Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Proj...=2555&dop=True

    Funny, I thought we were supposed to be designing buildings that you inhabited, not pretending to be engineers making faux, unnecessarily complex machines to look cool and a bit dystopian / Bladerunner-esque.

    Probably explains where I'm going wrong. Or might explain why so many journalists who have been involved with the President's Medals this year think its a joke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jrhartley)
    http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Proj...=2555&dop=True

    Funny, I thought we were supposed to be designing buildings that you inhabited, not pretending to be engineers making faux, unnecessarily complex machines to look cool and a bit dystopian / Bladerunner-esque.

    Probably explains where I'm going wrong. Or might explain why so many journalists who have been involved with the President's Medals this year think its a joke.
    i don't think you can really define architecture as solely 'inhabited' space. what is your definition of this kind of space then?

    there are many examples of architecture which doesnt 'keep the wind and rain out' and it's still valuable and useful. Take the millennium bridge for example or Bernard Tschumi's landscape work.

    I wouldn't listen to journalists. Most of them arn't qualified architects.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Millennium Bridge is a structure. Tschumi's work is landscape architecture, sculpture or folly. This is essentially sculpture which doesn't, funnily enough, fulfill the RIBA's own criteria for a Part II project.

    and my opinion is not formed by journalists. I am just echoing their sentiment, as someone more architecturally qualified than many of them are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well at least it's more 'convincing' than the runner up which was some malarkey about knocking down London's skyscrapers to make habitable islands and bridges once London supposedly over-floods in 50 years time. These dystopian projects seem to do rather well in the presidents medals (last year's winner was one too I believe).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yeah, this year's winner seems very similar to last year's winner. its funny, the RIBA judging panel probably think they are being 'with it' and 'edgy' and that these neo-post-industrial dystopian futurescapes are very 'current'. It pretty much demonstrates how behind the curve the RIBA is. This sort of stuff has been done to death for about 10 years now. People don't want to hang around in shipyards, watching gantries moving bits of metal around, I'm afraid. It demonstrates the 'navel-gazing' element of architects, who believe that humans SHOULD find beauty in the scrapping and remodelling of old pieces of equipment.

    Architects would be better placed actually getting out into the world and seeing what people actually DO find pleasure in and trying to analyse what it is that they like about those activities, rather than trying to, in an aloof manner, impose some sort of austere, bleak industrial version of Disney on the poor public.

    COME AND SEE THESE BOATS BE CHOPPED UP. ITS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THIS STUFF. YES, ITS DULL, BUT IT IS VERY 'WORTHY' AND HIGHBROW IN A MEANINGLESS, SUPERFICIAL WAY. YOU OUGHT TO MARTYR YOURSELF A BIT. WE CAN TELL YOU STRAIGHT AWAY: YOU WON"T ENJOY IT, BUT YOU CAN GO OUT AND TELL YOUR MATES HOW ODD YOU HAVE BEEN TODAY

    is what these sort of projects shout.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jrhartley)
    yeah, this year's winner seems very similar to last year's winner. its funny, the RIBA judging panel probably think they are being 'with it' and 'edgy' and that these neo-post-industrial dystopian futurescapes are very 'current'. It pretty much demonstrates how behind the curve the RIBA is. This sort of stuff has been done to death for about 10 years now. People don't want to hang around in shipyards, watching gantries moving bits of metal around, I'm afraid. It demonstrates the 'navel-gazing' element of architects, who believe that humans SHOULD find beauty in the scrapping and remodelling of old pieces of equipment.

    Architects would be better placed actually getting out into the world and seeing what people actually DO find pleasure in and trying to analyse what it is that they like about those activities, rather than trying to, in an aloof manner, impose some sort of austere, bleak industrial version of Disney on the poor public.

    COME AND SEE THESE BOATS BE CHOPPED UP. ITS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THIS STUFF. YES, ITS DULL, BUT IT IS VERY 'WORTHY' AND HIGHBROW IN A MEANINGLESS, SUPERFICIAL WAY. YOU OUGHT TO MARTYR YOURSELF A BIT. WE CAN TELL YOU STRAIGHT AWAY: YOU WON"T ENJOY IT, BUT YOU CAN GO OUT AND TELL YOUR MATES HOW ODD YOU HAVE BEEN TODAY

    is what these sort of projects shout.
    It sounds to me like you have a severe case of sour grapes. Perhaps you did not get the oppurtunity to explore such concepts in university, if we can't do it now when can you explore them?. I don't 'spectator pleasure' is a criteria on the judges assesment in this case. I'm not saying this years winner is the best there has been comparitively. I find ship yards quite beautiful.

