Home Page link

Is it possible?

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 4 of 4       << first < 1 2 3 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Is it possible? GrandTradition 02-24-2007
---> Re: Is it possible? Michael Bulatov...02-25-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on February 26, 2007, 8:43 am

> Well... my experience says that most architectural professors are
> stupid...they haven't designed anything that ever got built so they really
> don't know what they're talking about.

Got that right. All they can do is talk until few understand what they're
talking about, and the rest don't care.

I had a guy who used to say a piece of architecture had to have "3 ideas".
Not 2, not 4, 3. I once did one of those quickie loosening-up exercises once
in his urban design studio, where I made an "unfinished city" on Ellis
Island (their site), which was always in flux, never completed. A densely
packed grid of skyscrapers, many of them under construction, some under
demolition.

At the crit he says, "You have made a ruin.".
I said, "No. A ruin was completed, and then partly destroyed. This idea is
"unfinished"."
He said, "You can't do that."
I said, "I just did. It's a metaphor for the ephemerality of architecture in
the modern city."
He said, "There are no precedents for an 'unfinished city'. It must be a
ruin."
I said, "No, it's *unfinished*. See the cranes atop many of the buildings?"
He said, "You can't do that........" etc.

It was rumored that he suffered a near nervous collapse at the existential
challenge of designing a 15 foot storefront.....

This guy later became head of Urban Design in TO, but has now thankfully
left town for someplace else that might take everything he says like it's
divine fiat.



Posted by Edgar on February 27, 2007, 12:36 pm
> GrandTradition wrote:
>> It seems to me that there's a disconnect between architecture that
>> architects prefer and architecture that non-architects prefer,
>> GENERALLY.
>
> Hearsay.
>
> I'm an architect and don't like 90% of what I see in the trade rags. I
> also like modern architecture.
>
> I worked with a guy who really dug A.M. Stern. Go figure.
>
>> For instance, large corporations tend to hire big-name
>> architects to design new headquarters done up in the avant-garde mode
>> of design, then the big wigs at that corporation notoriously go home
>> to Colonial Revival homes. Has anyone heard a good reason for this?
>
> They want a building that "says" something. Most of the time it says
> "crap", but, like the fashion runways, it's the fashionable thing to do at
> the time. Unlike the fashion runways, clothes can be closeted. As Frank
> Lloyd Wright said "A doctor can always bury his mistakes. An architect
> can only advise his clients to go and plant vines."
>
> Plus what Pat said... it's hard to scale "traditional" at today's
> building prices. Correctly done "traditional" will cost way more than
> "correctly" done modernism, even if its big budget crap.
>
>> Is there a good reason why architects expect avant-garde designs to
>> resonate with the rest of the public?
>
> I don't. In fact, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's the
> client that lets it happen. If the client didn't demand that Libeskind
> didn't make crap then he would be out of work. How about asking the
> client if they care if their building "resonates" with the rest of the
> public. It's their money and their building. If you don't like it, stay
> way.
>
>> Is there a reason that the architectural industry, as a whole, has
>> turned its back on traditional design, which is widely recognized,
>> accepted, and more culturally rooted in our society that avant-garde
>> alternatives?
>
> You're making some pretty darn broad assumptions. The *whole*
> architectural industry (whatever that means)? "Widely recognized,
> accepted?" "Culturally rooted?"
>
> Who's the industry? All architects...except me, so the idea that the
> whole industry is involved is shot.
>
> And what "traditional" design is widely accepted? Colonial revivial?
> Tudor? Victorian? Neo-Classical? Classical? Post-modern Classical?
> Vernacular northern mid-west? Lest you also forget that much of
> "traditional" was "avant-garde" at some point in history.
>
> And "culturally rooted" in what? I have considerable ties to Finland.
> They, as a people, are "culturally rooted", yet have embraced a modern
> style. They have great "traditional" buildings, but also have even better
> "modern" ones. So don't give me this crap that "traditional" design is
> "culturally rooted."
>
>> I don't mean to be on a soap box here (or maybe I do), but I haven't
>> gotten more than "We're smart, they're stupid" and "It's reactionary"
>> from even my smartest colleagues and ex-professors.
>
> Well... my experience says that most architectural professors are
> stupid...they haven't designed anything that ever got built so they really
> don't know what they're talking about.
>
> But you must understand that "we" (that is us, the culture) has caused
> this to happen. In order to get famous you have to get noticed. And,
> just as in the art world nobody gets famous for being good at it anymore,
> they only get famous for being outrageous. Elephant Dung is "art" and
> makes the news. A great landscape is also art, but sold for $5 at the
> county fair. Architects aren't too different. You want to be noticed, so
> you design and build a giant ball of tinfoil and call it a building. Gets
> you noticed. You get famous. Now everyone wants your brand of tinfoil.
>
> Answer why Brittany Spears ever made it big and you'll have the answer to
> your question.
>
>> Don't architects have a responsibility to the public to create a
>> recognizable, understandable (familiar), and beautiful built public
>> envirinment through which to navigate and safely live their lives?
>
> Sure...I think the law says something about accessible and safe. The rest
> is up to the client. Besides, there are many who call FOG's tinfoil
> buildings "recognizable, understandable and beautiful." I don't know that
> I agree, but he get's 'em built.
>
> Tell you what, you get licensed as an architect and then you go about
> getting clients and insist to each client that you will only work for them
> if you can design "recognizable, understandable and beautiful built public
> environments (spelling corrected) through which to navigate safely and
> live their lives." If the client can accept those conditions, you're set.
>
>> FYI, I have no qualms with avant-garde architecture for personal use
>> when it's removed from public context.
>
> So...you're the final arbiter of taste? Who made you the God of good
> Architectural taste? Again, it's the client's building. If it's a
> tax-payer financed building, should we each have a vote on it? What if
> something you don't like gets voted in? You're whole theory kind of gets
> blown apart, doesn't it? And don't get me started on the whole tax-payer
> funded buildings...I'm already annoyed enough because of the inability to
> reason found in the OP.
>
>> I hope to learn a thing or two from this large group of practitioners,
>> teachers, and afficianados.
>
> You will...assuming you're willing to 1) reason, 2) cast away emotional
> feelings and 3) not get offended when somebody is straight with you.
>
> Good luck...
>

