tower of babble

the new yorker just did an interesting profile on rem koolhaas, someone i find to be very interesting to read about, if somewhat frightening to look at.

i'm lucky enough to have one architect friend with whom i'd occasionally try to talk as though i knew something beyond the names santiago piano, raphael calatrava, and caesar foster. sadly, he's in another city these days, but i often miss those conversations, elementary as they were.

anyway, the piece talks about how koolhaas' Office for Metropolitan Architecture is as much an idea workshop as it is a building workshop, and how there's a rigor to the thinking there -- perhaps to a fault, if you find him gimmicky or pompus -- that jumps out at people visiting the firm. the reason i'm writing at all right now is because of this bit of the article, written by daniel zalewski, which had me laughing out loud on the train:

Nothing is approved at OMA just because it looks cool. A defense of its function, or its conceptual appeal, must be made....To survive this proces, OMA architects must be verbally as well as visually destrous. Koolhaas become impatient when a colleague's languag is wan or imprecise--"I really dislike the word 'interesting,'" he told me. When an associate cannot give a clear explanation for a design decision, Koolhaas chides him by saying, "You are not fully exploiting my intelligence."

Story of my life, Rem. He goes on my short list of people I'd like to have dinner with sometime.

here's a building or two