I don't know much about architecture, but I remember finding Stewart Brand's book 'How Buildings Learn' very compelling and persuasive. I think anyone who's taken this excellent book on board will have a similar reaction looking at some of these gee-whiz "futuristic" buildings: what's the point?

Brand's key argument was that architecture as an industry is being severely compromised in its long-term vision by obsession with visual appearance. The building's finished, photos are taken, and awards are given based on aesthetics. Don't get me wrong, aesthetics are a key part of a healthy life. But so are useful and effective tools (if we can stretch the word "tools" for a moment to encompass buildings). Form vs. function is a redundant debate as long as neither are neglected.

Given China's rising world status, my first (possibly wrong) impression is that these "wow! factor" projects are more to do with bolstering the national image rather than *true* futurism, which looks at sustainability and the long-term.

Though, granted, they seem to be making some concessions in terms of fuel economy. (Interesting to note, though, that this is largely out of national security fears about oil imports, and urban health, rather than any enlightened environmental concern.)

Still, surpassing US fuel economy standards really ain't saying much! ;-)

I agree with you Gyrus in principle. I love Steward Brands book!

Despite all we can say bad about China, I admit there is a lot, there are two things going for it with this architecture.

Firstl, many of these buildings are going a long way in integrating "green" into the design.

For example, the Looped Hybrid Housing is integrates several eco-design principles. This particular design is significant in that it blends in with the natural environment more than most buildings I've ever seen.

Also, I disagree with the sentiment that aesthetics isn't important. Creating structures which are pleasing to the eye, have a dramatic effect on people's moods and happiness. And I think anything we can do to make the built environment more pleasing, in turn makes them more livable.

OK, I admit my reaction was possibly shallow in the same sense as most people's assumption that the buildings are wonderful and "futuristic" is: it was based on first impressions.

But I think you misread me. I didn't say aesthetics aren't important, I said "Don't get me wrong, aesthetics are a key part of a healthy life." :-)

It's an interesting topic, though. I'm curious how far aesthetics are governed by knowledge and intimacy. As in: one of the "boxy" buildings that Brand lauds, which might not be superficially aesthetically pleasing, may well come to be perceived as pleasing by the people who have long, satisfying, creative relationships with the building. That was certainly the impression he gave interviewing users of some of the buildings he featured in 'How Buildings Learn'.

Conversely, something that might be superficially pleasing to the eye could become ugly if you've spent a long time being frustrated with unusable space, a leaky roof, etc.

I guess this is part of "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Well, much as I'm suspicious of architectural trends that aim for a sheen of futuristic gloss that will please the Hollywood-besotted public, obviously I applaud the use of ecologically sound principles in building designs.

PS. Is it me or is the font-size for these comments way too tiny?

Gyrus,

The comments font is tiny as a default in Moveable Type, the program I use to create this blog. I'll see if I can up it a size.

Cool! Thanks.