you think it has something to do with the fact that most small firms dont have the resources to be picky about where they work? academic buildings... im sure it has something to do with school/alumni politics.
with arch offices, i definitely think that you're right, a lack of resources. but i still wonder why there isn't a more concerted effort to do SOMETHING nice. there's a lot you can do with very little. and if there's one thing worth your free time, it's making your office a nice place to work. at least, that seems reasonable to me.
but bigger firms that DO have resources still seem to often not care at all about their own space. they seem to be just as unwilling to invest in quality space as most clients.
with arch buildings on uni campuses, it seems to me even worse than just politics or lack of resources. often times i've been struck by the fact that it seems the school of arch on a campus is the LEAST attractive building on campus.
certainly the issue is a somewhat unfair generalization. but it's also a fun irony. :)
i always found it unfortunate that so many architects work in offices in which the windows don't open.
if the insular artificially conditioned environment is ok for architects, who's going to lead the charge for open windows, ventilation, and passive cooling/heating? engineers?
well what i was talking about the the school politics was the Steven Holl proposal for Cornell's new Meilstein Hall (sp?) that didn't satisfy the alumni or patrons. Barkow and Leinbinger who replaced him is a great firm but it could have gone a entirely different direction.
stevenward: good point. one of many similar design considerations in which it seems architects don't practice what they preach.
tzenyujuei: but at least cornell was on top of things enough to consider holl, and when they replaced him (your concerns there are very valid) at least, as you said, it was with a great firm. most arch schools never even get anywhere near that level.
can you imagine the user meetings to design a university architecture building? aye carumba....
UNM got away with it because at least Predock is local so the tenured a$$holes would be less likely to try and derail a design they didn't like. it all comes back to politics like tzenyujuei said.
in the end all Predock did was rip off the SCI-Arc Beethoven Street layout and add a cinema screen with a blade runner image....yawn....
el jeffe- USC seems to have gotten around it by just getting one of the tenure-track profs (who's a bit bigger name) to design it, and keeping the meeting invitations to a minimum... nobody seemed to know it was happening until all the sudden there were design boards and they were partway through CD's, and now construction starts in a couple of weeks!
But on the main topic, really- why are so many therapists screwed up? Why do dentists get cavities?
Anytime I ask this question, why architects work in shitholes, I always get an attitude from other architects. Having a nice office is just plain shallow, but designing a nice office for a client is acceptable. Also you hear a lot, that working in a shithole is the place wear the most creative designs are made. If architects were dentist they would probably never brush, yet encourage patients to brush three times a day.
want work? show your client the way by setting an example. otherwise shut the fuck up the next time you are about to complain about them not having enough money.
my architecture school was a dreadful piece of shit.
right on jaja and e.
by the way e, given your comment, i figured you and i must have gone to the same school. :) however, checking your bio and website proved that wrong. but i really dig your work man. really excellent.
What does logo design have to do with architecture? Looks like just another architect who got streamed out now pretending to know something about graphic design.
i love it when the a-holes don't like something and then go and create an alias the same day so they can behind some pseudo anonymous name, all in an effort to bust someones balls about their work. nice job!
It ain't me, really... but to the point of the discussion, anyone with a whit of intelligence should endeavor to spend as little time as possible in either an architecture school or in an architect's office.
actually betadinesutures, i personally don't like it when a-holes do that at all. :)
a little while ago, in a thread on grad school admissions, someone 'admitted' to doing that. apparently they enjoyed making all the kids who were waiting with their hearts on their sleeves for acceptances/rejections feel like crap and stress out even more. then again, given the nature of the beast, they may have been bs'ing about bs'ing.
anyway, i'd disagree with reality check even if they weren't being an ass. architecture and graphic design have a lot in common. check your arch history 101. actually, just check reality. you know, that place where you can't hide behind cowardly pseudonyms.
Architect's offices might be stale but they go all out when designing their own house, in fact the most interesting houses i've visited where architect's houses.
I can't wait to design my house, I salivate thinking about it.
Interesting.... I always though that architect's houses where far worse than their offices. Have you ever seen Frank Gehry's house? http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/pages/halaby.html . My god, it looks like a junk yard. He took a Mcmansion and made it uglier.
But offcourse there are some architects out there that do make nice houses for themselves. However, I get this impression that building your own house is not something architects do these days, because they just don’t have any money. The most houses in the book ‘100 Houses for 100 Architects’ are done buy old architects who had ‘lawyer incomes’ 50 years ago.
i'm curious. when i think of famous architects who've designed their own house, gehry's is the only one that comes to mind. anyone seen mayne's, hadid's, koolhaass', moss's, etc etc...? architects who ought to be able to afford to design their own house, even if it might be small, or like gehry's, made as cheaply as possible.
i'm not a big fan of gehry, but not a huge detractor either. i like his house more than most of his other stuff, but that doesn't really mean much. :)
in any case, the thought of designing my own house also makes me salivate. in fact, i've got to switch out my drool bucket... there we go. but like jaja says, it seems that FAR too few architects don't ever design their own home. seemingly for both economic reasons, and also for... i don't know, maybe lack of confidence? or maybe more like apathy. because, especially when it comes to designing your own home, it seems (like gehry) you could find a way to do it on a shoe-string budget and on your free time, more so than a project for a client.
