SITE's stuff for Best was great... does anyone know if Best is somehow related to today's Best Buy?
their prototypical tilted blue cube entrance feature always reminded me of SITE's Tilt Showroom in Towson, MD... although in a clumsier, dumb-down sort of way...
I think it may be worth committing on what gets built as opposed to what the public wants and appreciates. It's not the same thing. What gets built depends as much on construction and DD costs, debt financeability types/floor plans, form-neutral zoning codes built on the old "hygienist" model, lobbying by advertisers and marketers for code accommodations and so forth. Nobody likes this stuff. Big box stores are what they are because of the nature of their supply chains, legislated surface parking ratios, the demands of financiers, and the fact that steel frame tilt-up is probably the most efficient and low-cost construction method known to man. The people who build this sort of thing don't care what the public appreciates. They just need to get it done.
This is why I tried to shift the conversation to New Urbanism/neo-traditionalism in popular aesthetics versus what regional vernaculars and the architects who promote them want. I think that the whole big box argument is a straw man, like somebody said above..
If the public wants a faux-Tuscan villa in the middle of Indianapolis, constructed of Dryvit and Fypon, with non-operable windows and no climatic site response, huge electricity demands for heating and cooling, a two-story blank wall facing what is supposed to be a lively, pedestrian-filled sidewalk, and poor construction materials that will not age well and will fill a landfill with toxins when demolished because the building has been infiltrated by mold in 10 years, I think it is our duty as professionals to try to explain to them why that is inappropriate.
"I'd say big boxes are also a kind of urbanism also,...interior urbanism. "
Sweet statement. Having done a couple big boxes in the last year I have a vastly new appreciation for their unseen complexities. i wouldnt tell the electrical or structural engineer theyre not complex. That said, I still live away from them, although theyre starting to put them into existing buildings in strange ways in Chicago.
Mdler - do you see a coincidence here? A concpiracy maybe?
I had a little public appreciation this weekend. I was looking at a potential project on the Billion Dollar Lake with a realtor. It was close by to a project I did last year, old barn do over for organic food craftperson barn.....anyhow I took the realtor their and she was in love with the place and all the veggies....so anyhow I introduced myself to the lady behind the counter as the architect for the project...and she insisted I not pay for my organic tomatoes...she actally said it was a great gift I gave them in such a wonderful building. So damn I felt proud... when things like this happen in life it is a hell of alot more important than working on those projects for the Operations and Labor Relations Department, where all you can say is you made it safe for 1,000 + people to exit a space because
your design was to code....and no one really gave a damn.
what meta's alluding to was covered brilliantly in a piece by tom peters in perspecta, late 80s or so, called 'an american culture of construction'. i recommend it unreservedly to anyone interested in this discussion.
also check out john kouwenhoven's book 'the beer can by the highway' if you can find it. fun read, but also very smart.
vado: "the responses here back up the utter contempt we have for normal people."
vado made the above comment in the current sister-thread to this one. isn't vado's sentiment really the crux of the matter? isn't this widespread disdain we have for contemporary tastes as we pursue the uber-creative and ultra-innovative really what's getting in our way when it comes to truly connecting with the people who use and interact with the facilities we design?
the "crux" may not be our disdain - because i certainly don't have disdain toward the normal people. i'm married to one.
it may be that we think some of these things but that we don't communicate them, deciding instead to sublimate them, talk about them amongst ourselves, but fail to effectively communicate any of it to our communities and fold under pressure from those who are more effective in making their agendas understood and enact THEIR visions without taking any ethical stance.
we're pushovers who - best case - sometimes succeed, in a passive/aggressive way, in getting our positions rolled into planning and development regs which people don't understand and grow to resent.
It's not about contempt, although this debate can easily devolve that way.
We have the implicit right to tell people how they should live because we know better. We're a specialized profession in a unique position between (to use the cliche) science and art, given an implicit mandate to make the built world, and we're highly trained to do that. We can always learn more from our clients and from 'the general public' (whoever the f*ck that is). But if they don't take our advice, that relationship is going to suffer, and so is the world ultimately. That sounds arrogant as hell, but there it is.
Imagine calling a doctor 'contemptuous' because she gave a patient advice that patient didn't want to hear. Imagine calling a painter 'contemptuous' because he prefers to work with some techniques better than others.
