is there just a lot of new architecture students that hangout on Archdaily nowadays??
Btw, everything is post-edited with either photoshop or illustrator.
Whats the problem with asking about the rendering software? This is an architecture orientated website is it not? those images are renderes are they not? Part of are job is giving our projects a good presentation and knowledge about different rendering procedures is very important. If you don’t want to answer a very valid question then don’t, but there is no need to complain about it. At least come up with a good argument for the design if you don’t want to talk about the renders.
Do you just like asking rhetorical questions??? Fine I will concede that it is an important part of what we do but when it starts overriding the entire thread instead of talking about the architecture then it starts becoming a problem.
Looks like they’re trying to copy LTL’s rendering style (http://www.ltlwork.net/pages/portfolio/speculations/parktower.html) with some heavily saturated / heavily handed photoshop work.
As for the architecture….well, it’s not overly compelling. This is probably why everyone is interested in the “how” and not the “what”.
Still nothing new under the sun.
Paul Lewis, one of the principals of LTL use to work at Diller & Scofidio 15 years ago. So now you know who is copying who
Are you trying to point out that before Paul Lewis was at D&S they never used this type of representation, and since he has departed, they have continued to use it?
It seems that this language has developed in an interesting faction under LTL’s exploration, where as D&S appear to be rehashing the same methods that has been for a while now?
actually Diller & Scofidio were doing this before Paul worked for them and when he left he kept doing the same type of drawings, nothing wrong with that!
Acoustics could come into play when looking at the glass divider between the shifted levels. If it was open, like a conventional loft, there would be a lot of noise traveling into each floor.
As for the rendering style, yes, DSR has been around for a while and Paul Lewis seems to have taken that rendering style with him. Though this is true, dsr has changed their style slightly in recent years. I think now they use 3dmax with a combination of illustrator, photoshop, and hand drawn lines overlayed. LTL’s style is slightly–not as photorealistic when photoshopping.
it is my dream that this be the last post ever to be recorded on ArchDaily -
I totally agree.
Please lets focus on the architecture. As I see that many of you care about representation, I´m going to prepare an article so we can discuss/learn more about that on its own space.
SOLID STRATEGY
COOL!
it seems the current state of architecture is perfectly reflected in the responses to this project(about image instead of content, anyhow most responses to any project are about how they resemble something already seen before instead of looking beyond)
the style of drawing/rendering by the way is more of a Cooper Union style, where Scofidio is a professor for decades and Diller too and where LTL have studied.
Forget the rendering. Nice building, but it looks like they subbed the project out to Neil Denari. I question wheteher this search has been as authentic for them as others have been.
THE BUILDING LOOKS FINE, PLANS WOULD SAY MUCH MORE ABOUT ARCHITECTURE. THE RENDERINGS ARE VERY BAD. I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY DOES IT HAVE TO LOOK SO CLORFUL AND POP BUT IN A BAD WAY. TO CHEESY.
i think the real meaning of place is lost because of using so much effect!i mean,i cant understand the architectural sense,where is the walls really?roof?or chairs?
The major strategie seems to be very similar to FAUUSP, a Villanova Artigas project. Using floors on this way promotes a lot of situations, it makes the space really fluid. You can’t know if you are in the 3rd or 4rd floor. You see the 5rd and 3rd being on the 4rd, and are visible to them to.
A lot of combinations is possible with this architecture feature.
Nice, but it could be better, with more variations.
I may be showing my age but the LTL “style” is what we all learned when perspectives were done by hand.
The building has a very interesting street presence and stands in stark contrast to everything else in Providence. I’m interested to see the inside and if they were able to pull off the section shear concept and what it actually adds to the experience.
what i’m interested in is how/if the two sides can be cut off from one another…if this hasn’t been thought of i think it’s a mistake since there will be a lot of situations where being completely open to others seeing in or daylight etc will not be in the best interest of the individual uses..
also plans would be really nice..or even two longitudinal sections..
the main elevation is also less than impressive…i don’t mind an entrance being hidden, but it seems as though it should be treated with a little more importance…the whole building seems to be given the same broad brush.
also with the last ds+r buildings i’ve seen they seem to be moving in the direction of making a fancy skin and kind of leaving it at that…the envelope becomes more important than it’s contents…also the gesture of lifting the skin at the corner has now been repeated on at least three projects i’ve seen which starts to take on an air of either ‘signature’ or lack of origniality.
Just a quick note, it might be interesting to consider the similarities of this particualr build with that of Ravensbourne, London, by FOA. They’re both “creative” centres, with an emphasises of overlooking each other with floors staggered, but executed very differently.
2:18 PM Oct 29th
错层范例 http://t.co/gE5Yywjp via @archdaily