Ads
Ads

Ads

Ads

Ads

Ads

Ads

Ads

Ads




  • radial fluidity

    radial_fluidity
    philadelphia PENNSYLVANIA

    suckerPUNCH: describe your project.

    valmikVYAS+hyungwooKIM: ‘Radial Fluidity’ is a new set of towers and site for Roppongi Hills, Tokyo. The site is transformed into a dynamic and winding flow of circulation with pockets of programmed space.

    This is accomplished by intertwining formal qualities throughout the site to create nested spaces which gradually migrate across the site at various speeds. The circulation winds visitors across the Roppongi Dori metro to indoor shopping plazas, outdoor amphitheaters and stepping gardens and up to the hybrid commercial / hotel towers.

    sP: what or who influenced this project?

    vV+hK: Ali Rahim, Yakuza Tattoos, Computational Fluid Dynamics

    sP: what were you reading/listening to/watching while developing this project?

    vV+hK: Explosions in the Sky, The XX, Air, MGMT

    sP: whose work is currently on your radar?

    vV+hK: Kokkugia, Tom Wiscombe, Neil Denari, MAD

    , , ,

  • WP_Modern_Notepad
    • recon::decon Says:

      I really look forward to the day when we all can move past this fascination with allowing software to do all the design work.

    • shmark Says:

      WOW recon::decon, you know of a software that does all of the design work!!! Please do share!

    • alex Says:

      i agree. i hear people commenting about these magical programs which do the work for you. or is it one more person who has no idea how to use the program thus doesn’t understand the process thus criticizing and dismissing it. i dont expect everyone to understand these works, but i do expect some respect for the work. to the digital architecture world these programs are just like auto-cad which allows you to enter the program into a computer which will in turn help you develop plans, sections, and every other aspect needed to construct a building.

    • O Says:

      How much can one really evaluate this project and design based on 5 images posted above?

      I would be more interested in on how does one create a new set of criteria for evaluation. The problem with this kind of work right now is that it’s always going to be perceived at-large as “software generated” design, unless some semblance of dimensional drawings are accompanied in order to start a constructive conversation. Otherwise the usual and generic academic banter will continue following these kinds of proposals. Hasn’t anyone noticed the Kipnes/Lynn “blobs” of late 90’s have faded away from architectural discourse for some time now? Soon enough the same will happen with the Diaz Alonso’s, etc.

    Leave a Comment

    Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.