Great discussion, I miss this stuff in here, but I have no reason to
complain as I have added very little to the conversation in here lately. As
much as the stuff in school was full of itself, I did enjoy it, but then
again, I enjoyed philosophy very much. There has to be room for those
pushing the boundaries of tradition and good taste as there is for those
that would like as little change as possible to take place. Everyone in the
middle (which is most of us) can learn from both (and learn as in what to do
and not to do).

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Kris Krieger on March 5, 2007, 7:27 pm
@newsfe05.lga:

> GrandTradition wrote:
[snip]
>> Is there a good reason why architects expect avant-garde designs to
>> resonate with the rest of the public?
>
> I don't. In fact, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's the
> client that lets it happen. If the client didn't demand that Libeskind
> didn't make crap then he would be out of work. How about asking the
> client if they care if their building "resonates" with the rest of the
> public. It's their money and their building. If you don't like it,
> stay way.

Maybe what's needed is the Architectural versionof the Pantone color guide
- i.e., "what does this color (or in this case, design) communicate?"

That's not something that people think about consciously, and many people
don't seem to think about at all. Which is why "fashion" is popular - if
you wear what this or that magazine *tells* you (the ubiquitous, not th
epersonal, you) to wear, then you don't have to strain your brain with
developing any sense of personal style (i.e. self expression - hard when
there is nto much oindividuality there to begin with...) or any sort of
color sense.

It's sort of like only cooking by strictly following receipes - no matter
how bad they taste. Easier than learning the scents and flavors of the
many spices, and how they compliment one-another when used with various
different foods.

Similarly, if a client reads in some self-proclaimed "style-setting" rag
that such-an-such a building style is "hot" (jeez I hate that term), then
said client can just run on autopilot and tell the architect "do something
like this".

So the architect gets to figure out how to adapt a predermined given to a
certain situation, as opposed to starting from scratch to create a piece of
working art. Which I'd think would be frustrating to architects but
that's only my guess...

>
>> Is there a reason that the architectural industry, as a whole, has
>> turned its back on traditional design, which is widely recognized,
>> accepted, and more culturally rooted in our society that avant-garde
>> alternatives?
>
> You're making some pretty darn broad assumptions. The *whole*
> architectural industry (whatever that means)? "Widely recognized,
> accepted?" "Culturally rooted?"
>
> Who's the industry? All architects...except me, so the idea that the
> whole industry is involved is shot.
>
> And what "traditional" design is widely accepted? Colonial revivial?
> Tudor? Victorian? Neo-Classical? Classical? Post-modern Classical?
> Vernacular northern mid-west? Lest you also forget that much of
> "traditional" was "avant-garde" at some point in history.

