Does any one agree that our buildings could breath...........I think that any one can design a building....and any building can almost be constructed....like works of Zaha....but...
I believe that the buildings should reach to a quality....a space quality that embrace social cohesion...to urge ppl to live with in the buildings structure...Social interaction between ppl and family diffrents ages ppl that share habits and those who addicted to soccer or lets say the American football..
many of our new galleries of architects "work of art" today...are almost lacking of having that quality....we miss that amount of communication with each others at the very only point that we meet in....honstly we hardly share that fake smile at the entrance of buildings...
homes are turning to be just another monalisa....I mean like Mies Van De Roh i dig this guys work.....but why did the barcelona house turn to be a sight.....
We architects need to change that.....we don't need our ego....or our "aim for fame" to speak.....we need us....
time to edit and clarify, D. you might be on to something with which you can work. but your first pass is going too many different directions.
buildings can already allow social activity. some even accommodate it so well that they might suggest/encourage it. but what is social cohesion? and how can a building 'urge' people to do something? do the people have to be alike (share habits or sports addictions)?
are you talking about community buildings or homes? if you don't want homes like mona lisa's, how is what you're advocating different from builder homes?
you may be overestimating most architects' 'aim for fame'. i'd venture that most of us are having enough trouble trying to do what we consider good work.
u maybe right..........do u agree that there are buildings of famous architects are almost not achieving thier function.....i need to be more specific i do mean homes and places that we live in.....some times...u design urban spaces....there might be ppl holding ballons and riding bikes but only on the design sketch.... :)
[italic]homes are turning to be just another monalisa....I mean like Mies Van De Roh i dig this guys work.....but why did the barcelona house turn to be a sight.....[/italic]
What does this mean? I think the "house" you refer to is the German National Pavillion at the 1929 Barcelona International Exhibition. What do you mean about it "turn[ing] to be a sight"?
Residential inhabitation is such a loose program that it provides the perfect opportunity for architectural experimentation.
This discussion about Steven Holl's Turbulence House illustrates my point. The clients admit that they view the buidling - which is a failure, it seems, on many levels - as a "piece" in their collection, not as a single family home. I use my own home for experimentation on a mush smaller scale! Residing and home-making can happen in any space that strike's once fancy, including lofts, townhomes, pre-war apartments, dorm rooms, detached dwellings both historic and brand new, abandoned missile silos, old barns, yurts, boats.....
As to public buildings, however, in my opinion, architects do have an ethical responsibilty to consider every building as an opportunity to improve the function/appearance/social use of the context. It concerns me when I read blurbs such as the comment by a member of MVRDV, as referenced in this image in the Gallery, that the building next door was so beautiful that they decided to create a "beast" next to it. Now I know nothing about this project, perhaps it's a lovely design and the beast reference is a smart-ass comment, but it strikes me as an attempt to stand out next to an existing beautiful thing, without acknowledging that cities are made up of foreground and background buildings and sometimes it is better (and requires more skill) to be subtle. Just musings on something I know little about except an off-hand comment.
well architecture cant be blamed for culture, or lifestyles, it can have an impact, but it's market driven like anything else... but i do think it can impact social interactions, but it cant change the world we live in.
my dream is to design an apartment community with custom units where all of my friends and family, barrier free access to the terrace and communal vegetable garden for grandparents, neighbours, can live together and a communal kitchen thats "home", regardless of where people go off to everyday... but thats not how things work in reality, people move with the market, job market, the tide, a culture of privacy, rather than publicity... capitalism and the individual or nuclear family...
i think its tough... we can't change society through architecture, but maybe we can improve a single plac... simply be imagining social spaces, being empathetic in design but also innovative to change culture on a micro scale.
sorry that i couldn't explain very well my point....but i see that some of us know what am talking about.....
there is always a debate that there are buildings that are monsters....a place where they shoot vampire movies...and that is sure not a place like your dream home bRink....right
one other quistion why did you chose to live in an apartment....or why do we chose to live in a detached house...why do we have proto type dwellings when all we need is a place to interact, a bed that we lay on at night....am trying to think out of the box.....what am trying to say is.....
