Certain styles, such as the Gothic and the Baroque, in terms of architecture, are often thought of for their ornamental nature. I would like to open a discussion as to how these styles, defined by much by their ornament, could be analyzed spatially, but still in terms of their decorative nature. What is Gothic that is not ornament? The flying buttresses? Is it the materiality? What is Baroque that is not decoration?
These are questions I am asking myself as part of a larger project. Thanks for your input and discussion!
Its strange, the question, "what is Gothic, if not ornament?" approached me from a dream... someone, like a juror dressed in black, handed me a card with the question on it. Very Lynch-ian! So I had to post the question on these forums :)
gothic was to put some light into dark romanesque structures... that meant updating structural methods of building, ornament came later and in some cases "ornament" was the updated skeletons (yeah, like flying butresses) themselves...
it's like Corbu's horizontal cuts on the facade, to do that a new structural method for the envelope was needed (take the structure to a second plane)... how the gothics could put tons of light (filtered through as much ornamented as you want rose windows) into those dark romanesque chambers? by strectching upwards the buildings and leaving empty vertical holes between the cathedral's bones... in fact gothic is structure more than style (and probably Baroque is the opposite strategy, take a known structural system and disguise it with ornamental paraphernalia as much diverse and saturated as you can..)
There is quite a bit structural expression in Gothic Cathedrals. Sure, it is often covered in "ornament" or "decorations", but it is usually easy to see. Many early modern architects drew inspiration from the Gothic cathedrals. It is interesting to look at the progression of Cathedrals from the early Romanesque ones to those of the High Gothic. The desire to build higher and use more stained glass was one of the major factors behind the changes and innovations in the structure of cathedrals. The late cathedrals had a "lighter" more structurally expressive look to them. I don't really know if they were really trying to express structure - I think it was more of a side effect of other things - such as the need to bridge or cover great spans.
I'd say in both Gothic and Baroque architecture the space itself is not ornament or decoration. The elements of the building may be, but the space itself is not. Think of the negative space existing as a form. The eye is affected by the decoration, but the body is affected by the form.
Gothic is standing on your tiptoes, reaching for light. Baroque is fucking around with your friends, trying to make them laugh with melodrama, corny puns and in-jokes.
Gothic was about more than structure, wouldnt you say? I could be wrong, but didnt the plan of the church evolve around the same time? The long nave and such of cathedrals was about journey and life. About how man had to come from the 'world,' leave himself behind, fallow this long road, all to finally end up at the alter of the almighty. Maybe thats too poetic, but really there has to be more to Gothic Architects than just great engineers.
As for Baroque...I think it was more about showing off - showing off what you could afford, and showing off yourself. I mean, look at the typical barogue building. All the public spaces are overly ornate, and typically covered in mirrors. Seems to me that this would simply reflect oneself and ones things to the invited guest. Maybe baroque was all about sex and status. Come to think of it, sex is often used to increase status, so maybe baroque is really more about status and upward mobility. With all that was going on socially in the period, it could be something intersting to look into. I guess that would be another thread.
There are plenty of elements of Gothic cathedrals that are more than just decorative elements. For example, while the flying buttresses had an important structural purpose, they also became a integral part of the visual program of many high Gothic cathedrals. Similarly the ribbing in the vaults and the pointed arches had similar roles in supporting the building and achieving a sense of height, lightness and upward movement.
it may sound kind of exotic for (some) people in (some) places of America, but usually Europeans we don't look at gothic buildings as 'history' but as 'present'.. I mean they are there, round the corner, like any other new building, and you can use it, .. and some are more 'present', so to speak, than new buildings, because they either are used massively by people in general or represent institutions (governments or museums) that are known by everyone and generate activity all the time..
and people who don't care about architecture, they care even less if that building is gothic or baroque or rationalist or po-mo.. all they want to know is how to get to the second floor or where's the WC, like any other building...
I find this attitude sort of fascinating (sometimes rather insulting if it's a gothic masterpiece) that people use a 1800 years old structure the same way (or rather with the same indifference) as they use a building completed last year
I wonder if that has anything to do with the longevity of buildings in Europe - all that masonry construction. I have relatives in Wales that live in houses that are hundreds of years old - And they don't have to worry about cracking drywall, rotting wood or painting walls - since their homes are built with solid stone walls. I guess if you don't have to up-keep a building like it's an old one, it might not feel like it's that old. I know there is some maintenance required on almost any type of building - but it seems like a lot less for many buildings over there.