'Normal People' (again, whatever that means) come to us because they don't know what they want. We're the only people around with the knowledge of materials, methods, culture and history to be able to synthesize all those threads into a really big object that's going to be around a long time and affect the lives of thousands of people. If there's anyone out there more qualified than us to do that, then I want to meet 'em.
765 - I see your point - and agree with much of what you write.
but, don't you think it's mostly about attitude -- what the medical profession calls "bedside manner" -- I've known many arrogant doctors and I've also known doctors who are prepared to adapt their behavior and their approach so their patient can accept the advice being given -- they're willing to find ways to "sell" that advice in the manner needed so the patient actually benefits.
too often we want our clients to just fall in line and accept whatever we say, simply because we're "professionals" -- I think that's a misguided perspective and totally disconnected from the reality in which we practice.
765, there is a difference between design and medicine. telling someone they need slate instead of corian or that the roof needs to be canted at 15 instead 20 degrees is not a matter of life and death. sadly, after meeting code requirements, dumb matters of taste and aesthetics is what architecture boils down to for 99% of offices. in which case, i can understand the public's skepticism.
heres the real skinny alienated architects of archinect. you are irrelevant to most of the built environment. being preoccupied with big boxes, suburbia, exurbia, etc is a waste of time as "architecture" is not needed in this realm. your raison d'etre is serving the occasional rich person who has been endowed with good taste. go to them now you can't refuse. stop worrying about the common man. they have never heard of rem or zaha or fill in the blank. don't waste your caffeine induced energy on them, they can get along fine without you.
Formed five years after the first open web steel joist was
manufactured, the Steel Joist Institute has worked since 1928 to maintain sound engineering practice throughout our industry. As
a non-profit organization of active manufacturers, the
Institute cooperates with governmental and business agencies
to establish steel joist standards. Continuing research
and updating are included in its work.
The first joist in 1923 was a Warren truss type, with top and
bottom chords of round bars and a web formed from a single
continuous bent bar. Various other types were developed, but
problems also followed because each manufacturer had their
own design and fabrication standards. Architects, engineers
and builders found it difficult to compare rated capacities and
to use fully the economies of steel joist construction.
Members of the industry began to organize the Institute, and
in 1928 the first standard specifications were adopted, followed
in 1929 by the first load table. The joists covered by
these early standards were later identified as open web
steel joists, SJ-Series.
Other landmark adoptions by the Institute include the following:
1953
Introduction of Longspan Steel Joists, L-Series. Specifications
and a standard load table, covering spans through 96 feet and
depths through 48 inches, were jointly approved with the
American Institute of Steel Construction.
1959
Introduction of the S-Series Joists, which replaced the SJSeries
Joists. The allowable tensile stress was increased
from 18,000 to 20,000 psi, joist depths were expanded
through 24 inches, and spans increased through 48 feet.
1961
(a) Introduction of the J-Series Joists, which replaced the SSeries
Joists. The allowable tensile stress was
increased from 20,000 psi to 22,000 psi, based on the
use of steel with a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi.
(b) Introduction of the LA-Series Joists, which replaced the
L-Series Joists. The LA-Series Joists were designed to
a maximum tensile stress of either 20,000 psi or 22,000
psi, depending on the yield strength of the steel.
(c) Introduction of the H-Series Joists, whose design was
based on steel with a minimum yield strength of 50,000
psi, and an allowable tensile stress of 30,000 psi.
1962
Introduction of the LH-Series Joists, utilizing steel whose minimum
yield strength was between 36,000 psi and 50,000 psi
and an allowable tensile strength of 22,000 psi to 30,000 psi.
1965
Development of a single specification for both the J- and HSeries
Joists by the Steel Joist Institute and the American
Institute of Steel Construction.
1966
Development and introduction by the SJI and AISC of the
LJ-Series Joists, which replaced the LA-Series Joists. Also,
the development of a single specification for both the LJand
the LH-Series Joists, with the use of 36,000 psi minimum
yield strength steel for the LJ-Series, and 36,000 psi to
50,000 psi minimum yield strength steel for the LH-Series.
1970
Introduction of the DLJ- and DLH-Series Joists to include
depths through 72 inches and spans through 144 feet.
1971
Elimination of chord section number 2 and the addition of
joist designations 8J3 and 8H3 to the load tables.