    Ok so if it wasnt this project, which one would you choose as the winner?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArchiBoi)
    It sounds to me like you have a severe case of sour grapes.
    It can sound to you like whatever you want it to sound like, I really don't care. You're wrong incidentally, its not sour grapes at all. I didn't enter, have no interest in winning badges, medals, biscuits, drinks with the RIBA president. I don't need my ego massaged by getting my name in the AJ and a little piece of paper to validate my existence.

    I also really don't care what people want to do regarding their projects - they can explore what they want - but I do feel that the profession should not be playing up to this passe stereotypes of the picturesque modern-dystopian faux engineering bleak. Its just so tedious and irrelevant.

    I would like it if the RIBA actually had the sense to engage with some really important issues facing the planet / society at the moment, rather than these arbitrary schemes which are trotted out, year in, year out.

    As for which one I would choose - God - I don't know - so much same old same old, and combined with that shonky website you'd lose the will to live before you went through them all. I think I said already that I thought Helen Goodwin's project looked alright - a bit small and a bit of a clone stamp of forms, but quite elegant. However, that was on page one of the submissions, so that's why I looked at that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there are two types of architecture students in this world (broadly speaking) - those who actually want to be architects (by this i mean build things), and those who like to speculate about architecture.

    We need both.

    Can you lot who take pride in your renders and philosophical 'critical' design projects stop throwing insults at the less ideological world problem solving architects - they're the ones who built your homes, schools, hospitals.. etc. After all we as architects are not philosophers or revolutionaries, the job is to reflect the needs of current society and give people places that improve their lives and bring the masses a bit of joy on their daily routines - it seems to be a hugely responsible and satisfactory role in society, one that I would be proud to have.

    Like said in previous post, not everyone prides their work on medals and images and praise from a 'higher' place.

    I have nothing against people who do value it those things, brilliantly interesting ideas and inspiring imagery can be produced, but it definitely does not devalue everything else. It's quite closed minded to do so, and unless those ideas can be put in the real world your creative satisfaction will not be half as fulfilled.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We are always going to have this argument and that's why we have different schools. The project entered for the Presidents Medals doesn't have to adhere to the RIBA criteria as long as they have already completed a project during Part II which has already fulfilled those requirements. Westminster seem to have this silver medal thing sown up pretty well must be 3 or 4 times in the last 5 years that they've won it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is why I think all schools should divide their projects to get the benefit of both approaches. In third year, your first project should be a buildable, 'realistic', human-scale building where you've got to consider building regs, sustainable design, lighting, costs, realistic construction etc. and also possibly urban, social and community issues and, of course, the functionality of the building. The second project can then be speculative, visionary, arty farty, academic, is-it-even-a-building? etc. Same applies to part 2, perhaps by splitting the two years to accommodate the two approaches.

    This shouldn't really stifle variety between schools as the Bartlett will always have a different take on 'being creative' than, say, Bath or London Met. I guess the only way this would work would be if the RIBA got their sh*t together and started to validate project briefs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If you look at the AJ 100 poll the top schools are pretty much divided equally between the arty schools and the practical schools. Westminster never gets mentioned though even with all it's success.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeyserNI)
    If you look at the AJ 100 poll the top schools are pretty much divided equally between the arty schools and the practical schools. Westminster never gets mentioned though even with all it's success.
    Out of interest, why do you think that is? I'm aware that for normal league tables it's because of the overall reputation of 'The University of Westminster', which is fairly poor due to lack of standards on a number of courses. But it seems like the industry has a fair amount of respect for the Architecture department.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's either because the judging panel for the medals is mainly comprised of academics and not practising architects so that the awards hold very little sway but I'm not sure thats the case or the things that will help you win the presidents medals and which the school is clearly very good at such as flashy visuals, very abstract projects with polemic discourse running through them don't actually equip you well enough for the profession and some of the technical aspects are lacking. Yet UCL and AA projects are very similar to the Westminster projects.

    Honestly I'm not sure. Oxford Brookes is an ex-poly that gets looked down on because of that but it's department/students are recognised within the industry, as a university Cardiff might only be in the top 40 but again it's department/students are recognised yet this is one of the top schools that has very little presidents medal success. Maybe all the heads of the big practises just vote for the schools they went to. Basically what I think someone is voting for in the AJ 100 is whether the students coming into the profession from certain schools are able to cut it. Unlike the normal university tables it's hardly scientific but it is the opinion of the industry whereas it's easier to ignore the normal tables because it's just people pulling random numbers seemingly out of thin air then putting Cambridge at number 1.

    Don't take this as a put down of your school as I'm only theorising.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jrhartley)
    http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Proj...=2555&dop=True

    Funny, I thought we were supposed to be designing buildings that you inhabited, not pretending to be engineers making faux, unnecessarily complex machines to look cool and a bit dystopian / Bladerunner-esque.