I think a lot of people have alluded to this, and sorry if it's already been explicitly stated, but look into Irwin Panofsky's writing on "Scholasticism" as a reinterpretation of the Syllogism in the era of Gothic thought. It talks about the idea that a building should visually be able to explain the concepts which encompass it (structural, material and theological/theoretical).
PA: I'm sure you know that your work has had tremendous impact in architecture and in design, not only formally, but also philosophically. The idea of the algorithm, of the growth of structures, and the growth of objects. Who was the first architect or designer that contacted you and wanted to talk about it and wanted to learn directly from you?
BM: Well, actually, I think that it wasn't that they came toward me. I came toward them.
PA: Really? Interesting. So, who did you refer to?
BM: Well, a paper I wrote, and that was widely quoted, concerned fractals and architecture. It was in a certain sense a critique of the Bauhaus. A very short paper, but very influential.
I focused on Mies van der Rohe and the Seagram Building because of my anger against Mies van der Rohe's misunderstanding of something I very much care about. By contrast, take Charles Garnier, who primarily designed the opera houses in Paris and Monte Carlo.
He was not very popular, but represented—at least for somebody with a French education—the kind of principle of what architecture should do.
PA: Meaning?
BM: Meaning, for example, walking toward the Garnier opera house in Paris, from far away, the most striking thing is the roof. You come closer, other things appear, but they are always of approximately the same degree of complication.
Whereas Mies van der Rohe seen from a distance is just a big box. As you get closer you see a grid of windows on the box, and as you get really close, you can see some some things of whoever lives behind the windows.
The building itself had the smallest number of scales imaginable. It is very simple to describe. And the architect was proud of it.
PA: Of course he was! He simply was not going after the same effect you're talking about, which is organicism in architecture. That's truly what you are praising. But, somehow you also need to have complete abstraction and the simplification of details in order to be able to appreciate organicism. Modern architecture had a reason to exist.
BM: Well, modern architecture had two reasons to exist. One is the desire, on the part of architects, to be different. And the other is the desire, on the part of the builders, to be cheap. Look at modern architecture in early manifestations, for example, in Russian building designs shortly after the revolution—many of which were never actually built, for lack of funding. They were very conscious of the fact that this was not something beautiful.
So, Garnier, who, again, was not a creative genius, but was a representative of a certain school of architecture, put it very, very strongly. From a distance, you could see something, and as you come closer, you see something else but always of the same kind.
PA: That's like medieval architecture. It's like the Cathedral of Milan. Yeah, I understand.
BM: Absolutely, and this is so much more interesting architecturally and aesthetically.
SH, the Baroque used on residences during the period was completely about showing off power and wealth. BUT the Catholic church had begun falling apart at exponential speed due to the Protestant movement. As a very mis-guided ploy to regain numbers, the Church began building churches that were completely ensconced in "beauty" and ornament. Also, a lot of the Baroque churches had very elliptical facades in plan, almost like the church was trying to reach out and give the street (and the people) a big, ornate hug.
Basically the Baroque was like a big, ornate, Catholic flare gun.
coming from a place where most of the older buildings are frame and shingled wooden structures I was appalled at the stone monuments of Europe. where I come from stone was basically used for one purpose only: gravestones. hence Europe was (to my eyes) filled with all these tombs. Gave me the creeps. Later I learned (if I am not mistaken) that monumental stone architecture was invented by the ancient Egyptian as tombs for their kings and queens.
I can't get away from the idea that a Cape Cod or saltbox shingled in wood is much 'healthier' to live in and be around. a personal prejudice which you may pull to pieces if you wish.
Gothic seems to emphasize volumes, the volumes of spaces gathered from afar and the volumes of space gathering within... Baroque seems to me to emphasize facades... surfaces as canvases and as walls...
How do these two ideas about building reflect the different social contexts of their times, the power structure and politics of the church at the time, and the types of traditions and daily performance of people? How do the very different feelings that these two architectural styles create reflect the cultural forces at play... For example, gothic seems to me to emphasize verticality, a stark almost authoritative mystery... The *sound* of gothic architecture contributes to part of the aura of mystery... Baroque on the other hand seems very exuberant and theatrical in nature... Maybe showy, expressing its power through a kind of *entertainment value*?
