Real World Event Discussions

Are we too sensitive?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, December 15, 2011 20:28
VIEWED: 9315
PAGE 1 of 3

NIKI2

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:11 PM

That was my first thought when I saw this on the news:

Quote:

Dutch architecture firm MVRDV said they proposed its “Cloud” design because it challenged the mundane shape of the typical skyscraper. A pair of luxury residential towers in Seoul would be joined in the middle by a cloud-like shape, billowing out like a tutu around two legs.

(I saw film of the "cloud" part, and it looked really NEAT to me! This is the CNN report I saw on it; I couldn't live in one of those "cloud" apartments, but I think they look really neat and innovative!)

But when a press release went out about the design on Dec. 7, announcing the residences as part of a plan to extend the city’s business district, a playful cumulonimbus is not the image many saw. Instead, some were taken back to 9/11, and the smoke that filled the sky after the planes hit the World Trade Center.

Some media outlets stoked this fire. The Los Angeles Times, for example, leads their story by saying that the proposed high-rises categorically “evoke New York’s World Trade Center towers in mid-explosion in the terrifying moments after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” But, the Dutch firm said in an apology, that was not the case for everyone.
Quote:
“The Cloud was designed based on parameters such as sunlight, outside spaces, living quality for inhabitants and the city,” they wrote. “It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks, nor did we see the resemblance during the design process. We sincerely apologize to anyone whose feelings we have hurt, it was not our intention.”
It seems reasonable that no firm that wanted to stay in business would champion such a plan if that connection were known. The blowback the firm describes on their Facebook page is another testament to that line of logic. “A real media storm has started,” they wrote, “and we [received] threatening emails and calls of angry people calling us Al Qaeda lovers or worse.”

Recognizing that the design is legitimately upsetting for some, and assuming that the firm truly didn’t see the connection, where does the fault lie? Did the firm fail to be sufficiently thoughtful about what the design might dredge up for some people, particularly Americans? Is there also a mistake being made by concentrating so heavily on that symbolism?

In any case, the developer has said that the design for the high-rises is still up in the air, and after this PR debacle, it seems unlikely that MVRDV will be coming away with the bid. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/12/critics-say-korean-skyscraper-desi
gn-evokes-exploding-twin-towers/

I'm actually kinda sad if they don't build it.
I'm guessing maybe if they put the "cloud" apartments at the TOP, nobody would have noticed.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:41 PM

I heard about this on the radio, and was curious as to what it looked like. Almost anything 'twin towers' , from the get go, is going to remind folks of the WTC towers. And yes, from first glance, it does have a strong similarity to an exploding WTC photo, when shown in a side by side comparison.

But here's the thing... who'd want their design to remind people of that terrible day, and who'd want to LIVE / work in such a building ?

Upon closer inspection, it's a pretty cool design. with jutting units and trees / gardens on the various roof tops.

Pretty innocent, had it come out before 9/11. But now ? Of course, most NYers are going to say it reminds them of the WTC towers. How could they not ?

I think it's a cool concept, but suffers from just dumb luck of the reality of a post 9/11 world.

*edit* And my guess is, that structurally speaking, there's no way to put the 'clouds' on the upper floors, as it would make the building too top heavy. Too low, and it kinda defeats the purpose, that of the concept of a tower soaring through the clouds. I think they can still go w/ the general idea, but not make it look so similar to 9/11.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:19 PM

Perhaps we are a bit sensitive about this, but it's really hard to look at the proposed building and NOT be instantly reminded of the horrific images of 9-11.

Do they have the right to do this? Certainly. Seems a bit crass, though, and I don't for a second buy the idea that nobody ever saw the similarity.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

EVILDINOSAUR

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:28 PM

I wish I had seen the building before reading the article. After reading the article, yes, it looks eerily like the twin towers exploding. I can't say for sure if I would have seen that so readily before having the connection made for me by the article.

Maybe if there was more color difference between the building and the "cloud" like a darker building to offset a lighter colored cloud. Maybe more rounded and less sharp corners. I dunno, I can't see a friendly cloud in that.

Obviously (at least to me) the designers weren't intending to make that connection.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:15 PM

I think they ought to make it a big glass looking donut instead. Why go all blocky when you can have a SLEEK looking design? And if it's rainy, they can still evoke the idea of a cloud that way.

I mostly think it's a dumb design, and part and parcel of my belief that modern architects have no taste whatsoever.

HERO

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think they ought to make it a big glass looking donut instead.

You want impressive? Screw the glass and steel, build me a building out of an actual doughnut.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:10 PM

Yes, we are too sensitive. It wouldn't be so bad if the design weren't so damn ugly to boot.

Apparently all the creative architects have moved to Dubai.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

WISHIMAY

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I think it's a cool concept, but suffers from just dumb luck of the reality of a post 9/11 world.

Dumb luck or planned publicity??
I mean, they just got half the US to look at it, how many other countries are looking at it today?

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:50 AM

Even I think it looks like the twin towers, maybe they can tweek it a bit so it looks less like them? I wouldn't want to live in that building anyways, its funny looking and weird.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NIKI2

Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:28 PM

Don't fall over, Raptor, but I agree with you 100%

Quote:
Upon closer inspection, it's a pretty cool design. with jutting units and trees / gardens on the various roof tops.

It's a shame people see what they do, but I guess it's inevitable. Betcha it's mostly Americans who see the resemblance, which is why I wondered if we're not too sensitive.

Are those actually BUILDINGS in Dubai, or just architectural drawings? Those are WILD!

I disagree about the idea that they did it to get publicity...I don't think anyone wants that kind of publicity, and the article said their chances of winning the contract are less because of the controversy.