I'll start by saying I am not a very deep person in some ways and I don't always get or care much about symbolism. I'm definitely someone that appreciates materials, details and aesthetic form. It was one of the struggles I had in architecture school.
With that out of the way, I always wonder if residents, or visitors/guests appreciate or care about a deeper meaning in the layout of a private residence, and if it's really making a difference.
One example is the Tula house. I actually like it. I like the materials, the drama, the details. However without reading a thing about it, I knew there would be some sort of story or background to the form, but it wasn't obvious to me as to what drove it. The angles aren't serving any obvious purpose to me.
It wasn't until I went looking for it on google earth that it came together for me. The coast line on the island is littered with scattered logs, tossed haphazardly by violent storms. In plan it's not too hard to see this, but we don't really experience homes from a bird's eye perspective.
I get how there's often a poetry or deep meaning to public spaces, plazas, museums and so on. But on a private residence, not visible from the road, and a form that's best enjoyed by a bird, does it matter?
It matters most to the owners ego and then to their trust. At least in your example the house can be lived normally without a stair between the bed and the bathroom.
May 28, 24 7:14 pm ·
·
chris-chitect
That's kinda awful. Even if there's a nice ambience given with the fire, it's pretty much outdoors and I'm not sure how it can be enjoyed.
May 29, 24 12:27 am ·
·
chris-chitect
Yeah, the house I showed was livable, but as you're struggling to clean out dust bunnies from an acute angle
are you thinking "I'm glad the design of this house was informed by the landscape"?
No, but the time they spend there must be miserable
May 29, 24 2:29 pm ·
·
Volunteer
Both of the above houses are totally devoid of art unless you are into naming grey concrete walls as "art". Several modern and Impressionist paintings would add a lot and maybe reveal the personality of the owners.
The romantic idea about place / time I've always drawn to the careful selection of materials , the relationship of the structure and land...i can go on forever.
Luvu - I studied under MLS prior to his retirement and visited the photo above. I was very new to the architecture world at that point, and really struggled with the lessons he gave. Its only been in the years after graduation where ive gained a better appreciation for the work, and the depth of thought that goes into formalizing a house size that's just right, with a simple form that is well built, and without endless tacked-on spaces. @Wood Guy, I see a lot of the same qualities in your work as many of those; in my mind you're coming at it from a different angle but arriving in a very similar resolution at the end. I also adore that Wardle project.
My experience working on a project like this, for a very wealthy client, for an "starchitect" who doesn't do many homes, is that it is an issue of
1. patronage for an architect they like - within that there are many layers like signifying your wealth, your support of the arts, your good taste, etc...
2. Having something completely and immediately identifiable as unique
3. They are paying for the design process, not the house. I know that seems obvious but when you have literally billions of dollars a 3 year fun artistic diversion that costs $30 mil is a good investment in your own entertainment.
4. The genuinely like architecture and need a house. As revolting as the super wealthy may be, they are people with likes, wants, and needs.
Another thing to keep in mind with these kinds of projects is that, at a certain point in size, expense, and complexity, these "residences" serve many more functions than just being dwelling units. Bill Gates' house in Medina is over 55,000 sq. ft. with an underground parking structure and many other things besides. The actually private, family living area is only a small fraction of that area. The rest gets used for recreation, entertaining, hobbies, guests, and lots of other stuff depending. In many ways, homes of this type are spatially, programmatically, and tectonically more complex than institutional or commercial mixed-use buildings.
I spent easily as much time with acoustic engineers and theater engineers designing the fucking media room of the one I worked on as the total time I spent designing every stage (a surprising amount of them) in my career in civic and educational architecture. And that's just one room.
I think good architecture that has deep meaning should be able to convey deep meaning without the prerequisite of a deep understanding. A great song usually has a deep meaning that can be felt. The song can be enjoyed by anyone regardless of whether or not they understand the specific meaning. The song can radiate depth to the surface. You can know it’s deep without knowing what it’s about. When that’s achieved it’s like something that taps into the spiritual intuitions.
In my opinion, I think for someone to create a thing with deep meaning they have to understand the thing / subject. I suppose a deep understanding wouldn't be required if you had passion about the thing / subject. To have that passion wouldn't you'd still need to have some understanding of it? Something to ponder.
May 29, 24 4:52 pm ·
·
x-jla
Not to experience its depth. To create the thing, then yes of course you need to understand what you are doing.
You can appreciate the universe without even a hair’s understanding of what it is or how it works. It’s legible at multiple levels and probably unknowable at deeper metaphysical levels.
Residential Starchitecture - Does it matter if you understand it?
