Do you know what I love more? My children. And that is why I will never live in my MCM dream home. Because mid-century modern architecture is designed to KILL YOUR CHILDREN. (Also, moderately clumsy or drunk adults). — projectophile.wordpress.com
Red arrows show the direction of travel of children’s bodies
It is pretty certain that none of these children reached adulthood intact.
49 Comments
A parody of course. Children quickly learn how to outmaneuver their environment. Unless you are describing drunken children.
I don't think it is the dangerous angles or straight lines or floating steps the writer disagrees with but the aesthetic of modernism. I read this same critique of modernism in early 1950s era House Beautiful type article regarding 'dangerous modern elements' in (back then) today's modern homes. House and Home magazines were editorially reactionary back then and anti-modern about design.
I don't think the danger was 'physical'. More along the line of 'dangerous ideas'.
Stay away from the abstract and dangerous European design and anti-American ideas.
Typical nanny state BS. I wonder if this writer voted for Obama (sarcasm)? I'm sure those children grew up fine. I would teach my children to think and don't be an idiot, especially when by a ledge. That seems to be more valuable than any railing.
"Stay away from the abstract and dangerous European design and anti-American ideas."
Do you really think this is the narrative behind some of the dislike for these ideas?
No. It is the underlying narrative. The writer clearly states "I sure do love mid-century modern architecture."
There was a bias against modernism in the 50's. In this country alot of magazines would would not publish modern architects and modern architecture. I heard these stories from Julius Shulman.
I have my own issues with modernist design. For instance, I dont like the overall copying of graphic and sculptural aesthetics onto building design. Hybrid art-architecture and bad art is the consequence.
I'm holding out for the beautiful Japanese stair edition.
If you think the underlying narrative (in 1950's architectural criticism) was becasue the ideas where from Europe and therefor anti-American, you might not be very familiar with how modernist ideas came to this country in the first place. Nativists have always used xenophobic language to protect their own interests, but we're talking about culture here. Becasue of what used to be refered to as the 'colonial conplex' Americans have long enjoyed European ideas in culture and especially architecture. The alternate view as to why there was a reaction to this kind of work in the 1950's might be becasue you would find a similar reaction to this kind of work nowadays. Now you might not want to acknowledge that or might want to rationalize it by belitteling those who hold contrary views to your own, but it's a fact that's been studied historically and is only now begining to be understood on a psychological and neurological level.
Does that make this kind of aesthetic wrong or bad? Of course not, but to imply that the reaction to modernism whether on the surface or underlying was simply becasue it was "abstract and dangerous European design and anti-American ideas" is kind of nuts.
...Now you might not want to acknowledge that or might want to rationalize it by belitteling those who hold contrary views to your own,...
I'll ignore this.
What I think you are saying is that there is a biological, numerological just psychological aka a human bias toward certain design types - lets say traditional - designs. Numerous examples can be found all over the world. And these would express the design solutions both functionally and symbolically.
So if I follow this, visual preference is hard-wired, and I add, variations of type are symbolically expressed in different cultures, which accounts for differences of cultural style.
It's impolite to be obviously smarter than your critics, Eric. Can't you at least try to act like your 12 years old?
Personally I don't think a potted plant and a rope works very well as a safety rail on the top floor of a 4 story townhouse, but it sure does look awesome. The examples in this selection are pretty tame all things considered.
No - dont jump all-over Thayer.D. There has been research, maybe 20 or 30 years worth, that shows language maybe hard wired. Perhaps visual language, style, is hard-wired as well. That might explain a biological basis fro design preferences.
And as to my statements over the years that Euro- modernism was rejected time and again by the mainstream media,, well that is not entirely true. It was re-labeled, then hybridized with classicism and called Art Deco.
Thank you eric for encouraging civil debate. I should also appologize for insinuating that you might belittle a contrarian view as being from a 12 year old, I've just come to expect it on this site. Eitherway, my point isn't to disqualify modernism but rather to acknowledge modern science's contribution to this discussion. I personally don't think science is required to justify a darn thing when it comes to aesthetics, because as you might be aware, science also shows our disposition not to be boared to death or want novelty on some level.
