ronll Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Usually I don't like to crit other's work; "Walk a mile in their shoes...", "If you can't say something nice..." and all that. But to see images such as those on page 166 of the 05/2008 issue of Architectural Record brings out the worst in me. At this point I'll hold my tongue, I've probably gone too far already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louis.cho Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 i don't have this issue. maybe if you scan it we will be able to discuss about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 i don't have this issue. maybe if you scan it we will be able to discuss about it. Sorry. Don't want to risk copyright violation charges in addition to slander . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron-cds Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Are you talking about the design or the renderings? I imagine the renderings were done in-house. The design is quite nice for an outdoor urban space, which is why it's featured for the honor awards in urban design. What drives me crazy about AR and other architecture mags is that they never give credit to illustrators or professional photographers under or on the image. Occasionally, I'll see some great renderings but I never know who did them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronll Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) The project is nice and probably deserves the award. But I'm guessing the architect has a nephew with a new copy of Photoshop. Those renderings are a disaster and no firm should let them out of the office regardless of who did them. Edited May 14, 2008 by ronll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron-cds Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 You would be suprised, but some people think those are decent. I sent a brochure for my company once to a mid size firm that had terrible renderings on their site, similar to the ones you're referencing. When I called them to see if they were interested in hiring me to do renderings for them they seemed very proud of the fact that they have an in-house rendering department that handles all of their renderings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianKitts Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) The images are not a disaster. They are a success in that they convey a design and an overall feel for the environment that they are trying to create. Are they ground breaking.... no, and I agree that sometimes AR puts in some bad content, this may be a runner up but definitely not a top runner for worst of the year award. I've seen way worse come out of top firms. Yes there are a quite a few noob mistakes in hit, but come on, forget walking on water.... it takes an even higher power to walk on bushes. Edited May 14, 2008 by BrianKitts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Moir Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 They're not very polished but they do convey design intent. Vegetation is always tricky! What caught my eye in that issue were the panel gaps on the Hadid station (page 193). I like the building but the manufacturing technology isn't there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now