Comments on: Lavender Lake Competition winners announced

By: Carroll G.

Carroll G. — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:56:04 +0000

It’s nice and all, but it’s not right for the area. It won’t fit in with the horrible train station, Lowes’ and projects near by. I vote NO.

By: critique

critique — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:10:54 +0000

more talkitecture than architecture

By: suckerPUNCH

suckerPUNCH — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:40:14 +0000

RT @archdaily Lavender Lake Competition winners announced http://bit.ly/22MSxS

By: JJ

JJ — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:15:42 +0000

That’s a great idea! I often wonder if the people writing the text even know what they’re talking about.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:05:46 +0000

haha I love it! Does anyone know of an existing collection of the best examples architect talk? If not, I am starting one right now!

By: JJ

JJ — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:57:01 +0000

I would challenge everyone to disregard the images and focus only on the text. I find it infinitely hilarious how architects represent their ideas in prose. “The project’s parti allows for the multiplicity of the datum rather than it’s displacement?”

I happen to like the winner both for the simplicity of their idea and the clarity of their text.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:02:52 +0000

I don’t know what all of this talk about getting a C is all about. You are expected to do so much work in school that if you turned in one page at the end you would fail. This competition on the other hand looks like they required on page only. So you get what you ask for.

That being said, I think the winning project is the strongest with the 3d drawing pretty clearly illustrating what could potentially be a very good and usable public space. Exactly what it is used for is a bit unclear, as is the relationship of the factory to the public. This could have been helped by improving the other 3d drawings.

I also think that all of the projects could have investigated what makes “public space” good. As Gowanee pointed out, a baseball field was better than all of these projects. Maybe their projects could have been better if they realized that this area was being used for a sport and a few trees did not make up for the loss of that space.

By: ariel

ariel — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:32:11 +0000

Thank you Dariusz!
I thought I was going crazy. I am also still in Uni but I know that if I would submit a similair project i couldn’t expect more thana C. One dimensional with a few roofs turned up on an angle with “green” painted on. Empty space with no value or direction. Very poetic concept but in my opinion it will end up becoming a corner to pee in.

sorry for being so direct.

By: Dariusz

Dariusz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:20:51 +0000

And seriously.. If I presented the plan or the section of the winner to my professor at university, I would have been given a C if not worse.

“art factory, an open public space, a beach, a picnic field, a crop garden, a space for the community and for culture, a land open to the water, the city and the arts” isn’t this a bit too much to work with. Have one or two great ideas and go with it. This is why I think the project lacks success in my eyes.

By: Dariusz

Dariusz — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:15:18 +0000

I don’t know.. I don’t see any amazing interesting spaces by the first award winner.
By the looks of these, architecture seems to have become ALL about form and nothing about joints,detail,construction or even beautiful, intricate spaces. The studioteka seems like the most developed and realistic design, yet something complete different (Zaha-like) was put in this honourable mention too. I don’t know what it is these days. I really don’t. Difficult to tell what the winning projects should be..