So are you the type of person that wants to keep old building intact, you know remodeling and redesigning them, or are you the type that wishes to destroy the past and start building towards the future....like all the sci-fi modern stuff. Or does Architecture school encourage you to "swing" both ways. lol.
maybe I should narrow down my question, would you rather be someone who spends the majority of their time fixin' old homes and buildings, or would you rather be the type who wants to build newer homes and buildings, that are possibly more safe and effecient???? I'm writing a paper on why I believe we should be working towards the future in architecture, but I'm getting stuck...I know it's a two sided question. btw I wrote about the new homes being built, is it just me or are our neigbors becoming more closer than comfort, seems like homes are being built so tightly we could just stick our hand out the side window and touch the neighbors house, not to mention no trees in the front yard.
it's almost always more efficient to leave an old building standing than to tear it down, cart all those materials off to the dump, and build new in its place.
'Newness' is often a negative concept: it is defined by the rejection of the old. If you haven't got something old to reject, there's no possibility of having the new.
"are our neigbors becoming more closer than comfort, seems like homes are being built so tightly we could just stick our hand out the side window and touch the neighbors house, not to mention no trees in the front yard."
sounds like you need to move to the suburbs, my friend.
it sounds like you're writing an editorial piece rather than a paper. if you were writing a research paper you'd find books, articles, etc. by authors whose work supports the basic premise of your paper and you would synthesize their works into a persuasive argument of your own. if you were to do that you wouldn't need us. instead, it sounds like you've taken a position based purely on your own opinions and are coming here looking for us to validate it.
also, in your initial post you were talking about "sci-fi modern stuff" and in the last one you were talking about suburban houses being too close together. so what, precisely, are you envisioning for the future...george jetson type houses surrounded by a half acre of green grass? i'm really having a hard time understanding what you're getting at here.
sorry if I sound harsh...I really am trying to help...I just feel you haven't articulated where you are going with this clearly enough for us to even begin to point you in any direction at all.
dropping off my daughter at kindergarten this morning, another parent that I know pretty well stopped me and with a wry smile on their face said, "You're an architect aren't you?"
I responded that nothing good usually follows that question.
She laughed and then proceeded to describe an 'architectural invention' she thought of this morning.
Like I said....
old or new doesn't matter so much to me as does scale and client intention.
bryan4arch....please don't mind me, but maybe this cat doesn't want direction, rather just some discussion to get a consensus of what others in the profession think. Obviously that's not a terribly viable way to go about researching things (I refer him back to your astute path to research).
In the end, you might be wishing to help an individual who hasn't done a bit of legwork to get his initial opinion developed into any form of argument, hence, that's his choice and ultimately, his downfall (with regards to this paper).
Frankly, I am one to assist those that show initiative, but when they clearly defy the proper methods and wish to get things "handed" to them...well I hear your frustration and would also be expressing it so
I actually prefer to rehab old buildings...if the program presents a challenge and the client allows some play with the design. However, I've done additions to very poorly designed 1950's - 60's public schools where we had to "match" the original design. Gag me.
Now if I worked in the single, or even multi-family residential area, I think most of the stuff built 1950's to present is suburban schlock that is crap and should be bulldozed. Not saying we should demolish an 1890's built Victorian or anything like that. But most single family homes over the past 50 years are so inefficient that I think the green apprach would be to build new and efficient. Then again if new means a 5000 sf mcmansion all is lost. If you demo and build new you also have to build smart.
What type of Architect are you???
So are you the type of person that wants to keep old building intact, you know remodeling and redesigning them, or are you the type that wishes to destroy the past and start building towards the future....like all the sci-fi modern stuff. Or does Architecture school encourage you to "swing" both ways. lol.
it depends...that is a loaded question.
Sometimes buildings cant or shouldnt be saved
the killin' kind
what mdler said... it is a case by case basis...
i like the insertion/intersection/surgical/vivisectional approach to architecture.
maybe I should narrow down my question, would you rather be someone who spends the majority of their time fixin' old homes and buildings, or would you rather be the type who wants to build newer homes and buildings, that are possibly more safe and effecient???? I'm writing a paper on why I believe we should be working towards the future in architecture, but I'm getting stuck...I know it's a two sided question. btw I wrote about the new homes being built, is it just me or are our neigbors becoming more closer than comfort, seems like homes are being built so tightly we could just stick our hand out the side window and touch the neighbors house, not to mention no trees in the front yard.
it's almost always more efficient to leave an old building standing than to tear it down, cart all those materials off to the dump, and build new in its place.
