Comments on: Stadsdeelkantoor Zuideramstel / Claus en Kaan Architekten

By: B

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:42:47 +0000

and that’s just not how it works, less volume means less budget…

By: Howi

Howi — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:28:22 +0000

I agree with the comment of ema, any architect should take out the esthetical maximum for the given money. but the problem Is always, how far do we go in the scale. Less volume for higher quality gives us more I think. Otherwise we always agree with the speculative architecture with its predominant ecomomical background instead of the humanistic.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:34:17 +0000

I don’t like the Dutch architecture. I think it’s most of the time outdated, but this is only my personal idea

By: ema

ema — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:07:32 +0000

I think people have to deal with budgets as well. Before start to be negative, please see the budget (1215€/m2). With this amount I appreciate the idea of doing an aesthetically clean project – to be filled in creatively by the users. I am not saying that this is top – but it looks that the brief was not allowing to have much more on the plate.

By: james webb

james webb — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:29:03 +0000

brought to you by the architects that work inside this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/artifice/994461141/in/set-72157602940633038/

By: christopher

christopher — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:01:30 +0000

white stucco…nm

By: christopher

christopher — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:00:27 +0000

my only big complaint is that architects who do exposed concrete exterior facades rarely think about how terrible they look in the rain. its like the building’s mascara is running…minimal yes, but not completely thought out.

By: oscar falcón lara

oscar falcón lara — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:53:02 +0000

The hanging stairwells are a great detail. I don’t think however that it’s boring or otherwise bad, it was build for a specific purpose and for specific clients, and more importantly, “it was built” so there must have been concessions and meetings and a thought process and budget planning before setting the first shovel into the ground. Not everything is meant to please everyone not every building designed and built for everything, get that through your head archdaily commenters.

By: Daidaloos

Daidaloos — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:40:15 +0000

Sure…but there might be a way of not being boring with just using materials in a surprising way instead of focusing on formal novelty all the time (this project does not do either of course). After all this is just a housing project. Is housing today meant to be iconic?

By: hector

hector — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:48:32 +0000

its to plain and boring for my like, it seems dry and unattactive sometimes its best to leave the past behind us and move along with the times.

By: Daidaloos

Daidaloos — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:29:54 +0000

Without commenting on the organisation at all i think that actually, the main reason why this building will not be remembered for its architectural value is not the repetitive pattern of windows, no problem with that, but the detailing that is actually in my opinion very poor (aesthetically) although, ironically, minimal. For those familiar with i.e Peter Markli`s office buildings this will be easy to understand. This kind of architecture needs more articulation in details, think Mies.

By: jubair siddeeque

jubair siddeeque — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:34:38 +0000

I completely agree with you jason. This is not minimal. This reflects the modern movement in the 1970/80′s. There is nothing minimal or intelligent about this. This is just stacking floor slabs on another. There is just a thoughtless repetition of openings.
The least they could have done is balance the openings to create some interest. This will go down as just any other public building developed by some in house government architects who just do their job.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:16:33 +0000

Again, clean, well detailed architecture is appreciated, even preferred… but this looks like not even trying.

Your point about the different uses is a good one. Why does every window on every facade look the same? Why is the exterior material the same everywhere. This is a building of multiple uses!? Could’ve fooled me… again.. IT LOOKS LIKE GENERIC OFFICE PARK ARCHITECTURE.

And no, criticizing a clean, well detailed project doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate those things, it just means I think they need to do more than that. It also doesn’t mean I’m looking for some crazy, blobby, rhino, rendered, excitement.

The “excitement” I would like to see is infinitely more subtle and intelligent than that. People should not assume that everyone who criticizes a clean, well-detailed project is a first year architecture student that just discovered Maya.

By: Gorgos

Gorgos — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:11:47 +0000

They definetely have the trackrecord to prove your theory, Z99.
I also feel the need to defend this well detailed and organized building somewhat.

It confuses me that there is no differentiation between the two volumes, while these are two different uses (residential and office). I think the aesthetics and cleanliness of the whole project are a better fit the offices a lot better.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:09:40 +0000

Firstly, I’m not looking for any “craziness”, I dislike that type of architecture. I despise Maya/Rhino architecture more than this, but that does not make this “good”. I appreciate intelligent, thoughtful minimal architecture. This is not that.

This does not appear to be thoughtful, minimal architecture. It does not appear to create intelligent spaces that I would want to exist in. Again, if it does do these things and I’m somehow missing it, please point it out to me.

It does indeed look like the 1970′s/80′s, repeated, identical floor plates stacked on top of each other. It looks like typical developer office park architecture. I’m simply asking if it is not that, for someone to explain to me how it is not.

By: bumb

bumb — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:01:34 +0000

It’s not a minimalism. It’s just a modern architecture ala 70′s.

By: z99

z99 — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:38:05 +0000

As boring as this may seem, it’s very difficult to achieve this type of minimalism and have it look good, only those with mature design sensibility are able to do this. The craziness or “artistic” architecture that you might be looking for is very easy to achieve – just pull a bunch of points in Maya or Rhino…

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:14:46 +0000

Ok… so I admit I didn’t read this post… only glanced at the pictures. Is this a joke or am I just not getting the architectural significance of this? I mean were the designers were trying here? I’m a big fan of minimalism, simplicity, etc… but this looks like generic monotonous boredom. What am I missing here? Why is this significant, or “good”, or worthy of our attention?

By: Architecture+Molding

Architecture+Molding — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:27:17 +0000

Stadsdeelkantoor Zuideramstel / Claus en Kaan Architekten:
Architects: Claus en Kaan Architekten/ Felix Claus .. http://bit.ly/TgZDw

By: Architecture Topic

Architecture Topic — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:47:33 +0000

Architecture #Architecture: Stadsdeelkantoor Zuideramstel / Claus en Kaan Architekten… http://bit.ly/GmgZQ