The Times introduces Nicolai Ouroussoff today, and he introduces the winners of the High Line competition: Field Operations + Diller, Scofidio and Renfro. As a piece of writing, it’s not the strongest move out of the gate, but he does show legs in the backstretch and finishes strong.
Opening with some general comments about the competition, he seems to impute an opinion that only the winners earned the distinction of “startlingly original results”. But this kind of bland obsevation could be equally applied to any of the projects. He doesn’t offer any insight of his own regarding the losers, which would have made for more intersting criticism. Overall, it might even be hard to say what it is he is praising, beyond the slivers of concrete that turn up in all the renderings. He rightly pans the terminus as bordering on a “high-end mall for downtown sophisticates”. The rest of the elements he mentions are qualified as ‘sketches,’ and this is certainly true, as nothing beyond the plants and aforementioned concrete pieces have enough detail to indicate how they might even be built, which doesn’t leave all that much to discuss or evaluate. It’s certainly not his fault that one read of the project is that is consists primarily of pavers and a schematic planting diagram, but perhaps he could have considered this in his write up.
It’s not all bad. He manages a rather direct jab at the end, noting that the High Line development is emblematic of the best way to do adaptive reuse, as compared to “flawed, often cynical planning efforts that have marked development at ground zero” which is a degree of unvarnished commentary that is most welcome.
As a decision, well, a hearty ‘boo-hiss’ from these parts. If pressed, we would have voted for the winners as the ‘if it isn’t going to be Holl’ candidate (even without reviewing submissions), but unfortunately, the drop-off is rather steep in our estimation. Diller + Scofidio have realized a small number of impressive and complex projects, but they simply don’t have the grace of handling materials and light that Holl does. Or, at least, they haven’t had a chance to show it yet. Given his history with the site, the elegant and pragmatic solution he submitted, his role as an ardent voice for innovative urban interventions, and his clear distinction as being the best architect in town, being passed over is a most disappointing decision, one that the new kid would have been wise to acknowlege.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
You won’t have old Herbert to kick around anymore.
The Times introduces Nicolai Ouroussoff today, and he introduces the winners of the High Line competition: Field Operations + Diller, Scofidio and Renfro. As a piece of writing, it’s not the strongest move out of the gate, but he does show legs in the backstretch and finishes strong.
Opening with some general comments about the competition, he seems to impute an opinion that only the winners earned the distinction of “startlingly original results”. But this kind of bland obsevation could be equally applied to any of the projects. He doesn’t offer any insight of his own regarding the losers, which would have made for more intersting criticism. Overall, it might even be hard to say what it is he is praising, beyond the slivers of concrete that turn up in all the renderings. He rightly pans the terminus as bordering on a “high-end mall for downtown sophisticates”. The rest of the elements he mentions are qualified as ‘sketches,’ and this is certainly true, as nothing beyond the plants and aforementioned concrete pieces have enough detail to indicate how they might even be built, which doesn’t leave all that much to discuss or evaluate. It’s certainly not his fault that one read of the project is that is consists primarily of pavers and a schematic planting diagram, but perhaps he could have considered this in his write up.
It’s not all bad. He manages a rather direct jab at the end, noting that the High Line development is emblematic of the best way to do adaptive reuse, as compared to “flawed, often cynical planning efforts that have marked development at ground zero” which is a degree of unvarnished commentary that is most welcome.
As a decision, well, a hearty ‘boo-hiss’ from these parts. If pressed, we would have voted for the winners as the ‘if it isn’t going to be Holl’ candidate (even without reviewing submissions), but unfortunately, the drop-off is rather steep in our estimation. Diller + Scofidio have realized a small number of impressive and complex projects, but they simply don’t have the grace of handling materials and light that Holl does. Or, at least, they haven’t had a chance to show it yet. Given his history with the site, the elegant and pragmatic solution he submitted, his role as an ardent voice for innovative urban interventions, and his clear distinction as being the best architect in town, being passed over is a most disappointing decision, one that the new kid would have been wise to acknowlege.