Architcture is not something you act , it's something you work.
I don't belive it's not possible, that good design and beautifull
buildings, can be the result of theoretic casting , some ,one even a
few class designers proberly could do splendid architecture , but that
don't mean.
Do't mean that hands on aproach and experience even skills would make a
vorse or better, not even equal as beautifull architecture, still I
personaly expect a better feel a vider vision , to come from hands on
crafts.
If architecture is about building the cheapest most beautifull houses
,there are no reson ,not to try something that acturly work digital,
suggest new assembly methods make 3D volumes from simple 2D sections
,eithout any of the skills required today , these structures are a new
world , --- digital wasn't just made, to replace the old methods just
faster and safer , still it don't work that way. As even digital could
today provide a cheaper dovetail, than a Banged-in standard steel
fitting with way to many holes , even supporting the old way's digital
never show it's true potential.
Open your eyes guy's , don't you see you have the architecture you
deserve, the cramped bad crafts, the corrupted spreadsheed , the
expensive and cold buildings mashines can make, The cold edgy
buildings are sketched not worked not nice and not efficient.
Today this is allready the option, if IKEA could provide plywood N.C. cut 3D-H would provide just anything, --- still you are to decide, and decide taking account for the sake of plain lazyness , why is it none of these challances are met ? please the standard fittings can't be made vorse, it is fact now impossible, to make and decent crafts putting things together no mind you split and ruin the materials they are so weak afterall aso.
everytime per posts something like that, I don't know whether to feel pity, disgust or mirth...and then as soon as I start to laugh at poor funny per, I feel like a bad person for imagining per, 20 years from now, still hopelessly pushing 3dh as the coming of an architectural revolution, and finding that image funny.
Don't vorry , as long as you get the messeage . Sorry to say but again a few highrise houses collapsed in an earthquake and still it is better to rebuild just as before or even not, a few tsunamies floods whatever to crack down the houses , not even the rebuild are taken as a challance to see if it can be done better not acturly fighting the materials.
But don't vorry, I enjoy my time with other things than just develobing new methods. I make ,made things I like liked , I enjoy life find it an exiting place --- just strange, that when things could be made so nice and beautifull, that no one realy deliver ; it seem that fame are more interesting than quality, surface is everything and core quality are nothing. I don't wonder that trend of architecture eventualy couldn't deliver . Realy I spend a lot of time with lot's of exiting things don't vorry.
[i]Gehry's buildings are wonderful, at least the ones I've been in (his Barcelona Fish doesn't count).[i]
trace, that fish isn't a building but a sculpture/pergola... it doesn't provide you a 'space' but a shadow.. the rest of the complex -and the Arts Hotel tower nearby are 'a' SOM not 'a' Gehry, FOG only did the structure of the fish- ... and that was merely the first built experiment with CATIA, he was just playing with that program at that time.. not that bad for being 1991..
if +q. was talking about the new big museum and office tower by FOG in Barcelona, its hardly difficult to judge its 'innovative' character by the qualities of its space, since it ain't been built yet...
Beside don't think I don't try sharpen my view about the course and reson for modern architecture, the theories I heard and the things I can acturly see. But it must be a modest request when houses tumble, winds and floods even make tradisional rebuilding impossible, to question the wish for real new architecture.
See it's not my foult, that now with 3D-H just "anyone" could in theori get his own sweet house made , doing the savings and the possible develobment in new materials . ----- recently I joined a discussion about ships containers, an issue just any architecture student shuld have an oppinion about, but when I in pictures proved that offcaurse a frame assembly offering all the things a bundle of containers could not , then the discussion sort of stopped.
Later I found an old project where I stacked a number of vontainerlike solids and acturly have the drawings --- but no ,even it can be calculated by cut feet steel sheet and cost of materials , even this is less then my useal brag third cost, the discussion sort of stopped.
Now you vorry I shuld end up by automatic allway's promoting just my method no, it's much vorse than that ;))
manamana no one said it shuld be easy, it is not and why shuld it be ? if it was easy it was nothing eh.
"... and that was merely the first built experiment with CATIA, he was just playing with that program at that time.. not that bad for being 1991.."
And this is just my argument ; is a 1991 aoolication realy , realy what you would expect , while computers gone from 133 M.Hz to G.Hz. measures.
