I think we as architects are obsessed with our ideas of "static" architecture, some of us aren't, but some of us are. This has become worse as 3d cgi gives us hyper-accurate and misleadingly beautiful renderings of buildings. We are seduced by the allure of our beautiful building standing in space for all time, untouched and beautiful till the end of time. But of course that's not the truth. The old and abandoned architecture in bombed out neighborhoods becomes canvas for the artists as it decays in time, slowly fading back into nature. One day, calatrava's beautiful museum will be decaying on the side of the river, its beautiful white bones will be brown and gray, covered in vines, grass, and of course graf. I don't think it could ever look prettier, with its ancient gray head held high over the bombed out and destroyed metropolis.
There were a few times after "the Calatrava" opened when the contractors were still tweaking the functionality of the bris soleil. In those instances, they opened the wings only about a foot from "home" position, so the entire structure floated precariously in mid-air. I doubt the architect ever intended for the wings to be frozen in such a position, but I think they were more beautiful than if they were to be completely "up" or "down."
(I also secretly hope that the wings will get stuck in the completely "up" position. Oh the panic that would ensue!)
remember a while ago i posted pics of a church that we had just finished - well, two days before Christian Richters came to photograph it - this happened.
ooh, p2an, i do remember that project. that's too bad.
i've stayed silent on most of the graf talk because, in some instances, i think graffitti can be beautiful. but the originating impulse - to mark something of which someone else is proud and for which they have made an investment - i can't support at all.
here in louisville the city has sponsored a public art project which allows graffitti artists to use certain elements of the city infrastructure as their canvas - in a controlled way. i think it's a great project, but i have some trouble with it as well. good: may divert graf artists from vandalizing private property. bad: it erases the critical component of tagging from the graffitti - really the most 'art' aspect of it for me - and leaves only the stylistic aspects.
i'm torn.
but defacing something as beautiful as that church on which p2an worked can't be right. i don't think it has anything to do with accepting entropy or imagining that things should stay as clean as the renderings as was suggested above. there is reasonable aging, held in check by good stewardship, and there is vandalism, which is still a crime. keep it to dormant billboards and we're all happy?
it's already been alluded to in other posts, but 90% of the graffito-tags out there are lame bullshit gang tags or other mindless crap...no better than the junk you find scraped into the mirrors and toilet paper dispensers at highway rest stops.
there are some seriously talented graffiti artists out there...but like the music biz these days, it's unfortunate they have to compete for canvas space with every knuckledragger who can press a button.
...and although the instigator of p2an's misfortune could use some grammar lessons, at least it's a statement.
It isn't just spraypaint. I'm always a bit dislocated when i visit the Temple of Dendur at the Met and see the graffiti that people have scratched into the stone. "John Stanley 1772" sort of things. I think people do just like to insert their names into public space.
I've worked in places that were always aggravated about having to clean up graffiti in the bathrooms, repainting, the annoyance and cost, especially when people used etching fluid to engrave into the mirrors and tile. Counter that with the club down the street that has sprayed its bathroom walls with chalkboard surface paint, and provided multicolored chalk. They have no unwanted graffiti.
My highschool had an enormous boulder in the parking lot that people tagged. The school itself had no vandalism problems.
So I guess if I had the opportunity, I would address the problem by providing a place where people can tag and vandalize to their hearts' content. If you build something in a place where it's likely to be vandalized by nature of simply being there, then that should probably be taken into account. (I mean vandalism ranging from the true graffiti artists to silly kids writing their names and area codes, as opposed to, say, bigoted vandalism targeting a certain type of church, which is a different beast altogether).
Oh, and I'm disturbed by this knocking-about of Mr. Calatrava, not so much about him specifically but because of the issues he seems to raise. I don't really understand what is wrong with creating things that are simply formally elegant, if that is all everyone agrees they are. My hairdresser makes my life much better because being able to shake one's tailfeathers proudly is a good thing. Extrapolate it to a building; it's like civic tailfeathers. So long as the structures are doing their job, why must they be invested with Deep Important Thoughts? We've got so many Ideas going up nowadays, there's certainly room for, you know, forms.
we need to design to allow for possibilities of such just like we are starting to design skater components to parks. don't try to stop youth and creativity, but propose it in a safe environment.
