portfolio website

[garethace]

I think that some of the Cyburbia poster are speaking from their experiences of the built environment, as oposed to having been contaminated with some very self-conscious distancing effect of mainstream Architectural theoretical writing.

 

Her floor plans are also the best I've ever seen.

Yeah, here early days with OMA and Rem Koolhaas were very important for here actually. If you study the plans of Le Corbusier, and his definition of buildings as horizontally stratified slabs, you can see where OMA came from. I believe Villa Savoie, incorporated a lot of human walking and motion into its conception. You have to move through Villa Savoie to experience the architecture. Similarly with Hadid, Meier, Holl, Stirling, Mayne, Koolhaas and others.

 

I used to photocopy Hadid's plans onto tracing paper, and look at how they match up together - that was very useful indeed. An Architect who influence Hadid a lot was Niemeyer, whose notion about human dynamism in Architecture are exceptionally strongly expressed.

 

Thom Mayne mentioned Stirling often. I am not that familiar with his work, beyond a few buildings, mostly due to the fact that I dont' like his aesthetics.

I didn't know that, but I am very familiar with the drawings of Stirlings Projects, and the idea he had to built visionary urban scale projects, while respecting the Genius Loci, the History of the City, Camille Sitte etc. If you look at the drawings of James Stirling, it quickly becomes very apparent that Mayne, was trying to fit some of Stirling's German works into the LA context. Stirling is a lot like Le Corbusier, except he decided to rescept the traditional city, and notion of urbanism, rather than rebel against it as Le Corbusier had done. You see in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in Europe too much of our ancient cities were being lost to 'progress'. And much of the old streetscape patterns, urban living and experience too. Stirling's idea was to repair the bombed urban fabric of large European (mostly German) cities, to recover the pedestrian, human dimension of movement lost in those cities.

 

Tom Mayne, instead of trying to recover a lost European tradition of urbanism, is trying to create a brand new one for places like Los Angeles. Architect's like Aldo Rossi, Leon Krier and James Stirling were rediscovering the European city again in the 1960s and 1970s, just when Mayne was starting out as an Architect in Mexico and places.

 

Today Architects like Rem Koolhaas, have witnessed, observed and identified the problems for European cities as being like American cities, the sprawl, the suburbs, the motorways, the pheripheral areas. So most European architecture lately has been dominated by that strand in urban problem-solving as described here.

 

The idea of 'collecting' architecture is true and real, but I am not sure it's a problem. It's simply a product of our time. With so much disregard for the built environment, and so much horrific desing being built, there needs to be something else. Something that people look at and say 'wow, you CAN do something besides a box!'. That's important. The simple fact that it provokes a response is positive for the future.

Notice the places that collect most Architects, places like Seattle, the creative centres of populations. There is something a little bit elite-est about it.

 

But what I like about Koolhaas, and other good European Architects now, is they are not afraid to take on the Big Pheripheral boxes that line our motorways etc. Koolhaas spent a lot of time in the United States early in his career, and developed a real love for the American type city, which is also becoming the European city of cars and transport today.

 

Koolhaas would be right at home in a Wal Mart being a classic Architectural anti-hero. And a very sucessful one now too, since he has done as much Progressive paper Architecture as Tom Mayne has ever done. But for some reason Tom Mayne found his clients in small public school commissions, whereas Koolhaas seems to get more stadia and large public commissions. Which is mostly down to PR exercising I think - see all the peach jobs that Meier has got over the years, or even Stirling for that matter. Even Hertzog and De Meuron have built a lot of stuff. But Mayne... disappointing. Check out his Riba Journal article about the best clients in Britain. John Smith in particlar who employs people like BDP, Allies and Morrison and David Chipperfield. (really fabulous British architects)

 

Not a bad description of Rem Koolhaas, and an interesting comparison with Tom Mayne, who is practically as famous and the same age.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 29, 2003, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[mbr]

That book looks interesting, I'll have to look over the site a little more later (there is work to be done...*sigh*). Wired had an article that I am guessing was similar in idea.

 

Personally, I don't look at the 'collecting' as purely elitist. The cities that are embracing these designers and promoting competitions are simply at the forefront of contemporary thought - and have been for at least a decade. It's no coincidence that creativity flourishes in more progressive areas. I lived in Portland, Oregon for a few years. And I've been to Seattle, and will be moving to Denver. All are more progressive than anywhere in the US I've been. Denver has Libeskind, Seattle has Gehry and Koolhaas. These cities promote thought, simply in the attitude of the young populace. Outdoor exercise, vegetarian cuisine and a Starbucks at every corner. It's 'yuppie', for sure, but that' me, also. Their populations are young, so things get done.