------- I realised long ago, that nothing compare academic aproach. Structure is nothing ,the core structure is not the issue , ---- in my mind there are no doubt, esp. as I reconise the academic aproach in the descriptions I heard ; surface as how you expect a 1991 polygon application , now sorry but for me it is not enough, that a work drawing is sort of a sketch , I want real measures not impossible polygon meshes not just the outher expression . Maby this is the reson I challance this tread ; if stararchitects shuld be blamed something, it might aswell be, that none of that crap did make cheap, decent housing. They don't need superstars for keeping architecture in the Iconic trend, but architecture , rather shuld deal with innovation , new architecture new methods actual visions and providing the houses the cheap homes the new technology.
Per, you should buy a coat and join Ephraim Goldberg on a world tour... he would show blobby Colorcore fishes and you'd fish 'em from your 3dH wood boats...
I find the subject quite important --- what is it that drive our obsession ,guess we all know that our emagination are limited by the trivial real world boring facts. We think the computer then offer a new world of oppotunities but all we find, is that the architect applications again deal with the trivial acounting, that there are rules and 2D keeping down our creativity, chaining it in the exact rutines ,that was those rewritten into computer code, just on a screen instead of paper.
It is that fact you first of all must face --- you are allowed to model and shape ,go into detail 3D but, when you did that how is the wonder then translated into real building compoments ?
The exiting 3D worlds how can they be made in real, how do the freedom forming and shaping reflect in today's manufactoring , it don't.
This is a problem.
It is a problem that you must rely on the skilled craftmen to translate your plans into something that can acturly be build, as you see the materials are rigid, sometimes some of the best are simply made to a compleat other porpus ; if you want to curve the building why is it you then chose a steel profile and start fight it's strait shape , isn't it just that strait shape that was the idea with it, isn't is a huge expense to have it curved ? Isn't the whole thing fighting itself ; materials made for strait grids ,worked and fought into shapes the materials was never ment to hold at huge expenses ?
I think modern architecture ask more feel more knowleage and more innovation before just the building methods the material we use, can work with our emagination and the options 3D forming and detail design offer. The materials are not there unless you compromise in a way that almost kill the vision. If you bang and work the rigid profiles what happen is that you move further away from your vision realy, for a true vision to show, you are not supposed to fight either the materials or the computer.
But still, how is it it work ------ do the computer ,the architect applications realy support the new innovative architecture, no it don't.
If you stack Ships containers you soon end up with what ?
They are not cheap, they are raw have no insulation windows whatever, they only from a distance prove your vision. When going closer you realise the trouble, the huge efford these steel boxes requier before even offering a dry floor a bit of sunlight some few doors practicly all that detail that make them expensive ontop what they cost plus the transport.
Now a few of you proberly wondered why I allway's only show the raw frames the structure and not the glossy surfaces --- but please try make just a small account of what a container project would acturly ask and if that is so different from the final paneling that a framework structure ask. Do you realy think it would be higher costs to panel a 3D-H framework covering the same assembly of shipscontainer boxes to be able to use these as houses ?
I don't think so ----- I think it will be much better to make a 3D Solid the shape of a ships container, then in 3D assemble the works ,do the boxes with a thickness so a final sectioning will add enough strength, and ontop I think it would cost a third, and be four times as strong and offer you larger rooms and a cheaper interiour , guess you can see the shape of the ships containers in that graphic, also you proberly can see, that with an extra bit of thought, the paneling are acturly allready there for most parts.
Perhaps if the profession stopped spending so much time panicking about Brad Pitt and more time doing actual architecture the profession would trivialize those with trivial aspirations.
There are so many kinds of architects these days the only thing we have in common is a vanishing public perception of ethical fortitude. Let's stick together and stop the bleeding - if we can.
I can now report from my regular subscription to the ‘real news’ in satirical rag Private Eye that Brad featured in the Rotten Boroughs: Awards 2006
Non Event of the Year:
“Film star Brad Pitt turned out not to be designing the bar in Frank Gehry’s shaky skyscraper department in Hove, despite all the news papers and leading Skidrow-on-Sea (Brighton & Hove City Council) councillors saying he was. Architect Gehry told Newsweek magazine that Pitt’s involvement amount to no more than having dropped into his office, once, and being photographed next to a model of the scheme: “From that day, I’ve never heard from him.”