1972
(a) Adoption by the SJI and AISC of a single specification
for the LJ-, LH-, DLJ-, and DLH-Series Joists.
(b) Adoption by the SJI and AISC of the expanded specifications
and load tables for Open Web Steel Joists with
increased depths through 30 inches, and spans through
60 feet, plus adding chord section numbers 9,10, and 11.
1978
(a) Elimination of the J-, LJ-, and DLJ-Series Joists because
of the widespread acceptance of high strength steel
joists.
(b) Introduction of Joist Girders, complete with specifications
and weight tables, in response to the growing need
for longer span primary structural members with highly
efficient use of steel.
1986
Introduction of the K-Series Joists, which replaced the HSeries
Joists. The reasons for developing the K-Series Joists
were: (1) to achieve greater economies by utilizing the Load
Span design concept; (2) to meet the demand for roofs with
lighter loads at depths from 18 inches to 30 inches; (3) to
offer joists whose load carrying capacities at frequently used
spans are those most commonly required; (4) to eliminate the
very heavy joists in medium depths for which there was little,
if any, demand.
1994
(a) Introduction of the KCS Joists as a part of the K-Series
Specification in response to the need for a joist with a
constant moment and constant shear. The KCS Joist is
an economical alternative joist that may be specified for
special loading situations.
jafidler - I know we're not doctors, I went out of my way to say so, but we are specialists in the same way.
... and any architect who can't make an argument about whether a slope should be 15 or 20 degrees should have their black clothes confiscated. Taste and aesthetics have very little to do with it. That's why we have to have reasons for the moves we make, in order to be able to talk about them to the world at large.
We're rediscovering basic principles here. You can relocate the origins of functionalism, formalism, any school of thought at all, in that moment where an architect sits across the table from someone else and has to explain why they drew what's on the page. All of academic architecture theory comes from that moment right there: client relations and public relations.
This is why the know-nothing attitude that some people are so vocal about on this forum drives me nuts! Theory is just people talking about buildings! What the hell is wrong with that? It seems like some people just want to comfort themselves in their own irrelevance by telling us all that everything's irrelevant. It ain't so.
what are these basic principles? you keep talking about? harmony, proportion, scale, beauty? these are the principles that have been thrown out with the bathwater.
Have harmony, proportion, and scale (beauty) been thrown out in car design? in industrial design of objects like the ipod or a subzero? In clothing design?
765, i feel like you're trying to pick a fight, and really i don't disagree with you at all. architecture should have a reason; it should have meaning; and i believe the best architecture does, but the problem i see is that most practicing architects do not have good reasons for the architecture they create. it is at best form and style-driven (see gehry, libeskind, insert starchitect here) or at worst profit driven (hok, mcmansions-r-us, insert corporate firm here). this problem is compounded by the fact that to john q. public architecture is about form and style, i.e. give 'em their gwb tuscan villa. the cynic in me agrees with vado when he writes, "[architects,] your raison d'etre is serving the occasional rich person who has been endowed with good taste." in a way, hasn't that always been the case with architecture?
Oct 23, 07 9:24 pm ·
·
"Madam, the architect you hired designed wonderful cakes."
"I know. I even eat good taste."
No, not trying to pick a fight, ja, I just had a feeling that someone would say something about 'life or death' after I brought up the doctor thing.
I don't understand why we let perceptions of bad buildings and environments drive the perception of the discipline. Isn't the best thing we can do for our profession just to stay conscientious and keep trying to do good work.
Some people are saying 'architects do this ...' when they really mean bad architects. Others are saying 'architects do this ..' when they mean good architects. I can't see how to find the basis for a conversation in that.
Ah, that's enough internet for today, I think, brain is fried.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I feel that the public has some appreciation for good architecture... Good design is recognized through frequent and non essential use by the public...( Central Park, Union Square, the Louvre )The thing about good design is that it is often ubiquitous. And the thing about residential architecture is that it is usually experienced from the inside...I think the best selling Mc Mansions are those with beautifully laid out interiors, even if they may have the most banal and crude of exteriors..
765 - I don't buy that we are "specialists"--we are first and foremost generalist and we are better off claiming as one..Why define ourselves as technicians rather than visionaries ?
