We apoligize. The Public is currently out of order pending the overhaul of the entrenched Reagan/Thatcher legacy. We apoligize. The Public is currently out of order pending the overhaul of the entrenched Reagan/Thatcher legacy.We apoligize. The Public is currently out of order pending the overhaul of the entrenched Reagan/Thatcher legacy.We apoligize. The Public is currently out of order pending the overhaul of the entrenched Reagan/Thatcher legacy.

because it often looks like this http://cdn.furniturefashion.com/image/2009/07/modern%20architecture%20tna%20architects.jpg

What is taste?

Suri, that a neat house. I'd like to know how its inhabitant feel about it rather than some idiot commenting on a site living thousands of kms away. Even with a possible language barrier, I am sure it would be a far more entertaining and enlighten conversation than what every dribbles from you on any given day.

That's an awesome house. 

Why is the public so lame? 

Suri, I googled you and you design lame shit. Just sayin. 

That is an awesome house?  

Please.

And nothing I have designed is available from a google search.

hahaha, you just don't know how to google search. 

here's some of your lameass "design"

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/198180/heroscape-master-set-rise-of-the-valkyrie

hmmm....keep up the good work there kid. 

Oye... terrible work. I can do better with perhaps 2 or 3 swoops.

Attacking the messenger. Classy. 

First of all, that 'design' is a game, second, unless you know the rules of the game you couldn't possibly be able to judge how lameass it is, and third, is pulling up random crap I have posted to the internet really useful to this discussion? 

But isn't that what you do? Pull up random crap and attack it? Maybe you don't know the rules of the game. Oh wait, you don't actually. Go back to your dungeon troll. 

What on earth makes you think architects generally have better taste than anybody else? There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is true.

gwharton, I agree with you. I am humbled by the insight my clients have. But they don't all like traditional architecture. 

sometimes the principal at my firm does renderings for the sake of disproving a client's notion about what is a good idea... The client ultimately agrees with the principal and moves on to going with the principal's suggestion...

This thread serves exactly the same purpose as its converse... it is stupid for the sake of proving how stupid the topic is in the first place. 

What I pull up is topical gruen.

gwharton, if you spend all day every day thinking about buildings because that's your job, you're probably going to know more about buildings than someone who just rants on the internet in their spare time.

you could totally interject classical design into 40k.  there isn't anything limiting your creative potential in that environment.  you're just too focused on the ruleset, and forgot about the symbolism and the story your telling.

Thanks handsum, see you later, try not to forget your meds next time.

That wasn't 40k, it was a game that uses stack-able plastic hex pieces to build the gameboard, and is extremely limiting insofar as aesthetic design, strategic design is what board building is about and building a board that will allow for an interesting match. Symbolism and storytelling is not the goal, as it often is with actual architecture.  

You mean you were doing something limiting and now you are defending the result?

Gasp. 

I wish I had unlimited budgets.

I'm defending the results of something completely unrelated to architecture.

To get back on topic, examples of what gets built when the public is not involved in the design process.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/12/24/arts/24STEDELIJK/24STEDELIJK-articleLarge-v2.jpg

http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/2011/927/jpeg/12.jpg

Suri, you are only defending your own ignorant perspective on architecture but more to the point, what evidence do you have that the "public" had no part in those projects? Moreover, are you suggesting that you should be involved in every building regardless of location just in case they are ever blessed with your visit?

I'll bet you don't get to 1000 posts.

nike stopped donating money to the university of oregon for buildings because the design-by-committee process at the university was ruining the resulting buildings despite their well-funded budgets

the committees were made up of very smart people from all departments at the university and typically included students too

yet, good architecture was not the result when the people had their say

"Suri, you are only defending your own ignorant perspective on architecture but more to the point, what evidence do you have that the "public" had no part in those projects? Moreover, are you suggesting that you should be involved in every building regardless of location just in case they are ever blessed with your visit?"