    Probably explains where I'm going wrong. Or might explain why so many journalists who have been involved with the President's Medals this year think its a joke.
    I kind of agree with what you are arguing although I think architecture does need challenge the conventional idea of a building? One only hopes that the student has a sound 'building' project to back it up. ie. Some schools work on their building project in first year of diploma and then this sort of thing in the second year.

    When I see projects like this it does concern me. Mostly for the image and reputation of the profession. No wonder people struggle to take architects seriously when we see this sort of thing being awarded prizes. It also worries me how schools are pushing this style of work out of their students. If we are all in architecture school to re-invent an academics vision of 1980s utopia then how exactly can that benefit the profession in the long term.

    Personally I like the presentation of the project. I just hope this project is the students work and not just a cheap imitation of their tutors vision??!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with JR in principle. A few further problems need to be mentioned, the RIBA are looked at as representing both the profession and education which basically means the public and students look to them for a judgement on what is considered currently the best of the best in architectural education. This is simplistic yes but in terms of how the majority view this work this is how it is generally received. And since they continue to choose this kind of project over and over, they are showing a clear message that this is the best kind of architecture project we are currently producing and also what students should be aspiring to. Since many of these projects are also very theoretical, most people don't get them and therefore concentrate purely on the aesthetic value, which although highly skilled, is only superficial. And so we compound the common view that architecture is only an aesthetic disipline to both the public and young students. This would be less of a problem if the projects were more varied in style, scope and brief. The RIBA have chosen the odd more 'realistic' project over the last few years, though the predominant winners at both part 1 and 2 are of the kinds mentioned above. I´m not critising the projects themselves (though not to my personal taste - personally B/W is an easy way to produce striking contrasty images but it takes real skill to master colour) but rather the way the RIBA insist on trying to appear 'down with the kids' when in their role as an institution for the profession the continue to appear as stuffy and don't really contribute very much other than create a 'tiered' professional membership to which architects feel obliged to join because their client feels more comfortable that they have signed up to a code of practice which is covered by ARB membership anyway and to which any self-respecting architect aspires to. (sorry wrong post for this gripe!)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rotten of the Raw)
    I agree with JR in principle. A few further problems need to be mentioned, the RIBA are looked at as representing both the profession and education which basically means the public and students look to them for a judgement on what is considered currently the best of the best in architectural education. This is simplistic yes but in terms of how the majority view this work this is how it is generally received. And since they continue to choose this kind of project over and over, they are showing a clear message that this is the best kind of architecture project we are currently producing and also what students should be aspiring to. Since many of these projects are also very theoretical, most people don't get them and therefore concentrate purely on the aesthetic value, which although highly skilled, is only superficial. And so we compound the common view that architecture is only an aesthetic disipline to both the public and young students. This would be less of a problem if the projects were more varied in style, scope and brief. The RIBA have chosen the odd more 'realistic' project over the last few years, though the predominant winners at both part 1 and 2 are of the kinds mentioned above. I´m not critising the projects themselves (though not to my personal taste - personally B/W is an easy way to produce striking contrasty images but it takes real skill to master colour) but rather the way the RIBA insist on trying to appear 'down with the kids' when in their role as an institution for the profession the continue to appear as stuffy and don't really contribute very much other than create a 'tiered' professional membership to which architects feel obliged to join because their client feels more comfortable that they have signed up to a code of practice which is covered by ARB membership anyway and to which any self-respecting architect aspires to. (sorry wrong post for this gripe!)
    Hello Rotten,

    welcome to tsr!

    out of interest which university are you at? / year you in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Those wishing to develop a further understanding into the notions of architects working within the realms of theory, those in practice & ultimately the necessities/ codependencies of both should read a book titled 'Form to Programme' by Kevin Rhowbotham.

    I think a free PDF is available online somewhere...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jon5465)
    Those wishing to develop a further understanding into the notions of architects working within the realms of theory, those in practice & ultimately the necessities/ codependencies of both should read a book titled 'Form to Programme' by Kevin Rhowbotham.

    I think a free PDF is available online somewhere...
    Can't find a PDF on a brief search, a few used books here and there but no real preview or description. Would be dubious though as he is one of Spiller's crowd so probably not something that would appeal to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surprise, surprise. This year's winner is yet another dystopian future project only this time it has nothing to do with architecture and lots to do with 3D animation and robots!

    http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Proj...s.aspx?id=2939

    Better yet, it's a complete rip off of the movie District 9. We can see RIBA's message quite clearly here. They're subliminally telling us to get out of architecture while we still can and go into something like movie production. That's what we should be aspiring to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, where precisely is the building there? I think the RIBA needs to learn that you can't stage-set that sort of dytopian stuff - otherwise its total Disney. As you say, they are saying get into CGIs and movies, get out of architecture with this award.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.