i HATE scale figures... people put in photographs up people...but they look dumb... just my call...but i do it too...not cause i want to ...but damn, the man sure does find it impressive

What I mean can be seen in the gallery:



For some reason, I am not convinced that the human scale has been addressed.

Maybe if a giant hand came down from above...

letdown-

i hate photo people too. but i compromise and try to use greyed out silhouettes when i can.

yes but i dont think you are understanding John's point of actually dealing with the human scale

I'm interested, how would you better prove that you had?

I am, by the way, of a similar opinion however.

these must be corporate-type Borrowers somewhere inside or on a sports-type car..maybe just next to the headlights or just above the backseat where I dump roadkill. She looks quite prissy.

these must be corporate-type Borrowers somewhere inside or on a sports-type car..maybe just next to the headlights or just above the backseat where I dump roadkill. She looks quite prissy.

It just seems there are a lot of formal expolorations going on in schools where the actual programme of the building is left out until the end. How would people occupy the space? Where is the natural light? Where is all the stuff?

Plugging two scale figures into a nurbs surface with a nice shader isnt architecture... sorry. It's maybe the beginning, but a nice rendered image screams "final product" and not "architectural intent"

It's like being in a caccoon.

A $1200 dollar a sqft caccoon

JohnProlly, I agree with your thoughts on this. I haven't really formulated any other comment yet - but I think you're right.

cellardoor, that Borrowers comment is right on too - the "space" in that rendering does look reminiscent of the inside of a car trunk. Or a plastic cooler you take to the park with beer bottles in ice in it.

One thing it definitely does not look like - in my opinion - is architecture.

what that image is saying is function adapts to form

It has potential - I am easily seduced by beautiful forms, but the seduction ends up in a "walk of shame" of sorts after I look deeper than the flashy graphics. All of this stuff appears to be dissapointing in the end. Nice surfaces, shaders, Mental ray, ect make for pretty pictures, but I want to see a building with programme, thresholds, apertures, ect - I very rarely see this.

i'm with you...it seems bland for me as well because of the lack of parameters...i see beauty in the realization of rules and limits...

dammsom....that image has not addressed how function has adapted to form. the image is an inert shell devoid of any substantial markers of use, or more importantly experience. the symbol of the corporate drone is deployed literally, without any indication of how this new form might transform predetermined patterns of occupation.

This thread his welcome to my ears....or eyes...or brain...or whatever it is ;)

GET THE TAR AND FEATHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dont you think the figures look innappropriate (actually just plain silly).

Unless of course this is rather large bus stop.

Arn't we talking about two different things? the insertion of "supposed" scale figures into the image does refernece human scale, however, this remains independant from whether or not the architecture itself has achieved the proper relationship.

I think a lot of things about this rendering... that is one of them.