What a shame -- as what this "architecture" need is new eyes and reson, sad as how ugly highrise and useless postmodernism realy shuld be replaced, with an architecture that build cheap and spetacular same cost. Sad architects have so little vision but enough, to make it act about if a nowhere interiour decor ,are made by him or himself, Gee the next "architecture" Icon proberly be a statue of an architect.
I wonder ; see no one want to make a mountain of money, no one want a heap of new good job , cheap houses are not the issue, and a new way to use the computer to put things together who want that ,when what we allready do , is good enough.
When our Icons are allready cold frightning and hyper expensive. Who want skilled designers doing wonderfull new architecture creating a wonder in progress and acessibility.
I spent so long typing up a considered response that Archinect logged me out and I lost it all. Grrr.
Anyway, imagine this alternative headline " xxx conductor bemoans unqualified Lennon and McCartney trivialising music. [He] says, 'no qualifying from a recognisted institute for the Performing Arts / University: no recording contract.'"
Furthermore, all this technical and (to a lesser extent) legal know-how that's so important in distinguishing our expertise from that of the enthusiastic layman: how much of this, exactly, did we learn at architecture school? It really wasn't an 'add on' at all, was it? No, what got us studying there in the first place was the same enthusiasm dude Brad has. If this exercise in aesthetic and space-creating passion was more evinced in the daily activities of the majority of us working professionals, perhaps the public would begin to get more discerning over its subtelties.
Yeah SOLIDRED....it was odd to read you got booted from archinect!
(fyi...I use firefox, and never get booted, unless the comp crashes - which thank goodness it hasnt').
just have to say....that picture of ghery and pit (father and child pics superimposed) was brilliant!
I give it 5 years befor David Beckham expresses in 'interest' in architecture and gets paid $1m a week to 'design' penthouses. Heck, he's not going to be far from Gehry.
There's no point in resisting Pitt's move. The only way to challenge him would be to ask that he designs something BY HIMSELF. Then we could all laugh at the phallic monstrosity that would no doubt ensue. Maybe even with a little Angelina Jolie annex blood bank.
And let's face it, Brad's going to be unusual in automatically thinking stretch-limo dimensions when it comes to parking lots. And he won't be allowing a mere 600 x 600 for the fridge, either...
But what would he model with 3D Solids and build in basic structure, with 3D-H, using today's real visionary concepts, oposed yestoday's building technikes and software.
And No ,this is not to progress 3D-H but to give a picture if what is right, is to avoid the most promising new building technikes and learn from yeatoday's hero , rather than looking to the future where digital projecting will provide wonders, --- just the compation asking if relevant 3D modeling as how we would expect is not the tool, architecture allway's was about tools and building technikes anyway, so why learn building the useal boring Lego issues with the same boring Lego mind, is this Brad ?
Gawd I'm naive. This isn't about Mr.Pitt at all. It's not about architecture either.
It's about 3D-H!!!
Sorry 'Vindpust', couldn't resist. Seriously though: I want to see you modelling a proper building with that technology one day. You know, one with stuff inside it, walls on it; a roof y'know, ROMAN stuff ;-)
im definatly not worried that brad pitt will take my cad bitch job! But seriously does the architectural field really need more people in the professsion that have no fucking clue of what is going on around them...yeah lets rebuild new orleans and not give 2 shits about global warming...in 30 years new orleans will be covered by the gulf and another rebiulding effort will be lost. do we really think that a levey will stop a 10-20' rise in sea level...anyway if brad pitt wants to throw his money around he should concentrate his efforts on the big picture...global warming-the #1 leading causeof this problem...thats right ARCHITECTS! Believe it...
The great cause of our Age: Stop Brad Pitt (and Frank Gehry) from trivializing the Profession.
maybe we could get brad pitt to study with per corell...i think the result would be truly breathtaking
brad's not takin your job. so get back to work on those bathroom elevations.
Architcture is not something you act , it's something you work.
I don't belive it's not possible, that good design and beautifull
buildings, can be the result of theoretic casting , some ,one even a
few class designers proberly could do splendid architecture , but that
don't mean.
Do't mean that hands on aproach and experience even skills would make a
vorse or better, not even equal as beautifull architecture, still I
personaly expect a better feel a vider vision , to come from hands on
crafts.
If architecture is about building the cheapest most beautifull houses
,there are no reson ,not to try something that acturly work digital,
suggest new assembly methods make 3D volumes from simple 2D sections
,eithout any of the skills required today , these structures are a new
world , --- digital wasn't just made, to replace the old methods just
faster and safer , still it don't work that way. As even digital could
today provide a cheaper dovetail, than a Banged-in standard steel
fitting with way to many holes , even supporting the old way's digital
never show it's true potential.