Susan, I am surprised no one's responded to your provocation yet. I'll try to take a crack, I don't like form for form's sake, and am not a fan of calatrava or his forms.
1- it many times forces site, occupation, etc.. to accomodate to IT, rather than the other way around.
2- form as the figural musings of the genius painter/architect/engineer scares me. I think it is almost oppresive (?)
3- I feel like Calatrava's and sometimes Ghery's forms have an air of decadence, dont know what I mean, just giving brush to the fire.
4- I can see how at one time, specially after functional modernism, form was a way of dissent, and in this I find your feather idea most interesting. But, after seeing some of the results from this type of architecture, I personally think we need to invest forms with more meaning rather than less.
I think forms need to tackle larger issues, environmental discourses, issues of public and personal experience, and story telling.
then again, there are the plebs who will never understand the deeper meaning of the art (or even other artists) and just want a pretty building to look at. People are stupid, they want something shiny to look at. That's why everybody else BUT US likes Ghery and Calatrava. I'm not saying we should all turn our brains off when we sit down in the studio, but there was someone who said, "Design as if you were a child."
Even if you spent years trying to invest your forms with meaning, ultimately it's up to the viewer/audience/participant/end-user. The author is dead, right?
Not that it's not worth trying- just speak slowly & clearly.
Upski's book 'Bomb The Suburbs' is interesting, but hopelessly out of date. When he wrote that book in the early 90's, graffiti was still a tiny, tiny subculture. Since then graffiti has expanded ten-thousand fold. The problem is, when something expands so quickly, a lot of people get involved who don't understand the basic laws of being a graffiti writer. Yes, oddly enough graffiti has rules. One of them, it isn't beautiful, don't put it up. Also, most real graffiti writers wouldn't put anything up on a decent looking building. In the past graffiti was mostly relegated to trains, or ugly buildings where the graffiti was actually an improvement. One way to prevent graffiti is to get a well known writer to put a piece on a building. No one but the most amateur rookie would paint over a piece by a talented, well known writer. There is a very huge gap between a tagger, and an actual graffiti artist. What's in the pics that started this thread is amateur garbage. It's just vandalism.
+q I guess my caveat was "so long as the building's doing its job." ;)
I do not think that designers of a building must necessarily make an effort to generate a discursive entity. The figural musings modus operandi - it's just one way of working, not necessarily/intrinsically scary or oppressive.
In many instances I get a gut reaction that buildings that are invested with heavy concepts and meanings seem inauthentic and like all of those things are tacked on or forced on like decorative elements but instead of being poignant it's troubling because no one can admit that concept is decorative. Again, then you have concept, or form, that is controlling the design process, not the needs of the people & site who end up with it. Since I consider form and the aesthetic experience thereof to be a function of anything that is built, I'll tend toward form, if I have to pick. And that is the difference, or the decadence you spoke of - I'd gravitate more toward forthright material/formal decadence than theoretical decadence, if that makes sense.
Built things necessitate other considerations besides form, always, but largely practical ones rather than conceptual, the same ones you spoke of. I mean things such as ecological responsibility/sustainability, habitability, ability to support all of the activity the building needs to contain, will a male architect ever design a building with enough stalls in the ladies' room?, etc.
I totally disagree with the statement "People are stupid, they want something shiny to look at." Or maybe, no, I don't disagree with it, just the implication that it's driven by unintelligence. That's not stupidity,that's humanity.
Something that's interesting in these discussions is this question of who has the authority or sanction to create and change our cities.
Many comments seem to suggest that an act of creation done by someone with proper learning achieves a sacred status (assigned by other people of proper learning?) making it in some way untouchable by the common man. Do the experts have more authority to mold a city than the people living there?
Graffitti is a way for people to effect and personalize their environment - what makes their act less valid than the tabula rasa creative exploits coming from our own ranks? Is the opposition to graffitti really about preservation of authority? Preservation of aristocracy?
The other angle expressed is that a 'good' building should be respected and not defiled - which suggests judgement of quality. The question arises again: who has the authority to judge which buildings are 'good' and therefore untouchable, and which buildings are fair game?