Thank you bRink, it is a pleasure to read am inspired ansver as your's.
Today there would be the option for a new Gotics where the structure being calculated and manufactored digital, would offer a great new architecture --- it could not be the same with the computers calculating the parts, but it would build the same volume of real and lasting structure and omit the surface of modern architecture ; you know that without a structure.
Viollet-le-Duc, saw Greek Classicism as based on a logic of structural addition (the stacking up of dependent parts), and Roman Classicism as based on a logic of the spatial envelope (the shaping of a plastic interior volume). Gothic architecture, VLD believed, was a complex synthesis of these two conceptions: there is a rigorous structural logic which is closely entangled with the production of a particular type of interior experience.
Although incidentally, I believe doubt has been cast on the structural efficacy of the flying buttress.
baroque: marked by elaborate ornamentation and efforts to create dramatic effects. can also be used with reference to software. even in that context, means: feature-encrusted; complex; gaudy; verging on excessive.
Klein suggests the name may be from It. painter Federigo Barocci (1528-1612), a founder of the style. Klein, Dr. Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.
How to tell baroque from rococo, according to Fowler: "The characteristics of baroque are grandeur, pomposity, and weight; those of rococo are inconsequence, grace, and lightness." Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.
ornament is, originally an illustration of a narrative or dedication largely for the masses to decipher. this can be seen in various cultures.
a building could therefore perform a secondary function as a stone tablature bearing a public message. farmer you have the right intuition about this though message might not necessarily only be death related. maybe there is a relation between the decline in ornament's potency of content and the increasing accessibility of written text through technologies of publishing. the building loses its exterior reel of 'text' to the book and now to the screen. now that the building can no longer narrate or dedicate on the exterior, architecture is perpetually in a crisis of "lack-of-meaning" that is subliminally deferred to a rhetoric of space (the text on the building, to the building as 'text').
"Of all nations, Italy has given the classic type its clearest impress; that is the glory of her architecture as of her design. Even in the baroque she never went so far in depriving the parts of their independence as Germany. We could characterise the difference of imagination by a musical metaphor. Italian church bells always hold to definite tone-figures: when German bells ring it is merely a weft of harmonious sound." (Wölflin in Principles of Art History)
Wölfflin saw the Baroque as a plastic degeneration of the 'purer' structural logic of the Renaissance
just look at those baroque wigs... an aesthetic degeneration of the architect just like the plastic degeneration of the architecture... at least the first baroque guys -until Le Vau, Mansart and the Versalles thing- looked more like Richie Blackmore (Borromini was probably as crazy as Deep Purple's Man in Black): http://www.geocities.com/medit1976/arq13.htm
Today so much is surface, bo thought of structural beauty -- Titanium panels cover the handicraft steel beam lattrice, the building became the designers image of the forms ,yhe core structure so ugly or so boring square that the paneling has to cover the fact that surface became decor and ontop, often a fake one.
I'm surprised no one's looked at Baroque from this point of view but here goes:
When I see a Baroque building/facade/decoration, I'm both amazed and saddened, I'm amazed at the intricacy and detail of it all, and I'm saddened that no one today has the skill, the time or the will to bother creating that sort of stuff.
Baroque is like an adventure for the eyes and the mind, you just cannot get bored looking at the stuff there's way too much going on.
And as some of our more socialist/communist leaning posters have remarked it can be construed as a sign of opulence and ego, BUT tough noogies ya commie bastards.
Gothic to me is open and airy yet also imposing, it makes me feel both free and reminds me of how small I am (I'm refering to Gothic churches though)
what is gothic that is not ornament? what is baroque, if not ornament?
Certain styles, such as the Gothic and the Baroque, in terms of architecture, are often thought of for their ornamental nature. I would like to open a discussion as to how these styles, defined by much by their ornament, could be analyzed spatially, but still in terms of their decorative nature. What is Gothic that is not ornament? The flying buttresses? Is it the materiality? What is Baroque that is not decoration?
These are questions I am asking myself as part of a larger project. Thanks for your input and discussion!
