|
Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects
|
Comments (21)
Add Comment
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By TD on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| A great design. It has the potential to really animate this important corner of the downtown area in a way that recent projects have not. Rather than turning its back on the city it has the potential to put its best face forward and draw people to this area and the center. I hope this is the start of a redesign of downtown that focuses less on the tourist and more on serving the existing populace and bringing residents downtown. This is not just a solution for turning a quick visitor dollar. Bravo! |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By anonymous on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| start over with a form that's less of a literal interpretation ... |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By ashamed of atlanta... again on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| This building further destroys my faith in this city, state and region. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Louis I. Kahn on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| Agreed with the above 'anonymous' comment. This scheme needs MUCH development. I assume that upon being picked, as a responsible architect and one that is sensitive to the issues involved here, that this design will go through more iterations to emphasize the design intent more poetically and not in such a literal manner. Attention should be paid to Auburn Avenue as well. This should not be ignored if we are to fully honor and inform the public about civil rights issues. Ignoring this in the design is no worse than ignoring the conditions that minorities have and continue to live in. Please rework this scheme in such a way that addresses social issues for all Atlantans, not just those looking down on it from their high-rise condos and offices. Think about extending the public space into the building as DS+R did. This is a strong idea that can be implemented in many ways. This should be an inclusive (stretching public space into the plan) not exclusive (courtyard scheme) environment.<br><br>Additionally, I would get away from the linking arms in the literal sense. Think of this not on the literal and physical level of two arms linking but on the sociological level and I think the direction of your design will parallel more efficiently the goals set for this center. |
|
|
Why? |
By Rem Koolhaas on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| How could the board come to this decision? Could Atlanta stoop no lower? Giving away a project of this magnitude to a bland a lifeless design that concerns itself with nothing other than a brief gesture with no lasting impact on society is truly a disaster. A gesture of locking arms that is only vaguely apparent from the roof which is not experienced by visitors or the public at large, only those who sit atop their ivory towers in Atlanta's business district, unaffected by the pains of what it means to be oppressed because they themselves are the oppressors and they are the weak minds that have chosen this atrocity of a building. I personally am ashamed that something like this would be chosen to represent civil rights in our home. Atlanta deserves better than this and better was proposed. This decision is just another decision in a long strand of thought that has given us such SCARS as the 17th St. Bridge and Atlantic Station. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By D.E.B on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| Remind me again, what ever happed to architects? I’m not talking about these hybrid businessmen-architects who ‘design,’ if it can be called such, symbols of corporate greed and spectacle. I’m talking about real architects, those who actually understand how to design buildings for people and NOT BIRDS; those who understanding how to create space versus objects floating in space. Is the future of Atlanta—and in extension America—that of impotent architecture devoid of social commentary and subtle plays on a subject’s psyche? Is the future of architecture that of empty aesthetics and the efficient transformation of architecture into pornography? Atlanta, you have made a poor decision today, there are plenty of designs that actually understood and grasped the various nuances of a project of this magnitude and you have chosen the worst possible one. Atlantans, I implore you not to let this design come to fruition; help to ensure that our city does not become one of corporate idolism! |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Akennas on
Thursday, March 26, 2009 |
| There were at least three other entries that were superior: those by Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, Polshek and Predock. DS+R's was a world-class gem. This is dreck. D-R-E-C-K!<br>This entry was judged by the color of its architects' skin, not the content of its character. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By alxzba on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| from the photo of the rendering, it appears to me that the committed bought the design from the view of a bird, a favorite ploy by architects. The problem: no one will ever see the building from the view of the drawing. I would pose to the committee: how will a visitor ever 'get' the relationship of entwined arms from being inside the building? A good concept which falls flat, except by birds. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Kristin on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| Congratulations! This was clearly the best design with the most thought out concept. I have had the privilege of seeing the animations as well as the other renderings and this was clearly the best choice for Atlanta. <br><br>Akennas, I am embarrassed for you. Your comment exposes your ignorance. <br><br>This is a wonderful addition to the City of Atlanta. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By MLK on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| Horrible. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By rm on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| No building could overcome the type of ignorance I'm reading here... |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By rm on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| No building could overcome the type of ignorance I'm reading here... |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By FH on