I'm just gonna throw in a little here, but every other country I've been to, even similar post-colonial upstarts like Australia, seem to value architecture more than Americans do. If individualism is to blame, how do we count for the fact that great design is often "killed by committee"? With all the wealth and objectivist tendencies amongst Americans you could imagine ours would be a culture of Fountainheads in the realms of architecture but the only one that comes to my mind is FLW and he wasn't nearly as influential as his European contemporaries. Architecture is being accomplished today in totalitarian countries (read: Dubai, China) that is unimaginable even in Europe. Europe has its centuries of culture to draw upon but then again can't we look at the great civilizations that proceeded the white man in America as a well to draw from like Predock tries to? Then again Europeans are largely socialist states with massive central governments and before that they were totalitarian monarchies. An architect is meerly a pawn of power agents and only in places where such agents and agencies exist will we find richer architectural heritage and higher appreciation of design across the board. The publics lake of appreciation for us is not cultural, it is political. Perhaps democracy is our own worst enemy in that regard. The more power is collected in fewer hands, the more "Architecture with a capital A" is going to be generated.
australia is a "post-colonial upstart" and McMansions have "beautifully laid out interiors."
okay, well. again, all people feel underappreciated. all life is suffering.
personally i feel like most people are impressed when i lie and tell them i'm an architect. the only people who really seem to take issue with architects are certain residential contractors, and certain engineers who don't work with architects but possess a kind of prejudice attitude based on some of the worst stereotypes. other than that i feel well loved. once again, what do you people want? no one is going to find architecture to be as important as an architect does, any more than any professional knows more about and is more interested in his trade than the layperson. trust me, accountants, doctors, lawyers, all feel underappreciated. for all the millionare lawyers out there, there are 100 million ambulance chasers. just like most architects are "ambulance chasers." la la la.
if you want people to build your design, give them a reason for why they need it. this is how you get respect.
wow. i use and respect most of those professions. (no stock broker or trainer - primarily because i can't afford either.) and the professionals to whom i go are all in better financial situations than me, so other people must be going to them as well. so i guess i disagree completely with that one meta...
Public Appreciation of Architecture
btw.. on big box's at architecture. Plenty of people have tried. Remember SITE's wonderful work with Best stores around the country?
http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0403/bst/index.html
http://www.siteenvirodesign.com/proj.best.php
4arch, thanks for posting the NPR link - I just listened and enjoyed the conversation.
SITE's stuff for Best was great... does anyone know if Best is somehow related to today's Best Buy?
their prototypical tilted blue cube entrance feature always reminded me of SITE's Tilt Showroom in Towson, MD... although in a clumsier, dumb-down sort of way...
Have you seen the Museum the Waltons are building in Fayetteville?
It sure doesn't look the least bit like a Wal-Mart...
Crystal Bridges: aka Museum of American Art
Moshe Safdie is the architect of record
I think it may be worth committing on what gets built as opposed to what the public wants and appreciates. It's not the same thing. What gets built depends as much on construction and DD costs, debt financeability types/floor plans, form-neutral zoning codes built on the old "hygienist" model, lobbying by advertisers and marketers for code accommodations and so forth. Nobody likes this stuff. Big box stores are what they are because of the nature of their supply chains, legislated surface parking ratios, the demands of financiers, and the fact that steel frame tilt-up is probably the most efficient and low-cost construction method known to man. The people who build this sort of thing don't care what the public appreciates. They just need to get it done.
This is why I tried to shift the conversation to New Urbanism/neo-traditionalism in popular aesthetics versus what regional vernaculars and the architects who promote them want. I think that the whole big box argument is a straw man, like somebody said above..
development is really about discounted cash flow accounting methodology.
VIGOROUS APPLAUSE
"I'd say big boxes are also a kind of urbanism also,...interior urbanism. "
Sweet statement. Having done a couple big boxes in the last year I have a vastly new appreciation for their unseen complexities. i wouldnt tell the electrical or structural engineer theyre not complex. That said, I still live away from them, although theyre starting to put them into existing buildings in strange ways in Chicago.
Mdler - do you see a coincidence here? A concpiracy maybe?
walmart IS the new mainstreet usa.
