Comments on: AMD’s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners

By: HW

HW — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:14:58 +0000

And the harm in having neoclassical banks would be ?

Yes, I too personally like more innovative solutions, but I
only have one vote. Like I said, I realize that in matters
of aesthetics we are merely voicing opinions.

In instances of mass-produced design there is generally an
effort to find out what the market wants, in terms of an
image. However, for most ‘one-off’work it comes down to what the owner and designer arrive at.

Don’t get me wrong, I love innovation, but many architects
take an arrogant and cavalier attitude toward most people’s
appreciation of what we would consider traditional or even
banal.

By: asdf

asdf — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:37:57 +0000

We’re getting caught up here in a great deal of pointless discussion, although plots seems to have a good handle on the issues thus far. I’d like to introduce another. Without getting into the discussion of whether LEED in general does more good than harm, does it not bother anyone else that we’re still building on these kinds of sites? And in this mode of programming (i.e. one use, office, built at least a considerable distance away from the city)? It seems this immediate failure is the biggest problem here. Banal design or not, this doesn’t belong here. How do people get here? how do they go get lunch? There are a lot of banal projects in, for instance, NY, but it doesn’t matter all that much because the city begins to work as a whole whether the design sucks or not. Even w/out being LEED accredited, the mere location does more towards that end than any possible budget here could recreate. I think that LEED really needs to address the site issue more seriously. At the extreme end, perhaps any non-urban site must immediately disqualify a project. I know, it’s the only way this office gets built. Land is too expensive in the city. But for LEED to be taken seriously, it cannot compromise on the real issues. Maybe if there was more of a reward for building this way, then these extreme measures could be taken. Maybe there are big LEED real estate tax breaks. Why not? it’s expensive for the city to maintain development far from the center, so tax breaks might make sense. or maybe, even better, there’s a new federal real estate tax on non-LEED projects that guarantees the success of the program even if the bar is raised considerably, as it needs to be. sorry for the lack of structure, this one really burned me up, and even more when i saw none of the comments discussed this.

By: pacoasako

pacoasako — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:54:24 +0000

The building was old fashioned. Try to have tacky modern touches. It’s insulting to spend much money on copying designs of the Bauhaus. With the amount of land have been some dead lying on the ground.

Pacoasako.

By: Dariusz

Dariusz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:31:25 +0000

LEEDS of no LEEDS, this is so uninspiring.. 80′s architecture. easy to build, easy to design, boring.

By: plots

plots — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:13:56 +0000

there is a huge difference between aesthetics and good design. I’d reference Gehry’s building at MIT in this case, I personally find it to be one of the ugliest buildings I’ve ever seen, and it’s falling apart at the seams but the users of that building love it because of the intricate and careful way in which he organized and employed the space and the circulation.

There are plenty of beautiful algorithmic projects emerging from research firms and universities right now but many of them end up being simply beautiful math objects without any thought to the human condition. I will agree that aesthetics is a matter of opinion but only to a point, a masterfully designed building reaches that status because it is functional, beautiful, and well incorporated spatially and programmatically and there is simply no way to argue about it.

Furthermore the concept that we shouldn’t be arbiters of, “what looks good,” I also disagree with. If we based all our decisions on what the average person thought architecture was we’d be building neo-classical banks and contractor catalogue homes. It is exactly because we have committed ourselves to furthering architectural design that we are qualified to introduce them to new forms and spaces. Does that mean they will like them? No, of course not, but if they are well done the average person will likely be surprised by what they like and that, in my opinion, is when our job is done.

By: dados

dados — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:49:35 +0000

to the above:

“what look’s good” doesn’t have anything to do with architecture.

By: HW

HW — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:19:09 +0000

As someone else who works with corporate clients on a daily basis, I know just how hard it is to achieve this level of design. I’m speaking strictly of aesthetics here, not environmental design. Aesthetic matters come down to opinions. When you call the “aesthetic police”, would you be surprised to learn that anyone can join that force? Like the people who work in and pay for those buildings? Its tempting to think that because we do this for a living and may have studied design for years, we should be the arbiters of ‘what looks good’. Keep in mind that aesthetic reactions are subjective.

By: plots

plots — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:23:37 +0000

I’d also say take a look at morphosis’ work on the San Francisco Federal Building. Naturally ventilated, employs a skip stop elevator, lighting energy draw reduced by natural lighting strategies, and use of recycled/green building materials at a truly large scale and all without sacrificing design.

By: peppy

peppy — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:54:42 +0000

agree with plots and Gary…
I suspect that being LEED certified done in USA sacrifice inspiring piece of architecture…
for this issue we can look at some interesting works from Behnisch

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:58:54 +0000

This gargantuan turdfest takes the proverbial cake in terms of banal tomfoolry. As someone who works with corporate clients on a daily basis, I say this architect was unwilling to push, nor even nudge the client in the right direction. Close this rat hole down before somebody calls the aesthetic police.

By: plots

plots — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:11:50 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly that it is an important step to get corporate clients to invest in green building strategies, especially in the states where we are so far behind the curve. However I think even more than before that it is the responsibility of architects to be extremely critical of the design merits of LEED certified work, just because it is conscious of the environment does not mean it is improving the status of architecture as a design field in the US. If we were to take the standpoint that being green gets buildings off the hook for uninspired design we might as well throw in the towel all together and just hire engineers to run some optimization tools on a box and call it a day.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:30:14 +0000

This is a huge step up for a corporate campus. True, it might look banal or “soulless” compared to some A-List architecture, and its not stylistically revolutionary or hip (and for that I expect it will get its share of bashing on this site). That said, as an architect who frequently works for corporate clients, I am immensely glad that even a small number of projects are headed this way. Even his level of design and sustainable planning is rarely built in corporate America…and for that this project gets my praise.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:39:23 +0000

Boring work. This is a great example of “sensitive” corporate architecture. Twenty years ago it would have been a mirrored glass box in a golfcourse-like landscape. Now it’s a kind of neo-vernacular set of boxes.

By: Miloš Milovanović

Miloš Milovanović — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:52:00 +0000

AMD’s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners | ArchDaily http://bit.ly/3gDNFI (via feedly)

By: EarthAdapt

EarthAdapt — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:01:55 +0000

#Green #Construction AMD’s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners http://bit.ly/XaeSR ; ) EarthAdapt.com

By: plots

plots — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:26:26 +0000

this seems kind of out of place, while LEED standards are worth recognizing it doesn’t change the fact that these are just another group of soulless corporate boxes. Maybe appropriate on a green building site for the technical accomplishment but little to no design merit that I can see

By: 1 of || us ||

1 of || us || — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:36:32 +0000

[arch] ตึก(เกือบ)ใหม่ AMD รับ LEED Gold certification เป็น green building http://bit.ly/cwksE

By: arhitectura

arhitectura — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:22:56 +0000

AMD’s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners:
Technology company Advanced Micro Devices’ (AMD) new “Lone Star” campus.. http://tinyurl.com/ygb26z2

By: Architecture+Molding

Architecture+Molding — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:18:50 +0000

AMD’s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners:
Technology company Advanced Micro Devices’ (AMD) new “Lone Star” campus.. http://bit.ly/ZdKvA

By: Architecture Topic

Architecture Topic — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:52:54 +0000

Architecture #Architecture: AMD?s Lone Star Campus / TBG Partners… http://bit.ly/18bj5Z