Friday, March 27, 2009 |
| When you have a site as bizarrely commercialized as this one, I guess the mediocrity of the architecture here fits right in. Atlanta will forever remain a local pride and culturally, the disdain of the rest of the country. This is by far the greatest missed opportunity I've witnessed in Atlanta. And that's saying a lot. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Okra Mutulu Barashango on
Saturday, March 28, 2009 |
| Why is it that major Architectural commissions for African American centered cultural institutions are always witness to partnerships between African American led firms and mainstream corporate firms? Are firms such as the Freelon Group, Adjaye Associates, etc... not perceived as being capable of executing quality projects onto themselves? Do African American led firms not perceive themselves as capable of executing quality projects without partnering with mainstream firms and seek out these arrangements autonomously? Are these arrangements stipulated by the project requirements (firm size, location, bonding and insurance requirements, etc...)? Are these arrangements symptomatic of systemic unsaid/unwritten rules that stipulate these arrangements to reassure and affirm the confidence of clients who may not be completely comfortable with an African American led firm(s) as the sole proprietor of the architectural task at hand? Why aren't there partnerships between African American design firms and African American production firms for these projects? Notwithstanding, there appears to be a self defeating assertion that these partnerships of African American led firms would be suicidal towards the aim of winning a competition (for an African American centered institution) much less being taken seriously by the jurors. <br><br>Bond Freelon and Adjaye are partnered with the Smithgroup for the Smitsonian's National African American Museum competition. Max Bond (RIP) was well respected as a pioneer and mentor for many African Americans and regarded as the dean of African American Architects. Freelon has commanded a respectable national portfolio (that includes notable museum work) and gained himself prominence and name recognition not only as an African American Architect but an Architect in general. David Adjaye is a Starchitect (who has an impressive international portfolio and notable museum work). Adjaye even has work featured in the famed Phaidon Atlas of Contemporary Architecture. Why did this powerful trio partner with the Smithgroup? In other words, what does Smithgroup contribute to their team that they don't already have?<br><br>It's ironic that two of the most recent significant African American centered Architectural design competitions (NMAAH & ACCHR) have been witness almost entirely to these types of partnerships. The nation has been said to have matured to a point where it is willing to recieve these institutions that mark and celebrate the historic victories over Slavery and Jim Crowism yet the factors that contribute to the makeup of these architectural partnerships and the resultant architectural process bear a striking resemblance to the selfish, opportunistic, mercenary, anglo centered, tendencies that made Slavery and Jim Crowism possible and created a mentality of self defeatism, low standards and dependency among it's victims (namely African Americans).<br><br>In many cases the makeup of the teams participating in these AAC competitions are almost exclusive of any African American involvement beyond the direction of the African American Architect who may or may not be fulfilling their role as design lead(s). Conveniently enough, this can be attributed to the systemic reality of a disproportionally low number of African American Architects in the profession hence the lack of willing and capable African Americans who's unique experience and outlook could enhance these projects. Recent stats show African American Architects as 1.5% of total licensed Architects in the US. Nontheless, consider the notion of a National Asian American museum or National Latin American museum that excluded Asians and Latinos respectively from being active participants in the the design and production process? Sounds absurd, but that is almost always the case with regard to AAC competitions.<br><br>But the other important point here is that the design lead role which is almost always attributed to the African American firm is a token designation with regard to the fee assignments and profit distribution for these projects. The design lead loses out on the bulk of fee which is largely generated in the production, and CA phases of the project, not to mention any additional fees that may be generated. In turn, the large corporate firm gets larger and more powerful at the expense of the smaller firms.<br><br>In the end, the perception of these partnerships may leave the impression and or reinforce the stereotype that African Americans are not capable of acting solely to produce quality architecture. Freelon's Atlanta Center for Civil and Human Rights is a beautiful project but many will attribute this to the partnership with HOK not Phil Freelon himself. African American firms should not be ashamed to combine their talents and form partnerships to pursue any project of their interest (even if the project is not an African American centered institution).<br><br>(Pardon my rambling)<br>Peace |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Frankly on
Saturday, March 28, 2009 |
| Do you really believe anyone comes here to read this diatribe? <br><br>Whatever the skin color of the designers, this was my favorite and will be a beautiful building for downtown Atlanta. <br><br><br> |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Anonymous on