My only point was to question your blanket statement that the reaction to modernism both in the 1950's and today had something to with dangerous European ideas considering how much our upper classes aped European fashion. Things have certainly changed since the 1950's considering our and Europe's position in the world, but human nature has not, and science is now giving creedance to what was casually and at times nastily dismissed as a pedestrian view of architecture.
its a well documented scientific fact that children love modernism. Chomsky has many essays about how the love of children for modernism is both head first and tail first. its hard wired. he also notes that people who hate modernism are douches who are prone to anxiety when the hands on a clock move. its not their fault though - its a hardwired condition. I imagine that the distrust of 'European ideas' was probably a bigger influence than the aping of the upper classes, though yeah Johnson and Hitchcock definitely won in the end. pedestrian views on architecture are still just that - pedestrian. this is the only science I trust.
bababah bah bah baba bah bah ba bababa bah bah bababah bah bah, etc
Pedestrians are who we build for, they are our family members, our friends, and society in general. In a free country one should be allowed to advocate for any position they like, but to dismiss the actual user of our designs is what ailes our profession the most and why we don't get the pay/respect so many on this sight seem to want. That being said, many clearly do want modernism and I personally would love to design whatever someone wants, in whatever style they'd like.
This is not to say that I wouldn't engage them in an intelligent discussion as to the pros and cons of their choices, but in the end, if you where the person hiring an architect to do you up a cubist follie on 100 acres or a historically contextual infill building in Grenwich Village, that what you'd want. You don't need to be a psychologist to understand why their taste is so bad, you need to understand human psychology to best understand how to fulfull their dreams. Like it or not, architecture is a social art.
The absence of stair handrails seems to be a spreading phenomenon. Of two houses by Bossley Architects (NZ) recently posted elsewhere on Archinect, one has them and one doesn't. This practice goes back to Wright (at least); it's surprisingly difficult to find stair handrails in his early work. He, like many another architect, seems to have despised the random diagonal line.
Handrails: they're so . . . pedestrian. Don't get me wrong; I thoroughly sympathize with the desire to "eliminate them from the picture." And I have no truck with those who would baby-proof the entire world. But -- don't the majority of household accidents still involve stairs ?
If you look closely at Ray Kappe's house you will find obstructions -- furniture, planters, etc -- placed where they would prevent accidents -- I believe. As to handrails, I would have to look again. Is anybody able to identify the lovely residential space seen in the thread's opening image ?
Off the top I think the introduction of modernist furniture to mainstream America (at least in big cities) were newspaper ads and the actual displays seen in the home furnishing areas of major department stores, esp in NYC. This was in the 30s. Moderne looking, not Bauhaus.
Another way modernism was introduced to the masses was thru films. Especially the rich moderne / deco interiors designed by MGM's head of art direction Cedric Gibbons. Gibbon's declaration that "we are only going to design (that is film sets) in the modern style" was probably the biggest influence on the public's acceptance of the modern look. Films introduced modernism would be the thesis.
Women's magazines tended to be conservative. Not much modernism there.
Nowadays it is IKEA catalogs and DWELL displaying modern taste in home furnishing.
Pedestrians are who we build for, they are our family members, our friends, and society in general. In a free country one should be allowed to advocate for any position they like, but to dismiss the actual user of our designs is what ailes our profession the most and why we don't get the pay/respect so many on this sight seem to want. That being said, many clearly do want modernism and I personally would love to design whatever someone wants, in whatever style they'd like.
There is alot wrong with this statement. First off, we don't get respect because most of what we design is shit. It is shit because we design shit that people want rather than what they need. We are like doctors that allow people to self diagnose their problem and then we just give them the required signiture on the perscription.... We cater to their shallow stylistic desires that they usually derive from other shallow idiots like the real hosewives of LA.
