TVCC after the Flames | Beijing

TVCC after the Flames | Beijing | February 10, 2009
TVCC after the Flames | Beijing | February 10, 2009

Burn After Building. Due to a strange twist of fate and a couple of firecrackers, TVCC has moved out of the shadow of its big brother, CCTV. In the coming days, experts of all stamps will tell us why and how it all happened. In my understanding, TVCC was never a very lucky building. Adjacent to one of the world’s most ingenious and brutal buildings constructed in this era, it has always been overlooked, mocked, suspected of retardness and ugliness.

It be like this. The news has been tweeted, blogged and published all over. This morning there was nothing else to do than to go there and take pictures. (Exactly two-months after we started “Mocking the Monument”)

TVCC after the Flames | Beijing | February 10, 2009
TVCC after the Flames | Beijing | February 10, 2009

Pictures by movingcities.org



18 responses (add your comment)

  1. I am not that sad about this incident… and in my understanding, OMA was never a very good office… but there are too many people out there, which have a different opinion. Which is sad, indeed.

  2. hey arthur have you been hiding in a cave for the last 15-20 years or so?

  3. You should be sad.

    A building in flames has nothing to do with very good office or bad office. Architect company is bankrupt has nothing to do with very good office or bad office. Really strange thinking/answer of so many designers. You have to think about how many people could work in that building, when it was delivered. How many people now miss a chanc to get a new job, because TVCC has to stay in the old place. The whole logistic of TVCC might be in flame now.

  4. Why there is 2 comments, but only 1 comment showed.

  5. hi – …and i will hide another 20 years, especially when hearing about all the pseudo-experts and pseudo-theoreticians and pseudo-artists in architecture and all the crap that is selling, in this field, today.

    jef – …from a practical point, we might say, it is sad. from a symbolic point (which is not less important), we might be sad or not.

  6. Funny, so manny all off you try to say the building OMA designed is nothing… why do you comment on it then?

    Good luck with negativity…

  7. Arthur good has nothing to do with the value of an office.

    Good is subjective, you definition and my definition of what is good cannot be compared or debated, as it is based on a, hopefully educated, belief structure.

    The thing about OMA is their place within the profession of architecture. They, as a firm, are one of the most innovative and provocative firms in the world. Keep in mind a majority of projects that these “pseudo-intellectual” firms, as you call them, get are based on design competitions. So it is the clients and general public that decides on which design is built, there is not selling as you describe it.

    Does that mean I like all of their buildings, no, do I like most of them, yes. Does that make them a bad office because I don’t like some their buildings most definitely no. And by saying,
    “I am not that sad about this incident… and in my understanding; OMA was never a very good office…”
    It makes you sound as if you feel OMA deserved to have their building burn down… which is asinine. How many other parties are involved in the construction of a building? What about the client? Did they deserve to have their building burn down?

    Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean you need to hate it, and don’t rely on what you hear about OMA make up your own opinions…

  8. Very nice pictures. I am not going to continue the discussion about OMA, but the first thing going through my mind when I heard about the fire was the construction workers who I hoped had been evacuated (btw was the building ever finished?).

    I think this will not only go down in history as the biggest burning skyskraper disaster in China (the World?) but as the shortest life of the weirdest skyskraper in the world. Now that the smoke and dust has settled, the disfigured body appears, as if we had never seen how arbitrarily the design of a styrofoam and cardboard model had been enlarged 1000 times and given the name TVCC. The absurdity of the project becomes transparent and we can only gasp at the first monument of the 21st century construction necropolis.

  9. Peter-A. Simonsen February 13, 2009
    at 07:50

    Hello

    First of all I would like to say that Arthur is intitled to his opinion, even if it does come across as being a bit blunt and morbit at first.
    I would like to address a funtemental lack of understanding that I think is shown by W.L.Burks: Yes, saying wether or not an office is good or bad is indeed a subjective opinion, but that does not mean that it should be keept to one self, or that it, once spoken, has no value.
    Indeed debating opinions that are, as you say yourself, “based on a, hopefully educated, belief structure” is the only way we can rise above subjectivity and come closer to an objective understanding of the world.. and of architecture.
    And good/bad has everything to do with the value of an office, it is the sum total of opinions like that that make up the value of everyting. And, perhaps unfortuantely, as Arthur point out, the generel opinion of OMA differs from his.

    All this being said, I’d like to express my own opinion and say that I hope noone was hurt in the incident.. wether we agree with the architecture or not, its just buildings – and we design and build them for people.. They are what is truely important.

  10. OMA dares to walk where the fainthearted will not,
    Its in their irrational builtform,
    Where most common folkarchitects dare not tread,
    Looking from afar the folkarchitects begin trying to rationalise the irrational but their intellectual mediocrity is a laxative for their daring
    They use words like “absurdity”, to put a description to what their minds cannot rationalise,
    And then a fire,………Its time for the haters to smile with glee,
    Because, a fire, what is a fire, well that is something they can understand,
    Its rational and commonplace,
    I tell you, these folkarchitects,………………….

  11. As Coop Himmelblau said way back in the seventies:
    “Architecture must burn!”
    And they were right.
    I think the spectacle is of sublime quality.
    And nobody has ever designed or built such a facade like the one after the fire.
    Pure emotions! What more can you ask architecture for?

  12. lol, by saying ‘not that sad’ i expressed that a part of me takes this fire as a symbol – symbolizing that the legacy on some figures (buildings, designs, persons in architecture) might deserve some counter action.

    but ‘architecture must burn’ is a quite stupid slogan by some folks, which believed or maybe still believe that provocative action is already ‘deep meaning’. that is then the other side of symbols: when they remain nothing but advertisment.

    the ‘folkarchitects’ – maybe they are indeed boring, but most of them do not pretend that their work would so much state-of-the-art

    at any rate, subjective me, i have the impression that 99% of the OMA-lovers actually are falling because it is cool or because the magazines say so.

  13. Sharon Rotbard | BABEL (ARCHITECTURES), posted on TVCC and suggested a re-design for the building.

  14. Actually, my favourite image is fourth down from the top (of this page)…with the person taking a photo of the photo that’s being taken. Can we capture the perspective of someone observing/commenting on an event like this?

    I think ‘the captured photographer, capturing’ says much more than anyone here has thus far…

leave a reply

Formatting: you can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>