what do we target...isn't social space....how ever it is designed how much quality it has....it is still our target...
this discussion is helping me understand how much we need to design now before later for the ppl..
can the process of design change from zonning to plan to elevation....into another process its maybe not clear for me now.....but i know that the result are smiles.....of ppl that reached to thier dreams of a house....
on the other hand i need to protect the ppl from monsters....houses that are turning ppl into vampires....
architects that have no response to the ppl.......and all they fight for is thier ego....thier aim to fame....to have a buildings that attract camera shots...in thier images you might see that its empty....ppl can't live in them....
i might exaggerating....but i might have a dream like you bRink....that i want to come true....
interesting point about mvrdv liberty belle....on that site though it really is impossible to blend. big of them to admit, btw, that they can't make a building as nice as sejima...
as for breathing...well, is best to leave room for people to breathe in the buildings too...no need to force them to be social, which seems to be the point of the thread. YOU VILL ALL BE WERY WERY SOCIAL....RIGHT...NOW!
thing is, architecture isn't Prozac. people are adaptable, and architecture is not as manipulative as architects were once taught...today's starchitects simply don't pretend to be social engineers anymore...why should they?
D7mY, don't get discouraged and give up. Yes there are *some* architects who are more concerned with getting their building/idea photographed and put in a magazine than with the social function of their project, but the percentage of those architects is ridiculously small in comparison to the overall number of working architects in the world. It's just that those are the only ones you are seeing in the magazines because they are working hard to be there.
bRink, sounds like Co-Housing:
Jun 7, 06 9:41 am ·
·
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.
Buildings.....Breath
Does any one agree that our buildings could breath...........I think that any one can design a building....and any building can almost be constructed....like works of Zaha....but...
I believe that the buildings should reach to a quality....a space quality that embrace social cohesion...to urge ppl to live with in the buildings structure...Social interaction between ppl and family diffrents ages ppl that share habits and those who addicted to soccer or lets say the American football..
many of our new galleries of architects "work of art" today...are almost lacking of having that quality....we miss that amount of communication with each others at the very only point that we meet in....honstly we hardly share that fake smile at the entrance of buildings...
homes are turning to be just another monalisa....I mean like Mies Van De Roh i dig this guys work.....but why did the barcelona house turn to be a sight.....
We architects need to change that.....we don't need our ego....or our "aim for fame" to speak.....we need us....
Architects agree RASE ur HAND.....
time to edit and clarify, D. you might be on to something with which you can work. but your first pass is going too many different directions.
buildings can already allow social activity. some even accommodate it so well that they might suggest/encourage it. but what is social cohesion? and how can a building 'urge' people to do something? do the people have to be alike (share habits or sports addictions)?
are you talking about community buildings or homes? if you don't want homes like mona lisa's, how is what you're advocating different from builder homes?
you may be overestimating most architects' 'aim for fame'. i'd venture that most of us are having enough trouble trying to do what we consider good work.
more!!
u maybe right..........do u agree that there are buildings of famous architects are almost not achieving thier function.....i need to be more specific i do mean homes and places that we live in.....some times...u design urban spaces....there might be ppl holding ballons and riding bikes but only on the design sketch.... :)
[italic]homes are turning to be just another monalisa....I mean like Mies Van De Roh i dig this guys work.....but why did the barcelona house turn to be a sight.....[/italic]
What does this mean? I think the "house" you refer to is the German National Pavillion at the 1929 Barcelona International Exhibition. What do you mean about it "turn[ing] to be a sight"?
assbackward i think he means tourist attraction, not realising it was never a house.
I agree in some respects D7mY. Facism is rife in our black coated world. the top guns don't care about inhabitation anymore.
Residential inhabitation is such a loose program that it provides the perfect opportunity for architectural experimentation.