Instead of creating demand and creating "culture" like the modernists were trying to do with the case study houses, we just organize an existing pre-concieved mess. No one wanted an Eames chair until they saw it. If the Charles and Ray Eames designed what ever someone wanted they would not have the respect that they have today, and they would have probably produced shit work. The service model is the problem for a couple reasons.
The only quibble(s) with conflating art deco with modernism is that art deco was unabashidly decorative, even when severe and streamlined as opposed to modernism in which the aesthetic was minimalist and abstract. Also, the compositional substructure of many a deco buildings was/is essentially traditional, vs. a more abstract composition. That being said, there was/is still a lot of cross over and hybridizing. Afterall, there's a lot of picturesque design who's volumetric composition is essentially abstract if one strips all the historical references in the mind's eye. Along that line, would it be fair to say that Seagram/s Plaza is BeauArts compositionally becasue of it's rigid symmetry? This is the problem with talking in styles, it feels like nationalities that never mix, when aesthetically we all live in a Brooklyn ethnic stew of styles.
"It is shit because we design shit that people want rather than what they need." no we don't. There's a lot of shit becasue we don't respect people's choices and take the time to understand what they might be saying even if struggling with the vocabulary. Say we know what people need diminishes their own life experiences and personal predelictions. How would you like to be told what you need when you're about to spend big bucks? Some people like to be 'man-handled' intellectually, but where I live (DC) there's plenty of strong egos that don't buy into the hero architect bit. Calling people shallow and idiot is why we don't get the respect we deserve, becasue we don't respect people first. I personally like making people happy, but to reduce that to being a matter of cooking someone's burger to order is to misunderstand the whole client/archtiect relationship. If you are one of the lucky archtiects who can manage to sell yourself, more power to you, but like the lottery, the vast majority won't be able to do what Ray Eames did. Should we not care while they litter our landscape with more dross or should we teach them to listen to clients desires and interpret what it is they want. A great archtiect should be able to find their own expression while satisfying the clients, to say nothing about the context and whatever other agenda one want's to weave in there. The president of the US is supposed to serve the public. Maybe if he told us what we needed everything would be huncky dorry.
Thayer, what people "want" is already being dictated to them in a indirect way through media of all sorts. Do you really think people want Mcmansions? No! They just have very limited options and their desires are limited to a very limited architectural vocabulary. Choice is a complete fallacy. People are ignorant to the real options that they have, and by allowing them to demand a narrow idea from their narrow architectural vocab. we are doing them no service. Style is a very shallow and very limiting way of designing architecture. We can incorporate a clients wants without subjecting it to unnecassary comprimises imposed by style. I do care that a client wants a cool comfortable space with lots of exposure to nature, operable walls, a room for their elderly mother.....These are constraints, and constraints are fine...But when we simply allow our own knowledge to be surpressed by our clients pre-concieved bias toward some shallow idea we lose our legitimacy as the experts and become nothing more than a drafter.
.....would it be fair to say that Seagram/s Plaza is a BeauArts composition because of it's rigid symmetry?
TD I wouldn't argue that Seagram is BeauxArts because of symetry. I would argue that the famous added on corner columns are classically derived and are there for the visual termination of the facade. The Equivalent would be the quoins in masonry facades. Both are ways to handle the frontal plane.
.
Eric, I'd agree with your interpretation of the Seagrams corner. My guess is the early modernists training in traditional styles gave their abstractions a depth that many of their immitators lacked.
jla-x, I think the better question might be what is it about McMansions that people like. While we're at it, let's acknowledge we are talking about a continually shrinking part of the market and therefore ask, why might that be. Many peoples' architectural choices are dictated by a lot more than what style they like or are offered. Some of "our clients pre-concieved bias toward some shallow idea" is actually a thought out and well informed predeliction. I just have never subscribed to this top down approach to dealing with clients that assumes my training overides a client's vision. Afterall, non architects have spent just as much time in architecture as us so how are their experiences with it less valid than ours simply becasue they might lack the professional vocabulary to articulate their wishes?