 

But on the flip side, I just visited the exhibition here at the Univ of Connecticut, where the finalists for the fine art building were Hadid, Gehry, and Scogin/Bray. We are a town of 20,000 (yup that's 20k). UCONN has more students than our town residents! But they are building a 20-30million dollar Gehry building. That's important. It does demonstrate that they can be built anywhere if the towns have enough vision. It's only elitist because most people are lazy and don't think . That's most of America.

 

I actually ran into Thom (it does have a 'h', by the way at the finalists presentations back in June (he was one of the 7 finalists, that included Silvetti, Moss, and Holl, and, uh, maybe it was 6). Great experience, though, as they were presenting to faculty, not to students are architects. All of them were very pragmatic and easily understood. No theoretical nonsense, just simple ideas. Great stuff. I've been to a lot of lectures and rarely find them inspiring, but this was priceless.

 

He told me that he had so many projects that he was almost overwhelmed. Lots of things being finished and begun, most of fairly large scale.

 

Personally, I've never been a fan of Koolhaas. I certainly respect him, if nothing else than for his PR skills, but I don't find much I like about his designs. It's almost like Holl (although he is getting better, or more likely, hired someone better), where he makes incredible details but his over all formal strategies are lacking cohesion, I think. For the large moves, either you have it or you don't. Peter Pran comes to mind for someone that could bring cohesion to a large design.

I guess this part mostly comes down to an eye for 'sculpting' space. Not many are good at it.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

Take a look at their site: http://www.morphosis.net , they've got a few of the more recent projects up (in 3D).

[garethace]

Wired is a web site I take it?

 

Here is an article you should read,

 

It's 100th the size of the Bilbao Guggenheim but Frank Gehry's first building in Britain has his name all over it.

Front of the Riba Journal web site today. They have nice 2d documents too. Imagine Hadid practises in Britian, like Foster, but neither have ever built there!

 

Don't know if i linked this article previously, but I think, it deserves a mention again.

 

It does demonstrate that they can be built anywhere if the towns have enough vision. It's only elitist because most people are lazy and don't think . That's most of America.

a discussion about America, New Gersey in particular. You should make a trip to Helsinki sometime perhaps and really get an eye-opener. I have some of my own observations of the environment and the world around me here.

 

Great experience, though, as they were presenting to faculty, not to students are architects. All of them were very pragmatic and easily understood. No theoretical nonsense, just simple ideas.

Bernard Tschumi designed some stuff for Columbia too, and they had a web cast on their web site until recently with his lecture of the design.

 

He told me that he had so many projects that he was almost overwhelmed. Lots of things being finished and begun, most of fairly large scale.

Great to hear that!

 

Take a look at their site: http://www.morphosis.net , they've got a few of the more recent projects up (in 3D).

I certaily will! BTW, have you got any opinions about Gehry, his ideas, his way of working with other people, etc. I would be interested.

 

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[garethace]

Interesting one here. I mean, this is what I love about Cyburbia, they are so much closer to the action than Architects are. Architects spend far too long, hearing about how to interpret the world around them in colleges etc. And often miss the obvious things staring them in the face like this monumnent to religion and commerce.

 

Reener here from Arnheim in Holland, told me about some of the ways he thinks Architects should think. Good reading anyhow. Reener worked for this practice in Dublin for his work experience.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[kid]

The link was dead for me but I assume the quote It's 100th the size of the Bilbao Guggenheim but Frank Gehry's first building in Britain has his name all over it. is in reference to the Maggie's Centre in Dundee. I love that building. It's so refreshing. I've heard and read a lot of people say that Gehry doesn't design for 'people' in that his early houses looked like rubbish tips and his recent civic works look like he cares more about the material than the experience, but the Maggie's Centre building has such a strong sense of humanity to it without Gehry having to leave his established language to achieve it.

 

I would have loved to be at this lecture - http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0803/far/index.html

[garethace]

You have to register Kid, at the Riba Journal, it is free. They email you a password and username, you can change. Usual proceedure. But unlike alot of Arch web sites, they give you good sections, plans, axos etc, of Gehry's and any other builindgs featured. Great web site.

