hi, I'm doing some research on cheap architecture as good architecture. So, please read the whole post and respond to the question posed at the end. Thank you.
Define Cheap - When I say cheap... I mean inexpensive. I understand that "cheap" in the terms of junk is not and cannot be good architecture. (but if you disagree please say so)
So, heres the question. Is cheap architecture good architecture and is it needed? If so, where and why? Also, how has the architectural comunity at large been able to produce good, cheap architecture?
I agree with the last comment. Necessity as the mother of invention. Very great budget constraints means the designer must be more ingenious to produce the effect of greatness with very very limited means. As in low-cost housing: public housing, housing for the disabled and those on income assistance. This is necessary to bring dignity to the lives of those who cannot afford big money for a pompous architect. Elite architecture often just says: look at me, it cost a lot of money to design and build me. How does this do any good for average people who are just seeking a decent built environment to live their lives and raise their families?
If you go to a surgeon you get cut (apparently). Your question is quite architecentric - Cheap architecture is good architecture if it leaves money for kick ass landscaping, lighting, window treatments, furnishings, art, etc. OSB as a wall finish - sucks ass!
I agree with dazed. Simpliofy the building and process as much as you can and save your money for things like radiant heat, good insulation, nice finishes, etc. You could really soup up a pole barn to something pretty nice for 100/sf.
this is a good topic. i'd like to see some examples of innovative architecture that is not expensive. extra points if the cost is given with a breakdown.
i think it is hard to not mention IKEA when you are talking about inexpensive design. their commitment to flatpacking while giving the public a taste for modern design is incredible!
sure it is not the quality of the high end...but it is crowded every weekend. so what does this mean to our discussion... obviously in the design deprived public our nation does want beauty. it is silly that we architects have been pandering to the upper class. bauhaus was born out of a need to give nicely designed things to everyone.
now back to a bigger question...what is the equivalent to "flatpacking"?
is it prefab? is it in the materials? is it in the construction? is it a new innovation? is it something else?
"cheap arch = good arch?", implies that arch alone, minus the prefix , is expensive.. this unfortunately might be the case.
-In spite of the emergency shelter projects , ban's and everyone else's
( it seems to be a reqiured item in any 'socially aware' arch's portfolio these days... good in the long run, but in the short run, ubiquitus/trendy) how many of them are built / distribuited/used?
as for the necessity-creates-good-design argument, though it sounds all right, it doesn;t explain the fact that if you look around, exemplary design is not cropping up in the favelas, or in the wake of the tsunami... it's the otherway around- cushy developd countries export their latest versions of reductive functionalism created with sophisticated technology( itself rarely available in those destinations) , rife with unacknowledged aesthetic concerns, to emergency destinations.... And more often then not , they only make it so far as a taschen glossy or some arch. reviews' latest 'Humanitarian' issue.
- though by no means is this meant to imply it isn't a noble undertaking etc.... just a critique of the current situation.
re: Ikea - raj, yes excellent. As damning as it may seem, it is only within the system of capitalism and marketing that any progress is bieing made towards mass availability of 'design'.. and they're doing a good job of it -it may be a bt flimsy ,, but you get what you pay for, and what your paying for it not just an aesthetic , but the effect of the last 75 years of design. (though a conservative reditions of it , and not allways the best craft...)
What would be phenomenal would be a competition for emergency housing sponsored by ikea and iPod or similar nomadic/designy type
I'm working on a project right now that just may fall into this category. I am super proud of it. Very simple forms, few interior walls. Nice finishes - lots of vaulted ceilngs, open trusswork, granite (donated), some stained concrete floors, good light fixtures, great windows. The building is so fucking tailored thank you very much that the estimate is $105/s.f. (cheap part of the country and it is probably a little over budget but I'll let ya know how it all turns out.)
It is about knowing where to put the money I suppose. A building is a whole system, not isolated materials that can either be cheap or expensive and it's one or the other. Architecture is when the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, whatever the parts.
It is an interesting project because the countertops throughout have been donated and they are granite.
Thanks Strawbeary, I look forward to hearing how everything works out.
Rural studio? from Sambo Mockabee?... It rocks. And I'm sure everyone here agrees, that the program rocks. I wish my school could implement something along those lines, but sadly.
But if could explain how this might relate to the debate topic. I would relish in it. I mean, i know how the rural studio relates for me, but what do you think? Is it simply good because the people are getting abargain from the college students? or what?
