renderings of Park51 don’t tell us anything about why it should be built there articl

[alias_marks]

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/68838/

 

"The sleek, generic new renderings of Park51 don’t tell us anything about why it should be built there."

Thought some fellow cgarchitecters might like this. I thought this is a good example of you can get negative reactions by not thoroughly thinking about what you release to the public. Maybe soma did think pretty hard about it, and it's obviously a particular project. But interesting none the less.

 

Another argument for the value of 3d renderings in business. They stimulate conversation and public reaction that can be very informative to a project if you can create a good discussion around them.

 

Edited October 11, 2010 by alias_marks
Added Link

[AJLynn]

Looks to me like some writers are starved for something new to say about the project. The renders are just conceptual brainstorming, far from a buildable proposal. Why must they say everything that could be said?

[alias_marks]

The renders are just conceptual brainstorming, far from a buildable proposal.

 

Definitely, I think that's something, you... I, and everyone on these boards probably understands, but when it comes to the mass public, it's an interesting reaction to see what happens when something like this with hardly any context is presented.

 

I for one thought it's an interesting take on from the author to look at the project through the lense of it's rendering presentation.

[AJLynn]

Perhaps the developer shouldn't have released the images as they were. It's just like architecture school, where you show some render that is photorealistic and the prof thinks it's complete because of that. The architect and the developer can use the images for internal discussions, and we can look at them and see very preliminary attempts at concept and geometry, but release them to the public and it's "WTF is this weird white building??"

[BVI]

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/68838/

 

"The sleek, generic new renderings of Park51 don’t tell us anything about why it should be built there."

Thought some fellow cgarchitecters might like this. I thought this is a good example of you can get negative reactions by not thoroughly thinking about what you release to the public. Maybe soma did think pretty hard about it, and it's obviously a particular project. But interesting none the less.

 

Another argument for the value of 3d renderings in business. They stimulate conversation and public reaction that can be very informative to a project if you can create a good discussion around them.

 

 

Are there any more renderings? I only see one.

[wasteland giant]

you'd think the article would be about built form. of course a lousy interior won't inform anything.

[alias_marks]

Are there any more renderings? I only see one.

 

here are some more - http://blog.park51.org/

 

I'm no new yorker archtiecture critic... but I do agree with the notion that this could be put lots of other places and feel just as 'in context' as it does here.

 

It feel quite a bit distant and non-communicative with its neighbors.

Edited October 13, 2010 by alias_marks
Edit to more direct link

[peterguthrie]

from a British perspective: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/03/park51-building-ground-zero-mosque

[Jonathan Sanchez]

from a British perspective: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/03/park51-building-ground-zero-mosque

 

Although I agree with what most of the article says... I also agree with what president barack obama said... "they have the right to put it there, but I'm not commenting on the wisdom of it". What bothers a lot of new yorkers are the questionable funding sources for this project, as well as the fact that it's head imam has openly supported certain organizations with terrorist ties such as Hamas. I myself am neutral, but it's understandable why some would be upset and question the building's true purpose. This article does not paint the entire picture.

[BVI]

Although I agree with what most of the article says... I also agree with what president barack obama said... "they have the right to put it there, but I'm not commenting on the wisdom of it". What bothers a lot of new yorkers are the questionable funding sources for this project, as well as the fact that it's head imam has openly supported certain organizations with terrorist ties such as Hamas. I myself am neutral, but it's understandable why some would be upset and question the building's true purpose. This article does not paint the entire picture.

 

Hey Jon, I'd check some of those facts. When I was in NYC a few weeks ago I saw a debate on TV with the guy in question, Feisal Abdul, and he had a good rebutal to most of the disinfo amout him. CNN also had an investigative jounralist who confirmed that most of the terrorist stuff was BS- he had in fact contributed to a fund that turned out to be terror linked several years later, but was the most supported Palastinian fund in the US. Anyway, I also agree with Mr Pres.

[Jonathan Sanchez]

there is definitely alot of disinfo about him... but he has/will not publicly condemn certain terrorist organizations (hamas). The funding for the building is questionable. Like, I said, I'm neutral, and I definitely believe they have the right to build, but I can understand why some ppl might be upset... though, probably in the long run, the bldg will be built and ppl will go go on with their lives and forget about the matter. Architecturally speaking though, I definitely think the bldg is way out of place with it's style and where it is.