Yup. Everything had to be thought up for the firt time at *some* point -
and I'm sure that some people grumbeled at some point about the idea of the
igloo, or the idea of using a disassemblable and portable wooden floor in a
yurt, just as I'm sure that some people, upon first visiting Notre Dame or
the Sistine Chapel (not to be confused with teh cysteine chapel ;) ),
though, "good grief, look at this newfangled piece of nonsense", or
somethink of similar sentiment.

After all, Santa Clause is now considered some sort of immutable Tradition,
when actualyl, he was pretty much invented by, *IIRC*, Thomas Nast in the
late 1800's.

The Saltbox "style" started out as a way to cut the heat loss due to
prevaling cold northeast winds, but now, is merely a "traditional style".

>
> And "culturally rooted" in what? I have considerable ties to Finland.
> They, as a people, are "culturally rooted", yet have embraced a modern
> style. They have great "traditional" buildings, but also have even
> better "modern" ones. So don't give me this crap that "traditional"
> design is "culturally rooted."

Yup. Mostly,"traditional" merely means "DAR-vintage White Anglo Saxon
Protestant roots". My traditions were from Eastern Poland, and Slovakia.
Thus, irrelevant, or tacky, or inferior, or laughable, and so on. Slavic
wooden architecture (the most obvious example being the buildings at Kizhi
Island, but there are many beautiful examples I've found online).

OTOH, this remains one of my all-time favorites:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Kaufmann_Desert_House.html

In terms of nationality, "Colonial" is "officially" my "tradition", but I
have an intense dislike for modern examples of so-called Colonial - all too
often, it's just another word for "cheapo cheesey construction", because it
doesn't take much to do it well enough to pass most people's acceptance
level.

In terms of actual histpry of this continent, things likethe Iriquois long
house, the plain's indoans' teepees, and the SouthWest's Pueblos are more
"traditional".


In the end, it's unfortunately true that "one man's tradition is another
man's trash", and who is it who ends up defining which is tradition, and
which is trash...


IOW, as you (the personal you, as in 3D Peruna) IMO make an excellent
point.



>> I don't mean to be on a soap box here (or maybe I do), but I haven't
>> gotten more than "We're smart, they're stupid" and "It's reactionary"
>> from even my smartest colleagues and ex-professors.
>
> Well... my experience says that most architectural professors are
> stupid...they haven't designed anything that ever got built so they
> really don't know what they're talking about.

IM, they oughtn't be called "Arch Profs" - maybe "Arch Theory Profs", or
"Arch Philosophy Profs", but actual "Arch Profs" ought to be folks who've
actually *done* architecture.

But that's just ol' layman me...

>
> But you must understand that "we" (that is us, the culture) has caused
> this to happen. In order to get famous you have to get noticed. And,
> just as in the art world nobody gets famous for being good at it
> anymore, they only get famous for being outrageous.

Exactly. It's not a matter of talent, but of marketing.

> Elephant Dung is
> "art" and makes the news. A great landscape is also art, but sold for
> $5 at the county fair. Architects aren't too different. You want to be
> noticed, so you design and build a giant ball of tinfoil and call it a
> building. Gets you noticed. You get famous. Now everyone wants your
> brand of tinfoil.

Or 'elephant dung" ;) IOW, design something patterned after it. Woo-hoo!


>
> Answer why Brittany Spears ever made it big and you'll have the answer
> to your question.

Been trying to figure that one out myself. She isn't attractive and
doesn't have much of a voice. MArketing I guess. "Girls just wanna have
fun", and promoters just wanna get rich...


>
>> Don't architects have a responsibility to the public to create a
>> recognizable, understandable (familiar), and beautiful built public
>> envirinment through which to navigate and safely live their lives?
>
> Sure...I think the law says something about accessible and safe. The
> rest is up to the client. Besides, there are many who call FOG's
> tinfoil buildings "recognizable, understandable and beautiful." I don't
> know that I agree, but he get's 'em built.

There too, who defines "beauty"? As has been asked through the ages: why
should someone else (such as our "traditionalist") have to right to have
his definition applauded and adopted, but mine boo'ed and rejected?


>
> Tell you what, you get licensed as an architect and then you go about
> getting clients and insist to each client that you will only work for
> them if you can design "recognizable, understandable and beautiful

"beautifully" - it's an adjective (yeah, it *is* just me being anal ;) )

> built
> public environments (spelling corrected) through which to navigate
> safely and live their lives." If the client can accept those
> conditions, you're set.

THe silly thing is that, in a way, the foundation of beauty is - I almost
hate to say it! - how the form foloows the function. OK, that argument can
get "way out there" so to speak, but IMO the essence or the intent is
pretty fundamental. A building is (or can be) Art, but first, it is a
building, IOW, it's raison d'etre is to fulfull a human function or set of
functions, as opposed to sculpture, whose function is basically to look
interesting.

