Architecture surrounds us, binds us. Architecture holds the galaxy together. You could say that it controls your actions, but it also obeys your commands.
Perhaps I'm reaching, but assuming McTaco's handle is a conglomeration of McDonalds and Taco Bell, perhaps his/her architectural philosophy mimics the menu philosophy of these restaurants:
broccolijet, you consistently make me smile! Very good notion re: Mc Taco's beliefs. My point in asking, of course, being that I like people to give a little before they get a little. Or a lot. I mean metamechanic is offering us $100 to write out what Mc Taco is asking for free....
thanks lb. i agree...give a little, get a lot. since i don't have much to offer yet professionally, i figure perhaps a little entertainment can't hurt.
Steven -- as the nihilists said in Big Lebowski: "we beleef in nassink!"
Steven Ward - dear lord man, that's like the wierdest and darkest thing I have ever seen you write - congratulations - you have shattered my mental image of you.
Im a lost and confused architectural student... how can I give one? I am just wondering what are everyones paths in this field. I am still trying to find out who I am...
Since everyone are jokesters here that doesnt help either.
-i believe politics and economics are the bane of architecture which is meant to last more than ten years.
-i believe that we're often pushed/tempted to be much nicer to cars, computers, air conditioning units, and audio/visual equipment than to people.
-i believe pedestrians should be given their own place, separate from cars, e.g., sidewalks shouldn't end if 'it's ok to walk in the street here'.
-i believe a lot more should be/can be expected of a sidewalk than that it simply lead from one door to another - but only if it's wider than 4'.
-i believe some high front-end costs save money.
-i believe that lowering costs to make a building feasible should only be done if the building is still worth building.
I believe too many people forget that an ugly 'green' building is not actually sustainable, because it will be ripped down before its 'green'ness does anybody much good.
I believe that bricks have no business being cut in half and tacked onto the outside of a wood framed (or concrete for that matter!) building.
I believe that no addition to a historic building has any business pretending like it's a part of that building.
mmmmmm... that's one that I'm conflicted about. On one hand, if someone's ripped out a historic bit and put something atrocious in its place, I'd like to be able to rip out their horrible work and restore it. On the other, I don't like the idea of fooling people into thinking something's historic when it isn't. I guess on the whole, I'm ok with it as long as it is only done in very small doses. Though I'm admittedly willing to be influenced on this subject.
Wholesale restoration = bad
Small corrections = good?
Ah, well that is an interesting mid ground there - how does one decide what of the historical is worthy of keeping? The Parthenon was added on to numerous times during its active life - if one believes in restoration which historical period does one restore it to? Who gets to decide? That's a tough one, and a worthwhile problem to think about.
How about maintenance? When does buidling maintenance become restoration? 20 years? 50 years? 150 years?
Dia - makes me think of the Apple Store in NYC at fifth ave and 59th - it's a big glass box - kind of remarkable really - but how the hell are they going to clean it. The cleaning budget must be at least half operational expenses.
Those are certainly the tough questions, Lost. There are procedures to determine the 'period of significance' of a building, but for the most part things are left in place and just stabilized. Unfortunately, the theories behind these things will change so much that our most valuable older buildings will undergo an unfortunate amount of being jerked around by various people who think they know the best thing for them.
non-structural bricks bother you? what about non-structural steel panels, finished in white?
i believe it's all good. except for the bad stuff.
actually i like to keep my beliefs in abeyance as much as possible. truly. they get in the way far too often and end up being dumb even more often than that.
Mc Taco, there will always be joke commentaries to every thread, but you are more likely to get serious responses if you start with a serious and honest explanation of what you are looking for than with a single open-ended question. See SuperBeatledud's recent crisis for an example of this. The one-liner thread opener is just an invitation for a one-liner quip response.
Since you are in school I'll make a school analogy: if you are having problems with a project and you say to the professor "I'm stuck and have nothing to show you" then s/he has absolutely nothing to respond to in an effort to be helpful. If you draw anything on paper - a messy diagram, an initial site evaluation, anything at all that represents even your most initial thoughts and frustrations with the project, then you have a starting point for a critique.