 

 

I've heard and read a lot of people say that Gehry doesn't design for 'people' in that his early houses looked like rubbish tips and his recent civic works look like he cares more about the material than the experience, but the Maggie's Centre building has such a strong sense of humanity to it without Gehry having to leave his established language to achieve it.

Thanks for the link to the lecture, but I was at a lecture given by one architect who knew Gehry and his works very well, and he said:

 

Gehry's buildings are the only ones in places like Watts, LA, which aren't vandalised. Think of the worst ghettos in Australia, and think of what Gehry might do there. I mean, Murcutt never learned how to deal with the vernacular of the Ghetto, that same way as Gehry did.

[mbr]

"Earlier designs were even more ambitious, but Gehry tells a story about how Maggie Keswick Jencks appeared to him in a dreamsaying 'Frank, it's a bit over the top. Calm it down'."

 

That's pretty much his attitude. Have you seen him lecture? He's great. Very personable. No reasoning behind anything beyond 'that it looked good'. He is quick to point out his process, the thousands of sketch models, photographed daily so if they go 'too far', they can look at the pics and take a step or two back. Then large models (I've got two friends/classmates working there), from 1/4" monsters (he had the Bilbao lobby in his lobby for a while, probably 8' x 8' x 6', and he has a wood shop to do full mock ups. Models are king there. Catia is only used at the end.

 

I have much respect for his abilities. It is a logical approach, by #1 making masses for the program, organizing appropraitely #2 designing form for the masses #3 massaging it together. It ONLY works for him, and I always try to point out that it took him decades to learn about material usage - he didn't start with titanium. Most people don't look at his beginnings in more modernist archtitecture.

So I love and respect his intuition. I design intuitively, mostly, as well. Ideas are important, but I am better at 'doing' then creating an elaborate process. Hadid, Mayne, and a few others work this way, where someone like Koolhaas would take a more theoreticla viewpoint first (and Eisenman may argue that he does that, too, but then he always contradits himself - I think he is more of the former). Just depends on what you are most productive at.

If you have never been to one of his buildings, experiencing them is the most important part. Unlike much of archtiecture, his 'space' is so much better than the way it 'looks'. We talked about phenoma - he is the master. And yet it's so nicely understated with the white walls, wood floors, etc. Nothing cold or industrial, all nice and smooth but intense forms that capture and dramatize the relationship of light to surface. Pure genius, imho. You MUST see a bulding of his!!

 

I just got back from a trip to LA and saw the Disney Concert Hall - wow! Smaller than I imagined, but still, incredible. I'll try to get a few pics up (and of the competition here at UCONN) later today. I can't wait to see a show there. His Bard College (in NY) is also great and I hope to visit that soon.

 

Oh, when you see him present you can see how he charms the pants off of clients! He is so personable in his presentation, so whimsical, just really down to earth. You come away thinking 'this guy is a genius, but I'd still like to have a beer with him!' NONE of the others come across that way, except maybe, Scogin/Bray, which are really in another category (but their residential work is some of the best).

 

 

Charles Jenks was actaully a very small part of why I went to UCLA. He taught there for several years (and, of course, left the year I got there). I really enjoyed his book "Architecture of a Jumping Univers". Chaos theory stuff, distilled. Good, quick read. Diagram Diaries (on Eisenman, by Somol, another UF professor that I did have) is a great read, too, and explains PE's relationship to Colin Rowe. Basically the largest advocates of purely formal architecture.

 

That's too bad about his wife, but inspriartional what he did. I hope that more and more things happen like this, and that a younger generation steps up to the plate soon.

 

Oh, the library computers are the same everywhere! I am not sure if our town library even has color monitors!!

 

But we can whoop some ass, eh?! Sorry, sorry, I don't even want to go there!! Stupid priorities. And we wonder why the US can't make more good archtitecture!

 

It's WIRED Magazine - a great mag on technology. From investing to the latest video games to politics.

[garethace]

If you have never been to one of his buildings, experiencing them is the most important part. Unlike much of archtiecture, his 'space' is so much better than the way it 'looks'. We talked about phenoma - he is the master. And yet it's so nicely understated with the white walls, wood floors, etc. Nothing cold or industrial, all nice and smooth but intense forms that capture and dramatize the relationship of light to surface. Pure genius, imho. You MUST see a bulding of his!!

You will get a good laugh from this article I think. About the Arnhoff building by Eisenmann.