Its strange, the question, "what is Gothic, if not ornament?" approached me from a dream... someone, like a juror dressed in black, handed me a card with the question on it. Very Lynch-ian! So I had to post the question on these forums :)
gothic was to put some light into dark romanesque structures... that meant updating structural methods of building, ornament came later and in some cases "ornament" was the updated skeletons (yeah, like flying butresses) themselves...
it's like Corbu's horizontal cuts on the facade, to do that a new structural method for the envelope was needed (take the structure to a second plane)... how the gothics could put tons of light (filtered through as much ornamented as you want rose windows) into those dark romanesque chambers? by strectching upwards the buildings and leaving empty vertical holes between the cathedral's bones... in fact gothic is structure more than style (and probably Baroque is the opposite strategy, take a known structural system and disguise it with ornamental paraphernalia as much diverse and saturated as you can..)
my 2 cents from Barcelona, land of the "naked gothic", not much ornamentation at all - like Santa Maria del Mar - http://www.geocities.com/medit1976c3/maria.htm
There is quite a bit structural expression in Gothic Cathedrals. Sure, it is often covered in "ornament" or "decorations", but it is usually easy to see. Many early modern architects drew inspiration from the Gothic cathedrals. It is interesting to look at the progression of Cathedrals from the early Romanesque ones to those of the High Gothic. The desire to build higher and use more stained glass was one of the major factors behind the changes and innovations in the structure of cathedrals. The late cathedrals had a "lighter" more structurally expressive look to them. I don't really know if they were really trying to express structure - I think it was more of a side effect of other things - such as the need to bridge or cover great spans.
borromini
I'd say in both Gothic and Baroque architecture the space itself is not ornament or decoration. The elements of the building may be, but the space itself is not. Think of the negative space existing as a form. The eye is affected by the decoration, but the body is affected by the form.
Gothic is standing on your tiptoes, reaching for light. Baroque is fucking around with your friends, trying to make them laugh with melodrama, corny puns and in-jokes.
those ornament in combination with the spatial organization are signifiers, they tell u the order of the world...
now, the task is replaced by internet.
the ornament in baroque is a display of a math function d(x) when calculus was invented at that time.
while gothic ornament are mainly figurative.
i tend to delete the term space in looking into architecture... it opens up my perspectives.
Gothic was about more than structure, wouldnt you say? I could be wrong, but didnt the plan of the church evolve around the same time? The long nave and such of cathedrals was about journey and life. About how man had to come from the 'world,' leave himself behind, fallow this long road, all to finally end up at the alter of the almighty. Maybe thats too poetic, but really there has to be more to Gothic Architects than just great engineers.
As for Baroque...I think it was more about showing off - showing off what you could afford, and showing off yourself. I mean, look at the typical barogue building. All the public spaces are overly ornate, and typically covered in mirrors. Seems to me that this would simply reflect oneself and ones things to the invited guest. Maybe baroque was all about sex and status. Come to think of it, sex is often used to increase status, so maybe baroque is really more about status and upward mobility. With all that was going on socially in the period, it could be something intersting to look into. I guess that would be another thread.
There are plenty of elements of Gothic cathedrals that are more than just decorative elements. For example, while the flying buttresses had an important structural purpose, they also became a integral part of the visual program of many high Gothic cathedrals. Similarly the ribbing in the vaults and the pointed arches had similar roles in supporting the building and achieving a sense of height, lightness and upward movement.
hey gang lets start an architectural history survey course!
wow yes gee farmer's all for that!
it may sound kind of exotic for (some) people in (some) places of America, but usually Europeans we don't look at gothic buildings as 'history' but as 'present'.. I mean they are there, round the corner, like any other new building, and you can use it, .. and some are more 'present', so to speak, than new buildings, because they either are used massively by people in general or represent institutions (governments or museums) that are known by everyone and generate activity all the time..
and people who don't care about architecture, they care even less if that building is gothic or baroque or rationalist or po-mo.. all they want to know is how to get to the second floor or where's the WC, like any other building...
