I believe they call that bulgalow style, but some would call it Arts and Crafts, at least as interpreted in California at the turn of the 20th century. Some might even call it Japanese revival. I'd be curious to hear Miles's take on it with his love of Japanese carpentry. But I'd call it beautiful.
Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.
Forgive me, surixurient. I know that I, RyuArch, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
it has nothing to do with style at all. there are some buildings you like, and some buildings you don't like. now, i think we should accept that there are probably some very good buildings that you don't like, just because your taste is different. that's normal. sometimes people just like different things. if there is a building that you don't like, even though it's a very good building, it is not helpful for you to just wish it would go away. maybe someday you'll come around and like the good stuff. it's a good opportunity for to you expand your horizons and reconsider what it is you do and don't like.
a lot of old buildings that are still standing have some pretty good features in them. they haven't been blown down by any storms or anything, and despite the possibility of property values increasing in some areas, they haven't been torn down. new buildings don't have the luxury of time to weed them out that way.
that might make you think that it's a question of 'style,' so you can phrase your argument as "traditional" v. "modern.' there just isn't much substance there. some buildings just suck. there are a number of influences that can cause that to happen. the architect is only one of the players. as it is, a lot of buildings designed to be "traditional" suck, just as alot of buildings designed to be "modern" suck. and a lot of buildings just suck without regard to any stye at all. but there are good ones too. there are good "traditional" building, and good "modern" buildings, and good buildings that might not fit into either.
observant, but one of those things was a product of academic indoctrination while the other is a heavily believed fairy-tale?
Both are rather modern compared to simple prehistoric stone piles. Those are the classic examples of natural architecture and... it is only logical ... they be considered the benchmark for traditional housing.
Do you acknowledge that the public prefers buildings which fall into my definition of traditional or do you really think its the age of them and not the style that makes them attractive to the public?
I'd say it depends where you are and what portion of the 'public' you speak with- rural New England seems like they like to build a lot of 'traditional', lots of larger inner cities seem to prefer anything but; but even that's a general trend.
This mystical public you've invented for yourself can do and like what it pleases. The real public is affected by more factors than simply your selective personal bias.
I believe that Columbus did make it to the West Indies, or thereabouts. I've even seen the house he sojourned in on the Canary Islands, at Las Palmas. I didn't feel like paying money to get into the hideously overwrought and disproportionate cathedral in Seville, either to see its interior or to see Columbus's grave. I preferred to get an ice cream and walk around the center in the middle of their blazing hot summer.
I'm also Catholic, so to speak, which doesn't diminish my intelligence, but certainly doesn't make me cool among liberal, forward-thinking architects.
I acknowledge the public is a varied group with varying cultures, backgrounds, and aesthetic tastes.I acknowledge the public hires architects, designers, and builders for varying aesthetic opinions that are constantly changing over time. I acknowledge that a building's aesthetics are largely determined by time period, and any building designed and built out of that historical and cultural context is in no way the same, but is a reference to that cultural embodiment of a building, which was originally designed for a greater purpose than just style.
I believe there is an active thread for the discussion of the baby killing and puppy punching of Columbus, with some anti-israel rhetoric sprinked in just for the hellofit.
Curt's first example in his latest group of photos is an example of why some of us have been advocating for some studio classes in traditional design in the schools today. Clients ask for this kind of design, and they get what we see in Curt's picture, which gives traditional design a bad name.
Obervant, the new world was "discovered" over and over again in the centuries prior to Columbus. As for the second point, religious or otherwise superstitious tendencies are not a sign of a lack of intelligence but referencing them openly will attack well deserved jabs, just like suri's views on engine maintenance or whatever topic he's moved on to now.
That goes back to DPZ, they have a grasp of an aesthetic appeal that works for developers and attracts many people for the idea of a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing community.
the sinuous office building was someone else's picture, but i like it.
i do not care for the picture you linked aojwny. i think that what appears to be stone quoins? around the openings of a stucco building really don't help. that is gratuitous ornament for the sake of having gratuitous ornament. i think the rest of it could be fine, depending on the area.
back to the point, I don't think those stone arches are correct in that first picture Aojwny. Something tells me it's.... gasp... an aesthetic attempt at historical masonry construction? Surely that falls outside of what a sophisticate public would naturally all want regardless of geographical location.