TD - All these tricks, the visual nuance, has to do with having a good eye. And knowledge. Knowledge and looking at everything develops a good eye for design. There is a ton of visual education one can learn from classicism. Its all there if one looks.
Under the guise of "designing for 'people'" faux-old dogma from TD seeks to cultivate seeds of backwardness across the global cultural spectrum. Such push-backs are doomed to be overrun and overthrown.
The perpetual fetishization of history which TD perpetuates is perhaps the most inferior form of architectural theory every to grace the space-time continuum.
Faux-old ways of being do not meet the the challenges of 21st century Architecture. The same way living in caves did not meet the needs of forward thinking neanderthals.
Things have certainly changed since the 1950's considering our and Europe's position in the world, but human nature has not,
What does this mean? These soft statements are deployed to justify the faux-old golden rule: "people haven't changed (evolved) so let's copy some old buildings because that's the highest form of human evolution we will ever get to"
and science is now giving creedance to what was casually and at times nastily dismissed as a pedestrian view of architecture.
By scientific and neurological basis, are you referring to pop psychology articles written by subpar freelance writers?
While we're at it, let's acknowledge we are talking about a continually shrinking part of the market and therefore ask, why might that be.
Let us not cry over expired cave design.
...The perpetual 'fetishization' of history... by that do you mean 'culture'? Goebbels didnt like history or culture either, but his method of erasure was a ''machine gun (its from an actual quote)
WE could take the low road or the high with this. Lets take the high one.
I see TD's take on things as maybe post-Kantian, along the lines of Cassier and Suzanne Langer leading to Alexanders anthropocentric structuralism.
Active-man's urgent dialetic sounds more like Hegel with his pants too tight. Its all too fun. When I watch these boxing-rants I just laugh out load, alot.
Keep it going
Someone once said, "Solve the intractable problems first -- the rest will be easier."
What does it mean, the presence or absence of handrails on a stair ? Do we make pretty buildings, or do we take care of our clients' more mundane needs ? Must the lowly handrail stand for all the compromises the artist must make, to earn the title of professional technician ?
What is architecture -- really -- behind the rhetoric ?
"The perpetual fetishization of history" What this assumption never addresses is what point in time constitutes history? By my understanding, everything before this moment is history. Imagine the Renaissance times where they might have told Brunalleschi to stop fetishizing history, afterall, he was learning from 1200 year old structures. What's extremely un-modern would be to rope off certain knowledge as verbotten becasue of some ideologically inspired fear. By the way, if you really buy into this conspiracy stuff (Under the guise of "designing for 'people'), what would the motivation be, taking over the world one cornice at a time? Also, I hope you're aware that many of these "tricks" are a by-products of composition, building assembly and weather considerations.
"By scientific and neurological basis, are you referring to pop psychology articles written by subpar freelance writers?" I'll let eric chavkin field this one since he seems a bit more current on the latest scientific research.
As much fun as the Hegel Kant routine is, architects might do better by studying more architectural history and rather than German Romanticist Philosophers to better learn to design. As for the "Active-man's urgent dialetic", I'll leave that up to 'superior' minds. BTW, eric, my view isn't post-kantian, it's pre., but I appreciate you trying to put me into an ideological box. It might make it easier to frame this discussion for you, but it's completely un-necessary.
Faux-old ways of being do not meet the the challenges of 21st century Architecture. The same way living in caves did not meet the needs of forward thinking neanderthals.
Faux old and Faux new do not meet the challenges of the 21st century. Much of what is New is really just stylised to appear revolutionary. Just as faux old revivals tap into a shallow nostalgia of "better times before" Foward looking architecture is usually nothing more than a way to tap into the shallow nostalgia of "better times ahead."
