Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
Paula Ann
07:51 AM on 12/20/2009
I came on here ready to vote Gehry's Walt Disney Theater as my personal favorite only to find it didn't even make the list. At first I thought, well, maybe it was built in the '90s. Nope. 2003.
So, why was it not a nominee? Too popular? Too much like the Bilbao Guggenheim?
It's still number one.
07:38 AM on 12/20/2009
I think this is one of the most awesome buildings of this decade, Shanghai World Financial Center, opened 2008:
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:33 AM on 12/20/2009
OOOHHHHHH That really is beautiful! Thanks for the link!
Sane but crazy.....
01:42 PM on 12/20/2009
Same here, Netz. Beautiul building.
Our government is a wartocracy.
06:23 AM on 12/20/2009
German buildings that use zero energy, actually putting energy into the grid, are my choice.
Allen Gladfelter
03:52 AM on 12/20/2009
I'd like to mention the Banner Bank building in Boise, Idaho. It's a very well-designed and well-built LEEDS platinum certified office buildling in heart of downtown Boise. The care taken in it's construction and the efficiency in which the building works makes it, in my humble opinion, worthy of mention.
02:03 AM on 12/20/2009
What about the Calatrava wing at the Milwaukee Art Museum?
07:27 AM on 12/20/2009
Really ugly.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:36 AM on 12/20/2009
It reminds me of Sally Field's hat in "The Flying Nun". More art than usable space. Thumbs down here.
01:29 AM on 12/20/2009
whomever made this list obviously has never seen the ICA in person. how could this be included in the top ten OF A DECADE? So much work out there that is simply amazing... and this one is here?... try including a picture of it during the DAY!
01:32 AM on 12/20/2009
typo... IAC... have had boston on my mind today i suppose
12:12 AM on 12/20/2009
Also, I was in Seattle just last week, and regardless of how architects feel about the library there, average people don't seem to have a great opinion of it unfortunately.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:09 AM on 12/20/2009
Like a street walker working a corner of downtown Seattle, the Central Branch is flashy, cheap, and aging badly. Nor is its architecture the worst news. It's an inferior library, scorned by the public and loathed by the people who have to work in it.

Seattle is cluttered with the awful architectural side effects of its proximity to its Microsoft corporate overlords, which aren't limited merely to functional or aesthetic disasters. They also come come in the form of financial and civic rape, such as Paul Allen's Seahawks Stadium.
01:47 AM on 12/20/2009
I just signed up for the commenting function specifically so I could reply to "j daniels" and "rbryanh". As someone who is actually from Seattle, as opposed to j daniels, who apparently is from New Jersey, I take strong exception to your statement. The "average person" in Seattle is extremely proud of the Library; granted, there was some controversy surrounding it when it was first built, but it's a source of civic pride to most residents. As for rbryanh's statement about "scorned by the public" and "loathed by those who work there," to paraphrase Barney Frank: what planet have you been spending your time on? On every indicator of civic engagement - number of books in circulation, number of computing resources used, number of children in story hour, number of volunteers, attendance at events - the Library blows it out of the water. And the staff there takes strong pride in its work at the institution - perhaps you know a contingent that has valid complaints about working there, but please don't feign to generalize to the rest of the population. As for your comment about "civic rape", I find this extremely inappropriate as someone who has been involved with sexual assault volunteering. There are other ways of making your point that don't draw upon the imagery of rape and violence.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
there's no such thing as objectivity
12:09 AM on 12/20/2009
cool. well, u may know buildings,
but how come u don't know that the decade doesn't end for another year yet???
Pretty hot stud.
10:45 PM on 12/28/2009
That would explain the Burj on the list, at least...
12:03 AM on 12/20/2009
Bilbao still sets the standard.

2000-2010 didn't produce a project that captured the public like that one did.

Frank Gehry will be remembered by history like Frank Lloyd Wright is remembered.

Who's going to be the next great architect to get that far? It will be interesting to see.
Soror quaerens lucem
12:40 PM on 12/20/2009
Frank Gehry is exciting but owes his Architecture to computer software that allows him to conceive, create and draw these forms- something not possible previously through simple drafting.

His buildings are not spatial and are more about the sculptural form and application of material. He is in fact a sculptor. FLW was definitely masterful at creating spaces not just objects, he's in an entirely different category.

But yes Bilbao is exciting.
The name's Flurm. Flam Flurm.
08:05 PM on 12/20/2009
Right. This Gehry example is pretty uninteresting.
11:18 PM on 12/19/2009
You need more pics of each building, at different angles, to give it a score.
09:53 PM on 12/19/2009
My take on the top 10 most influential architects/projects of the 2000's:

Walt Disney Concert Hall - Frank Gehry
Phaeno Science Center - Zaha Hadid
Hypo Alpe-Adria Center - Morphosis
Kolumba - Peter Zumthor
Tate Modern - Herzog & de Meuron
HL23 - Neil Denari
Kunsthaus Graz - Peter Cook
Takatori Catholic Church - Shigeru Ban
Sendai Mediatheque - Toyo Ito
Selfridges - Future Systems
The name's Flurm. Flam Flurm.
10:35 PM on 12/19/2009
First two--terrible. Hypo Alpe-Adria Center is great.

