|
Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics.
|
|
|
|
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on April 15, 2007, 1:35 pm
I'll start:
First year (socialist-behavioralists):
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu/savoye1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C3%A9_d%27Habitation
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Amsterdam_Orphanage.html
Second year (reformed behavioralists, born-again modernists):
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/kahn/kahnlib1.jpg
http://www.ura.gov.sg/skyline/skyline05/skyline05-05/text/pg2.html
http://www.bartonmyers.com/WOLF_01.htm
http://www.bartonmyers.com/MYERS_01.htm
Third Year (rationalists, post modernists):
http://eng.archinform.net/projekte/251.htm?scrwdt=1280
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne-Louis_Boull%C3%A9e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga_Civic_Centre
Fourth Year (fascists):
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Casa_del_Fascio.html
http://www.discountmilano.com/tour/Classico/Galleria/index.html
Fifth Year:
They sorta stopped pushing stuff on me, so I can't remember...
Scary, isn't it?
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
|
|
Posted by gruhn on April 15, 2007, 5:09 pm
The classes have been pretty good at not making me feel that I had to
like something.
"Design Principles" (props to Rich Griswold) in particular. He is very
careful to note that students are more than welcom to dislike
something; that he does not necessarily show something because he is
presenting it as good. Some he openly disses but most he leaves
opinion for the student and merely explains what is interesting/
important/educational about a given work. The histories have been on
the dry side or, at times, the controversial side. That is "this
building is important and everybody gets to look at it because..." or
"Bob said this and designed this. Now Steve said something entirely
else. Note the controversy between Bob and Steve. What would Steve
think of Bob's building?"
I've never been shut down for saying "Well, Corb says thus and so yet
his buildings seem to contradict that in practice" and the like.
The things we must revere come about more from the casual discussions.
Saw a film in studio though that gave me the idea that a certain piece
of crap was "really good" not just "really good at illustrating an
idea." Of course, if a building exemplifies exemplary design behaviour
then it must be good. Even if it's a pile of crap. Ne?
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on April 16, 2007, 7:52 am
In first year, we used to have a saying, "Corb did it, so it must be OK"
Where did you go to school?
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
show/hide quoted text
> The classes have been pretty good at not making me feel that I had to
> like something.
> "Design Principles" (props to Rich Griswold) in particular. He is very
> careful to note that students are more than welcom to dislike
> something; that he does not necessarily show something because he is
> presenting it as good. Some he openly disses but most he leaves
> opinion for the student and merely explains what is interesting/
> important/educational about a given work. The histories have been on
> the dry side or, at times, the controversial side. That is "this
> building is important and everybody gets to look at it because..." or
> "Bob said this and designed this. Now Steve said something entirely
> else. Note the controversy between Bob and Steve. What would Steve
> think of Bob's building?"
> I've never been shut down for saying "Well, Corb says thus and so yet
> his buildings seem to contradict that in practice" and the like.
> The things we must revere come about more from the casual discussions.
> Saw a film in studio though that gave me the idea that a certain piece
> of crap was "really good" not just "really good at illustrating an
> idea." Of course, if a building exemplifies exemplary design behaviour
> then it must be good. Even if it's a pile of crap. Ne?
>
|
|
Posted by 3D Peruna on April 15, 2007, 8:18 pm
It's been too long for me to remember specifics, except I do remember:
1) They tried damn hard to make me like it and failed miserably.
2) Anything by "Corbu" was perfect and to be emulated.
3) Kahn was great, but not as great.
4) Mies, was far superior to Wright.
5) Wright was whispered as they whisper "Voldemort" in the Potter books.
6) I did have one professor who tried to get the school to issue
Wrightian capes to the students and professors. He was serious--and I
supported the idea because I thought it would have been a laugh (and I
wanted a cape).
7) What annoyed me most, and still does to this day (as it continues in
the trade rags) is that simply stating an idea makes it valid. If a
building "does X" because I said a building "did X", then it was so.
8) My own experience taught me that the best buildings are most often
those that are not well known and by "lessor" architects. I also
learned that unless you've been in the building and talked to those that
use it, you have NO idea what it is as "Architecture." Sculpture,
maybe. But to architecture, if by architecture you mean "structures
that people inhabit".