I had a little public appreciation this weekend. I was looking at a potential project on the Billion Dollar Lake with a realtor. It was close by to a project I did last year, old barn do over for organic food craftperson barn.....anyhow I took the realtor their and she was in love with the place and all the veggies....so anyhow I introduced myself to the lady behind the counter as the architect for the project...and she insisted I not pay for my organic tomatoes...she actally said it was a great gift I gave them in such a wonderful building. So damn I felt proud... when things like this happen in life it is a hell of alot more important than working on those projects for the Operations and Labor Relations Department, where all you can say is you made it safe for 1,000 + people to exit a space because
your design was to code....and no one really gave a damn.
what meta's alluding to was covered brilliantly in a piece by tom peters in perspecta, late 80s or so, called 'an american culture of construction'. i recommend it unreservedly to anyone interested in this discussion.
also check out john kouwenhoven's book 'the beer can by the highway' if you can find it. fun read, but also very smart.
vado: "the responses here back up the utter contempt we have for normal people."
vado made the above comment in the current sister-thread to this one. isn't vado's sentiment really the crux of the matter? isn't this widespread disdain we have for contemporary tastes as we pursue the uber-creative and ultra-innovative really what's getting in our way when it comes to truly connecting with the people who use and interact with the facilities we design?
the "crux" may not be our disdain - because i certainly don't have disdain toward the normal people. i'm married to one.
it may be that we think some of these things but that we don't communicate them, deciding instead to sublimate them, talk about them amongst ourselves, but fail to effectively communicate any of it to our communities and fold under pressure from those who are more effective in making their agendas understood and enact THEIR visions without taking any ethical stance.
we're pushovers who - best case - sometimes succeed, in a passive/aggressive way, in getting our positions rolled into planning and development regs which people don't understand and grow to resent.
crossposted: (can we combine these thread?)
It's not about contempt, although this debate can easily devolve that way.
We have the implicit right to tell people how they should live because we know better. We're a specialized profession in a unique position between (to use the cliche) science and art, given an implicit mandate to make the built world, and we're highly trained to do that. We can always learn more from our clients and from 'the general public' (whoever the f*ck that is). But if they don't take our advice, that relationship is going to suffer, and so is the world ultimately. That sounds arrogant as hell, but there it is.
Imagine calling a doctor 'contemptuous' because she gave a patient advice that patient didn't want to hear. Imagine calling a painter 'contemptuous' because he prefers to work with some techniques better than others.
'Normal People' (again, whatever that means) come to us because they don't know what they want. We're the only people around with the knowledge of materials, methods, culture and history to be able to synthesize all those threads into a really big object that's going to be around a long time and affect the lives of thousands of people. If there's anyone out there more qualified than us to do that, then I want to meet 'em.
765 - I see your point - and agree with much of what you write.
but, don't you think it's mostly about attitude -- what the medical profession calls "bedside manner" -- I've known many arrogant doctors and I've also known doctors who are prepared to adapt their behavior and their approach so their patient can accept the advice being given -- they're willing to find ways to "sell" that advice in the manner needed so the patient actually benefits.
too often we want our clients to just fall in line and accept whatever we say, simply because we're "professionals" -- I think that's a misguided perspective and totally disconnected from the reality in which we practice.
765, there is a difference between design and medicine. telling someone they need slate instead of corian or that the roof needs to be canted at 15 instead 20 degrees is not a matter of life and death. sadly, after meeting code requirements, dumb matters of taste and aesthetics is what architecture boils down to for 99% of offices. in which case, i can understand the public's skepticism.
heres the real skinny alienated architects of archinect. you are irrelevant to most of the built environment. being preoccupied with big boxes, suburbia, exurbia, etc is a waste of time as "architecture" is not needed in this realm. your raison d'etre is serving the occasional rich person who has been endowed with good taste. go to them now you can't refuse. stop worrying about the common man. they have never heard of rem or zaha or fill in the blank. don't waste your caffeine induced energy on them, they can get along fine without you.
Hey, architect, leave them plebs alone!
Formed five years after the first open web steel joist was
manufactured, the Steel Joist Institute has worked since 1928 to maintain sound engineering practice throughout our industry. As
a non-profit organization of active manufacturers, the
Institute cooperates with governmental and business agencies
to establish steel joist standards. Continuing research
and updating are included in its work.
The first joist in 1923 was a Warren truss type, with top and
bottom chords of round bars and a web formed from a single
continuous bent bar. Various other types were developed, but
problems also followed because each manufacturer had their
own design and fabrication standards. Architects, engineers
and builders found it difficult to compare rated capacities and
to use fully the economies of steel joist construction.