Open your eyes guy's , don't you see you have the architecture you
deserve, the cramped bad crafts, the corrupted spreadsheed , the
expensive and cold buildings mashines can make, The cold edgy
buildings are sketched not worked not nice and not efficient.
Today this is allready the option, if IKEA could provide plywood N.C. cut 3D-H would provide just anything, --- still you are to decide, and decide taking account for the sake of plain lazyness , why is it none of these challances are met ? please the standard fittings can't be made vorse, it is fact now impossible, to make and decent crafts putting things together no mind you split and ruin the materials they are so weak afterall aso.
everytime per posts something like that, I don't know whether to feel pity, disgust or mirth...and then as soon as I start to laugh at poor funny per, I feel like a bad person for imagining per, 20 years from now, still hopelessly pushing 3dh as the coming of an architectural revolution, and finding that image funny.
Am I a bad person?
Hi
Don't vorry , as long as you get the messeage . Sorry to say but again a few highrise houses collapsed in an earthquake and still it is better to rebuild just as before or even not, a few tsunamies floods whatever to crack down the houses , not even the rebuild are taken as a challance to see if it can be done better not acturly fighting the materials.
But don't vorry, I enjoy my time with other things than just develobing new methods. I make ,made things I like liked , I enjoy life find it an exiting place --- just strange, that when things could be made so nice and beautifull, that no one realy deliver ; it seem that fame are more interesting than quality, surface is everything and core quality are nothing. I don't wonder that trend of architecture eventualy couldn't deliver . Realy I spend a lot of time with lot's of exiting things don't vorry.
[i]Gehry's buildings are wonderful, at least the ones I've been in (his Barcelona Fish doesn't count).[i]
trace, that fish isn't a building but a sculpture/pergola... it doesn't provide you a 'space' but a shadow.. the rest of the complex -and the Arts Hotel tower nearby are 'a' SOM not 'a' Gehry, FOG only did the structure of the fish- ... and that was merely the first built experiment with CATIA, he was just playing with that program at that time.. not that bad for being 1991..
if +q. was talking about the new big museum and office tower by FOG in Barcelona, its hardly difficult to judge its 'innovative' character by the qualities of its space, since it ain't been built yet...
Beside don't think I don't try sharpen my view about the course and reson for modern architecture, the theories I heard and the things I can acturly see. But it must be a modest request when houses tumble, winds and floods even make tradisional rebuilding impossible, to question the wish for real new architecture.
See it's not my foult, that now with 3D-H just "anyone" could in theori get his own sweet house made , doing the savings and the possible develobment in new materials . ----- recently I joined a discussion about ships containers, an issue just any architecture student shuld have an oppinion about, but when I in pictures proved that offcaurse a frame assembly offering all the things a bundle of containers could not , then the discussion sort of stopped.
Later I found an old project where I stacked a number of vontainerlike solids and acturly have the drawings --- but no ,even it can be calculated by cut feet steel sheet and cost of materials , even this is less then my useal brag third cost, the discussion sort of stopped.
Now you vorry I shuld end up by automatic allway's promoting just my method no, it's much vorse than that ;))
manamana no one said it shuld be easy, it is not and why shuld it be ? if it was easy it was nothing eh.
Hi
"... and that was merely the first built experiment with CATIA, he was just playing with that program at that time.. not that bad for being 1991.."
And this is just my argument ; is a 1991 aoolication realy , realy what you would expect , while computers gone from 133 M.Hz to G.Hz. measures.
------- I realised long ago, that nothing compare academic aproach. Structure is nothing ,the core structure is not the issue , ---- in my mind there are no doubt, esp. as I reconise the academic aproach in the descriptions I heard ; surface as how you expect a 1991 polygon application , now sorry but for me it is not enough, that a work drawing is sort of a sketch , I want real measures not impossible polygon meshes not just the outher expression . Maby this is the reson I challance this tread ; if stararchitects shuld be blamed something, it might aswell be, that none of that crap did make cheap, decent housing. They don't need superstars for keeping architecture in the Iconic trend, but architecture , rather shuld deal with innovation , new architecture new methods actual visions and providing the houses the cheap homes the new technology.