Also, foward thinking is what created the problems we now face. Foward to what? Processed meat and factory farms? Global empire and Drones wars? To often we trade in our arrows for scud missles because of this faith in progress. All I'm saying is that we should look foward and back with a skepticle mindset. Without a destination we are just wondering in the dark and will probably fall off a cliff soon enough. People need to start questioning progress. Is it possible that the hopi had it right and everything since has been moving in the wrong direction? Could be. we need to study the past with and open mind and apply the lessons to the present. If we are only concerned with foward, and have no clear understanding of where we are going or where we came from, we are like lost children. Architecture should be about the Now. We shouldn't choose between history and futurism, but rather we should float between these 2 realms. We should always look back and foward and then apply to the present. Study the past and keep what works....but don't have so much faith in the past that you repeat mistakes or adopt things that are obsolete.
"Just as faux old revivals tap into a shallow nostalgia of "better times before"
What is so wrong with nostalgia? It's easy for the young to criticize becasue everything lies ahead of them (hopefully), but I thoroughly enjoy my nostalgia. Fond memories of getting gelato in Frascati outside of Rome, biking through Bed-Stuy looking at beautiful rowhouses, etc. Modernism has made a common human emotion synonymous with emotional weakness and almost neurosis. It's amazing how much modernists fear any "soft" emotion when all of us where nurtured this way.
That being said, I completely agree with jla-x that we should study the past with an eye to the future. I still wonder how anyone thinks they are 'free' from the past when we are all aglomoratoins of their own past if not centuries of culture. Learning from the 1980's or the 1880's isn't the issue as much as this constant fear of our place in history. Your place in history is now, whatever your predelictions...if it wasn't, you might be history yourself.
Eric:
Active-man's urgent dialetic sounds more like Hegel with his pants too tight. Its all too fun. When I watch these boxing-rants I just laugh out load, alot.
Precisely Eric, that is the goal, it's amusing this slowness of things, the waste it generates.
I don't bother following Hegel vigilantly, although by culture I do mean progress (purposely vague here).
jla-x:
take some fluoxetine
TD:
Also, I hope you're aware that many of these "tricks" are a by-products of composition, building assembly and weather considerations.
they are faux-old techniques for dealing with renaissance weather, incompetent to say the least given the never-ending repair work which quickly follows completion.
What is so wrong with nostalgia? It's easy for the young to criticize becasue everything lies ahead of them (hopefully), but I thoroughly enjoy my nostalgia. Fond memories of getting gelato in Frascati outside of Rome, biking through Bed-Stuy looking at beautiful rowhouses, etc.
"Nostalgia" and "wrong" are terms which hide the fact that as a faux-oldie you use nostalgia to exercise cultural luddism. It's not a young or old thing, it's smart thing, everyone benefits from greater intellect, I'm sorry but Bed-Stuy could use some of that, there is no justice in giving them anything less or backward. Hell, Mockbee was able to pull it off.
Modernism has made a common human emotion synonymous with emotional weakness and almost neurosis. It's amazing how much modernists fear any "soft" emotion when all of us where nurtured this way.
Classicism did the same thing, it's a mute point you keep playing like a broken record to justify a retarded and backwards ideology. You also ignore other modernists who never fit into your view of " the evil un 'emotional' modernists."
The only thing to fear is dumbness. It's not about 'emotion' or baby jesus.
That being said, I completely agree with jla-x that we should study the past with an eye to the future.
Improvement through learning and copy-paste historicism are vastly different, the faux-old only champions one of these. This view has been proven defunct multiple times, yet the thick skull persists.
I still wonder how anyone thinks they are 'free' from the past when we are all aglomoratoins of their own past if not centuries of culture. Learning from the 1980's or the 1880's isn't the issue as much as this constant fear of our place in history. Your place in history is now, whatever your predelictions...if it wasn't, you might be history yourself.
OOOoo, better listen to the whispers from the bygone, or we might be stuck in the past, tap into your inner caveman today.
Watch now, Alexander will turn back into a primate
lol
somebody needs a hug.
TD <Also, I hope you're aware that many of these "tricks" are a by-products of composition, building assembly and weather considerations...