'Newness' is often a negative concept: it is defined by the rejection of the old. If you haven't got something old to reject, there's no possibility of having the new.
Im with Stourly Kracklite!
surgery indeed!
"are our neigbors becoming more closer than comfort, seems like homes are being built so tightly we could just stick our hand out the side window and touch the neighbors house, not to mention no trees in the front yard."
sounds like you need to move to the suburbs, my friend.
when i first read the subject of this thread, i started having nightmare family reunion flashbacks.
Enigmatic Mind:
it sounds like you're writing an editorial piece rather than a paper. if you were writing a research paper you'd find books, articles, etc. by authors whose work supports the basic premise of your paper and you would synthesize their works into a persuasive argument of your own. if you were to do that you wouldn't need us. instead, it sounds like you've taken a position based purely on your own opinions and are coming here looking for us to validate it.
also, in your initial post you were talking about "sci-fi modern stuff" and in the last one you were talking about suburban houses being too close together. so what, precisely, are you envisioning for the future...george jetson type houses surrounded by a half acre of green grass? i'm really having a hard time understanding what you're getting at here.
sorry if I sound harsh...I really am trying to help...I just feel you haven't articulated where you are going with this clearly enough for us to even begin to point you in any direction at all.
dropping off my daughter at kindergarten this morning, another parent that I know pretty well stopped me and with a wry smile on their face said, "You're an architect aren't you?"
I responded that nothing good usually follows that question.
She laughed and then proceeded to describe an 'architectural invention' she thought of this morning.
Like I said....
old or new doesn't matter so much to me as does scale and client intention.
bryan4arch....please don't mind me, but maybe this cat doesn't want direction, rather just some discussion to get a consensus of what others in the profession think. Obviously that's not a terribly viable way to go about researching things (I refer him back to your astute path to research).
In the end, you might be wishing to help an individual who hasn't done a bit of legwork to get his initial opinion developed into any form of argument, hence, that's his choice and ultimately, his downfall (with regards to this paper).
Frankly, I am one to assist those that show initiative, but when they clearly defy the proper methods and wish to get things "handed" to them...well I hear your frustration and would also be expressing it so
my $.02 cents
I like how the Archinect forum has become a legitimate resource for research papers
right on, bryan4arch.
I contradict myself, and I know it. I'd rather spend my time working on new buildings, but I believe in the need to reuse old buildings.
Maybe the surgical approach is the way to find a compromise?
i feel sorry for the poor soul whose bibliography reads-
MDLER....
MDLER....
MDLER...
kristin_kai
email me
we need to stop with the sexual inyourendos on Archinect
i'm an aspiring hack, a both-way swingin' [in the context of the original post] ponce.
i swear that there was a post like this about 2 years ago, and couldn't find it for the love of my adidas
i guess i swing both ways, i'm all for what is appropriate.
hmmm....
gut it to the bones, salvaging only what is necessary, then going to town. so i guess a little o' both.
I think most of us do; wait what are we talking about again?
i'm the administrative kind, it all depends on the consultancy fee.
I want to start building towards the future but I also support historical preservation....so I swing both ways :) I'm a swinger.
just noticed all the comments above and boy, we have a lot of swingers! Who hoo...:)
this is the worst orgy ever
suggestions for improvements? Maybe a party?
the night will warm up peoples true colours will shine...
im the type that would find a balance and leave some nice old and also make some new new
some days less is more other days i'm just a whore...
i was called a music whore once
i'm green. don't care if I do a tear down or vivisectional rehab, just make it green!!!!!
I actually prefer to rehab old buildings...if the program presents a challenge and the client allows some play with the design. However, I've done additions to very poorly designed 1950's - 60's public schools where we had to "match" the original design. Gag me.
Now if I worked in the single, or even multi-family residential area, I think most of the stuff built 1950's to present is suburban schlock that is crap and should be bulldozed. Not saying we should demolish an 1890's built Victorian or anything like that. But most single family homes over the past 50 years are so inefficient that I think the green apprach would be to build new and efficient. Then again if new means a 5000 sf mcmansion all is lost. If you demo and build new you also have to build smart.
treekiller are you sick? you really do look green. sorry im just kiddin
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.