 

I just got back from a trip to LA and saw the Disney Concert Hall - wow! Smaller than I imagined, but still, incredible. I'll try to get a few pics up (and of the competition here at UCONN) later today. I can't wait to see a show there. His Bard College (in NY) is also great and I hope to visit that soon.

I also found this article about a school of Architecture designed by Steven Holl.

 

Oh, when you see him present you can see how he charms the pants off of clients! He is so personable in his presentation, so whimsical, just really down to earth. You come away thinking 'this guy is a genius, but I'd still like to have a beer with him!' NONE of the others come across that way, except maybe, Scogin/Bray, which are really in another category (but their residential work is some of the best).

Yeah, I have listened to many of them speak, Libeskind's exhibition of his models was impressive in Rotterdam back in 1997 I remember, and I didn't even have a camera with me. But I can assure you he is like Gehry in his use of models too.

 

The only book of Jenck's I own, is the one he wrote about Le Corbusier - The Tragic view of Architecture. I might actually read it now, that you have sung his praises.

 

Did you read the replies of the other posters on the Library thread at all? The thread went off in a totallly different direction. But there again, I am always interested in real peoples' points of view, on environments, architecture and experiences. It is the fastest way to learn what is out there, rather than wading through literature and magazines. Thanks for the Gehry comments, great.

 

How do you like the work here? I mean, it is not done 100% on computers, and communicates buildings which are similar to Chiba Golf club and others.

 

Seeking the tension between the ordinary and the extraordinary, between the rational and irrational-our work operates by inducing plays and slippages between form, function, and program-at scales that range from domestic objects to urban spaces. The goal then is to produce the most extraordinary project out of seemingly ordinary things and assemblies that make up the everyday. As such, we see architecture as a vital way of challenging and improving the way we live. Architecture should not be imposed on but should be teased out and creatively engage its context and limitations.

Some of the luckier participants in the competition here.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

 

[ September 29, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: garethace ]

[garethace]

"It's hard to start getting notoriety when you're just starting out," he said. "You see it with a lot of movie stars and people like that. I've had a few artist friends who peaked in their thirties and just went down the tubes. Just went to drink and drugs. Maybe they would have done that anyway. So take your time. My message is: take your time. Pace yourself. Make a firm kind of base for yourself as you go forward. Make alliances with great people who are going to partner with you and help you make the buildings."

You not have said it better myself Frank:

 

Like a poster here at Archiseek would argue, Computer technology moves much faster than Architectural project design.

 

It was not a crowd that would welcome that particular common sense. Poor Tschumi squirmed through the episode and then tried to sandbag Gehry with the first question after the talk.

Guys, this is hilarious, poor old Tschumi, should put a big sock in it.

 

They were gathered in one of those worrisome state-of-the-union densities that make you hope at least one trendy thinker has been exiled to spend the evening elsewhere, prepared, if necessary, to reconstitute the academy and ensure another decade of weightless bloviation.

Yeah, Murcutt came to Dublin, Ireland last year, and you could see all the old boloxs, there just to make notes about 'sustainability' and how they would 'preach' about it for another decade or so!

 

Lynn, Zaha, Libeskind; Zaha, Libeskind, Lynn--as if some privileged recitation of those five syllables might, like rubbing hands on the genie's bottle, summon an agent to deliver the school from uncertainty.

Thankyou, Kid, this account is priceless!

 

You go into gridlock. I had a kid that came out of Eisenman's class once. He couldn't do anything. He had gotten into something with Peter about line and wall . He had a whole thing about line and wall . And he had made them so precious that he could neither draw a line nor make a wall. It was such a striving for perfection that he could never get to. So he gridlocked.

MBR, maybe he should read the Architecture week account of the Arnhoff building?

 

The client, economics--everything is going to keep you in line. So you're not going to destroy the world. You're not going to break your mother's back if you step on a crack. You can do things. You've got to free yourself to let those things happen."

Sounds like Tom Mayne and his five years of architectural therapy!

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[kid]

 

Oh man, that is one very sexy model!

[mbr]

Wow, nice prizes!! I've seen Coop Himmelblau's stuff - always been a big fan (another place that several friends have worked) - he (Wolf Prix) also taught at UCLA briefly. Fairly approachable.

I love their work, especially the Vienna Rooftop Office (it is Vienna?). Still of one my favorite projects.