Totally aware of this: I had the pleasure of examining the folio on Borromoni's Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza. Borromoni is well-known for his architectural effects. His 'tricks' are so well integrated into the building primary functions. For instance, the spiral cupola provides light, has an interesting way of shedding rain, and a semi hidden pathway to the top for exterior maintenance. Each page was a classroom of details .and planning.
When I was married to my librarian wife, we had access to Juila Morgans vellums for the Hearst Castle. We just rolled them out and read how she developed her effects.
I can go on. But I need more coffee
I'd love to hear more someday, that stuff fascinates me.
Archives are a great place to go and see how it was done. Julia Morgans architecture archives are at San Luis Opisbo. Chicago Historic Society has some of the 19thC Chicago works. SAA Society of American Archivists may have a good list of architectural holdings.
TD - You mentioned the German Romantics. That school of philosophy is most responsible for all the self-expressionists fighting to be seen. Each building is a work of art that has a soul and heart that must be expressed and freed. Yeah.
The rule based based approach inherent in classicism may not have the same psychologically motivated expressionism but they still work. The surface 'tricks' of classicism work. May lack psychological depth but are visually stunning.
A lot of my criticism is just analyzing and naming the visual device(s). That's where my fun comes in
somebody needs an ipad
I would be willing to bet that not only did those children survive, they grew up to be a lot cooler than the average adult.
It's interesting you should qualify classicism as not having psychological depth and by extension modernism having it. Modernism's intellectually and psychologically roots are in German Romanticism of the 19th century where classicism is more about a sensory experience produced by the building's form. When not purely functionalist, modernism strove to suplant classicism's sensory beauty with the sublime, where by one's personal psychological experience was valued over one's physiological reaction to a building.
The problem with this idea is that whatever psychological depth the author of the sublime work hoped to elicit in his viewer has to compete with the viewer's actual psychological state, and if that's where you placed all your chips, if those are the only "tricks" you're playing, then the experience usually fails to live up to the author's promise, assuming that engaging a viewer is deemed important.
modernisms roots were in evolutionary processes,
Drawing parallels with philosophical hunches is reductionist and stagnant, ie. in-complex data.
BTW, Classicism's take on psychology and physiology is akin to rain-dancing. It has nothing on the machine logic studied by modernists.
When not purely functionalist, modernism strove to suplant classicism's sensory beauty with the sublime, where by one's personal psychological experience was valued over one's physiological reaction to a building.
Barragan, Aalto, Zevi, among others debunk this faux-old myth.
I am describing classicism with an admittedly broad brush, as a rule based method to produce perceptual aesthetic effects.
"It has nothing on the machine logic studied by modernists." I'm not sure one aesthetic has to dominate the other one. Modernism never looked so good as when in a traditional context. The abstraction comes alive when what is being abstracted is present. The sensual modernists, Barragan, Aalto, Zevi (I would add Erro Sarranin) definatly strove to breath some life/humanity to modernism that's much appreciated for us who aren't in a trance to 'machine logic', but it only belies this artificial line between traditionalism and modernist partisans insist on. What's more cold and machine like than Versailles endless facades? The real fear seems to be with stylistic mysogination, eliminating arbitrary lines between all architectural visions, which is unfortunate becasue it's in these transitory spaces where many interesting aesthetic leaps tend to take place.
<modernism strove to supplant classicism's sensory beauty with the sublime,
The experience of Modernist sublime would be from the effects of exaggerated scalel, endless facade, endless repetition, overuse of transparency and mirrors, abstraction of the visual composition to a point of out of body experience (my favorite).
I think these could the equivalent to the inventory of compositional devices or tricks of classicism. alienation expressed. TD thanks for getting me out of my state of depression....
any time!
"BTW, Classicism's take on psychology and physiology is akin to rain-dancing. It has nothing on the machine logic studied by modernists." I'm not sure one aesthetic has to dominate the other one.
You misquoted, this wasn't about aesthetics it was about physiological and psychological applications, something which classicism is not equipped to deal with.