And people like to see honest effort. People - professors and clients and contractors and regular non-arch folk - can tell when someone is honestly trying with no concrete results vs. lazily hoping some answer will turn up out of thin air.
It can be terrifying to put something that doesn't seem like the "right" answer out there, but that's part of the education and life of an architect. No matter how much experience you get, no matter how good your design is, there will always be someone who will either ridicule the idea OR just ridicule you in an effort to make themselves look better. You have to develop thick skin about this.
If you are an architecture student then you obviously believe - or at least have a little faith in - something that made you enter an architecture program rather than dentistry or finance or sports team management. And keep in mind you don't have to have a belief in a fact, it can be a belief in a line of inquiry: I believe that materials are more beautiful, therefore timeless and therefore useful, when used in some way that reveals or speaks to their essential physical qualities. Other people believe in using materials in a way that is visually jarring in terms of their essential qualities to provide a more obvious emotional impact. Both are a method of approach, nothing more, and both are loosely-defined enough ideas that there is a lot for room for play with them.
What are your initials likes and dislikes in the architecture you have seen in school so far, in your history classes for example? Do you find yourself responding more to the attentuated Gothic buttresses or the massive Roman piles? That's a pretty basic place to start.
I believe that materials are more beautiful, therefore timeless and therefore useful, when used in some way that reveals or speaks to their essential physical qualities.
absolutely. I agree in sentiment with this statement and rationalist's frustration with brick veneer...however, i recently learned that the Thermal Baths in Vals (by Zumthor) is a concrete bldg faced with dry-stacked stone. ...I suppose this project could still be construed to fit within lb's framework...
i believe that lowering costs to make a building feasible should only be done if the building is still worth building.
Steven, what type of meeting was this - I can easily imagine these comments being made in the company of fellow designers, but if a client was involved...
a meeting with the client. the issue: a new school building which ONE board member does not want to see built. the superintendent is intentionally dumbing down the building so that it doesn't "look expensive" in order to protect herself from criticism of this one board member. the board member has already had a long career on the board and will most likely have retired from it within the next 5-10. so we're building a 30-50 yr structure hamstrung by this political maneuvering and short-term thinking.
and, no, of course i didn't make these comments in front of the client. at least not in the same way. i at least attempt to be diplomatic.
my employer does a lot of work for a certain non-profit company that, in my opinion, value engineers to the point of making projects not worth building. i believe "we" are in part responsible for taking the non-position that we do, not standing up for a sound design, not encouraging them to hold off on a particular project until they can afford what they need etc.
I believe in Rem the Architect Almighty, Creator of Spin & Hype.
I believe in Zaha Hadid, his only Start Student, our Diva.
She was conceived by the power of the Constructivist Painting and remained a virgin Diva.
She suffered under functionalism, was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third decade she rose again.
She ascended into Pritzker heaven and is seated at the right hand of her handbag.
She will come again to judge fancy competitions and juries.
I believe in the Holy Schumacher,
the holy sweat shops,
the computer renderings,
the forgiveness of eye candies,
the resurrection of old ideas,
and low pay everlasting. Amen
Architectural Beliefs...
what is yours?
rationalism, obviously.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
Architecture surrounds us, binds us. Architecture holds the galaxy together. You could say that it controls your actions, but it also obeys your commands.
What is yours, Mc Taco?
I believe that Mies created the world in 1923 in 3 years and that the word of Vers une architecture is the literal word of the father.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea.
I believe the children are the future,
teach them well and let them know
things may be all shit right now,
but it gets worse when your old
Happy meals and Easter bunny,
great moments indeed
Enjoy it now while you still can
cuz I believe
I believe in miracles
and dreams can come true
especially the ones
where your teeth fall out
or you're naked at school
even sleeping brings us pain
we never get no relief
But that's how it's meant to be
that's what I believe
What ever happen to trust?
come on people
It's what we need
Stop confusing the issues with facts
Cuz me for one,
I still believe
I believe in the written word
if it's on paper it's true
it's all gospel as far as I'm concerned
if somebody wrote it
it's good enough for me
why be so suspicious of the ones
who tried to keep you informed?
they give you the things you need
that's why I believe
"especially the ones
where your teeth fall out
or you're naked at school" - naked at school?
need therapy? - joking.