Per,,, what the fuck man... really?
you gotta marvel at the guy's persistence!! Boggles my mind everytime I read one of his posts, but still puts a smile on my face.
Per, you should buy a coat and join Ephraim Goldberg on a world tour... he would show blobby Colorcore fishes and you'd fish 'em from your 3dH wood boats...
..showtime..
Hi
I find the subject quite important --- what is it that drive our obsession ,guess we all know that our emagination are limited by the trivial real world boring facts. We think the computer then offer a new world of oppotunities but all we find, is that the architect applications again deal with the trivial acounting, that there are rules and 2D keeping down our creativity, chaining it in the exact rutines ,that was those rewritten into computer code, just on a screen instead of paper.
It is that fact you first of all must face --- you are allowed to model and shape ,go into detail 3D but, when you did that how is the wonder then translated into real building compoments ?
The exiting 3D worlds how can they be made in real, how do the freedom forming and shaping reflect in today's manufactoring , it don't.
This is a problem.
It is a problem that you must rely on the skilled craftmen to translate your plans into something that can acturly be build, as you see the materials are rigid, sometimes some of the best are simply made to a compleat other porpus ; if you want to curve the building why is it you then chose a steel profile and start fight it's strait shape , isn't it just that strait shape that was the idea with it, isn't is a huge expense to have it curved ? Isn't the whole thing fighting itself ; materials made for strait grids ,worked and fought into shapes the materials was never ment to hold at huge expenses ?
I think modern architecture ask more feel more knowleage and more innovation before just the building methods the material we use, can work with our emagination and the options 3D forming and detail design offer. The materials are not there unless you compromise in a way that almost kill the vision. If you bang and work the rigid profiles what happen is that you move further away from your vision realy, for a true vision to show, you are not supposed to fight either the materials or the computer.
But still, how is it it work ------ do the computer ,the architect applications realy support the new innovative architecture, no it don't.
If you stack Ships containers you soon end up with what ?
They are not cheap, they are raw have no insulation windows whatever, they only from a distance prove your vision. When going closer you realise the trouble, the huge efford these steel boxes requier before even offering a dry floor a bit of sunlight some few doors practicly all that detail that make them expensive ontop what they cost plus the transport.
Now a few of you proberly wondered why I allway's only show the raw frames the structure and not the glossy surfaces --- but please try make just a small account of what a container project would acturly ask and if that is so different from the final paneling that a framework structure ask. Do you realy think it would be higher costs to panel a 3D-H framework covering the same assembly of shipscontainer boxes to be able to use these as houses ?
I don't think so ----- I think it will be much better to make a 3D Solid the shape of a ships container, then in 3D assemble the works ,do the boxes with a thickness so a final sectioning will add enough strength, and ontop I think it would cost a third, and be four times as strong and offer you larger rooms and a cheaper interiour , guess you can see the shape of the ships containers in that graphic, also you proberly can see, that with an extra bit of thought, the paneling are acturly allready there for most parts.
Hi
Someone please tell me the truth, is this the first design ;
that's rem not frank and brad.
Ok I se the Roman aproach but could it ?
Perhaps if the profession stopped spending so much time panicking about Brad Pitt and more time doing actual architecture the profession would trivialize those with trivial aspirations.
just a suggestion.
There are so many kinds of architects these days the only thing we have in common is a vanishing public perception of ethical fortitude. Let's stick together and stop the bleeding - if we can.
I can now report from my regular subscription to the ‘real news’ in satirical rag Private Eye that Brad featured in the Rotten Boroughs: Awards 2006
Non Event of the Year:
“Film star Brad Pitt turned out not to be designing the bar in Frank Gehry’s shaky skyscraper department in Hove, despite all the news papers and leading Skidrow-on-Sea (Brighton & Hove City Council) councillors saying he was. Architect Gehry told Newsweek magazine that Pitt’s involvement amount to no more than having dropped into his office, once, and being photographed next to a model of the scheme: “From that day, I’ve never heard from him.”
where's the model Frank?
there it is!
did he change his clothes mid way through his meeting Frank? You didn't.... ever
What a shame -- as what this "architecture" need is new eyes and reson, sad as how ugly highrise and useless postmodernism realy shuld be replaced, with an architecture that build cheap and spetacular same cost. Sad architects have so little vision but enough, to make it act about if a nowhere interiour decor ,are made by him or himself, Gee the next "architecture" Icon proberly be a statue of an architect.