Members of the industry began to organize the Institute, and
in 1928 the first standard specifications were adopted, followed
in 1929 by the first load table. The joists covered by
these early standards were later identified as open web
steel joists, SJ-Series.
Other landmark adoptions by the Institute include the following:
1953
Introduction of Longspan Steel Joists, L-Series. Specifications
and a standard load table, covering spans through 96 feet and
depths through 48 inches, were jointly approved with the
American Institute of Steel Construction.
1959
Introduction of the S-Series Joists, which replaced the SJSeries
Joists. The allowable tensile stress was increased
from 18,000 to 20,000 psi, joist depths were expanded
through 24 inches, and spans increased through 48 feet.
1961
(a) Introduction of the J-Series Joists, which replaced the SSeries
Joists. The allowable tensile stress was
increased from 20,000 psi to 22,000 psi, based on the
use of steel with a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi.
(b) Introduction of the LA-Series Joists, which replaced the
L-Series Joists. The LA-Series Joists were designed to
a maximum tensile stress of either 20,000 psi or 22,000
psi, depending on the yield strength of the steel.
(c) Introduction of the H-Series Joists, whose design was
based on steel with a minimum yield strength of 50,000
psi, and an allowable tensile stress of 30,000 psi.
1962
Introduction of the LH-Series Joists, utilizing steel whose minimum
yield strength was between 36,000 psi and 50,000 psi
and an allowable tensile strength of 22,000 psi to 30,000 psi.
1965
Development of a single specification for both the J- and HSeries
Joists by the Steel Joist Institute and the American
Institute of Steel Construction.
1966
Development and introduction by the SJI and AISC of the
LJ-Series Joists, which replaced the LA-Series Joists. Also,
the development of a single specification for both the LJand
the LH-Series Joists, with the use of 36,000 psi minimum
yield strength steel for the LJ-Series, and 36,000 psi to
50,000 psi minimum yield strength steel for the LH-Series.
1970
Introduction of the DLJ- and DLH-Series Joists to include
depths through 72 inches and spans through 144 feet.
1971
Elimination of chord section number 2 and the addition of
joist designations 8J3 and 8H3 to the load tables.
1972
(a) Adoption by the SJI and AISC of a single specification
for the LJ-, LH-, DLJ-, and DLH-Series Joists.
(b) Adoption by the SJI and AISC of the expanded specifications
and load tables for Open Web Steel Joists with
increased depths through 30 inches, and spans through
60 feet, plus adding chord section numbers 9,10, and 11.
1978
(a) Elimination of the J-, LJ-, and DLJ-Series Joists because
of the widespread acceptance of high strength steel
joists.
(b) Introduction of Joist Girders, complete with specifications
and weight tables, in response to the growing need
for longer span primary structural members with highly
efficient use of steel.
1986
Introduction of the K-Series Joists, which replaced the HSeries
Joists. The reasons for developing the K-Series Joists
were: (1) to achieve greater economies by utilizing the Load
Span design concept; (2) to meet the demand for roofs with
lighter loads at depths from 18 inches to 30 inches; (3) to
offer joists whose load carrying capacities at frequently used
spans are those most commonly required; (4) to eliminate the
very heavy joists in medium depths for which there was little,
if any, demand.
1994
(a) Introduction of the KCS Joists as a part of the K-Series
Specification in response to the need for a joist with a
constant moment and constant shear. The KCS Joist is
an economical alternative joist that may be specified for
special loading situations.
jafidler - I know we're not doctors, I went out of my way to say so, but we are specialists in the same way.
... and any architect who can't make an argument about whether a slope should be 15 or 20 degrees should have their black clothes confiscated. Taste and aesthetics have very little to do with it. That's why we have to have reasons for the moves we make, in order to be able to talk about them to the world at large.
We're rediscovering basic principles here. You can relocate the origins of functionalism, formalism, any school of thought at all, in that moment where an architect sits across the table from someone else and has to explain why they drew what's on the page. All of academic architecture theory comes from that moment right there: client relations and public relations.
This is why the know-nothing attitude that some people are so vocal about on this forum drives me nuts! Theory is just people talking about buildings! What the hell is wrong with that? It seems like some people just want to comfort themselves in their own irrelevance by telling us all that everything's irrelevant. It ain't so.
what are these basic principles? you keep talking about? harmony, proportion, scale, beauty? these are the principles that have been thrown out with the bathwater.