Architects i know who designed their own house did it stages over a number of years because of reasons stated (no time or money).
One guy did it by floors, he built the basement, lived in what was essentially a bunker for a few years, then built the first floor and so on and so forth but man, was it a ever a cool house when it was done.
Another architect bought a house then 10 years later renovated it and after another 10 years made an addition. All the other architects i know who built their homes in one shot are the older architects who were in their prime during the 60's, 70's, 80's when design boutique type practices didn't exist and everyone worked in big firms.
It all boils down to this. Anyone that have an average 9 to 5 job, whether your working at Macy’s or a school teacher can build their own house. It doesn’t take much. Architects are at this moment in a huge financial crisis where they can’t afford a damn think. It is just unbelievable. So the question is not even how can architects get rich, but how can architects make a NORMAL living. Just being able to take your family to dinner, take a cheap vacation to the Caribbean or buy a cheap house in the suburbs, seem too much to ask for. Ok, I admit, I would love to live the life of a lawyer. Driving a bmw, having my own office room (working with 20 people behind one desk is just pathetic), having a personal secretary, going out to lunch, coming home to a NORMAL house if not a well designed house and having cable TV is just great.
domestic: much respect to the designer you mentioned. very admirable. i can't imagine a better test of your determination and passion for the profession.
the problem with arch offices and university departments is that often the try to be very cutting edge and innovative... unfortunately the "innovative" aspect lasts for only a couple of years unitl the trends change... and then the building is no longer new or different, it is just UGLY.
Right on re innovative in quotes, and ugly in caps. How does anyone justify something like Stata Center at MIT? Would love to hear a positive critique.
alcc: here's a positive critique: if this building was in Disneyland, and about 1/3 of the actual size, the kids would love it. "Madhatter's Resort". "Dumbo gone mad." "Small World re-Visited."
arch offices and buildings - why so bad?
a question that has always puzzled me. why do architecture firm's offices, and university's architecture buildings tend to be so freaking awful?
you think it has something to do with the fact that most small firms dont have the resources to be picky about where they work? academic buildings... im sure it has something to do with school/alumni politics.
buildings-why so bad?
with arch offices, i definitely think that you're right, a lack of resources. but i still wonder why there isn't a more concerted effort to do SOMETHING nice. there's a lot you can do with very little. and if there's one thing worth your free time, it's making your office a nice place to work. at least, that seems reasonable to me.
but bigger firms that DO have resources still seem to often not care at all about their own space. they seem to be just as unwilling to invest in quality space as most clients.
with arch buildings on uni campuses, it seems to me even worse than just politics or lack of resources. often times i've been struck by the fact that it seems the school of arch on a campus is the LEAST attractive building on campus.
certainly the issue is a somewhat unfair generalization. but it's also a fun irony. :)
i always found it unfortunate that so many architects work in offices in which the windows don't open.
if the insular artificially conditioned environment is ok for architects, who's going to lead the charge for open windows, ventilation, and passive cooling/heating? engineers?
same with fluorescent lighting vs. daylighting.
well what i was talking about the the school politics was the Steven Holl proposal for Cornell's new Meilstein Hall (sp?) that didn't satisfy the alumni or patrons. Barkow and Leinbinger who replaced him is a great firm but it could have gone a entirely different direction.
stevenward: good point. one of many similar design considerations in which it seems architects don't practice what they preach.
tzenyujuei: but at least cornell was on top of things enough to consider holl, and when they replaced him (your concerns there are very valid) at least, as you said, it was with a great firm. most arch schools never even get anywhere near that level.
can you imagine the user meetings to design a university architecture building? aye carumba....
UNM got away with it because at least Predock is local so the tenured a$$holes would be less likely to try and derail a design they didn't like. it all comes back to politics like tzenyujuei said.
in the end all Predock did was rip off the SCI-Arc Beethoven Street layout and add a cinema screen with a blade runner image....yawn....
el jeffe- USC seems to have gotten around it by just getting one of the tenure-track profs (who's a bit bigger name) to design it, and keeping the meeting invitations to a minimum... nobody seemed to know it was happening until all the sudden there were design boards and they were partway through CD's, and now construction starts in a couple of weeks!
But on the main topic, really- why are so many therapists screwed up? Why do dentists get cavities?
Architect- heal thy building!
Anytime I ask this question, why architects work in shitholes, I always get an attitude from other architects. Having a nice office is just plain shallow, but designing a nice office for a client is acceptable. Also you hear a lot, that working in a shithole is the place wear the most creative designs are made. If architects were dentist they would probably never brush, yet encourage patients to brush three times a day.
want work? show your client the way by setting an example. otherwise shut the fuck up the next time you are about to complain about them not having enough money.
my architecture school was a dreadful piece of shit.
right on jaja and e.
by the way e, given your comment, i figured you and i must have gone to the same school. :) however, checking your bio and website proved that wrong. but i really dig your work man. really excellent.
thx for the complement.