This is simply another direction for thread. But I'd also like to continue on our current direction. The basic discussion of whether or not cheap architecture is good architecture.
sorry not trying to hijack.
seems to me from what i've seen, rural studio emphasise the inventive possibilities of being cheap. one of their explicit goals is to address rural poverty, and to use architecture as a means of providing dignity. I think some of their work is good, but to go much further than an opinion, I'd need you to suggest what you mean by 'good'.
re-examining your original post. do you mean you are looking for a necessary connection between cheapness and goodness (i.e. goodness is proportional to cheapness)?
Don't forget europe! Lacaton and Vassal have been working on alternative design process that works on industrial object detournement ( a late modernity classic) , but their goal is basically to give more space for less money. I don't know if they have a website but you should try to search for their stuff on google.
Hi
To solve that very important task you need cheap materials and cheap manufactoring and a new vision about the plain thing putting things together. With today\s mind the barrier is expensive profiles ,expensive special fittings and a million nuts and bolts all in a very expensive process.
Today we are stuck in the old way\s the tradisional building methods we think that steel profiles are cutting edge technike where fact is that these rigid beams made the borders for innovative thinking the past century, our mind is stuck in rigid forms caused by the shape of the very stringers and profiles we emagine to place to add strength.
Look at an "H" or a "T" steel beam, it is the most efficient member you can use if what you want is strait box houses, --- check the huge efford to fighe just that , to form it round by bending and fiddeling in the disney concert hall, and think again think about if the real barrier isn't just those materials that whole square concept that tigh our mind keep us from seeing other way's .
What do you need to shape a house, you need the foundations and the panels , to do that cheap and any form you want , to do it so that you do not end up with an emty metal tophat with nothing inside, but end up with a realy structure that hold the foundations for the floors and walls beside stairs, all you need is to open your mind not be jeloux respect the bright idear and if you have a wish for a new architecture a new form language, an easy new technology then skip the idea that arts must be a social game, respect that bright idear often come from non academics ---- from people with hands on experience those who know the real limitations in today's deadend academic socialskill ruling out anyone who "think he is someone".
-------- Now the matter is not if anyone "think he is anyone" but id an idear offer the fantastic new options if the new architecture realy make houses four times as strong at a third the cost, if projecting shuldn't be projecting the individual building element instead of a piece of paper in an account. Only one method offer that only one method go strait from drawing to production only one method use only one material ,cheap and flexible , instead of 20 different profiles fittings nuts hangers and bolts, a simple method anyone can emagine atleast anyone in the computer generation.
Please open your mind.
per, there looks to be massive material wastage and over-engineering in that thing. i think you are more interested in the pattern your system makes than in the usability or experience of the spaces.
good arch and cheap arch...they are NOT mutally exclusive!
but the issue lies more in the knowledge of all of US!! first if you are in america--cheap DOES NOT equal steel. i would assume that is the same most places since china is buying most of the steel right now.
in some areas (mainly south america...not sure about europe) concrete seems the way to go. america it is wood.
if you guys around the world have others tell us...it is all about education!!
now...we architects are incredible at our definition of "good" ... but i think that we are getting left behind in the cheap market! HUD is sponsoring some research to REVOLUTIONIZE the housing industry, but of course only care for the builders...
spend some time on that site. it is really sad how we are going to be left with our hands in our pockets as home design changes!
if you ever get a chance...try really pricing something you design. not with you doing it...but turn key. it is an eye opening experience. the people that build don't see our little "clean, modern details" as cheap but 3x more expensive! (a major lie i was told in school.) after all modernism was for the common man at it inception...but now is only for the super rich! explain that!
[edit]... it has come to my attention that I needed to define "good architecture." I don't think I can do that, "good" is subjective, as is cheap. But to suggest a meaning for what I think "good" is. I'd say, something that the general public, uneducated in architecture, would say "this is a good building" or space, etc. I think "good" is also something the people, and not strictly the owner or architect, can stand behind, love and respect.
As BOTS said before; "value." For me... good architecture has value to the masses. I hope that helps.
Again. thanks for the input and...
p.s. keep kickin' ass!
Fuller-Inspired Shelters Put to Use in Indonesia
World Shelters and International Medical Corps Partner for Disaster Relief in Indonesia
World Shelters manufactures durable temporary shelters in Arcata, California for international uses as portable medical clinics, for housing displaced persons, and as on-site relief agency centers. World Shelters is sending 20 shelters by airfreight to Aceh, Indonesia within the next few weeks for use as portable clinics by International Medical Corps. International Medical Corps, founded in 1984 by volunteer physicians and nurses, is a private, nonpolitical, nonsectarian global humanitarian organization dedicated to saving lives and relieving suffering through emergency relief, development and health care training programs.