I belive in fun, things you do must be interresting,
work must be fun.
wwflwd?
autocad 2004 or 2006 ?
Mc Taco, what do you believe?
Perhaps I'm reaching, but assuming McTaco's handle is a conglomeration of McDonalds and Taco Bell, perhaps his/her architectural philosophy mimics the menu philosophy of these restaurants:
"same contents...different container"
think about it.
i prefer either wwKd? or wwAAd? I'm too much of humanist to play howard roark games
broccolijet, you consistently make me smile! Very good notion re: Mc Taco's beliefs. My point in asking, of course, being that I like people to give a little before they get a little. Or a lot. I mean metamechanic is offering us $100 to write out what Mc Taco is asking for free....
life is a sexually transmitted disease from which the only way to recover is to die.
thanks lb. i agree...give a little, get a lot. since i don't have much to offer yet professionally, i figure perhaps a little entertainment can't hurt.
Steven -- as the nihilists said in Big Lebowski: "we beleef in nassink!"
I thought this was about "ARCHITECTURE BRIEFS"....the Fruit of the Loom kind....lol..
Steven Ward - dear lord man, that's like the wierdest and darkest thing I have ever seen you write - congratulations - you have shattered my mental image of you.
Do you wear aombat boots?
genocide/apocalypse now
You believe in genocide and apoclypse? See what you've started Steven? Dark.
Im a lost and confused architectural student... how can I give one? I am just wondering what are everyones paths in this field. I am still trying to find out who I am...
Since everyone are jokesters here that doesnt help either.
only regarding architecture
from a meeting i had today:
-i believe politics and economics are the bane of architecture which is meant to last more than ten years.
-i believe that we're often pushed/tempted to be much nicer to cars, computers, air conditioning units, and audio/visual equipment than to people.
-i believe pedestrians should be given their own place, separate from cars, e.g., sidewalks shouldn't end if 'it's ok to walk in the street here'.
-i believe a lot more should be/can be expected of a sidewalk than that it simply lead from one door to another - but only if it's wider than 4'.
-i believe some high front-end costs save money.
-i believe that lowering costs to make a building feasible should only be done if the building is still worth building.
Steven -amen to that!
I believe too many people forget that an ugly 'green' building is not actually sustainable, because it will be ripped down before its 'green'ness does anybody much good.
I believe that bricks have no business being cut in half and tacked onto the outside of a wood framed (or concrete for that matter!) building.
I believe that no addition to a historic building has any business pretending like it's a part of that building.
Rationalist - agree with belief in historic addtion. Out of curiosity how do you feel about historic restoration.
mmmmmm... that's one that I'm conflicted about. On one hand, if someone's ripped out a historic bit and put something atrocious in its place, I'd like to be able to rip out their horrible work and restore it. On the other, I don't like the idea of fooling people into thinking something's historic when it isn't. I guess on the whole, I'm ok with it as long as it is only done in very small doses. Though I'm admittedly willing to be influenced on this subject.
Wholesale restoration = bad
Small corrections = good?
Today, architecture is like teflon - thin, cheap and easy to clean.
Ah, well that is an interesting mid ground there - how does one decide what of the historical is worthy of keeping? The Parthenon was added on to numerous times during its active life - if one believes in restoration which historical period does one restore it to? Who gets to decide? That's a tough one, and a worthwhile problem to think about.
How about maintenance? When does buidling maintenance become restoration? 20 years? 50 years? 150 years?
Dia - makes me think of the Apple Store in NYC at fifth ave and 59th - it's a big glass box - kind of remarkable really - but how the hell are they going to clean it. The cleaning budget must be at least half operational expenses.
Those are certainly the tough questions, Lost. There are procedures to determine the 'period of significance' of a building, but for the most part things are left in place and just stabilized. Unfortunately, the theories behind these things will change so much that our most valuable older buildings will undergo an unfortunate amount of being jerked around by various people who think they know the best thing for them.
rationalist: goddamn that brick thing bothers me too. idiots...
non-structural bricks bother you? what about non-structural steel panels, finished in white?
i believe it's all good. except for the bad stuff.
actually i like to keep my beliefs in abeyance as much as possible. truly. they get in the way far too often and end up being dumb even more often than that.
