That list represents peoples high school field trips to New York City and Washington DC. Also mixed in with a Frank Loyd Wright building and postcards of San Francisco. To me it represents peoples complete lack of education about the history of architecture.
^I actually disagree with you on that. If you look at the method it's almost entirely a result of architect voting, not public.
And under that premise it is still just a matter of fame and historical significance, which is fair in the context of trying to determine a favorite building, but has very little to do with favorite style because it only takes into into account around 1/200th of the raw data.
Miles, the disparaging snark and fuck yous is common but your comments lately have been part and parcel of that milieu. You're defending yourself against the same shit you're flinging.
No Gunnar Birkerts Federal Reserve? No Yamasaki ING Building? A deeply flawed list.
Then there's this;
When it was released, critics observed that the list of "favorites" did not reflect the judgments of architectural experts. Upon the list's release, AIA president R.K. Stewart acknowledged that the rankings did not represent architects' professional judgments, but instead reflected people's "emotional connections" to buildings.[4] Buildings named by critics as being some that architects consider to be highly significant, but that did not achieve top 150 ranking in the public survey, included the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, designed by Louis Kahn; the Inland Steel and John Hancock buildings in Chicago; Washington Dulles International Airport inChantilly, Virginia; and the Seagram Building in New York City, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.[4][5] John King of the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that in 1991 the AIA had named Eero Saarinen's design for Dulles Airport as one of ten "all-time works of American architects." King noted that the public's ratings were based on seeing just one photo of each building, and pointed out that "There's more to architecture than a picture can convey.
I think you'd end up with some similar results if you just asked the general public, but then again it's going to be very biased towards historical/famous buildings because that is all people know, and it would have very little to say about stylistic preference.
A valid test of public style preference needs to provide similar examples of buildings in different styles, preferably interior and exterior, and ask for preference between them. This would require multiple examples of each style across different markets/building functions. And it should not include well known examples because that will screw up the results.
Heaven forbid that we should have "emotional connections" to our buildings.
Just so everyone is clear, the methodology of the survey was this, from Wikipedia:
"In the first phase of the study, 2,448 AIA members were interviewed and asked to identify their "favorite" structures. Each was asked to name up to 20 structures in each of 15 defined categories. The 248 structures that were named by at least six of the AIA members were then included in a list of structures to be included in the next phase, a survey of the general public. The survey of the public involved a total of 2,214 people, each of whom rated many photographs of buildings and other structures drawn from the list of 248 structures that had been created by polling the architects. The public's preferences were ranked using a "likeability" scale developed for the study."
Architects generated a list of candidate buildings, then the public chose their favorites from that list.
the public should stop complaining and design some buildings themselves. it's a curious phenomenon where people think they care more about something than the ones who make a career out of doing it.
this is kind of what i tell myself every time i deal with shit in revit, and realize i'd rather put up with it than write software myself.
Dec 1, 19 10:29 am ·
·
TIQM
That’s what people should do - put up or shut up.
Dec 2, 19 9:41 am ·
·
TIQM
Or maybe, Autodesk should listen to the millions of people who use their products, and take what they say seriously, instead of deciding that they are uninformed and naive.
What?! Stop the rollout of never-ending ‘upgrades’ and ‘improvements’ that are useless except for requiring additional training, hardware upgrades, and subscription fees? Sacrilege.
Why won't you design what we (the public) want?
^I actually disagree with you on that. If you look at the method it's almost entirely a result of architect voting, not public.
And under that premise it is still just a matter of fame and historical significance, which is fair in the context of trying to determine a favorite building, but has very little to do with favorite style because it only takes into into account around 1/200th of the raw data.
retitle the list "buildings the american public recognizes"
i think OP is writing for Forbes now.
Miles, the disparaging snark and fuck yous is common but your comments lately have been part and parcel of that milieu. You're defending yourself against the same shit you're flinging.
I didn't realize it was architets voting. Doh. AIA, I should have known. Does that make it even less relavent?
And thanks, nate. Try to read that with an Aussie acent.
No Gunnar Birkerts Federal Reserve? No Yamasaki ING Building? A deeply flawed list.
Then there's this;
When it was released, critics observed that the list of "favorites" did not reflect the judgments of architectural experts. Upon the list's release, AIA president R.K. Stewart acknowledged that the rankings did not represent architects' professional judgments, but instead reflected people's "emotional connections" to buildings.[4] Buildings named by critics as being some that architects consider to be highly significant, but that did not achieve top 150 ranking in the public survey, included the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, designed by Louis Kahn; the Inland Steel and John Hancock buildings in Chicago; Washington Dulles International Airport inChantilly, Virginia; and the Seagram Building in New York City, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.[4][5] John King of the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that in 1991 the AIA had named Eero Saarinen's design for Dulles Airport as one of ten "all-time works of American architects." King noted that the public's ratings were based on seeing just one photo of each building, and pointed out that "There's more to architecture than a picture can convey.
@miles
I think you'd end up with some similar results if you just asked the general public, but then again it's going to be very biased towards historical/famous buildings because that is all people know, and it would have very little to say about stylistic preference.
A valid test of public style preference needs to provide similar examples of buildings in different styles, preferably interior and exterior, and ask for preference between them. This would require multiple examples of each style across different markets/building functions. And it should not include well known examples because that will screw up the results.
Heaven forbid that we should have "emotional connections" to our buildings.
Just so everyone is clear, the methodology of the survey was this, from Wikipedia:
"In the first phase of the study, 2,448 AIA members were interviewed and asked to identify their "favorite" structures. Each was asked to name up to 20 structures in each of 15 defined categories. The 248 structures that were named by at least six of the AIA members were then included in a list of structures to be included in the next phase, a survey of the general public. The survey of the public involved a total of 2,214 people, each of whom rated many photographs of buildings and other structures drawn from the list of 248 structures that had been created by polling the architects. The public's preferences were ranked using a "likeability" scale developed for the study."
Architects generated a list of candidate buildings, then the public chose their favorites from that list.
Anyone want to spark this thread up again? I miss it.
;)
I don’t know, I’m still recovering from the first go.
Spark it up bro I'll take a toke.
Only if surixurient posts again.
Miles, are you sure you want to reopen that?
We need some fresh entertainment around here. This thread is not it.
the public should stop complaining and design some buildings themselves. it's a curious phenomenon where people think they care more about something than the ones who make a career out of doing it.
this is kind of what i tell myself every time i deal with shit in revit, and realize i'd rather put up with it than write software myself.
That’s what people should do - put up or shut up.
Or maybe, Autodesk should listen to the millions of people who use their products, and take what they say seriously, instead of deciding that they are uninformed and naive.
What?! Stop the rollout of never-ending ‘upgrades’ and ‘improvements’ that are useless except for requiring additional training, hardware upgrades, and subscription fees? Sacrilege.
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.