Just ran across another example of design work by an architect untrained in traditional architecture. This is a church, although I thought it was an office park at first (top image on Chinese renderer's website: http://www.4d-3d.com/). It looks like they were going for a fusion of classical and modern, to give a link to the past and also show they are a contemporary bunch, I assume, but to me it fails on both counts.
I worked on a project many years ago where we used cast stone quoins and column covers: http://www.aosarchitects.com/portfolio-type/project.aspx?cid=22&id=105 We did use stucco, but on block backup. I still like the building a great deal, and it has been very successful as a residential home for people with eating disorders.
Sorry you feel that way RyuArch. Clients should be respected whether you agree with their philosophy of life or not, IMO. Anyway, here is a recent church I rather like: http://arbourcm.com/institutional/
Curtkram,
Lets just consider you have been retained to design a townhouse just outside the historic district of Charleston, SC. You, being a modern architect, never even heard of the Charleston Single House, where what looks like the front door opens into the end of a covered porch, the entry door to the home being halfway down the porch. You never consider that the individual rooms go the full width of the house to increase circulation. You don't take notice of the high ceilings with windows above the interior doors to aid circulation. You never notice that the porch faces a garden with tall mossy oak trees that provide shade and cooling. You fail to observe that the houses are built one floor obove elevation to guard against flooding. You fail to see how the use of wrought-iron railings tie the appearance of one house to another and make a pleasing whole of the neighborhood.You don't care about fitting in. No, you will design something like Gehry's MIT disaster and hope it gets into a printed review before it gets raized.
My apologies, RyuArch, I'm sorry I made a wrong assumption (there have been some disparaging remarks made about religion on this thread, but I wasn't paying attention to who said what, sorry!).
Curt, I like Thorncrown Chapel, too. Of course Faye Jones comes straight out of a Frank Lloyd Wright "tradition." I would say it is a pleasing combination of traditional forms and a modern sensibility.
When I was a kid, a rich Middle Easterner, a prince, a scion, or some such thing, bought a mansion on Sunset Blvd. or someplace very visible in Beverly Hills, if I recall, that had statues at its perimeter. No problem so far. However, I believe that the genitalia or pubic hairs were enhanced by color or some other accents, and the neighbors had a fit. The neighbors won. But what a crazy story. I guess it's funny ... if you weren't a neighbor. On the other hand, it's not so funny when you live in the ho-hum parts of the city and not in Beverly Hills. Damn, I found it, and I was right. The article indicates the dude croaked at age 50!
So, then, a couple of things: 1) you can always get a tacky contractor or other artisan to do something like this for you, but what kind of construction documents would you need for statuary that's already in place? An arrow pointing and saying "paint pubes dark brown?" and 2) money does not buy good taste. So, just like you can find a doctor to give you more sedatives than you need and a doctor who will perform more plastic surgery than what would be considered prudent, you can also find an architect to produce shlock for you ... for the right price.
volunteer, i have no idea what you're talking about. i've only seen gehry's MIT disaster in pictures, but i like it. i would love the opportunity to design such a thing, and given the opportunity i would like to think i could design it in such a way that it didn't leak. in my day to day real life, i do not design things like the MIT disaster, nor do i design houses like the one you're talking about. i work on the fairly mundane sorts of architecture.
'modernists' are not forbidden from using things like crawlspaces, they can have things like rooms and circulation, and they can allow trees to be adjacent to their properties. you seem to be of the opinion that a 'modernist' is required to be an idiot. i assure you that is not the case.
can you explain how using blocks to border an opening is "gratuitous ornament". and then explain how the details of a frank Lloyd Wright building or the facade of the Seagram building is not?
it was put there to look like something it's not. quoins were heavier blocks used at the corners of buildings that used otherwise inferior masonry or stone, because without the quoins the building wouldn't stand up. the building in question is not of the sort of construction that would require a quoin.
i'm fairly certain those are not structurally required quoins. they do not represent the construction of a masonry opening in the time period it was built, or the material that building was built with. they are are there as decoration, or a symbol of the way buildings were built long ago and far away, or something like that.
if i'm wrong, and that building really is so old that the brick would not have been able to support itself, so they cast that shape of stone for support, let me know.
its clear they are ornamental as apposed to structural.I ask why you consider them gratuitous and wonder if you consider the details of Ennis house or the Seagram building gratuitous
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
suri, you know a plethora about styles
what are you referring to?