No, i'm just suggesting a reason why the public doesn't like what architects propose.  That reason being, it's often weird and tacky.

To get back on topic, examples of what gets built when the public is not involved in the design process.

More to the point: What gets built when the public IS involved in the design process?

http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/151046.jpg

totally badass stuff

The detail you present - a Vader grotesque - is a modern adornment to a traditionally designed building. The building was designed by George Frederick Bodley in the early 1900's, NOT by the public. The grotesque, a detailed adornment that is not visible from the ground without binoculars, was the result of a sculpture competition for children.

Are you saying that modern adornment of traditional buildings is good architecture or that children should design buildings?

Please provide examples of architecture that is the result of public participation in the design process.

was this supposed to be an example of weird and tacky:

http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/151046.jpg

?

I think the shark has jumped this thread.

If the intent is a serious discussion, answer the question.

Sinon, surixurient est un guenon.

i don't know what you guys are talking about, but darth vader on a building is awesome.  it's not strictly classical, but that's only because they didn't know who darth vader was in 700bc.

^ Whether they know it or not.

"Camel is a horse designed by committee."

surixurient est un guenon.

Qu'est-ce que c'est un guenon?  Voila.  Je l'ai trouve'.  C'est dure!

Peut-etre d'un autre mondre, et ennuyeux aussi.

Guenon est argot pour troll.

Sorry- i have a pet peve about calling clients customers... Too retailish for me...

You people need to relax, it was an attempt at humor, which clearly missed its mark.

And yes curt, I agree that if they knew about darth vadar in 700bc we would be seeing him on all the buildings of history.

surixurient, I will try one more time.

To get back on topic, examples of what gets built when the public is not involved in the design process.

What gets built when the public IS involved in the design process?

When the public is involved in a project, usually nothing gets built at all, and an old unused (and beloved) building is instead restored and re-purposed.  (unfortunately this is often the most attractive option to the public)

Suri, I have completed many projects with direct public involvement and it does not work the way you claim it does. Stick to building little obscure hexagonal game pieces.

It does in my town, and I suspect your 'direct public involvement' was anything but.  "lets see, repurpose the beautiful unused firestation for a fraction of the cost or levee a new tax to raise  some hideous offense to the landscape, wonder which we will choose?"

You can gauge public response to public building projects from letters to the editor. when a new construction is announced the paper is flooded with outrage, when a building is repurposed there is silence (consent).  And the building being re-purposed often comes after some new construction was canceled on account of the outrage.

Do you enjoy creating imaginary narratives to support your opinion?

When the public is involved in a project, usually nothing gets built at all, and an old unused (and beloved) building is instead restored and re-purposed.  (unfortunately this is often the most attractive option to the public)

you're confusing architects with developers. 

Many of us in this field (even the ones who are doing very contemporary work) are involved in repurposing existing buildings and care deeply about preserving walkable and human-scaled built environments.  We also spend a lot of time trying to convince clients to save great buildings (if they are in good shape) before the public even sees what is proposed.  It's a huge risk, though - sometimes the client will be on board - but often they'll just keep shopping around until they find an architect who will do whatever they want.  If a client wants to demolish a well-loved building and put up a monument to their ego, then they'll have to face the public.   Developers do not need architects to demolish buildings.

first, what is "your" town and second, it remains apparent you know very little of how building projects function. One of my current project, for example, has had continuous public input in all of it's design phases (it's a 3-billion dollar deal, so it takes a few years and phases) complete with open-houses and Q&As which I've personally stood in front of the public and answered questions/concerns.

Another project had an volunteer public body tasked with the aesthetic design review and specifically stated that they did not want a building to match the historical downtown where it is situated. So, you're general position is not only ignorant of the architecture world but it is also not a universal thing.

Perhaps someone should petition your local village's school to up it's curriculum to at least last century's standards because, sheshh, things are not looking to well for you if this is the best you've got.