Mc Taco, there will always be joke commentaries to every thread, but you are more likely to get serious responses if you start with a serious and honest explanation of what you are looking for than with a single open-ended question. See SuperBeatledud's recent crisis for an example of this. The one-liner thread opener is just an invitation for a one-liner quip response.
Since you are in school I'll make a school analogy: if you are having problems with a project and you say to the professor "I'm stuck and have nothing to show you" then s/he has absolutely nothing to respond to in an effort to be helpful. If you draw anything on paper - a messy diagram, an initial site evaluation, anything at all that represents even your most initial thoughts and frustrations with the project, then you have a starting point for a critique.
And people like to see honest effort. People - professors and clients and contractors and regular non-arch folk - can tell when someone is honestly trying with no concrete results vs. lazily hoping some answer will turn up out of thin air.
It can be terrifying to put something that doesn't seem like the "right" answer out there, but that's part of the education and life of an architect. No matter how much experience you get, no matter how good your design is, there will always be someone who will either ridicule the idea OR just ridicule you in an effort to make themselves look better. You have to develop thick skin about this.
If you are an architecture student then you obviously believe - or at least have a little faith in - something that made you enter an architecture program rather than dentistry or finance or sports team management. And keep in mind you don't have to have a belief in a fact, it can be a belief in a line of inquiry: I believe that materials are more beautiful, therefore timeless and therefore useful, when used in some way that reveals or speaks to their essential physical qualities. Other people believe in using materials in a way that is visually jarring in terms of their essential qualities to provide a more obvious emotional impact. Both are a method of approach, nothing more, and both are loosely-defined enough ideas that there is a lot for room for play with them.
What are your initials likes and dislikes in the architecture you have seen in school so far, in your history classes for example? Do you find yourself responding more to the attentuated Gothic buttresses or the massive Roman piles? That's a pretty basic place to start.
And that's my essay for the day. Sorry to go on so long.
absolutely. I agree in sentiment with this statement and rationalist's frustration with brick veneer...however, i recently learned that the Thermal Baths in Vals (by Zumthor) is a concrete bldg faced with dry-stacked stone. ...I suppose this project could still be construed to fit within lb's framework...
?
Steven, what type of meeting was this - I can easily imagine these comments being made in the company of fellow designers, but if a client was involved...
jump- it's the fact that people *expect* brick to be structural. Laypeople still think it is. Steel panels just don't have that same history.
ap-
a meeting with the client. the issue: a new school building which ONE board member does not want to see built. the superintendent is intentionally dumbing down the building so that it doesn't "look expensive" in order to protect herself from criticism of this one board member. the board member has already had a long career on the board and will most likely have retired from it within the next 5-10. so we're building a 30-50 yr structure hamstrung by this political maneuvering and short-term thinking.
and, no, of course i didn't make these comments in front of the client. at least not in the same way. i at least attempt to be diplomatic.
thanks for sharing.
my employer does a lot of work for a certain non-profit company that, in my opinion, value engineers to the point of making projects not worth building. i believe "we" are in part responsible for taking the non-position that we do, not standing up for a sound design, not encouraging them to hold off on a particular project until they can afford what they need etc.
I believe in Rem the Architect Almighty, Creator of Spin & Hype.
I believe in Zaha Hadid, his only Start Student, our Diva.
She was conceived by the power of the Constructivist Painting and remained a virgin Diva.
She suffered under functionalism, was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third decade she rose again.
She ascended into Pritzker heaven and is seated at the right hand of her handbag.
She will come again to judge fancy competitions and juries.
I believe in the Holy Schumacher,
the holy sweat shops,
the computer renderings,
the forgiveness of eye candies,
the resurrection of old ideas,
and low pay everlasting. Amen
yeah but the first rule is to not talk about it.
decadent bourgeoise
the sheer beauty of vast wasteful spaces.
I was going to post something then scarface posts something too good to follow.
Never...Never....design the same building twice!
Although... people never seem to get enough of the McGuggenheim.
Solidred, now i want to hears yours. absolutely.
Between free-will and fixed-fate.
I believe in me
believe in me and i'll set you free
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.