I find this attitude sort of fascinating (sometimes rather insulting if it's a gothic masterpiece) that people use a 1800 years old structure the same way (or rather with the same indifference) as they use a building completed last year
Medit -
I wonder if that has anything to do with the longevity of buildings in Europe - all that masonry construction. I have relatives in Wales that live in houses that are hundreds of years old - And they don't have to worry about cracking drywall, rotting wood or painting walls - since their homes are built with solid stone walls. I guess if you don't have to up-keep a building like it's an old one, it might not feel like it's that old. I know there is some maintenance required on almost any type of building - but it seems like a lot less for many buildings over there.
I think a lot of people have alluded to this, and sorry if it's already been explicitly stated, but look into Irwin Panofsky's writing on "Scholasticism" as a reinterpretation of the Syllogism in the era of Gothic thought. It talks about the idea that a building should visually be able to explain the concepts which encompass it (structural, material and theological/theoretical).
?
Paola Antonelli and Benoit Mandelbrot
[excerpt]
PA: I'm sure you know that your work has had tremendous impact in architecture and in design, not only formally, but also philosophically. The idea of the algorithm, of the growth of structures, and the growth of objects. Who was the first architect or designer that contacted you and wanted to talk about it and wanted to learn directly from you?
BM: Well, actually, I think that it wasn't that they came toward me. I came toward them.
PA: Really? Interesting. So, who did you refer to?
BM: Well, a paper I wrote, and that was widely quoted, concerned fractals and architecture. It was in a certain sense a critique of the Bauhaus. A very short paper, but very influential.
I focused on Mies van der Rohe and the Seagram Building because of my anger against Mies van der Rohe's misunderstanding of something I very much care about. By contrast, take Charles Garnier, who primarily designed the opera houses in Paris and Monte Carlo.
He was not very popular, but represented—at least for somebody with a French education—the kind of principle of what architecture should do.
PA: Meaning?
BM: Meaning, for example, walking toward the Garnier opera house in Paris, from far away, the most striking thing is the roof. You come closer, other things appear, but they are always of approximately the same degree of complication.
Whereas Mies van der Rohe seen from a distance is just a big box. As you get closer you see a grid of windows on the box, and as you get really close, you can see some some things of whoever lives behind the windows.
The building itself had the smallest number of scales imaginable. It is very simple to describe. And the architect was proud of it.
PA: Of course he was! He simply was not going after the same effect you're talking about, which is organicism in architecture. That's truly what you are praising. But, somehow you also need to have complete abstraction and the simplification of details in order to be able to appreciate organicism. Modern architecture had a reason to exist.
BM: Well, modern architecture had two reasons to exist. One is the desire, on the part of architects, to be different. And the other is the desire, on the part of the builders, to be cheap. Look at modern architecture in early manifestations, for example, in Russian building designs shortly after the revolution—many of which were never actually built, for lack of funding. They were very conscious of the fact that this was not something beautiful.
So, Garnier, who, again, was not a creative genius, but was a representative of a certain school of architecture, put it very, very strongly. From a distance, you could see something, and as you come closer, you see something else but always of the same kind.
PA: That's like medieval architecture. It's like the Cathedral of Milan. Yeah, I understand.
BM: Absolutely, and this is so much more interesting architecturally and aesthetically.
[/excerpt]
SH, the Baroque used on residences during the period was completely about showing off power and wealth. BUT the Catholic church had begun falling apart at exponential speed due to the Protestant movement. As a very mis-guided ploy to regain numbers, the Church began building churches that were completely ensconced in "beauty" and ornament. Also, a lot of the Baroque churches had very elliptical facades in plan, almost like the church was trying to reach out and give the street (and the people) a big, ornate hug.
Basically the Baroque was like a big, ornate, Catholic flare gun.
coming from a place where most of the older buildings are frame and shingled wooden structures I was appalled at the stone monuments of Europe. where I come from stone was basically used for one purpose only: gravestones. hence Europe was (to my eyes) filled with all these tombs. Gave me the creeps. Later I learned (if I am not mistaken) that monumental stone architecture was invented by the ancient Egyptian as tombs for their kings and queens.
I can't get away from the idea that a Cape Cod or saltbox shingled in wood is much 'healthier' to live in and be around. a personal prejudice which you may pull to pieces if you wish.
read Heinrich Wolfflin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_W%C3%B6lfflin - and his Principles Of Art History, that would be good place for discussion...
Gothic is a passion play, whereas Baroque is a double theater.