Kolumba better than I expected. Tate is crap (G'oauld mothership), as is HL23. Peter Cook should get back into regular comedy though his architecture is equally hilarious. Didn't find anything about the Takatori Catholic Church.

Sendai Mediatheque, possibly good. Selfridges, a sequined twinkie.

Fuksas is better than all these guys.
11:43 PM on 12/19/2009
Regardless of taste, my list is more about the most influential architects of the last decade, and their most influential projects during that time. From my experience, these are the architects and projects that influenced the debate in the profession the most. Some of these architects are better represented in terms of the quality of their work by their smaller projects, but it's these larger projects that got the most press.
11:51 PM on 12/19/2009
Fuskas would have been a bigger star by now if it was going to happen.

He just never broke through, just never had that breakthrough project, and not for lack of opportunity. The Milan glass project is the closest thing he had I guess, but I've not heard good things about it.

I found his earlier more sculpture based work to be pretty interesting, but his modern stuff is pretty derivative of other architects who did it better.

Granted he's an incredibly talented guy, and probably deserves all the success he can get. But this is all relative. There's nothing that sets him apart like with Zaha or Morphosis or even Denari.

Italy needs a new big star architect. It's weird that they don't have one really, since Italy is sorta where star-chitecture really started.

Anyway, what do I know.

I'm just some chump in Jersey.
Soror quaerens lucem
12:44 PM on 12/20/2009
Actually a good list .
Peter Zumthor is great as is Shigeru Ban; but Rem Koolhas is about as influential as you can get as is Calatrava .
The name's Flurm. Flam Flurm.
08:04 PM on 12/20/2009
Calatrava is great fun. Was in Lyon recently and say his airport. Koolhaas also can be entertaining like that, but I really think of that stuff like carnival rides, not serious stuff.
More jaded at 56
08:55 PM on 12/19/2009
The Burj Dubai reminds me of Sauron.
08:53 PM on 12/19/2009
How does Disney Hall in Los Angeles not make the list?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:52 PM on 12/19/2009
It's had to take someone's opinion seriously who doesn't know how to count to 10 or when the Decade actually ends.
(any time someone talks about the 'end of the decade' while actually referring to 2009, you can almost literally hear their IQ dropping to below room temperature. If that.)

That being said, whomever came up with this list needs to either travel more or stop getting all their architecture information from magazines and journals.
09:27 PM on 12/19/2009
I think it's pretty meaningless to think of history in terms of arbitrary blocks of time anyway. It's far more useful to attach thematic significance to them. If someone asked me when the 2000s began and ended, I would say, perhaps 2001 to 2008. Or, you could argue that the decade is still going on.

Similarly, if you asked what the 20th century was, I would say, perhaps, from 1914 to 1989. And so on.

The point is that things don't magically change when the clock strikes 12. What defines a decade or a century is more about the events that take place in it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:07 PM on 12/19/2009
That's a rather decidedly spurious and conveniently subjective way of explaining it (or your way out of it).

Of course things don't magically change when the clock strikes 12. All that happens is that the earth completes one revolution or cycle, and begins another. It's not exactly rocket science,......................... or magic, for that matter.

Technically a century refers to any period of 100 years and a decade any period of time spanning 10 years. Nominally, however, when someone refers to "the" Decade (capital 'D' -meaning this particular 10 year period) or "the" Century (e,g. the 21st Century) it's conventionally understood that they're referring to a commonly accepted reference point from the beginning of the Gregorian Calendar system.

What you, specifically or I, subjectively or personally, believe should constitute the 20th Century as distinct to what it actually does in the nominal and conventional Calendar system, is neither here nor there, nor is it even relevant in the context of a conversation with another person who has to have a common frame of reference.

What you're doing is just a convenient way of avoiding having to use a rational and logical system of communicating with other people.
11:32 PM on 12/19/2009
Do you consider 1990 to have fallen within the eighties? 1980 to have been part of the seventies? Decades aren't reckoned the way a millennium is, counting back all the way to the year 1. Give it up. When the year ends, so will the decade.
And as for the best building: New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:32 AM on 12/20/2009
Yes, 1990 was part of the 80's,
just as 1980 was part of the 70's and not the 80's,
just like 1970 was part of the 60's and so on and so forth and so forth.
All the way back to just because 10 AD was part of the first decade of the millennium and not the second one.

If you still have trouble believing it, , then count backwards ten times from 10 AD and tell me where you end up. Go on I'll wait. Of course this presumes that you can actually count.

Just because you say something isn't so doesn't necessarily not make it so.

In the same way, just because you seem incapable of wrapping your small mind around a simple mathematical concept and the most basic of logical semantic precepts, doesn't mean that everybody else is just as incapable or mathematically challenged as you clearly are.

There's nothing for me to give up. 1+1 will still be equal to 2 tomorrow and the day after, just like 10 years, and not 9, will still add up to a decade, long after you give up and move onto the next difficult basic mathematical concept to misunderstand.