To download the full press release, (requires Adobe Acrobat) Click Here.
defining GOOD ARCHITECTURE........
if one was to ask 10 people from the public, if the building in front of them is good.........??.........probably 5 will say yes n 5 no. So the question remains....... and if we as architects... were to take their reflexive response to buildings around to define good n bad..... then we are failures as architects.
TO SPEND FIVE MINUTES (preferably less) lookin at a building, n then say good ar bad (that to askin ppl who are not even educated in architecture), is paying disrespect to the architect. I FEEL......Without trying to understand, what constrain were faced on the client front, financial front, technological front..... ideas envisioned....compromises made........good or bad is a personal opionion. imagine....15years down the line......ur self an architect, puttin 2 years of ur ideas, efforts and energy, into envisioning, convincing the client (as its his money, and generally leads to a compromise), working around the detail, and finally getting it constructed........phew....n then someone comes by n says BAD ARCHITECTURE.......u'll probably call him an ignorant idiot. We both as architects, what seems good architecture to me, might not to you....and visa-versa.
When one talks of cheap architecture.....
constructing a structure costs money.....in order to make it cheap one needs to understand, first, what makes it expensive?.... materials used, transportation, machinery, labour, Technology......etc. When your client's life savings runs into something very little.... and wants to have a house of his own....its cutting down on the expenditure caused by the above, that will make it possible. in the end, if the client is happy (got his money's worth, and more), and u feel you had put-in your best efforts, and the structure stands the test of time (when compared to others around) then i'd that's good n cheap architecture..........basically the structure is your's n ur client's baby....irrespective of what others say, it will be dear to you both.
The masses won't understand ur baby.... the masses understand fashion only..... what they will dump today, they will love tommorrow.
good architecture = something that has a strong idea, beauty, and presense.. that means that a lot of time and though went into design.
cheap architecture = wham, bam, thank you maam..
the only thing that i can think of is prefab architecture. but its a catch 22.. when it is repeated enough to become affordable, it is labeled as cheap, therefore bad. and if it is designed really well, only in xx years will it be appreciated when few pieces are left.
Apr 29, 05 4:07 pm ·
·
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.
Cheap Architecture = Good Architecture?
hi, I'm doing some research on cheap architecture as good architecture. So, please read the whole post and respond to the question posed at the end. Thank you.
Define Cheap - When I say cheap... I mean inexpensive. I understand that "cheap" in the terms of junk is not and cannot be good architecture. (but if you disagree please say so)
So, heres the question. Is cheap architecture good architecture and is it needed? If so, where and why? Also, how has the architectural comunity at large been able to produce good, cheap architecture?
Thanks, I look forward to hearing your responses.
p.s. please don't throw things at me.
sparky
less money means more skill needed to do good architecture.
more money does not guarantee good architecture.
I agree with the last comment. Necessity as the mother of invention. Very great budget constraints means the designer must be more ingenious to produce the effect of greatness with very very limited means. As in low-cost housing: public housing, housing for the disabled and those on income assistance. This is necessary to bring dignity to the lives of those who cannot afford big money for a pompous architect. Elite architecture often just says: look at me, it cost a lot of money to design and build me. How does this do any good for average people who are just seeking a decent built environment to live their lives and raise their families?
Its not about cheapness it's about value.
If you go to a surgeon you get cut (apparently). Your question is quite architecentric - Cheap architecture is good architecture if it leaves money for kick ass landscaping, lighting, window treatments, furnishings, art, etc. OSB as a wall finish - sucks ass!
this guy...
http://www.time.com/time/innovators/design/profile_ban.html
Thanks for all your help. This is awesome.
Sparky
p.s. Keep kickin' ass!
I agree with dazed. Simpliofy the building and process as much as you can and save your money for things like radiant heat, good insulation, nice finishes, etc. You could really soup up a pole barn to something pretty nice for 100/sf.
this is a good topic. i'd like to see some examples of innovative architecture that is not expensive. extra points if the cost is given with a breakdown.
i think it is hard to not mention IKEA when you are talking about inexpensive design. their commitment to flatpacking while giving the public a taste for modern design is incredible!
sure it is not the quality of the high end...but it is crowded every weekend. so what does this mean to our discussion... obviously in the design deprived public our nation does want beauty. it is silly that we architects have been pandering to the upper class. bauhaus was born out of a need to give nicely designed things to everyone.
now back to a bigger question...what is the equivalent to "flatpacking"?
is it prefab? is it in the materials? is it in the construction? is it a new innovation? is it something else?
"cheap arch = good arch?", implies that arch alone, minus the prefix , is expensive.. this unfortunately might be the case.