It's a good thread for these issues: architect genius vs. taggers / individual vs. collective / expert vs. common man...
we are asked to perform our 'creative exploits' by the stewards of the subject sites while the graffitti we're talking about is against those stewards. it's not an act of violence, but it is an act of violation.
definitely agreed with above that graffiti is vandelism.
even if there is a message i think the artist merit is belied by the simple fact that its destroying someone else's property.
i'd even take it to another level by adopting the loosian assertion that it represents the trail end of a primitive behavior of painting on cave walls.
I am "one of us" and I have no problem with Calatrava. There is something very poetic about making a beautiful building because it is a beautiful building--we could do a hell of a lot worse, as architects. And as I understand it, his buildings work, so why complain? Same mostly goes for Gehry, except that I have been disappointed by his application of the same forms for all different types of buildings, locations, etcetera, and I think even the populace gets that that makes for hollow forms.
As emilyrides commented about the rules of graffiti--"it isn't beautiful, don't put it up." If even graffiti artists have this rule, shouldn't we? Is there something inherent in beauty that makes it somehow meaningless? Shouldn't there be value simply in the beauty alone? I doubt Gaudi was trying to convey some abstract architectural concept in his parks and façades, but no one would disagree that they are striking and beautiful. They certainly add a lot to Barcelona, and it sounds like the Calatrava art museum adds to Milwaukee. Sounds good to me. No architect should get points subtracted from his worth simply because he deigns to make a beautiful building.
The work above, the pretty one, was extraordinary, on display at London's Architecture Foundation this summer, growing over the course of the exhibition.
Lamp Post (1981) is genius. People need to be clued into the built environment. This work not only jokes, but provokes extrospection.
myriam, here is the problem: beautiful according to whom?
I find trava's and Ghery's buildings oppresive and anti-human. I don't see beauty. Is architecture a beauty contest then? Are we left only to discuss taste? And by the way I am against attaching silly metphors and semi-poetics into architecture (i.e. 'The hallway of freedom', you know who I'm talking about). I do believe that aesthetics matter and form is important, but...
Graffiti is even much older than that. Pompeii, as well as the Forum in Rome, are both covered in very old graffiti. Everything from 'Down with Trajan' to 'Biggus Dickus'. I think people are inherently wired up to express themselves in public. There is graffiti in my neighborhood that I love, because it's gorgeous and it makes my walk to the subway more pleasant. The converse is, graffiti can be ugly and my walk all the more unpleasant. Either way I can't support the idea that anyone should be able to control what the public streetscape looks like 100%.
I was cross country skiing years ago in the high country of Wyoming. It was a beautiful winter day after a night dusting of snow. We had been out for about three hours and stopped for a mid day break in a grove of aspen trees. After hanging out for a while I noticed the scarring on the trees was more than natural scarring. It was infact where people had carved their names in the trees, along with dates, and hearts....which had been done some twenty years earlier. Mother nature had nicely softened the activity of man.
the new Kolumba museum in Koln, Germany, by Peter Zumthor has already got graffiti on it.
Calatrava's bilbao Airport is one of the most beautiful airports i have been in. also the most functional. (Hadid and Ghery can learn something from him)
I haven't had any of my buildings graffitted...not sure how I'd feel about it. Granted the stencil on liberty bells is quite good...gives that wall presence.
The really funny thing is that there is almost no graffitti in Montserrat...something can't be right there.
Calatrava's Bac de Roda bridge in Barcelona, 1986-87
not only graffitti but some time ago a group of portuguese homeless (I think they were some kind of nomad gypsies clan or something like that lived and slept under the bridge)
Graffitti & Calatrava
My office is a great building...Gregory Ain's office (was Neutra's right hand man)
Had it painted last week...
Little punk-ass gang-bangers come and tag it...
If I only had a gun...
I think we as architects are obsessed with our ideas of "static" architecture, some of us aren't, but some of us are. This has become worse as 3d cgi gives us hyper-accurate and misleadingly beautiful renderings of buildings. We are seduced by the allure of our beautiful building standing in space for all time, untouched and beautiful till the end of time. But of course that's not the truth. The old and abandoned architecture in bombed out neighborhoods becomes canvas for the artists as it decays in time, slowly fading back into nature. One day, calatrava's beautiful museum will be decaying on the side of the river, its beautiful white bones will be brown and gray, covered in vines, grass, and of course graf. I don't think it could ever look prettier, with its ancient gray head held high over the bombed out and destroyed metropolis.
too bad shitty designs AREN'T ridiculed by society .....