If the building functions poorly, then, well, not to put too fine a point
on it, basically crap. A Chambered Nautilus shell is a classic and ages-
old example of beauty, but its function is an inextricable part of that
beauty. That is true of all natural forms. If a building doesn't
function, it's really difficult (if even really possible) for it to be
beautiful, *redgardless* of what style decor is used. The style is like
the flesh - muscles and overlying skin - and the functional form is the
skeleton. A shark is beautiful, an arctic tern is beautiful, a horse is
beautiful, because they are perfect expressions of function, especially, of
the perfect integration/interaction of environment and creature.

One problem with buildings, IMO, is when people try *so* hardto be
"stylish", that they forget about the skeleton. Or, as the saying in the
house-flipping market goes, "Just put some lipstick on that pig, and
somebody will buy it".

Consider the bust of Nefertiti - definitely *not* a case of a "pig with
lipstick". Now consider many of the "fashion plates" that the media
screams at us are beautiful - yuck. Same is true in architecture. Beauty
starts from the very first mundane brick, the first quart of concrete that
gets poured. It's got nothing to do with whether teh skin is
"traditional" or "art deco" or whatever.

At least, that's my take on it.

>
>> FYI, I have no qualms with avant-garde architecture for personal use
>> when it's removed from public context.
>
> So...you're the final arbiter of taste? Who made you the God of good
> Architectural taste?

Plus, let's not forget that, if his notion of "traditional" is Colonial,
then technically, by comparison, even Victorian is "Avant Garde". Or is
Vict. OK, but Art Deco "avant garde"?

Is this "too avant garde", even tho' it's 60 years old, if the info is
correct?
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Kaufmann_Desert_House.html
((Still one of my personal favorites, BTW.))


> Again, it's the client's building. If it's a
> tax-payer financed building, should we each have a vote on it? What if
> something you don't like gets voted in? You're whole theory kind of
> gets blown apart, doesn't it?

Good points.

> And don't get me started on the whole
> tax-payer funded buildings...I'm already annoyed enough because of the
> inability to reason found in the OP.
>
>> I hope to learn a thing or two from this large group of practitioners,
>> teachers, and afficianados.
>
> You will...assuming you're willing to 1) reason, 2) cast away emotional
> feelings and 3) not get offended when somebody is straight with you.

Jeez but you're demanding ;)

>
> Good luck...
>
>


Posted by Animal05 on February 25, 2007, 10:17 pm
GrandTradition wrote:
> It seems to me that there's a disconnect between architecture that
> architects prefer and architecture that non-architects prefer,
> GENERALLY. For instance, large corporations tend to hire big-name
> architects to design new headquarters done up in the avant-garde mode
> of design, then the big wigs at that corporation notoriously go home
> to Colonial Revival homes. Has anyone heard a good reason for this?

Large corporations hire "big name" architects because they have the
staff to pull off large projects.

Colonial revival homes have larger resale values.
Corporations do not intend to sell their properties, they intend it as
advertising.

>
> Is there a good reason why architects expect avant-garde designs to
> resonate with the rest of the public?

It is called making a statement and advertising

>
> Is there a reason that the architectural industry, as a whole, has
> turned its back on traditional design, which is widely recognized,
> accepted, and more culturally rooted in our society that avant-garde
> alternatives?

$$$$$$

>
> I don't mean to be on a soap box here (or maybe I do), but I haven't
> gotten more than "We're smart, they're stupid" and "It's reactionary"
> from even my smartest colleagues and ex-professors.

It has everything to do with $$$$$$

>
> Don't architects have a responsibility to the public to create a
> recognizable, understandable (familiar), and beautiful built public
> envirinment through which to navigate and safely live their lives?

No, they have a responsibility to the client to deliver a product that
fits the client's needs and budget

>
> FYI, I have no qualms with avant-garde architecture for personal use
> when it's removed from public context.

And your point is?

>
> I hope to learn a thing or two from this large group of practitioners,
> teachers, and afficianados.

Yeah......sure

>
>
> Best regards,
>
> GFS
> GrandTradition.net webmaster
>

Posted by gruhn on March 2, 2007, 1:50 am
> For instance, large corporations tend to hire big-name
> architects to design new headquarters done up in the avant-garde mode
> of design, then the big wigs at that corporation notoriously go home
> to Colonial Revival homes. Has anyone heard a good reason for this?

"A corporate headquarters is not the same thing as a home."


Page 4 of 4       << first < 1 2 3

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap