The Architecture thread

:lol2: :lol2:

 

I take it back. This had proven to be extremely entertaining after all.

 

As afore-said, why am I in denial if I need not to proof anything to the majority here. Have you actually done any updates on your so-called serious examples including the Katrina Cottages?

 

So you are not trained enough to design buildings but you are qualified to criticize designs by "starchitects"! (I am not vouching for them) ROFLMAO!!! Sure, everyone is entitled to free speech in this part of the world. But what you wrote is just so laughable!

 

What I said is laughable? Howso? And yes, I can criticize the designs of the "starchitects" --- I have given plenty of reasons for this. That you actually think one cannot be qualified to critique such designs if not an architect is a textbook example of precisely what is wrong with the contemporary architecture profession. They think that they and only they are qualified to critique their own designs. So if they produce crazy design after crazy design (numerous of which I have demonstrated), they think they are above criticism, as if beauty and appearance is something that can only be judged when one has some kind of advanced degree.

 

And yes, one can not be qualified to design architecture that is actually livable, yet still plenty able to criticize what are wacky designs. If I see a beautiful French Chateau, I am not qualified to design such a building. But if an architecture firm designs a home that looks like a trailer broken in two, you can bet I am going to call them out on it.

 

What failures? My last paragraph was not directed to the "serious" examples that you posted. It's a general comment which you obviously missed the point because you are so anal about your examples. Answer this, have any of your serious examples been actually built? Of course, you can counter with that is exactly the point which stands the reason. Those are concept drawings Wheels and conceptual render can be outright hilarious --- as proven by you. And are you even aware of the political fiasco related to the Katrina Cottages?

 

2,800 of them have been built to date. Not aware of any political fiasco, but that has nothing to do with the practicality of the designs and their popularity. I know they are controversial with, not surprisingly, the modernists.

 

Honestly Wheels, quit while you can. You already said you aren't trained enough for this so pushing your argument will lead you to absolutely no where; you already painted yourself into a corner. I give you merits for putting on a brave face but there really isn't anything else beyond that. While you say no one had successfully refuted you, on the flip side, what else have you said other than "it's ugly, it violates the norm, it's anarchy and I hate it". Everything else are your mere rebuttals of what the majority had said towards you.

 

Actually, that's not what I have said. What I have said is that if the building is ugly and very difficult to engineer, difficult to construct, and expensive, and likely difficult and expensive to maintain as well, that it is not any demonstration of skill on the part of the so-called architect, as pretty much every criterion for the architect to meet has not been met. If engineering and cost are not real concerns in the end, then why have an architect at all? Just dream up some wacky design and let the engineers handle it.

 

And yes, it's anarchy, not because it violates the norm, but rather because it doesn't adhere to any kind of design discipline. It's just nonsense masquerading as art. As I have pointed out, take a look at the various buildings from these architecture firms---many of them are just versions of regular buildings that have been completely screwed up. Look at the rectangle that has half the ground under it missing. Or the various contemporary designs for the Hurricane Katrina victims, where they take normal structures and make them look like a tornado came through. That is not creativity, or skill, of any kind, it is just anarchy. Anyone could dream up such designs.

 

Look at Frank Gehry's various designs; he does the exact same thing for the most part. Takes normal buildings and wacks them out. Here are some more examples:

 

Where is the high level of skill in this design?

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

Pretty much anybody could design these.

 

I've been watching this unfold for the last two days.

 

Wheels, as a musician and someone who paints / draws, let me put this in the most simple way possible:

 

Art is Art. Music is art. Architecture is art. While some is more appealing than others, you have no idea what that person was feeling or how hard they worked, or even what life experiences they may have endured to feel the way they did to create what they did. While your opinions have been respected by others, I can't help but cringe when I read some of your comments about how some things have no style. Maybe not all of the examples you gave were the best works of architecture, but someone slaved away to design that, someone received inspiration to create that, someone stay up every night to make that, and I'm sure a few people put everything they had into some of these buildings. Whether it be appealing or not, there is a certain level of respect that should be given to someone who creates art, whether it is your thing or not. Artists understand this and a lot of artists are open minded people.

 

I do not agree that the examples I gave are designs someone slaved over. You don't need to slave to come up with the basic design of those buildings. Where the slaving comes in is with regards to the engineers who have to figure out how to make the structure actually work. Random noise is not accepted as music, which is what these buildings generally are the architectural equivalent of.

 

Also, you are incorrect if you think that most artists are open-minded. That depends. One only need look at the disdain, rejection, snide dismissal, and ignorance displayed by the architectural profession towards classical architecture, and towards criticism of their own work.

 

I'm not saying you have to like it, but I'm saying that next time before judging something or someone, stop yourself and think about what may have inspired them or what they may have gone through to create such works. Once you do this, you may find yourself understanding art differently.

 

For private art, I can be more accepting. For example, if you want to put a sculpture in your home that in my opinion looks like a pile of scrap, that's fine by me. I don't have to look at it. I get bent out-of-shape though by architecture that is forced onto the public and artwork that is forced onto the public. And I especially get critical of an architectural profession that thinks it is beyond criticism, that responds to Joe Average saying that their design looks like crap with the attitude of, "YOU are not an architect, therefore you have no business even commenting on the subject."

 

Agreed. Interesting to note that plenty of new stadiums are being built in China. Aesthetics-wise, they do look pretty cool. Although some did say the one in the first pic looks a bit like a toilet bowl.

 

I actually like most of those stadium designs. They are contemporary and aesthetically beautiful. They (for the most part) do not look like buildings where the architect designed them without regard to engineering or construction, and they do not look at all like ordinary versions of buildings that have been hit by an earthquake, tornado, and sledgehammer. Instead, they make a lot of sense. They're to buildings what modern automobiles are to automotive design, or what modern yachts are to ship design. Although a few of them do look kind of like giant 1950s flying saucers.

That's you biggest problem, those damn books

 

You have no real world experience, trying to learn bricklaying from a book is akin with learning how to have sex from one, nothing beats real life experiences.

 

Fortis, I am not trying to learn bricklaying from a book. That particular book is about the HISTORY of the brick in world architecture, and how it has been used in all sorts of architecture through human history.

 

You read those damn books, articles and god knows what else and you come on in here and argue about things which you have no real world experience with until you give yourself a nose bleed and the rest of us high blood pressure

I spend millions every year in this domain and I don't think I read 10% of what you probably did.

 

Yes, but here's where this argument, IMO, doesn't hold. If you are talking about say construction or actual engineering, then of course I'd be wrong to be criticizing people with real experience. For example, if abolfaz is showing pictures of how he builds yachts, and I go and say, "Abolfaz, that's wrong how you're building your yachts. I know 'cause I read about it in a book!" well then of course that is ridiculous. But that is not what I am doing.

 

What I am criticizing is ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, i.e. the aesthetics and basic layout of the building. And what I criticize are designs that, as far as I can tell, are completely crazy and wacky. So I criticize them and the following happens:

 

L/P Member: "Wonderful building!"

 

WheelsRCool: "Crazy, ugly building. The so-called architect should have his head examined."

 

L/P Member: "You are not an architect. And you have no experience with architecture. Who are YOU to criticize?"

 

WheelsRCool: "Okay, so how is the building an example of skill? To me it is ugly, and also it's expensive, difficult to engineer, and difficult to construct. So where is the skill of the architect demonstrated?"

 

L/P Member: "You have no real experience in an architecture firm."

 

WheelsRCool: "That's not an answer."

 

L/P Member: "Do you have any idea of the difficulty involved in creating such a building??"

 

WheelsRCool: "That's an example of engineering achievement, not architectural achievement. The design looks like someone took a normal building an hit it with a wrecking ball. How is that skill on the architect's part?"

 

and so forth...

 

The problem is that the contemporary architectural profession likes to think of itself as being in a class like engineers, medical doctors, etc...where one cannot criticize unless one has special knowledge. For example, if a structural engineer designs a bridge, and I say, "That bridge looks like it will collapse," it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "It looks like that because you just do not understand the engineering that went into it. Trust me, the structure will stand."

 

But the reality is that architecture is not in that same realm. If the average Jane or Joe sees a building that looks incredibly stupid and ugly, chances are it's because the building design is quite literally incredibly stupid. Take the example I keep using of the trailer broken in two. What advanced architectural knowledge is needed to see the "genius" in that design? If someone says that design looks extremely dumb, that's because it pretty much is. Or the design of the rectangle with half the ground underneath it missing.

 

Ok, one thing I want to touch on because you keep on repeating the argument, why don't people design and build their houses in a similar fashion, the punched by an imaginary giant design, the answer is simple, COST!

 

Cladding alone on some of those buildings is many thousands on dollars per square meters, engineering, architectural drawings and the rest of consultancy work in most cases could exceed the cost of one or more average family homes.

 

PLEASE don't counter-argue by telling me that those designs are ridiculously expensive to conceive, engineer and build

 

Fortis, if contemporary architecture is such an advancement over classical architecture, then why is it only for rich people, institutions, and governments? Classical architecture doesn't have this problem. It is for poor, rich, government buildings, commercial buildings, etc...for everybody. Why is it that contemporary architecture is completely unable to produce viable designs for normal middle-class homes? Why is it that when tasked with creating viable home designs for Hurricane Katrina victims, the designs were not only total failures, but basically consisted of taking normal designs and wacking them out. For example, the trailer broken in two design?

 

If contemporary architecture is such an advancement, and the architects have actual skill, then they ought to be able to meet the very basic, societal requirement of designing viable homes for people to live in---homes that are elegant and pleasing to look at, affordable, easy to construct, etc...not homes that are seen by many as ugly, wacky, and that are expensive, difficult to engineer, and difficult to construct, and that have problems with mold and leaky roofs.

 

And how is contemporary architecture any kind of progress or advancement in architecture period if their buildings for rich clients are so expensive and difficult? Expensive and difficult should only come into play if great beauty in the structure is involved, and the client wants to pay for it. But many (most?) of these structures are nothing of the sort appearance-wise.

Wheels, you just don't know when to quit, do you?

 

Fellippe rescued the thread by steering it back on course and everyone moved along with it only have you get it derailed again.

 

I'll try to make this short and then I will move on:

 

You criticized how easy it is for the architect to design a building--- akin to doodling on a piece of napkin. And yet when challenged by emanon and I to come up with a good design of your own, you said you are not trained enough to do so. So logic would dictate that you don't even qualify to doodle on a piece of napkin. And yet here you are criticizing someone who is universally acclaimed to one of the best in the field. So go figure...

 

You also said people always don't understand/misunderstand you because your posts are too long etc... It isn't the length of you posts Wheels, it's the crap and your logic --- or lack thereof. And evidently, you stubbornness on your lame defenses do not help one single bit either. Many here are making fun of you and a few are actually trying to shelter and mentor you. But you obvious failed to realize that and, whether you know it or admit it or not, you are thumbing your nose in the air by crap talking out of your ass. You are the fool here Wheels, no one else and from here onward, I doubt there will be anyone left to shelter you. You will only be the court jester of L/P. And you can go on your perpetual defense for all you want; no one would possibly care.

very difficult to engineer, difficult to construct, and expensive, and likely difficult and expensive to maintain as well,

 

Wheels, we have gone over this. Just because something is difficult and expensive does not mean it requires no skill to design. And because YOU don't like it, DOES NOT MAKE IT UGLY, NON-FUNCTIONAL, OR WASTEFUL

 

 

Where is the high level of skill in this design?

 

 

Pretty much anybody could design these.

THEN DO IT AND POST IT HERE

 

I do not agree that the examples I gave are designs someone slaved over. You don't need to slave to come up with the basic design of those buildings.

 

And you wouldn't agree, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO fcuking IDEA WHAT GOES INTO IT. These are YEARS in design by all parties involved. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE, I DO THIS ALL G-D DAY LONG, THAT IS HOW IT GOES. YOU'RE 1000000% WRONG, THE END.

 

I guarantee you those buildings went through literally hundreds of iterations and thousands of design hours to get the proportions, scale, and dimension right. The mere fact that it looks so simple is a testament to the skill involved in executing it. But you will NEVER understand that until you try to design something more elaborate than a bbq.

 

If "anyone" can do it, why don't they? There is BIG money in it.