-we need a edit command or something-
2:37am
There were a few times after "the Calatrava" opened when the contractors were still tweaking the functionality of the bris soleil. In those instances, they opened the wings only about a foot from "home" position, so the entire structure floated precariously in mid-air. I doubt the architect ever intended for the wings to be frozen in such a position, but I think they were more beautiful than if they were to be completely "up" or "down."
(I also secretly hope that the wings will get stuck in the completely "up" position. Oh the panic that would ensue!)
237amdotcom - agreed
have you ever seen this guys work, it’s in dire need of a critique
www.237am.com
2:38am
wtf..... seriously.............
remember a while ago i posted pics of a church that we had just finished - well, two days before Christian Richters came to photograph it - this happened.
ooh, p2an, i do remember that project. that's too bad.
i've stayed silent on most of the graf talk because, in some instances, i think graffitti can be beautiful. but the originating impulse - to mark something of which someone else is proud and for which they have made an investment - i can't support at all.
here in louisville the city has sponsored a public art project which allows graffitti artists to use certain elements of the city infrastructure as their canvas - in a controlled way. i think it's a great project, but i have some trouble with it as well. good: may divert graf artists from vandalizing private property. bad: it erases the critical component of tagging from the graffitti - really the most 'art' aspect of it for me - and leaves only the stylistic aspects.
i'm torn.
but defacing something as beautiful as that church on which p2an worked can't be right. i don't think it has anything to do with accepting entropy or imagining that things should stay as clean as the renderings as was suggested above. there is reasonable aging, held in check by good stewardship, and there is vandalism, which is still a crime. keep it to dormant billboards and we're all happy?
Oh, jeez, p2an, that sucks so much. I have more to say on it - a lot - but I have to get ready for work.
it's already been alluded to in other posts, but 90% of the graffito-tags out there are lame bullshit gang tags or other mindless crap...no better than the junk you find scraped into the mirrors and toilet paper dispensers at highway rest stops.
there are some seriously talented graffiti artists out there...but like the music biz these days, it's unfortunate they have to compete for canvas space with every knuckledragger who can press a button.
...and although the instigator of p2an's misfortune could use some grammar lessons, at least it's a statement.
it's easy to say to graf is cool until something you own [or care about] gets tagged without your approval.
It isn't just spraypaint. I'm always a bit dislocated when i visit the Temple of Dendur at the Met and see the graffiti that people have scratched into the stone. "John Stanley 1772" sort of things. I think people do just like to insert their names into public space.
I've worked in places that were always aggravated about having to clean up graffiti in the bathrooms, repainting, the annoyance and cost, especially when people used etching fluid to engrave into the mirrors and tile. Counter that with the club down the street that has sprayed its bathroom walls with chalkboard surface paint, and provided multicolored chalk. They have no unwanted graffiti.
My highschool had an enormous boulder in the parking lot that people tagged. The school itself had no vandalism problems.
So I guess if I had the opportunity, I would address the problem by providing a place where people can tag and vandalize to their hearts' content. If you build something in a place where it's likely to be vandalized by nature of simply being there, then that should probably be taken into account. (I mean vandalism ranging from the true graffiti artists to silly kids writing their names and area codes, as opposed to, say, bigoted vandalism targeting a certain type of church, which is a different beast altogether).
Oh, and I'm disturbed by this knocking-about of Mr. Calatrava, not so much about him specifically but because of the issues he seems to raise. I don't really understand what is wrong with creating things that are simply formally elegant, if that is all everyone agrees they are. My hairdresser makes my life much better because being able to shake one's tailfeathers proudly is a good thing. Extrapolate it to a building; it's like civic tailfeathers. So long as the structures are doing their job, why must they be invested with Deep Important Thoughts? We've got so many Ideas going up nowadays, there's certainly room for, you know, forms.
we need to design to allow for possibilities of such just like we are starting to design skater components to parks. don't try to stop youth and creativity, but propose it in a safe environment.
Susan,
You have feathers?
Allegorically, yes.
el morro new mexico.
e-
someone tag your house/car recently? seems to be some pent up hostility there.
Susan, I am surprised no one's responded to your provocation yet. I'll try to take a crack, I don't like form for form's sake, and am not a fan of calatrava or his forms.
1- it many times forces site, occupation, etc.. to accomodate to IT, rather than the other way around.