This discussion about Steven Holl's Turbulence House illustrates my point. The clients admit that they view the buidling - which is a failure, it seems, on many levels - as a "piece" in their collection, not as a single family home. I use my own home for experimentation on a mush smaller scale! Residing and home-making can happen in any space that strike's once fancy, including lofts, townhomes, pre-war apartments, dorm rooms, detached dwellings both historic and brand new, abandoned missile silos, old barns, yurts, boats.....
As to public buildings, however, in my opinion, architects do have an ethical responsibilty to consider every building as an opportunity to improve the function/appearance/social use of the context. It concerns me when I read blurbs such as the comment by a member of MVRDV, as referenced in this image in the Gallery, that the building next door was so beautiful that they decided to create a "beast" next to it. Now I know nothing about this project, perhaps it's a lovely design and the beast reference is a smart-ass comment, but it strikes me as an attempt to stand out next to an existing beautiful thing, without acknowledging that cities are made up of foreground and background buildings and sometimes it is better (and requires more skill) to be subtle. Just musings on something I know little about except an off-hand comment.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "breathe"?
design competition to take your breath away---
The Unlivable House!!!
well architecture cant be blamed for culture, or lifestyles, it can have an impact, but it's market driven like anything else... but i do think it can impact social interactions, but it cant change the world we live in.
my dream is to design an apartment community with custom units where all of my friends and family, barrier free access to the terrace and communal vegetable garden for grandparents, neighbours, can live together and a communal kitchen thats "home", regardless of where people go off to everyday... but thats not how things work in reality, people move with the market, job market, the tide, a culture of privacy, rather than publicity... capitalism and the individual or nuclear family...
i think its tough... we can't change society through architecture, but maybe we can improve a single plac... simply be imagining social spaces, being empathetic in design but also innovative to change culture on a micro scale.
on the other hand... that dream place i'm talking about exists. it's a flat in rome that i lived in for a month one summer.
sorry that i couldn't explain very well my point....but i see that some of us know what am talking about.....
there is always a debate that there are buildings that are monsters....a place where they shoot vampire movies...and that is sure not a place like your dream home bRink....right
one other quistion why did you chose to live in an apartment....or why do we chose to live in a detached house...why do we have proto type dwellings when all we need is a place to interact, a bed that we lay on at night....am trying to think out of the box.....what am trying to say is.....
what do we target...isn't social space....how ever it is designed how much quality it has....it is still our target...
this discussion is helping me understand how much we need to design now before later for the ppl..
can the process of design change from zonning to plan to elevation....into another process its maybe not clear for me now.....but i know that the result are smiles.....of ppl that reached to thier dreams of a house....
on the other hand i need to protect the ppl from monsters....houses that are turning ppl into vampires....
architects that have no response to the ppl.......and all they fight for is thier ego....thier aim to fame....to have a buildings that attract camera shots...in thier images you might see that its empty....ppl can't live in them....
i might exaggerating....but i might have a dream like you bRink....that i want to come true....
what i mean by breath...........that air moves the organics in the human body...
and social consedration........moves the spaces in the building...
bRink "but i do think it can impact social interactions, but it cant change the world we live in".
how come u think that architecture can't change what we live in....that is against what all architects belive in....
maybe u say that its hard....it takes time....but it is not impossible...
My boss always asks me if the design (building) will fly. So if it flys, must it also breath?
interesting point about mvrdv liberty belle....on that site though it really is impossible to blend. big of them to admit, btw, that they can't make a building as nice as sejima...
as for breathing...well, is best to leave room for people to breathe in the buildings too...no need to force them to be social, which seems to be the point of the thread. YOU VILL ALL BE WERY WERY SOCIAL....RIGHT...NOW!
thing is, architecture isn't Prozac. people are adaptable, and architecture is not as manipulative as architects were once taught...today's starchitects simply don't pretend to be social engineers anymore...why should they?
D7mY, don't get discouraged and give up. Yes there are *some* architects who are more concerned with getting their building/idea photographed and put in a magazine than with the social function of their project, but the percentage of those architects is ridiculously small in comparison to the overall number of working architects in the world. It's just that those are the only ones you are seeing in the magazines because they are working hard to be there.
bRink, sounds like Co-Housing:
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.