-In spite of the emergency shelter projects , ban's and everyone else's
( it seems to be a reqiured item in any 'socially aware' arch's portfolio these days... good in the long run, but in the short run, ubiquitus/trendy) how many of them are built / distribuited/used?
as for the necessity-creates-good-design argument, though it sounds all right, it doesn;t explain the fact that if you look around, exemplary design is not cropping up in the favelas, or in the wake of the tsunami... it's the otherway around- cushy developd countries export their latest versions of reductive functionalism created with sophisticated technology( itself rarely available in those destinations) , rife with unacknowledged aesthetic concerns, to emergency destinations.... And more often then not , they only make it so far as a taschen glossy or some arch. reviews' latest 'Humanitarian' issue.
- though by no means is this meant to imply it isn't a noble undertaking etc.... just a critique of the current situation.
re: Ikea - raj, yes excellent. As damning as it may seem, it is only within the system of capitalism and marketing that any progress is bieing made towards mass availability of 'design'.. and they're doing a good job of it -it may be a bt flimsy ,, but you get what you pay for, and what your paying for it not just an aesthetic , but the effect of the last 75 years of design. (though a conservative reditions of it , and not allways the best craft...)
What would be phenomenal would be a competition for emergency housing sponsored by ikea and iPod or similar nomadic/designy type
I'm working on a project right now that just may fall into this category. I am super proud of it. Very simple forms, few interior walls. Nice finishes - lots of vaulted ceilngs, open trusswork, granite (donated), some stained concrete floors, good light fixtures, great windows. The building is so fucking tailored thank you very much that the estimate is $105/s.f. (cheap part of the country and it is probably a little over budget but I'll let ya know how it all turns out.)
It is about knowing where to put the money I suppose. A building is a whole system, not isolated materials that can either be cheap or expensive and it's one or the other. Architecture is when the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, whatever the parts.
It is an interesting project because the countertops throughout have been donated and they are granite.
what do people think of rural studio?
Thanks Strawbeary, I look forward to hearing how everything works out.
Rural studio? from Sambo Mockabee?... It rocks. And I'm sure everyone here agrees, that the program rocks. I wish my school could implement something along those lines, but sadly.
But if could explain how this might relate to the debate topic. I would relish in it. I mean, i know how the rural studio relates for me, but what do you think? Is it simply good because the people are getting abargain from the college students? or what?
This is simply another direction for thread. But I'd also like to continue on our current direction. The basic discussion of whether or not cheap architecture is good architecture.
thanks
Sparky
p.s. keep kickin' ass!
sorry not trying to hijack.
seems to me from what i've seen, rural studio emphasise the inventive possibilities of being cheap. one of their explicit goals is to address rural poverty, and to use architecture as a means of providing dignity. I think some of their work is good, but to go much further than an opinion, I'd need you to suggest what you mean by 'good'.
www.ruralstudio.com
re-examining your original post. do you mean you are looking for a necessary connection between cheapness and goodness (i.e. goodness is proportional to cheapness)?
Don't forget europe! Lacaton and Vassal have been working on alternative design process that works on industrial object detournement ( a late modernity classic) , but their goal is basically to give more space for less money. I don't know if they have a website but you should try to search for their stuff on google.
Hi
To solve that very important task you need cheap materials and cheap manufactoring and a new vision about the plain thing putting things together. With today\s mind the barrier is expensive profiles ,expensive special fittings and a million nuts and bolts all in a very expensive process.
Today we are stuck in the old way\s the tradisional building methods we think that steel profiles are cutting edge technike where fact is that these rigid beams made the borders for innovative thinking the past century, our mind is stuck in rigid forms caused by the shape of the very stringers and profiles we emagine to place to add strength.
Look at an "H" or a "T" steel beam, it is the most efficient member you can use if what you want is strait box houses, --- check the huge efford to fighe just that , to form it round by bending and fiddeling in the disney concert hall, and think again think about if the real barrier isn't just those materials that whole square concept that tigh our mind keep us from seeing other way's .
What do you need to shape a house, you need the foundations and the panels , to do that cheap and any form you want , to do it so that you do not end up with an emty metal tophat with nothing inside, but end up with a realy structure that hold the foundations for the floors and walls beside stairs, all you need is to open your mind not be jeloux respect the bright idear and if you have a wish for a new architecture a new form language, an easy new technology then skip the idea that arts must be a social game, respect that bright idear often come from non academics ---- from people with hands on experience those who know the real limitations in today's deadend academic socialskill ruling out anyone who "think he is someone".
-------- Now the matter is not if anyone "think he is anyone" but id an idear offer the fantastic new options if the new architecture realy make houses four times as strong at a third the cost, if projecting shuldn't be projecting the individual building element instead of a piece of paper in an account. Only one method offer that only one method go strait from drawing to production only one method use only one material ,cheap and flexible , instead of 20 different profiles fittings nuts hangers and bolts, a simple method anyone can emagine atleast anyone in the computer generation.