 

Don't get me wrong about Holl, while I don't like his larger, formal moves, I LOVE his work. Samething with Meier (the Getty Center is basically a grouping of his regular buildings - no real master plan beyond the grid). His (Holl's) presentation at UCONN was pretty good, too. But his reputation for being a pain sticks with him (I spoke with the Dean of Fine Arts, the guy responsible for this project and he mentioned Holl's reputation was a problem).

 

I've seen the LTL work before, somewhere. Do you think it is hand drawn? Looks like Sketchup and Illustrator, to me (obviously it could be either). SKUP can cut sections with color, right? FormZ can too (another area Max falls behind for arch viz). Nice stuff. I really like the way the present their images, although the camera angles seem a little too crazy for purely rectangular forms.

 

 

I've heard that about Eisenmans building. I love his formal investigations (and those great abstract models), but his color choice has got to go! A little too far out there with the million wall variations, I think, but interesting. His design for the Church for the Year 2000 (that Meier is buildings now, almost done I believe) is one of my favorite designs out there. I think he pushes some things too far and doesn't bring them back a little (as I think Hadid did with her UCONN entry - explanation to come with pics - it was just HUGE!!)

[mbr]

Yes, that is a relevant issue - perfection. I was never that good at relinquishing control or changing things last minute. My models were as flawless as I could make them - no glue marks, the plexi nice and clean, etc.

I remember at UF when a teacher said to a student, about 75% through the class and he had a large model built, 'why don't you go down to the wood shop and cut that thing in half'. Sure enough, he did just that. It turned out a world better.

It's all a balance - completed thought vs. intuitive impulse. Each has it's place.

Charrettes are wonderful things for students, forces them to get the idea and design done without thinking too much.

[xgarcia]

Markus:

 

I remember sometime last year a buddy of mine was in a studio where the professor wanted a "pull-apart" model. Some piece of the model had to be removeable to show something significant. Well, being the innovative guy he was, he takes it down to the woodshop and freakin bandsaws the thing right down the middle!! BAM. He has a section model as well. LOL.

[garethace]

My models were as flawless as I could make them - no glue marks, the plexi nice and clean, etc.

I wanted mine to be like Jackson Pollock, or Jasper Johns American school expressionst paintings/sculptures. I feel totally head of heels in love with the messy, painterly quality of Jasper Johns, and the way Mayne made models like Art works. In fact, I do wish I had never discovered computers at all, and continued to develop like that. Sighhhhhh!

 

Forgive my ignorance, but is a charette anything like a crit?

 

Looks like Sketchup and Illustrator, to me

Which is nice I think, because it just proves what guys like Arnie Williams have covered in their articles.

 

SKUP can cut sections with color, right?

It can indeed, but feels like a 'port' using the Windows version. Might be better on the Mac, though I haven't tried. I would rather just shell out for Bentley Triforma or something for Windows modelling, and generated hidden line sectional perspectives or whatever. Dickie them up in COrel or something for printing. Hell even MiniCAD 7.0 wasn't bad! Architectural Studio appears to be a great little app in colleges etc.

 

Principles on CAD.

[mbr]

A good friend of mine (from undergrad till now) was great at doing the 'glue gun' modeling technique! I could NEVER use one, and rarely Zap-A-Gap.

 

I did love the stucco/modeling paste, then sanding (a la Morphosis). Great models, made everything (in retrospect, at least) look museum quality.

 

I miss the models, too. It just takes so much time. I always think the computer allows for so much to be done with so little. Sections, elevations, etc., are a few clicks (well, days, but still, better than the ink on mylar days) away.

 

All this talk of design is getting excited to start a design again. If only the time .... well, back to work :winkgrin:

[mbr]

Oops, what the point about my friend was that his models would consistenly be some of the best, even though the craft wasn't spectacular. There is something to be said for speed.

[garethace]

All this talk of design is getting excited to start a design again. If only the time .... well, back to work

Well I imagine even for young guys/gals in practice, who are the real deal as Architects - seen the elephant and heard the owl - it must be very difficult finding the time and the energy to create Architecture. It is interesting your many comments about American Architects, and I know from reading something only lately about Frank Llyod Wright how much of a bastard he was to R.M. Schindler, Neutra and even his own kids. Not to mention constantly fighting with well off clients - so I guess Holl is in the same mould, and does create very many children of the imagination, and some wonderful built projects.

 

Even Louis Kahn, had a bust-up with Paul Rudolph, because Louis didn't want to run Studio projects in Philly like 'to design a roadside frozen custom stand'. He moved to Yale after that!