I think Brad is wearing an Architecture Sucks Tee Shirt turned inside out.....
Sure look the same fabric.
Perhaps Mr. Pitt would be interested in a heated debate on the plausability of the world-wide deployment of 3DH as a practical standard.
I wonder ; see no one want to make a mountain of money, no one want a heap of new good job , cheap houses are not the issue, and a new way to use the computer to put things together who want that ,when what we allready do , is good enough.
When our Icons are allready cold frightning and hyper expensive. Who want skilled designers doing wonderfull new architecture creating a wonder in progress and acessibility.
Yeah, I hate money mountains.
Purse designer and fragrance designer message boards must have heated threads like this all the time.
Not realy, it would be great if they have ------- well some others indeed have just check this 99951 visit tread ;
http://arch.designcommunity.com/topic-2216.html
I spent so long typing up a considered response that Archinect logged me out and I lost it all. Grrr.
Anyway, imagine this alternative headline " xxx conductor bemoans unqualified Lennon and McCartney trivialising music. [He] says, 'no qualifying from a recognisted institute for the Performing Arts / University: no recording contract.'"
Furthermore, all this technical and (to a lesser extent) legal know-how that's so important in distinguishing our expertise from that of the enthusiastic layman: how much of this, exactly, did we learn at architecture school? It really wasn't an 'add on' at all, was it? No, what got us studying there in the first place was the same enthusiasm dude Brad has. If this exercise in aesthetic and space-creating passion was more evinced in the daily activities of the majority of us working professionals, perhaps the public would begin to get more discerning over its subtelties.
solired- change you browser settings. archinect doesn't have an autolog out feature on any of the browsers that I've been using...
Yeah SOLIDRED....it was odd to read you got booted from archinect!
(fyi...I use firefox, and never get booted, unless the comp crashes - which thank goodness it hasnt').
just have to say....that picture of ghery and pit (father and child pics superimposed) was brilliant!
I give it 5 years befor David Beckham expresses in 'interest' in architecture and gets paid $1m a week to 'design' penthouses. Heck, he's not going to be far from Gehry.
There's no point in resisting Pitt's move. The only way to challenge him would be to ask that he designs something BY HIMSELF. Then we could all laugh at the phallic monstrosity that would no doubt ensue. Maybe even with a little Angelina Jolie annex blood bank.
And let's face it, Brad's going to be unusual in automatically thinking stretch-limo dimensions when it comes to parking lots. And he won't be allowing a mere 600 x 600 for the fridge, either...
But what would he model with 3D Solids and build in basic structure, with 3D-H, using today's real visionary concepts, oposed yestoday's building technikes and software.
And No ,this is not to progress 3D-H but to give a picture if what is right, is to avoid the most promising new building technikes and learn from yeatoday's hero , rather than looking to the future where digital projecting will provide wonders, --- just the compation asking if relevant 3D modeling as how we would expect is not the tool, architecture allway's was about tools and building technikes anyway, so why learn building the useal boring Lego issues with the same boring Lego mind, is this Brad ?
atleast Brad and frankie are not as good looking as us.
i like brad pitt. whats wrong with him becoming an architect if he wants to be. nobody stopped us from trying to become one so who are we to stop him?
Gawd I'm naive. This isn't about Mr.Pitt at all. It's not about architecture either.
It's about 3D-H!!!
Sorry 'Vindpust', couldn't resist. Seriously though: I want to see you modelling a proper building with that technology one day. You know, one with stuff inside it, walls on it; a roof y'know, ROMAN stuff ;-)
maybe i should try some acting. i think i can do that.
role reversal...a famous star wanting to be an architect and the architect wanting to be a famous star...
nevermind...i'm more interested in directing now
im definatly not worried that brad pitt will take my cad bitch job! But seriously does the architectural field really need more people in the professsion that have no fucking clue of what is going on around them...yeah lets rebuild new orleans and not give 2 shits about global warming...in 30 years new orleans will be covered by the gulf and another rebiulding effort will be lost. do we really think that a levey will stop a 10-20' rise in sea level...anyway if brad pitt wants to throw his money around he should concentrate his efforts on the big picture...global warming-the #1 leading causeof this problem...thats right ARCHITECTS! Believe it...
WEareTHEproblem
I wonder if Pitt pays ghery to work for him?
I guess we can all be greatful Bob Dobbs of the Church of the Subgenius didn't discover ghery before Brad.
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.