"the other comes naturally and is simply part of being human."
the claim that people were born with the opinion you espouse is the height of hubris
pull your head out of your ass
This is a fun game.
Suri, what about this one:
You have a plethora.
I believe they call that bulgalow style, but some would call it Arts and Crafts, at least as interpreted in California at the turn of the 20th century. Some might even call it Japanese revival. I'd be curious to hear Miles's take on it with his love of Japanese carpentry. But I'd call it beautiful.
"the claim that people were born with the opinion you espouse is the height of hubris"
I didn't claim people were born with my opinion. I said a traditional sense of beauty is innate and comes naturally.
Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.
It's all right, I guess. More importantly, what do you think?
Forgive me, surixurient. I know that I, RyuArch, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
beauty is not a binary property, so this is not a very useful exercise
I think it is beautiful.
but what were you referring to when you said i have a plethora?
Your view on "style" and how it must govern design for you.
I think this is what he meant.
1342 posts thus far.
150 more and we'll have covered from Jesus's birth to Columbus's discovery of the New World.
Carry on ...
ok then suri, here's my new thought.
it has nothing to do with style at all. there are some buildings you like, and some buildings you don't like. now, i think we should accept that there are probably some very good buildings that you don't like, just because your taste is different. that's normal. sometimes people just like different things. if there is a building that you don't like, even though it's a very good building, it is not helpful for you to just wish it would go away. maybe someday you'll come around and like the good stuff. it's a good opportunity for to you expand your horizons and reconsider what it is you do and don't like.
a lot of old buildings that are still standing have some pretty good features in them. they haven't been blown down by any storms or anything, and despite the possibility of property values increasing in some areas, they haven't been torn down. new buildings don't have the luxury of time to weed them out that way.
that might make you think that it's a question of 'style,' so you can phrase your argument as "traditional" v. "modern.' there just isn't much substance there. some buildings just suck. there are a number of influences that can cause that to happen. the architect is only one of the players. as it is, a lot of buildings designed to be "traditional" suck, just as alot of buildings designed to be "modern" suck. and a lot of buildings just suck without regard to any stye at all. but there are good ones too. there are good "traditional" building, and good "modern" buildings, and good buildings that might not fit into either.
observant, but one of those things was a product of academic indoctrination while the other is a heavily believed fairy-tale?
Both are rather modern compared to simple prehistoric stone piles. Those are the classic examples of natural architecture and... it is only logical ... they be considered the benchmark for traditional housing.
Do you acknowledge that the public prefers buildings which fall into my definition of traditional or do you really think its the age of them and not the style that makes them attractive to the public?
Perhaps best addressed to a realtor?
I'd say it depends where you are and what portion of the 'public' you speak with- rural New England seems like they like to build a lot of 'traditional', lots of larger inner cities seem to prefer anything but; but even that's a general trend.
This mystical public you've invented for yourself can do and like what it pleases. The real public is affected by more factors than simply your selective personal bias.
^^
I believe that Columbus did make it to the West Indies, or thereabouts. I've even seen the house he sojourned in on the Canary Islands, at Las Palmas. I didn't feel like paying money to get into the hideously overwrought and disproportionate cathedral in Seville, either to see its interior or to see Columbus's grave. I preferred to get an ice cream and walk around the center in the middle of their blazing hot summer.
I'm also Catholic, so to speak, which doesn't diminish my intelligence, but certainly doesn't make me cool among liberal, forward-thinking architects.
the mystical public that participated in the favorite buildings list.