[mbr]

To live your life with such uncompromised ideals will take a toll somewhere, no doubt.

 

A guess that's just one more reason that they 'celebs' are put up there - you love their work, but don't really want be them or live their lives. That, for sure, puts them in an elite crowd.

[kid]

I've made some pretty messes with glue. In second year I found myself in that situation of "gridlock" I came to a point in the design that even the slightest action would totaly undermine the concept, it was agonising.

 

I ended up taking 3 sketch models and hacking them to bits with a big meat cleaver. I then took lots of photos of the debris, then took the photos and cut them up and created little 3 dimensional collage models using the model debris and the photograph debris.

 

I didn't do a single drawing for that project. I remember explaining it in my crit as something about the photographed debris being memories of place and the model debris being physicality of place, and how memories become so distorted but so real in the minds eye that to all intents and purposes the physicality of a place is no less subjective than ones idea of place. LOL, I had some fun there.

 

That's one thing about the computer, it's great for productivity, but not that great for spontaneity, or maybe I'm just not using it right...

 

Oh, and what's this pre-occupation with Ink on Mylar in American schools

[garethace]

A guess that's just one more reason that they 'celebs' are put up there - you love their work, but don't really want be them or live their lives. That, for sure, puts them in an elite crowd.

As Gehry says, and yet so many young Columbia undergrads crave that same insane adoration of the Gehrys, Tschumis, Lynns, Hadids etc. I know here in Ireland, the older I get, the more and more patethic the Progressive Architecture types begin to look. But you should refer back to my comment about the Vietnam Gorilla tactics here. The old theoretical professors like Mayne, get older and more feeble, having presented the whole entire world of Architects, paper Architecture that brough them closer to the truth! THom Mayne is the real deal, the battle scared old Nam vet now, he has seen the elephant and heard the owl.

 

Brian O' Hanlon.

[fi3er]

whoaa!!

 

the thread still alive !!

 

nice! :winkgrin:

[xgarcia]

There is just something about hand drawings that you lose with computer generated dwgs. It would be safe to say that this is true not just in the end product but also in the process itself - the tactile sensations of the hand being linked to the brain is wonderful. As Kid says, computer is not the best tool all the time.

 

Here is a cad dwg from my school work. Looks too perfect (2nd semester, 3rd year):

 

 

And here is a portion of pencil dwg on bristol paper with chalk-pastel shading...notice the awesome texture the paper creates (1st semester, 2nd year):

 

 

I would also like to continue with hand drawings and physical models in practice but a lot of the time the it's not practical.

 

BTW - LTL has some great dwgs and projects...I especially dig the Tour Bus Hotel . Nice idea for comtemporay urbanism.

[mbr]

I ended up taking 3 sketch models and hacking them to bits with a big meat cleaver

That's great! Most of my profs always told us not to get too attached to a model for fear we wouldn't change the windows because the mullions were so pretty! I do admire people that have the guts to 'destroy' their creations and put them back together.

 

I do like to draw, and really liked the ink on mylar (it's great, because you can erase the ink, collage photographs to the front or the back, and the contrast is HUGE - endless possibilities. Watercolor paper was great to draw on, too).

But, I do like the experimentation that computers offer without consequence. Here's an example of a diagram I did a while back. Just playing, really.

 

 

I never could/would have done it that way if I couldn't 'play' with Illustrator.

Good and bad, like all tools.

 

 

I really think the LTL stuff is SketchUp - look at the detail they have, it's too much to draw (wouldn't be worth it unless hey were trying to do a Libeskind drawing - he's one of the Ink/Mylar greats), always could be wrong. Maybe I'll ask

[mbr]

Xavier - nice drawings. That's hand drawn, right, not a .dwg printed on bristol? That could be cool if it didn't fry the printer.

[xgarcia]

I think LTL does pencil drawings. I checked out one of their publications last year (edit: Pamphlet Architecture no. 21, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998) - looked pretty hand drawn to me (had eraser smears and overlay garbage). They might use SketckUP!

 

The 2nd drawings I showed is hand drawn - not *.dwg!! Although I knew a guy who plotted on watercolor paper...it bleed horribly and almost damaged the plotter. The lab dude wasn't happy about that.

 

I like that illustrator diagram - you could fool people into believing it's a Maya 3D model! This is from your UCLA work right? What did the diagram develop into?

 

[ September 29, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: xgarcia ]