2- form as the figural musings of the genius painter/architect/engineer scares me. I think it is almost oppresive (?)
3- I feel like Calatrava's and sometimes Ghery's forms have an air of decadence, dont know what I mean, just giving brush to the fire.
4- I can see how at one time, specially after functional modernism, form was a way of dissent, and in this I find your feather idea most interesting. But, after seeing some of the results from this type of architecture, I personally think we need to invest forms with more meaning rather than less.
I think forms need to tackle larger issues, environmental discourses, issues of public and personal experience, and story telling.
then again, there are the plebs who will never understand the deeper meaning of the art (or even other artists) and just want a pretty building to look at. People are stupid, they want something shiny to look at. That's why everybody else BUT US likes Ghery and Calatrava. I'm not saying we should all turn our brains off when we sit down in the studio, but there was someone who said, "Design as if you were a child."
Even if you spent years trying to invest your forms with meaning, ultimately it's up to the viewer/audience/participant/end-user. The author is dead, right?
Not that it's not worth trying- just speak slowly & clearly.
Upski's book 'Bomb The Suburbs' is interesting, but hopelessly out of date. When he wrote that book in the early 90's, graffiti was still a tiny, tiny subculture. Since then graffiti has expanded ten-thousand fold. The problem is, when something expands so quickly, a lot of people get involved who don't understand the basic laws of being a graffiti writer. Yes, oddly enough graffiti has rules. One of them, it isn't beautiful, don't put it up. Also, most real graffiti writers wouldn't put anything up on a decent looking building. In the past graffiti was mostly relegated to trains, or ugly buildings where the graffiti was actually an improvement. One way to prevent graffiti is to get a well known writer to put a piece on a building. No one but the most amateur rookie would paint over a piece by a talented, well known writer. There is a very huge gap between a tagger, and an actual graffiti artist. What's in the pics that started this thread is amateur garbage. It's just vandalism.
+q I guess my caveat was "so long as the building's doing its job." ;)
I do not think that designers of a building must necessarily make an effort to generate a discursive entity. The figural musings modus operandi - it's just one way of working, not necessarily/intrinsically scary or oppressive.
In many instances I get a gut reaction that buildings that are invested with heavy concepts and meanings seem inauthentic and like all of those things are tacked on or forced on like decorative elements but instead of being poignant it's troubling because no one can admit that concept is decorative. Again, then you have concept, or form, that is controlling the design process, not the needs of the people & site who end up with it. Since I consider form and the aesthetic experience thereof to be a function of anything that is built, I'll tend toward form, if I have to pick. And that is the difference, or the decadence you spoke of - I'd gravitate more toward forthright material/formal decadence than theoretical decadence, if that makes sense.
Built things necessitate other considerations besides form, always, but largely practical ones rather than conceptual, the same ones you spoke of. I mean things such as ecological responsibility/sustainability, habitability, ability to support all of the activity the building needs to contain, will a male architect ever design a building with enough stalls in the ladies' room?, etc.
I totally disagree with the statement "People are stupid, they want something shiny to look at." Or maybe, no, I don't disagree with it, just the implication that it's driven by unintelligence. That's not stupidity,that's humanity.
Something that's interesting in these discussions is this question of who has the authority or sanction to create and change our cities.
Many comments seem to suggest that an act of creation done by someone with proper learning achieves a sacred status (assigned by other people of proper learning?) making it in some way untouchable by the common man. Do the experts have more authority to mold a city than the people living there?
Graffitti is a way for people to effect and personalize their environment - what makes their act less valid than the tabula rasa creative exploits coming from our own ranks? Is the opposition to graffitti really about preservation of authority? Preservation of aristocracy?
The other angle expressed is that a 'good' building should be respected and not defiled - which suggests judgement of quality. The question arises again: who has the authority to judge which buildings are 'good' and therefore untouchable, and which buildings are fair game?
It's a good thread for these issues: architect genius vs. taggers / individual vs. collective / expert vs. common man...
we are asked to perform our 'creative exploits' by the stewards of the subject sites while the graffitti we're talking about is against those stewards. it's not an act of violence, but it is an act of violation.
definitely agreed with above that graffiti is vandelism.
even if there is a message i think the artist merit is belied by the simple fact that its destroying someone else's property.
i'd even take it to another level by adopting the loosian assertion that it represents the trail end of a primitive behavior of painting on cave walls.
lack of evolution.