I acknowledge the public is a varied group with varying cultures, backgrounds, and aesthetic tastes.I acknowledge the public hires architects, designers, and builders for varying aesthetic opinions that are constantly changing over time. I acknowledge that a building's aesthetics are largely determined by time period, and any building designed and built out of that historical and cultural context is in no way the same, but is a reference to that cultural embodiment of a building, which was originally designed for a greater purpose than just style.
I believe there is an active thread for the discussion of the baby killing and puppy punching of Columbus, with some anti-israel rhetoric sprinked in just for the hellofit.
Curt's first example in his latest group of photos is an example of why some of us have been advocating for some studio classes in traditional design in the schools today. Clients ask for this kind of design, and they get what we see in Curt's picture, which gives traditional design a bad name.
Here is a commercial development done by an architect who understood traditional design: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sitephocus/6317118948/in/photolist-aCdTnW-aCdTDd-aCbexp-6FLy9Q-5hZm5X-fXUWJC-TmP8r-5hY3q6-agfgma-5hZWYi-5i44X7-7KiC9Q-7KeEuz-7KeBWc-5ANpjq-asT6Bc-asVHUG-asT6FV-a2Dh1T-87P7QM-4qcVL5-9QoaRf-6A37ch-6aJGrD-6aNQkm-9yxzp3-5DM3Lw-aNEJjH-aNEJDr-btM1dT-bBx9N2-6ypxrG-7zDpDU-8UN6ck-dSkRfb-8RaZZB-6zXUhr-6zY2dx-6A3chU-6A2Qs7-6zXPYp-6A2SY7-6zXJ8D-6zXQFD-6A3b2w-6A2URd-6A3fR3-6zY39x-6A3gSL-6zXMZT-6A2TQG/ He did not need a course in how to design like C.F.A. Voysey, or Arts & Crafts architecture in general, he just needed to know how to draw on the past, adapting it to contemporary needs, program and materials. This sort of knowledge can be imparted in school, to avoid the sort of design that is a result of not having it (Curt's example).
The sinuous office building is certainly based on the modernist past, if that's what you're getting at Curt.
Obervant, the new world was "discovered" over and over again in the centuries prior to Columbus. As for the second point, religious or otherwise superstitious tendencies are not a sign of a lack of intelligence but referencing them openly will attack well deserved jabs, just like suri's views on engine maintenance or whatever topic he's moved on to now.
That goes back to DPZ, they have a grasp of an aesthetic appeal that works for developers and attracts many people for the idea of a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing community.
^^
Attack away. I don't care. But we can do religion on another thread. And astrology on yet another (see TC).
Agreed RyuArch. And not taught very often in school.
the sinuous office building was someone else's picture, but i like it.
i do not care for the picture you linked aojwny. i think that what appears to be stone quoins? around the openings of a stucco building really don't help. that is gratuitous ornament for the sake of having gratuitous ornament. i think the rest of it could be fine, depending on the area.
astrology? no-thank-you.
back to the point, I don't think those stone arches are correct in that first picture Aojwny. Something tells me it's.... gasp... an aesthetic attempt at historical masonry construction? Surely that falls outside of what a sophisticate public would naturally all want regardless of geographical location.
Now that may not be the architect's fault, it could have been that the public didn't want to pay the price for all of those real features...
Just ran across another example of design work by an architect untrained in traditional architecture. This is a church, although I thought it was an office park at first (top image on Chinese renderer's website: http://www.4d-3d.com/). It looks like they were going for a fusion of classical and modern, to give a link to the past and also show they are a contemporary bunch, I assume, but to me it fails on both counts.
I don't think most new built church architecture should be shared on any level...
are you trying to suggest the ancient greeks didn't use the doric order when holding up asphalt shingles?
Curt and Non Sequitur (RyuArch maybe, too), those are actual masonry buildings. Not sure if the stone is cast stone (likely) or natural stone. Here is a closeup view: http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972924@N03/6317119286/in/photolist-aCdTtL-6jYTqP-6jYRpB-6k44bU
I worked on a project many years ago where we used cast stone quoins and column covers: http://www.aosarchitects.com/portfolio-type/project.aspx?cid=22&id=105 We did use stucco, but on block backup. I still like the building a great deal, and it has been very successful as a residential home for people with eating disorders.
