Peter Cook, Entertainment Tower, Montreal, Canada, 1963
(via radarqnet)
#peter cook #architecture #montreal #drawing
Peter Cook, Entertainment Tower, Montreal, Canada, 1963
(via radarqnet)
Peter Cook | Architecture: action and plan
via archidose
Biblioteca Publica de Mexico | Alberto Kalach
Peter Cook evokes the existence of the incredible building that is the Biblioteca Publica of Mexico City by Alberto Kalach. This Mexican Architect seems to have succeed to create a library influenced by both Borges’ fantastic atmosphere and Kafka’s ambiguous and intriguing fascination for bureaucracy.
The beautiful pictures from Tomás Casademunt succeeds to reinforce in an incredible way this feeling.
Sections are out of fashion at the moment, but due for a revival. That most delightful of drawing types, they are able to offer both ‘picture’ and ‘organization’. After all, a plan serves to deal with organization and an elevation gives a picture. Both of these can be total - as far as they go. Various types of three dimensional drawing can give a picture, but however evocative, it is biased - a directional - view. The section is the aficionado’s choice. Buildings can be infinitely debated through the forensic analysis of a section. The virtuoso manipulator will recognize in another’s section his wit and her architectural literacy.
The section is perhaps the most irritating and intangible form of architects’ drawing for the untrained eye. It confounds those critics who try to ascribe a value system that is not based upon form and operation (a larger contingent than is strictly necessary). It is a joy. The long section of the Kunsthaus Graz says it all. It is both technical and conceptual.
"
Mechanical Living | Nelson Larroque
Mechanical Living is a project designed by Nelson Larroque within Peter Cook’s studio at the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture in Paris. This project is a very literal vision of dwellings created in former industrial sites which facilities manage to supply energy.
Peter Cook | a tower for SWISS COTTAGE
THE FINER GRAINS OF RADICALISM
Richness of investigation that can be found in the grain of the work distinguishes certain exploratory architecture that has been going on in London for the last 30 years. Given that the resulting compositions are sometimes weird, there is a tendency for outside observers to admire its craftsmanship (as drawing or physical fashioning—or its will to surf between various modes and programs of digitalization). Such observers often seem shy to discuss its uncomfortable relationship with either the Broad Mainstream of built and projected architecture or the more shrilly political/theoretical thrusts of European Statements and Positions. A clue might be found in listening to a Review session at the Bartlett School—where all of the exhibiters are to be found. A certain tradition of discussion still lingers—far less “positional” than an American session and less declamatory than in France or Germany. The non-British are often puzzled that a discussion can stray far away from the motives or maneuvers of the project and engage in speculation, whimsy, pernickety detail, gossip, nostalgia, raconteurship and probably avoid (at all costs) the definition of the project as “good” or “bad.” The same waywardness has often been observed in the English Novel, where identification of good, evil, heroism or villainy are replaced by messy and complex situations—but full of intriguing side-issues that months later strike you as containing the essence of the message. Of course only two of our exhibitors are English by birth and the territories that they severally explore range from the imagined to the prosaic, the delirious to the stubbornly measurable. Yet the common culture they share is of teaching or studying in a school where individuality has been cherished and the teachers have a tendency to re-define their interests without notice. Those same speculations, details and an assumed mandate to slither from one territory to another are then interpreted through formal objects and drawn imagery.
Sometimes the Bartlett is assumed to be hung up on gadgetry, sometimes on an over-refinement of the drawn (or plotted) line. Sometimes it’s believed to wallow in fantasy: yet its graduates are statistically the most desired by offices in a city with a dozen nearby schools—as well as the plane-loads that come over from the technische hochschulen. When Eric Moss asked me to round up some specimens, I had no second thoughts that these three syndromes were the ones to have—anyhow, anywhere and not as much to make a pedagogic point as to simply get some great stuff on the wall. All of them at their best when being full-on—or should I say, fully indulgent. The art of indulgence is a threatened species. God preserve us from all those reasonable architects, those cool manners, those careful Buildings—go look elsewhere for that—there’s plenty of it around.
Sections are out of fashion at the moment, but due for a revival. That most delightful of drawing types, they are able to offer both ‘picture’ and ‘organization’. After all, a plan serves to deal with organization and an elevation gives a picture. Both of these can be total - as far as they go. Various types of three dimensional drawing can give a picture, but however evocative, it is biased - a directional - view. The section is the aficionado’s choice. Buildings can be infinitely debated through the forensic analysis of a section. The virtuoso manipulator will recognize in another’s section his wit and her architectural literacy.
The section is perhaps the most irritating and intangible form of architects’ drawing for the untrained eye. It confounds those critics who try to ascribe a value system that is not based upon form and operation (a larger contingent than is strictly necessary). It is a joy. The long section of the Kunsthaus Graz says it all. It is both technical and conceptual.
"