Immediate action is imperative! Mach schnell! Offer ends Monday!
Have harmony, proportion, and scale (beauty) been thrown out in car design? in industrial design of objects like the ipod or a subzero? In clothing design?
Yeah, who threw that stuff out? They should've recycled!
I love it. Real reality bites.
working title: The True Untruth in Materials
765, i feel like you're trying to pick a fight, and really i don't disagree with you at all. architecture should have a reason; it should have meaning; and i believe the best architecture does, but the problem i see is that most practicing architects do not have good reasons for the architecture they create. it is at best form and style-driven (see gehry, libeskind, insert starchitect here) or at worst profit driven (hok, mcmansions-r-us, insert corporate firm here). this problem is compounded by the fact that to john q. public architecture is about form and style, i.e. give 'em their gwb tuscan villa. the cynic in me agrees with vado when he writes, "[architects,] your raison d'etre is serving the occasional rich person who has been endowed with good taste." in a way, hasn't that always been the case with architecture?
"Madam, the architect you hired designed wonderful cakes."
"I know. I even eat good taste."
No, not trying to pick a fight, ja, I just had a feeling that someone would say something about 'life or death' after I brought up the doctor thing.
I don't understand why we let perceptions of bad buildings and environments drive the perception of the discipline. Isn't the best thing we can do for our profession just to stay conscientious and keep trying to do good work.
Some people are saying 'architects do this ...' when they really mean bad architects. Others are saying 'architects do this ..' when they mean good architects. I can't see how to find the basis for a conversation in that.
Ah, that's enough internet for today, I think, brain is fried.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I feel that the public has some appreciation for good architecture... Good design is recognized through frequent and non essential use by the public...( Central Park, Union Square, the Louvre )The thing about good design is that it is often ubiquitous. And the thing about residential architecture is that it is usually experienced from the inside...I think the best selling Mc Mansions are those with beautifully laid out interiors, even if they may have the most banal and crude of exteriors..
765 - I don't buy that we are "specialists"--we are first and foremost generalist and we are better off claiming as one..Why define ourselves as technicians rather than visionaries ?
nothing's more specialized than a visionary.
I'm just gonna throw in a little here, but every other country I've been to, even similar post-colonial upstarts like Australia, seem to value architecture more than Americans do. If individualism is to blame, how do we count for the fact that great design is often "killed by committee"? With all the wealth and objectivist tendencies amongst Americans you could imagine ours would be a culture of Fountainheads in the realms of architecture but the only one that comes to my mind is FLW and he wasn't nearly as influential as his European contemporaries. Architecture is being accomplished today in totalitarian countries (read: Dubai, China) that is unimaginable even in Europe. Europe has its centuries of culture to draw upon but then again can't we look at the great civilizations that proceeded the white man in America as a well to draw from like Predock tries to? Then again Europeans are largely socialist states with massive central governments and before that they were totalitarian monarchies. An architect is meerly a pawn of power agents and only in places where such agents and agencies exist will we find richer architectural heritage and higher appreciation of design across the board. The publics lake of appreciation for us is not cultural, it is political. Perhaps democracy is our own worst enemy in that regard. The more power is collected in fewer hands, the more "Architecture with a capital A" is going to be generated.
^^ a good reason for me to finally crack open my copy of 'edifice complex'.
australia is a "post-colonial upstart" and McMansions have "beautifully laid out interiors."
okay, well. again, all people feel underappreciated. all life is suffering.
personally i feel like most people are impressed when i lie and tell them i'm an architect. the only people who really seem to take issue with architects are certain residential contractors, and certain engineers who don't work with architects but possess a kind of prejudice attitude based on some of the worst stereotypes. other than that i feel well loved. once again, what do you people want? no one is going to find architecture to be as important as an architect does, any more than any professional knows more about and is more interested in his trade than the layperson. trust me, accountants, doctors, lawyers, all feel underappreciated. for all the millionare lawyers out there, there are 100 million ambulance chasers. just like most architects are "ambulance chasers." la la la.
if you want people to build your design, give them a reason for why they need it. this is how you get respect.
wow. i use and respect most of those professions. (no stock broker or trainer - primarily because i can't afford either.) and the professionals to whom i go are all in better financial situations than me, so other people must be going to them as well. so i guess i disagree completely with that one meta...
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.