Speaking of sublime vs sensory beauty...(that's a line you drew), terms like "sublime" and "sensory beauty" are funny dichotomies, like god vs satan, fairies vs gargoyles. Interactions were interesting 100 years ago. There are other, far more advanced mathematics you won't learn about from pattern language.
Modernism never looked so good as when in a traditional context.
Ok Krier jr, and North Korea is good for South Korea.
The abstraction comes alive when what is being abstracted is present. The sensual modernists, Barragan, Aalto, Zevi (I would add Erro Sarranin) definatly strove to breath some life/humanity to modernism that's much appreciated for us who aren't in a trance to 'machine logic',
Here we go again with funny religious terms. They weren’t sensual modernists, they were realists who saw other applications of modernist ingredients.. Zevi in particular was not about hocus pocus sensuality.
Ok add Saarinen, it fits your anti-intellectual (pro-dumb) agenda, add Corb while you're at it too.
but it only belies this artificial line between traditionalism and modernist partisans insist on.
Lines are what divide winners and losers. Traditionalism especially the faux kind, has and always will be on the losing end of history.
What's more cold and machine like than Versailles endless facades? The real fear seems to be with stylistic mysogination, eliminating arbitrary lines between all architectural visions, which is unfortunate becasue it's in these transitory spaces where many interesting aesthetic leaps tend to take place.
The biggest leaps don’t come from admiring copy/paste historicism ( marginal movement). There are continuums which continue despite superficial interaction.
Worshiping marginal movements, like faux-oldism is a gigantic waste of time. Again, staring at interactions was cool a long time ago.
Active-man
What are you talking about???
Essentially, thayer-d is a big conservative
Here is an unofficial term,
Faux-old architecture: architecture which pretends to be from a time it isn't from.
There are some rules to this, units of measurement, etc. but that's the gist of it.
Architects like krier, alexander, dpz, sometimes Stern, and other conservative/religious figures are proponents of what TD preaches.
I know it all too well....what he says before he says it, and how it all plays it out. He is still staring at the interactions drooling with a baffled grin saying "geez ain't people great"
To top it off, TD's statements are unbelievably dumb.
Like a well-oiled faux-old time machine TD generates the same inferior grammatical structures with the redundancy of GWB. The only reason TD the troll generates 50 comments on every thread he pollutes is because it's so easy for people not tono one glorify the stone age like he does.
Also, once his opinions are exposed as inferior he quickly slimes his way into the role of democratic speaker. saying things, like "hey guys, it's just an opinion, we are all whole."
BS, it's not a way forward, it's beyond redundant.
People have seen and done things, Eric. A-mazing things, and the topics TD trolls on about pretty much stagnate society.
I'm vague in some way because there are....some things which are worth protecting from conservative fuitcakes like TD
there have been quite a few cases of infants and kids plunging to their deaths from dubai tower windows and balconies. quite recent ones. so yes, the worse happens.
developers, architects, landlords, tenants themselves need to ascertain that spaces are acceptably childrenproof wherever children are expected to be occupants. it is not a humourous subject for people with kids.
<active -man Thanks for the clarifications. BUT, if I am not mistaken Krier 's politics are left Euro-socialist. Chris Alexander taught at Berkeley and his architectural methods mimic Structural Anthropology, ala Levi-Strauss. Robert Stern's politics is unknown probably is or was Democratic.
The architecture preservation movements both in Europe and America were started by the left.
Classicism is interpreted as Humanism,
So, which political persuasion would be more likely to press for codes that would mitigate the hazards of stairways ? Is that a "conservative" prerogative or a "liberal" one ?
OMA and others do ramps...
eric that is popularly known, I could write much more but here is a summary. Alexander prays... Stern built for GWB, Krier is a modern fascist.
Preservation may have been initiated by leftists, but it was nevertheless a conservative measure.
As for humanism it borders on luddism, especially when compared to...
that's all I can say.
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.