What does logo design have to do with architecture? Looks like just another architect who got streamed out now pretending to know something about graphic design.
i love it when the a-holes don't like something and then go and create an alias the same day so they can behind some pseudo anonymous name, all in an effort to bust someones balls about their work. nice job!
realitycheck
Stats
Location:
URL:
Email: email
Occupation:
Join date: May 03, 2005
Last post: May 03, 2005
Total comments: 1
Total entries: 0
Bio:
betadinestures: point and match! ha ha
It ain't me, really... but to the point of the discussion, anyone with a whit of intelligence should endeavor to spend as little time as possible in either an architecture school or in an architect's office.
How do you smell success?
actually betadinesutures, i personally don't like it when a-holes do that at all. :)
a little while ago, in a thread on grad school admissions, someone 'admitted' to doing that. apparently they enjoyed making all the kids who were waiting with their hearts on their sleeves for acceptances/rejections feel like crap and stress out even more. then again, given the nature of the beast, they may have been bs'ing about bs'ing.
anyway, i'd disagree with reality check even if they weren't being an ass. architecture and graphic design have a lot in common. check your arch history 101. actually, just check reality. you know, that place where you can't hide behind cowardly pseudonyms.
Architect's offices might be stale but they go all out when designing their own house, in fact the most interesting houses i've visited where architect's houses.
I can't wait to design my house, I salivate thinking about it.
Interesting.... I always though that architect's houses where far worse than their offices. Have you ever seen Frank Gehry's house? http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/pages/halaby.html . My god, it looks like a junk yard. He took a Mcmansion and made it uglier.
But offcourse there are some architects out there that do make nice houses for themselves. However, I get this impression that building your own house is not something architects do these days, because they just don’t have any money. The most houses in the book ‘100 Houses for 100 Architects’ are done buy old architects who had ‘lawyer incomes’ 50 years ago.
whoa there jaja -- gehry's house is not a junkyard nor was it ever a mcmansion. It IS an icon of late 20th-century architecture (and deserves to be).
i'm curious. when i think of famous architects who've designed their own house, gehry's is the only one that comes to mind. anyone seen mayne's, hadid's, koolhaass', moss's, etc etc...? architects who ought to be able to afford to design their own house, even if it might be small, or like gehry's, made as cheaply as possible.
i'm not a big fan of gehry, but not a huge detractor either. i like his house more than most of his other stuff, but that doesn't really mean much. :)
in any case, the thought of designing my own house also makes me salivate. in fact, i've got to switch out my drool bucket... there we go. but like jaja says, it seems that FAR too few architects don't ever design their own home. seemingly for both economic reasons, and also for... i don't know, maybe lack of confidence? or maybe more like apathy. because, especially when it comes to designing your own home, it seems (like gehry) you could find a way to do it on a shoe-string budget and on your free time, more so than a project for a client.
Architects i know who designed their own house did it stages over a number of years because of reasons stated (no time or money).
One guy did it by floors, he built the basement, lived in what was essentially a bunker for a few years, then built the first floor and so on and so forth but man, was it a ever a cool house when it was done.
Another architect bought a house then 10 years later renovated it and after another 10 years made an addition. All the other architects i know who built their homes in one shot are the older architects who were in their prime during the 60's, 70's, 80's when design boutique type practices didn't exist and everyone worked in big firms.
realitycheck, aren't we the spineless little coward.
It all boils down to this. Anyone that have an average 9 to 5 job, whether your working at Macy’s or a school teacher can build their own house. It doesn’t take much. Architects are at this moment in a huge financial crisis where they can’t afford a damn think. It is just unbelievable. So the question is not even how can architects get rich, but how can architects make a NORMAL living. Just being able to take your family to dinner, take a cheap vacation to the Caribbean or buy a cheap house in the suburbs, seem too much to ask for. Ok, I admit, I would love to live the life of a lawyer. Driving a bmw, having my own office room (working with 20 people behind one desk is just pathetic), having a personal secretary, going out to lunch, coming home to a NORMAL house if not a well designed house and having cable TV is just great.
domestic: much respect to the designer you mentioned. very admirable. i can't imagine a better test of your determination and passion for the profession.
the problem with arch offices and university departments is that often the try to be very cutting edge and innovative... unfortunately the "innovative" aspect lasts for only a couple of years unitl the trends change... and then the building is no longer new or different, it is just UGLY.
Right on re innovative in quotes, and ugly in caps. How does anyone justify something like Stata Center at MIT? Would love to hear a positive critique.
http://www.csail.mit.edu/events/news/stata.html
alcc: here's a positive critique: if this building was in Disneyland, and about 1/3 of the actual size, the kids would love it. "Madhatter's Resort". "Dumbo gone mad." "Small World re-Visited."
hahaha, no shit.
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.