Comments on: Emergency Terminal / Produkcija 004

By: AD Review: From the Archives | ArchDaily

AD Review: From the Archives | ArchDaily — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:25:44 +0000

[...] Produkcija 004Emergency TerminalMeasuring up to the high criteria of contemporary architecture, the emergency terminal can serve 2 million citizens. The steel skeletal construction with supported ceiling plates meets [...]

By: Maged Butter

Maged Butter — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:05:17 +0000

Emergency Terminal / Produkcija 004 http://bit.ly/mYdTFj #Zagreb #architecture

By: ArchDaily Building of the Year Awards 2009: The Finalists | ArchDaily

ArchDaily Building of the Year Awards 2009: The Finalists | ArchDaily — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:36:27 +0000

[...] Emergency Terminal / Produkcija 004 (vote | project page) [...]

By: Muse

Muse — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:23:16 +0000

I must agree with you; the building IS milky-translucent, but not in the “obvious”, glass-covered way. From the distance is seems like a white solid, but as you’re getting closer it reveals it’s inner structure and form, giving us an interesting visual experience.

Therefore, aerial photos can’t show us the building’s spatial effect and it’s radiosity – that is, in my opinion, a correct statement.

The subject of showing function on the facade is here both affirmed and denied, for many hours could we discuss the pros and cons of this approach.

I’ve heard, though, that some functional faults exist – it is something that only the users are allowed to comment. I’m no doctor or a nurse ;)

All in all, visually and technically refreshing and inspiring, yet to be prooven good (functionally) architecture.

By: Zitoon

Zitoon — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:40:51 +0000

Blackstone : do you dare show us some of your work?

By: Pernille

Pernille — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:28:59 +0000

I have to say I’m very happy to see these pictures.
I lived in Zagreb a year ago during the construction period. Already by then I found the building very interesting and also quite well functioning visually during the day. and it is true, you basically only pass it by car and the facade changes character as you pass by.
I like how someone detected a problem, in this case how to get the patient to the right department the fastest way, and then made an architecture that deals with this problem in a very simple, but clever way.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:37:29 +0000

How?

By: David Basulto

David Basulto — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:00:38 +0000

It complies with US fire proof standards.

By: mas

mas — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:33:32 +0000

My mistake, I assumed square meter not square foot. Didn’t read carefully.

By: Gorgos

Gorgos — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:26:05 +0000

15000 square meter for 15 mil euro = 1000 euro/m2

approx 11 square foot in 1 square meter = 90 euro/f2

exchange rate is approx 1.5 -> 90 x1.5 = 135 dollars per square foot.

By: mas

mas — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:59:14 +0000

Project area: 15,000 sqm
Budget: 15 mil. Euro

How do you get 130 usd?

Anyway, I’ve seen this building and it does impress you more than pictures.

By: dog_race

dog_race — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:24:09 +0000

http://tinyurl.com/yhgbth9
Emergency Terminal / Produkcija 004 | ArchDaily

By: bla

bla — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:27:50 +0000

i wasn’t fooled by the photos because i live nearby and see that terminal almost every day. it really doesn’t look solid, that’s a fact. and i like it this way, much more than i would like it if it had glass facade- but that’s my opinion, you really don’t have to agree with me ;)
+those aerial photos don’t mean a thing, no one sees it from that perspective
it’s wrong to judge architecture by the photos you see ‘cos that’s not what architecture’s all about, but hey, i do it too for most of the buildings..

By: blackstone

blackstone — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:42:51 +0000

NOT solid? let’s not be fooled by the photos taken at dawn or dusk, which are nice but a fleeting condition. a couple other photos clearly indicate just what a big, white, monolithic box this is during most of the daylight hours.

By: motefan

motefan — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:33:34 +0000

Just wanted to point out that the cost of construction for this project is about US$130 per square foot. That’s amazingly low for such a well-executed building. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find similarly cost-effective projects on this blog.

By: Arno M

Arno M — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:12:49 +0000

Emergency Terminal / Produkcija 004 http://bit.ly/3s18T2 Innovative porgram and nice details. #architecture.

By: robert

robert — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:34:47 +0000

that light cube has nothing to do with the site, modern materials doesn’t mean all the time great arch….just my thoughts

By: bla

bla — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:08:33 +0000

don’t know about the others, but i really like it during day, the building has a dreamy look, all white and semi transparent and.. not solid. And since there’s no public spaces near, you mostly see it from your car/bus.
so while driving towards it, you see something rising above surrounding building, but doesn’t look like one itself.

By: bla

bla — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:29:32 +0000

that too, but it’s more like a parking building for ER vehicles

By: powkey

powkey — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:50:35 +0000

What is an emergency terminal!? It looks like a place where helicopters carrying wounded can drop them off to be switched to ambulances and the other way around. correct?