Monday, March 30, 2009 |
| It is very disappointing that this bland lifeless scheme was selected over other ideas that could move Atlanta toward more prominence on the national and international stage. The HOK/Freelon scheme is no different than all the bland plain vanilla boxes in the city today so I guess it will just "fit in". |
|
|
To Okra Mutulu Barashango |
By MRG on
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 |
| Okra Mutulu Barashango, your diatribe about a lack of African-American architects in this project due to the partnership with HOK is misplaced. You clearly understand little of architectural practice if you believe that "bulk of fee which is largely generated in the production, and CA phases of the project". In fact, the CA portion of a project tends to be a place where many firms LOOSE money. This phase is the most tedious and there is no design input involved. All of the primary firms in the competition partnered with a local architect. There are many reasons to do this, largely centered on the ability to easily oversee construction on a daily basis, and having little to do with taking of the design or the credit for the design. The reason to include them in the design is to have a better understanding of the context of the design. You only need to look at the comments to the design entries and the way that people refer to the different schemes to know that the partnering firms are generally discounted in the design of the building, and the prime architect is given credit.<br><br>Now that I have addressed the fact that the partnering firm will not overshadow the prime architect., I would like to address your assertion that only an African American will do, and that the inclusion of HOK makes the Freelon team not black enough. Please note that this is not the National African American Museum. This is the Civil and Human Rights museum. Still, in the selection process, an expectation was made that the architect would be African American. One of the main objections to the Diller Scofidio + Renfro design was that none of the partners was black enough. Apparently, partners of mixed race and minorities other than black were not acceptable, despite the way that their presentation demonstrated a deep understanding the issues that the CCHR needs to address. That is the clearest example I can give of how the race of the architect was considered in the selection process. Furthermore, you seem to imagine that if the parteners in a firm such as HOK are not black, then they have no black employees, and/or would not assign black employees to the CCHR project, which I find to be preposterous. My thought is that minority employees in any firm that participates in this project will be clamouring to be included in the team that works on it. And I say minority, not just black, because this project touches many minorities other than African American, and there are even white males who are stirred to the cause of civil and human rights, as the Freedom Rides demonstrate.<br><br>Your assertion that the participation of anyone who is not black sullies this project is a racist assertion.<br><br>Yes, this project should support the growth of minority firms as part of its mission, but it's main goal should be to serve its purpuse of promoting civil and human rights to the fullest extent in the many years that it will operate. This will come through the quality and thoughtfulness of the design.<br><br>As for the actual design, I do not believe that it has the gravitas to hold its own solumn identity beside the very commercial and upbeat Coca Cola Museum and Georgia Aquarium adjacent to it. The linking arms concept has little to do with how people will interact with the building, and shows a lack of understanding of the site, which is only bordered by tall buildings on one side, so ithe locking arms will be seen in this way from very few buildings. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Hope on
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 |
| Great job! The linking arms has alot of meaning before you enter the building. I am very pleased with CCHR choice. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By haha on
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 |
| FAIL |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Realist on
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 |
| All you "critics" amaze me. You have judged and convicted the design based on one computer image that was produced in less than a months time. Did anyone ever consider that this is the only project that satisfies all of the program requirements, fits the site, has a solid concept and could actually be BUILT?! Isn't that the real objective here? The other presentaions look like nothing more than architectural graduate school student mental masturbations with a bunch of verbal pillow talk. These comments above bring to mind the harsh immediate criticisms of the Eifle Tower or Guggenhiem which in hind sight turned out to be ok after all. Architecture, just as with people, it's what ison the inside that counts. Relax, it will be all right. |
|
|
Re: Freelon/HOK selected as CCHR architects |
By Realist? on
Sunday, April 12, 2009 |
| What is wrong with the 'mental masturbations' of a graduate student. Usually it is the graduate student that has the balls to look forward in architecture. This bs design is something straight out of FIRST year...literally...I've seen better gestural metaphors in first year students. And as far as the feasibility of construction...do your research. DS+R has built much more complicated structures than this. Realist, just go back to designing strip malls and spec housing and leave cultural architecture to those who know it.<br><br>And your comparison of this museum to the Eiffel Tower and the Guggenhiem....laughable at best. You might want to go back to undergraduate Architecture Theory and review the thought and innovation that went into those designs compared to that in this third-grade-level gesture. |
|
|
|
|