Please open your mind.
per, there looks to be massive material wastage and over-engineering in that thing. i think you are more interested in the pattern your system makes than in the usability or experience of the spaces.
(i know, i shouldn't feed the trolls)
good arch and cheap arch...they are NOT mutally exclusive!
but the issue lies more in the knowledge of all of US!! first if you are in america--cheap DOES NOT equal steel. i would assume that is the same most places since china is buying most of the steel right now.
in some areas (mainly south america...not sure about europe) concrete seems the way to go. america it is wood.
if you guys around the world have others tell us...it is all about education!!
now...we architects are incredible at our definition of "good" ... but i think that we are getting left behind in the cheap market! HUD is sponsoring some research to REVOLUTIONIZE the housing industry, but of course only care for the builders...
http://www.pathnet.org/
spend some time on that site. it is really sad how we are going to be left with our hands in our pockets as home design changes!
if you ever get a chance...try really pricing something you design. not with you doing it...but turn key. it is an eye opening experience. the people that build don't see our little "clean, modern details" as cheap but 3x more expensive! (a major lie i was told in school.) after all modernism was for the common man at it inception...but now is only for the super rich! explain that!
Alright... some good discussion.
[edit]... it has come to my attention that I needed to define "good architecture." I don't think I can do that, "good" is subjective, as is cheap. But to suggest a meaning for what I think "good" is. I'd say, something that the general public, uneducated in architecture, would say "this is a good building" or space, etc. I think "good" is also something the people, and not strictly the owner or architect, can stand behind, love and respect.
As BOTS said before; "value." For me... good architecture has value to the masses. I hope that helps.
Again. thanks for the input and...
p.s. keep kickin' ass!
Fuller-Inspired Shelters Put to Use in Indonesia
World Shelters and International Medical Corps Partner for Disaster Relief in Indonesia
World Shelters manufactures durable temporary shelters in Arcata, California for international uses as portable medical clinics, for housing displaced persons, and as on-site relief agency centers. World Shelters is sending 20 shelters by airfreight to Aceh, Indonesia within the next few weeks for use as portable clinics by International Medical Corps. International Medical Corps, founded in 1984 by volunteer physicians and nurses, is a private, nonpolitical, nonsectarian global humanitarian organization dedicated to saving lives and relieving suffering through emergency relief, development and health care training programs.
To download the full press release, (requires Adobe Acrobat) Click Here.
Sparky,
defining GOOD ARCHITECTURE........
if one was to ask 10 people from the public, if the building in front of them is good.........??.........probably 5 will say yes n 5 no. So the question remains....... and if we as architects... were to take their reflexive response to buildings around to define good n bad..... then we are failures as architects.
TO SPEND FIVE MINUTES (preferably less) lookin at a building, n then say good ar bad (that to askin ppl who are not even educated in architecture), is paying disrespect to the architect. I FEEL......Without trying to understand, what constrain were faced on the client front, financial front, technological front..... ideas envisioned....compromises made........good or bad is a personal opionion. imagine....15years down the line......ur self an architect, puttin 2 years of ur ideas, efforts and energy, into envisioning, convincing the client (as its his money, and generally leads to a compromise), working around the detail, and finally getting it constructed........phew....n then someone comes by n says BAD ARCHITECTURE.......u'll probably call him an ignorant idiot. We both as architects, what seems good architecture to me, might not to you....and visa-versa.
When one talks of cheap architecture.....
constructing a structure costs money.....in order to make it cheap one needs to understand, first, what makes it expensive?.... materials used, transportation, machinery, labour, Technology......etc. When your client's life savings runs into something very little.... and wants to have a house of his own....its cutting down on the expenditure caused by the above, that will make it possible. in the end, if the client is happy (got his money's worth, and more), and u feel you had put-in your best efforts, and the structure stands the test of time (when compared to others around) then i'd that's good n cheap architecture..........basically the structure is your's n ur client's baby....irrespective of what others say, it will be dear to you both.
The masses won't understand ur baby.... the masses understand fashion only..... what they will dump today, they will love tommorrow.
good architecture = something that has a strong idea, beauty, and presense.. that means that a lot of time and though went into design.
cheap architecture = wham, bam, thank you maam..
the only thing that i can think of is prefab architecture. but its a catch 22.. when it is repeated enough to become affordable, it is labeled as cheap, therefore bad. and if it is designed really well, only in xx years will it be appreciated when few pieces are left.
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.