I'll start by saying I am not a very deep person in some ways and I don't always get or care much about symbolism. I'm definitely someone that appreciates materials, details and aesthetic form. It was one of the struggles I had in architecture school.
With that out of the way, I always wonder if residents, or visitors/guests appreciate or care about a deeper meaning in the layout of a private residence, and if it's really making a difference.
One example is the Tula house. I actually like it. I like the materials, the drama, the details. However without reading a thing about it, I knew there would be some sort of story or background to the form, but it wasn't obvious to me as to what drove it. The angles aren't serving any obvious purpose to me.
It wasn't until I went looking for it on google earth that it came together for me. The coast line on the island is littered with scattered logs, tossed haphazardly by violent storms. In plan it's not too hard to see this, but we don't really experience homes from a bird's eye perspective.
I get how there's often a poetry or deep meaning to public spaces, plazas, museums and so on. But on a private residence, not visible from the road, and a form that's best enjoyed by a bird, does it matter?
More about the house here: https://www.patkau.ca/projects...
Pritzker winner https://arquine.com/obra/casa-...
It matters most to the owners ego and then to their trust. At least in your example the house can be lived normally without a stair between the bed and the bathroom.
That's kinda awful. Even if there's a nice ambience given with the fire, it's pretty much outdoors and I'm not sure how it can be enjoyed.
Yeah, the house I showed was livable, but as you're struggling to clean out dust bunnies from an acute angle are you thinking "I'm glad the design of this house was informed by the landscape"?
You really think the owners are the ones cleaning? I've got news for you...
You really think the owners live there full time?
No, but the time they spend there must be miserable
Both of the above houses are totally devoid of art unless you are into naming grey concrete walls as "art". Several modern and Impressionist paintings would add a lot and maybe reveal the personality of the owners.
https://wardle.studio/projects... I love this house.
I do also admire
https://www.mlsarchitects.ca/w...
The romantic idea about place / time I've always drawn to the careful selection of materials , the relationship of the structure and land...i can go on forever.
Would love to see Archinector' favorites ...
Luvu - I studied under MLS prior to his retirement and visited the photo above. I was very new to the architecture world at that point, and really struggled with the lessons he gave. Its only been in the years after graduation where ive gained a better appreciation for the work, and the depth of thought that goes into formalizing a house size that's just right, with a simple form that is well built, and without endless tacked-on spaces. @Wood Guy, I see a lot of the same qualities in your work as many of those; in my mind you're coming at it from a different angle but arriving in a very similar resolution at the end. I also adore that Wardle project.
My experience working on a project like this, for a very wealthy client, for an "starchitect" who doesn't do many homes, is that it is an issue of
1. patronage for an architect they like - within that there are many layers like signifying your wealth, your support of the arts, your good taste, etc...
2. Having something completely and immediately identifiable as unique
3. They are paying for the design process, not the house. I know that seems obvious but when you have literally billions of dollars a 3 year fun artistic diversion that costs $30 mil is a good investment in your own entertainment.
4. The genuinely like architecture and need a house. As revolting as the super wealthy may be, they are people with likes, wants, and needs.
Another thing to keep in mind with these kinds of projects is that, at a certain point in size, expense, and complexity, these "residences" serve many more functions than just being dwelling units. Bill Gates' house in Medina is over 55,000 sq. ft. with an underground parking structure and many other things besides. The actually private, family living area is only a small fraction of that area. The rest gets used for recreation, entertaining, hobbies, guests, and lots of other stuff depending. In many ways, homes of this type are spatially, programmatically, and tectonically more complex than institutional or commercial mixed-use buildings.
I spent easily as much time with acoustic engineers and theater engineers designing the fucking media room of the one I worked on as the total time I spent designing every stage (a surprising amount of them) in my career in civic and educational architecture. And that's just one room.
I think good architecture that has deep meaning should be able to convey deep meaning without the prerequisite of a deep understanding. A great song usually has a deep meaning that can be felt. The song can be enjoyed by anyone regardless of whether or not they understand the specific meaning. The song can radiate depth to the surface. You can know it’s deep without knowing what it’s about. When that’s achieved it’s like something that taps into the spiritual intuitions.
In my opinion, I think for someone to create a thing with deep meaning they have to understand the thing / subject. I suppose a deep understanding wouldn't be required if you had passion about the thing / subject. To have that passion wouldn't you'd still need to have some understanding of it? Something to ponder.
Not to experience its depth. To create the thing, then yes of course you need to understand what you are doing.
You can appreciate the universe without even a hair’s understanding of what it is or how it works. It’s legible at multiple levels and probably unknowable at deeper metaphysical levels.
Vail point about appreciation without understanding.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.