I am "one of us" and I have no problem with Calatrava. There is something very poetic about making a beautiful building because it is a beautiful building--we could do a hell of a lot worse, as architects. And as I understand it, his buildings work, so why complain? Same mostly goes for Gehry, except that I have been disappointed by his application of the same forms for all different types of buildings, locations, etcetera, and I think even the populace gets that that makes for hollow forms.
As emilyrides commented about the rules of graffiti--"it isn't beautiful, don't put it up." If even graffiti artists have this rule, shouldn't we? Is there something inherent in beauty that makes it somehow meaningless? Shouldn't there be value simply in the beauty alone? I doubt Gaudi was trying to convey some abstract architectural concept in his parks and façades, but no one would disagree that they are striking and beautiful. They certainly add a lot to Barcelona, and it sounds like the Calatrava art museum adds to Milwaukee. Sounds good to me. No architect should get points subtracted from his worth simply because he deigns to make a beautiful building.
I couldn't agree more myriam.
Also, on the subject of graffiti--similar to what SusanSurface mentioned--
I remember being in Chateau de Chillon in Switzerland, and down in the dungeon there's a tag scratched into the stone wall...
"Byron, 1806" (or some date like that)
Graffiti artists--and architourists--are not a new thing!
The work above, the pretty one, was extraordinary, on display at London's Architecture Foundation this summer, growing over the course of the exhibition.
Lamp Post (1981) is genius. People need to be clued into the built environment. This work not only jokes, but provokes extrospection.
Banksy, mentioned above, is a national hero.
Gaudi was trying to convey 'some abstract architectural concept' in his forms... his method of generating forms were a lot different than Gehry's.
myriam, here is the problem: beautiful according to whom?
I find trava's and Ghery's buildings oppresive and anti-human. I don't see beauty. Is architecture a beauty contest then? Are we left only to discuss taste? And by the way I am against attaching silly metphors and semi-poetics into architecture (i.e. 'The hallway of freedom', you know who I'm talking about). I do believe that aesthetics matter and form is important, but...
Graffiti is even much older than that. Pompeii, as well as the Forum in Rome, are both covered in very old graffiti. Everything from 'Down with Trajan' to 'Biggus Dickus'. I think people are inherently wired up to express themselves in public. There is graffiti in my neighborhood that I love, because it's gorgeous and it makes my walk to the subway more pleasant. The converse is, graffiti can be ugly and my walk all the more unpleasant. Either way I can't support the idea that anyone should be able to control what the public streetscape looks like 100%.
I was cross country skiing years ago in the high country of Wyoming. It was a beautiful winter day after a night dusting of snow. We had been out for about three hours and stopped for a mid day break in a grove of aspen trees. After hanging out for a while I noticed the scarring on the trees was more than natural scarring. It was infact where people had carved their names in the trees, along with dates, and hearts....which had been done some twenty years earlier. Mother nature had nicely softened the activity of man.
i stenciled a richard meier building a few years ago. it was painted over in white about 3.5 hours later.
my professor and i had a bet how long it would stay. i won.
elvischyld, i think you might be my hero...
Nashville, TN
near Vanderbilt
05JUN2006
the new Kolumba museum in Koln, Germany, by Peter Zumthor has already got graffiti on it.
Calatrava's bilbao Airport is one of the most beautiful airports i have been in. also the most functional. (Hadid and Ghery can learn something from him)
This was located outside of the Institut Monde Arab in Paris, France.
exterior stair
Stadhuis, Den Haag, NL.
Richard Meier
flickr set of Den Haag, Winter 2003
This is my stencil on a non-Richard Meir surface.
This is my stencil on Richard Meir's MACBA.
Please note: this was painted over in less than 3.5 hours. God, I heart anal retentive architects.
I haven't had any of my buildings graffitted...not sure how I'd feel about it. Granted the stencil on liberty bells is quite good...gives that wall presence.
The really funny thing is that there is almost no graffitti in Montserrat...something can't be right there.
Calatrava's Bac de Roda bridge in Barcelona, 1986-87
not only graffitti but some time ago a group of portuguese homeless (I think they were some kind of nomad gypsies clan or something like that lived and slept under the bridge)
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.