9) I was able to get a professor to be so incensed by what I wrote that
he crumpled it up and stuck it to his tack board with a knife. It is
probably my proudest moment from architecture school.
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on April 16, 2007, 8:14 am
show/hide quoted text
> It's been too long for me to remember specifics, except I do remember:
> 1) They tried damn hard to make me like it and failed miserably.
Ditto
show/hide quoted text
> 2) Anything by "Corbu" was perfect and to be emulated.
Ditto
show/hide quoted text
> 3) Kahn was great, but not as great.
Ditto
show/hide quoted text
> 4) Mies, was far superior to Wright.
Ditto
show/hide quoted text
> 5) Wright was whispered as they whisper "Voldemort" in the Potter books.
Haha exactly. Profs never said his name out loud unless to ridicule him.
show/hide quoted text
> 6) I did have one professor who tried to get the school to issue
> Wrightian capes to the students and professors. He was serious--and I
> supported the idea because I thought it would have been a laugh (and I
> wanted a cape).
We had to look like we slept in our clothes at our desks.
show/hide quoted text
> 7) What annoyed me most, and still does to this day (as it continues in
> the trade rags) is that simply stating an idea makes it valid. If a
> building "does X" because I said a building "did X", then it was so.
Ah, the BS factor. We actually have a bit of a contraversy brewing here in
TO. A steadily more pretentious newspaper critic, and the usual suspects
attacking on of their own who has grown into a local titan. The rhetoric is
all there, just like the old days. http://tinyurl.com/2qzljm
show/hide quoted text
> 8) My own experience taught me that the best buildings are most often
> those that are not well known and by "lessor" architects. I also learned
> that unless you've been in the building and talked to those that use it,
> you have NO idea what it is as "Architecture." Sculpture, maybe. But to
> architecture, if by architecture you mean "structures that people
> inhabit".
> 9) I was able to get a professor to be so incensed by what I wrote that
> he crumpled it up and stuck it to his tack board with a knife. It is
> probably my proudest moment from architecture school.
Sounds like our experiences were very similar. I wrote a paper where I
compared the 'good guys' with some 'bad guys' under the an existential lens
that showed them both as ultimately doing the opposite of what they said
they were doing. It was pretty good for first or second year. I got an A for
it but it was never returned. I've often wondered what happened to it.....
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
|
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Buildings I had to love when I was in school, and why. | April 15, 2007, 1:32 pm |
| NEW SCHOOL---UMBAU | March 14, 2005, 4:37 pm |
| portfolio for architecture school | May 15, 2007, 10:42 am |
| high school architecture | June 21, 2007, 11:10 pm |
| Salary History needed for school assignment. HELP, PLEASE!!! | January 24, 2007, 2:41 pm |
| I'd love to get a fly through of this.... | June 13, 2007, 4:13 pm |
| The Love of a Building | February 9, 2008, 8:44 pm |
| neighbourly love vented | April 13, 2007, 10:13 pm |
| I Love This Company Yeah | April 26, 2005, 7:25 pm |
| FLW buildings | October 13, 2007, 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> like something.
> "Design Principles" (props to Rich Griswold) in particular. He is very
> careful to note that students are more than welcom to dislike
> something; that he does not necessarily show something because he is
> presenting it as good. Some he openly disses but most he leaves
> opinion for the student and merely explains what is interesting/
> important/educational about a given work. The histories have been on
> the dry side or, at times, the controversial side. That is "this
> building is important and everybody gets to look at it because..." or
> "Bob said this and designed this. Now Steve said something entirely
> else. Note the controversy between Bob and Steve. What would Steve
> think of Bob's building?"
> I've never been shut down for saying "Well, Corb says thus and so yet
> his buildings seem to contradict that in practice" and the like.
> The things we must revere come about more from the casual discussions.
> Saw a film in studio though that gave me the idea that a certain piece
> of crap was "really good" not just "really good at illustrating an
> idea." Of course, if a building exemplifies exemplary design behaviour
> then it must be good. Even if it's a pile of crap. Ne?
>