Gothic seems to emphasize volumes, the volumes of spaces gathered from afar and the volumes of space gathering within... Baroque seems to me to emphasize facades... surfaces as canvases and as walls...
How do these two ideas about building reflect the different social contexts of their times, the power structure and politics of the church at the time, and the types of traditions and daily performance of people? How do the very different feelings that these two architectural styles create reflect the cultural forces at play... For example, gothic seems to me to emphasize verticality, a stark almost authoritative mystery... The *sound* of gothic architecture contributes to part of the aura of mystery... Baroque on the other hand seems very exuberant and theatrical in nature... Maybe showy, expressing its power through a kind of *entertainment value*?
Thank you bRink, it is a pleasure to read am inspired ansver as your's.
Today there would be the option for a new Gotics where the structure being calculated and manufactored digital, would offer a great new architecture --- it could not be the same with the computers calculating the parts, but it would build the same volume of real and lasting structure and omit the surface of modern architecture ; you know that without a structure.
Viollet-le-Duc, saw Greek Classicism as based on a logic of structural addition (the stacking up of dependent parts), and Roman Classicism as based on a logic of the spatial envelope (the shaping of a plastic interior volume). Gothic architecture, VLD believed, was a complex synthesis of these two conceptions: there is a rigorous structural logic which is closely entangled with the production of a particular type of interior experience.
Although incidentally, I believe doubt has been cast on the structural efficacy of the flying buttress.
Maybe the Baroque is trying to recreate a "heaven-like" scene, while the Gothic "reaches" towards heaven but does never really touches.
I think this says something about the exuberance and confidence of the Baroque times versus the mystery that was prevalent in the Gothic times.
after a little digging around -
baroque: marked by elaborate ornamentation and efforts to create dramatic effects. can also be used with reference to software. even in that context, means: feature-encrusted; complex; gaudy; verging on excessive.
Klein suggests the name may be from It. painter Federigo Barocci (1528-1612), a founder of the style. Klein, Dr. Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.
How to tell baroque from rococo, according to Fowler: "The characteristics of baroque are grandeur, pomposity, and weight; those of rococo are inconsequence, grace, and lightness." Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.
Wölfflin saw the Baroque as a plastic degeneration of the 'purer' structural logic of the Renaissance.
ornament is, originally an illustration of a narrative or dedication largely for the masses to decipher. this can be seen in various cultures.
a building could therefore perform a secondary function as a stone tablature bearing a public message. farmer you have the right intuition about this though message might not necessarily only be death related. maybe there is a relation between the decline in ornament's potency of content and the increasing accessibility of written text through technologies of publishing. the building loses its exterior reel of 'text' to the book and now to the screen. now that the building can no longer narrate or dedicate on the exterior, architecture is perpetually in a crisis of "lack-of-meaning" that is subliminally deferred to a rhetoric of space (the text on the building, to the building as 'text').
i love this quote.
just look at those baroque wigs... an aesthetic degeneration of the architect just like the plastic degeneration of the architecture... at least the first baroque guys -until Le Vau, Mansart and the Versalles thing- looked more like Richie Blackmore (Borromini was probably as crazy as Deep Purple's Man in Black):
http://www.geocities.com/medit1976/arq13.htm
Today so much is surface, bo thought of structural beauty -- Titanium panels cover the handicraft steel beam lattrice, the building became the designers image of the forms ,yhe core structure so ugly or so boring square that the paneling has to cover the fact that surface became decor and ontop, often a fake one.
Question.
Are we living in some kind of a neo-baroque era?
I'm surprised no one's looked at Baroque from this point of view but here goes:
When I see a Baroque building/facade/decoration, I'm both amazed and saddened, I'm amazed at the intricacy and detail of it all, and I'm saddened that no one today has the skill, the time or the will to bother creating that sort of stuff.
Baroque is like an adventure for the eyes and the mind, you just cannot get bored looking at the stuff there's way too much going on.
And as some of our more socialist/communist leaning posters have remarked it can be construed as a sign of opulence and ego, BUT tough noogies ya commie bastards.
Gothic to me is open and airy yet also imposing, it makes me feel both free and reminds me of how small I am (I'm refering to Gothic churches though)
bump. awesome thread.
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.