Sorry you feel that way RyuArch. Clients should be respected whether you agree with their philosophy of life or not, IMO. Anyway, here is a recent church I rather like: http://arbourcm.com/institutional/
here is a church that i rather like. traditional or modern?
It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, it has to do with the resultant building.
Try to reserve a wedding there...
Curtkram, Lets just consider you have been retained to design a townhouse just outside the historic district of Charleston, SC. You, being a modern architect, never even heard of the Charleston Single House, where what looks like the front door opens into the end of a covered porch, the entry door to the home being halfway down the porch. You never consider that the individual rooms go the full width of the house to increase circulation. You don't take notice of the high ceilings with windows above the interior doors to aid circulation. You never notice that the porch faces a garden with tall mossy oak trees that provide shade and cooling. You fail to observe that the houses are built one floor obove elevation to guard against flooding. You fail to see how the use of wrought-iron railings tie the appearance of one house to another and make a pleasing whole of the neighborhood.You don't care about fitting in. No, you will design something like Gehry's MIT disaster and hope it gets into a printed review before it gets raized.
My apologies, RyuArch, I'm sorry I made a wrong assumption (there have been some disparaging remarks made about religion on this thread, but I wasn't paying attention to who said what, sorry!).
Curt, I like Thorncrown Chapel, too. Of course Faye Jones comes straight out of a Frank Lloyd Wright "tradition." I would say it is a pleasing combination of traditional forms and a modern sensibility.
When I was a kid, a rich Middle Easterner, a prince, a scion, or some such thing, bought a mansion on Sunset Blvd. or someplace very visible in Beverly Hills, if I recall, that had statues at its perimeter. No problem so far. However, I believe that the genitalia or pubic hairs were enhanced by color or some other accents, and the neighbors had a fit. The neighbors won. But what a crazy story. I guess it's funny ... if you weren't a neighbor. On the other hand, it's not so funny when you live in the ho-hum parts of the city and not in Beverly Hills. Damn, I found it, and I was right. The article indicates the dude croaked at age 50!
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/31/local/me-sheik31
So, then, a couple of things: 1) you can always get a tacky contractor or other artisan to do something like this for you, but what kind of construction documents would you need for statuary that's already in place? An arrow pointing and saying "paint pubes dark brown?" and 2) money does not buy good taste. So, just like you can find a doctor to give you more sedatives than you need and a doctor who will perform more plastic surgery than what would be considered prudent, you can also find an architect to produce shlock for you ... for the right price.
here is a church that i rather like.
We agree on something.
Try to reserve a wedding there...
i bet it's easier to not get married.
volunteer, i have no idea what you're talking about. i've only seen gehry's MIT disaster in pictures, but i like it. i would love the opportunity to design such a thing, and given the opportunity i would like to think i could design it in such a way that it didn't leak. in my day to day real life, i do not design things like the MIT disaster, nor do i design houses like the one you're talking about. i work on the fairly mundane sorts of architecture.
'modernists' are not forbidden from using things like crawlspaces, they can have things like rooms and circulation, and they can allow trees to be adjacent to their properties. you seem to be of the opinion that a 'modernist' is required to be an idiot. i assure you that is not the case.
can you explain how using blocks to border an opening is "gratuitous ornament". and then explain how the details of a frank Lloyd Wright building or the facade of the Seagram building is not?
it was put there to look like something it's not. quoins were heavier blocks used at the corners of buildings that used otherwise inferior masonry or stone, because without the quoins the building wouldn't stand up. the building in question is not of the sort of construction that would require a quoin.
i'm fairly certain those are not structurally required quoins. they do not represent the construction of a masonry opening in the time period it was built, or the material that building was built with. they are are there as decoration, or a symbol of the way buildings were built long ago and far away, or something like that.
if i'm wrong, and that building really is so old that the brick would not have been able to support itself, so they cast that shape of stone for support, let me know.
its clear they are ornamental as apposed to structural.I ask why you consider them gratuitous and wonder if you consider the details of Ennis house or the Seagram building gratuitous
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.