When killing time on the 'net today I found this hilarious architecture “D’Oh” moment
and thought it would make great fodder for a new thread on core.
Something went wrong with the design of a new architectural master piece in London.
The “Walkie Talkie Scycraper” makes its surrounds hot with “envy”?
Scycraper:
rendering
realisation
melted Jag parts
mo-i
On the other hand, they may be able to capitalize on this by positioning solar panels in the reflection areas that flow electricity back into said “Walkie Talkie”.
Win?
Heard this story on NPR/BBC this morning. According to the reporter, the architect, Rafael Viñoly, used a similar design in Las Vegas with similar issues.
Also the architect’s modeling showed that this would happen for a few hours a day, for a couple weeks.
-Peter
It just shows how pretentious architects rarely consider the environment of their buildings.
pretentious architects, what ever do you mean ? consider this piece by starchitect coop himmelblau, i have to wonder if he really considered the environment of this building
If you are going to bring up the Aztek, you need to show it with the three spoke wheels.
And the tent.
Is it bad that I kind of like the Aztec? It’s pretty usable…which counts a lot for me. However, I always feel like as a designer I’m supposed to not like it at all.
I am with you … it’s admirable that they took a risk even if it is seen as a flop. In a way, does it make more sense that a designer would like the car, just as a designer might be more likely to wear outrageous shoes that other people wouldn’t go for (there’s got to be a better example)?
The primary crime of the Aztek is the back not matching or transitioning well into anything else on the car. If that were redone, it would be a nice little design, certainly better than anything coming out of GM from that same time period. =)
I have never seen the Pontiac Aztek on the road, but it seems to be kind of a thing to hate on it. I have to admit… it is not a pretty car, but there are a lot of not so pretty cars out there, so that doesn’t seem too relevant.
It is like hating on Arial. There might be valid reason for hating it, but most people who do just do it because everybody does. If no one would have told them it is bad they probably wouldn’t have noticed.
I think you should stop hating on Arial and save your energy to hate on the real crimes - like Comic Sans 
And personally I think the Fiat Multipla is the Comic Sans of Cars
Greatest car ever.
The Aztek was a typical GM move: a reasonably good concept messed up by too many people stepping on it on the way to production.
The Fiat Multipla is one of the greatest designs of all time. I would rank it in my top 10. Huge space, airy cabin, 3 x 3 seating on a tiny footprint.
Yeah, spacious, 3x3 seating and all is great… but what about that roll of flab with the mutant eyes? What’s the reason for that? All it does is giving room for very unflattering associations.
and people often have a hard time understanding original design
Well, but at least in my book a design that is not understood by people is just not a good design. As a car designer you can’t just design something “original” like that and then expect people to NOT see a fat baby whale or whatever in it.
The Aztek has a lot of unique things going on, a lot of cool storage solutions in the interior and such. And for being one of GM’s first cars (if not the first) done primarily in digital without any clay I think it was an experiment that just needed more time to allow for refinement…
The roll of fat kept the hood very low. In the designers sketches, he refers to keeping cost low by reducing the amount of metal in the front. Certainly the tighter body leads to that. I guess mounting those lights up high make them more visible and give them a better range (my theory only).
With the 1998 Multipla, we had a different construction, a spaceframe chassis, which gave us the opportunity to host many different layouts for engines etc. So the times with the Multipla were the times when we dreamt about building up a new lineup of products; low volumes, low investment, but big differences between the products.
That’s another thing to remember…1998 was a very different time for trends. The oval Ford Taurus had debuted in '96, for example.
As for designs being successful in spite of market failure, I normally agree with you. However, I think there are exceptions to every rule and the Multipla falls into that category.
Ok, interesting. I didn’t know that apparently the outer appearance reflects part of the underlying structure/concept. I always thought it is a case of “different for the sake of being different” gone wrong.
But still, I think it was just a horrible choice to let it look so organic that it looks like a roll of fat. The associations you instantly have are just wrong. There would have been other ways to incorporate that kink in a more elegant way.
But then again, as you said, those were different times and I am pretty sure they wouldn’t design it like that nowadays.
I guess in my mind it will always be the first example for a truly ugly car.
I guess in my mind it will always be the first example for a truly ugly car.
While it definitely falls squarely into the category, there must be others far more worthy of the title … first.
(the first gen Pacer wasn’t actually that bad, IMO); but they fixed that in 1979.
That said, it still might qualify as the best ugliest.
I’m not picking on American Motors Corp.
The original Aztek concept show car…
Not great, but not bad either.