 

And somehow drawing the same arcs that have been around for thousands of years is more skillful?

 

We get it, you don't like it. But everything you have done to attempt to discredit these designs makes you look just plain ignorant, end of story.

 

For the final time, WHAT IS FORCED ON THE PUBLIC? You pointed out ONE public example (Dallas) that is pretty mild. Everything else is privately owned, so you can't use them as examples in your argument, because you don't care about private work.

Why waste time & bandwidth emanon? Our responses would only give him more excuses to talk crap and getting his kicks. Why fall into his trap? Why feed him at all?

 

 

 

Anyway, more pics of some cool-looking stadium.

 

One is from southern China, the other from northern Japan.

Wheels, you just don't know when to quit, do you?

 

You can't think that just laughing at my points and saying they are ridiculous without really arguing how is going to make me just run away?

 

Fellippe rescued the thread by steering it back on course and everyone moved along with it only have you get it derailed again.

 

I'll try to make this short and then I will move on:

 

You criticized how easy it is for the architect to design a building--- akin to doodling on a piece of napkin. And yet when challenged by emanon and I to come up with a good design of your own, you said you are not trained enough to do so. So logic would dictate that you don't even qualify to doodle on a piece of napkin. And yet here you are criticizing someone who is universally acclaimed to one of the best in the field. So go figure...

 

I am not qualified to design the type of architecture I would design (classical). I wouldn't design in the way the contemporary architects design.

 

You also said people always don't understand/misunderstand you because your posts are too long etc... It isn't the length of you posts Wheels, it's the crap and your logic --- or lack thereof. And evidently, you stubbornness on your lame defenses do not help one single bit either. Many here are making fun of you and a few are actually trying to shelter and mentor you. But you obvious failed to realize that and, whether you know it or admit it or not, you are thumbing your nose in the air by crap talking out of your ass. You are the fool here Wheels, no one else and from here onward, I doubt there will be anyone left to shelter you. You will only be the court jester of L/P. And you can go on your perpetual defense for all you want; no one would possibly care.

 

What crap and what faulty logic? What "lame defenses?" People can make fun all they want, IMO those doing so is because they can't actually rebut what I am saying. While I appreciate anyone trying to shelter me, on this I am plenty fine, as sheltering takes the standpoint that I am wrong and I do not see how. You say I am "talking crap out of my ass," yet I haven't seen any solid argument given on that.

 

Why waste time & bandwidth emanon? Our responses would only give him more excuses to talk crap and getting his kicks. Why fall into his trap? Why feed him at all?

 

Yeah, I prescribed my own solution. My brain just doesn't want to believe that level of ignorant is actually possible, but I should know better. He could get punched in the face and refuse to believe it actually happened.

 

'll post some pics of interesting things I'm working on in a bit.

 

Wheels, we have gone over this. Just because something is difficult and expensive does not mean it requires no skill to design. And because YOU don't like it, DOES NOT MAKE IT UGLY, NON-FUNCTIONAL, OR WASTEFUL

 

That it is difficult and expensive unto itself doesn't mean it requires no skill. Baroque was difficult and expensive for example. But it isn't difficult to see that a building that is essentially a wacky-looking version of a normal building is something that doesn't take much in the skill department. And sure, just because I don't like it, but when most of the public doesn't, that should tell you something. Again, only in architecture are the aesthetics supposed to be something that one needs a degree to understand. This doesn't happen in consumer appliances, electronics, automobiles, etc...

 

THEN DO IT AND POST IT HERE

 

Don't insult people's intelligence. You think that someone couldn't design most of those examples I cited? Even if one couldn't draw, they're easy to think up and express to an artist.

 

And you wouldn't agree, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO fcuking IDEA WHAT GOES INTO IT. These are YEARS in design by all parties involved. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE, I DO THIS ALL G-D DAY LONG, THAT IS HOW IT GOES. YOU'RE 1000000% WRONG, THE END.

 

Nope, not in terms of the basic aesthetic design of the building. You are talking about the engineering, financing, materials, and all that. You are not going to tell me that "years" go into designing the basic appearance of this:

 

 

I guarantee you those buildings went through literally hundreds of iterations and thousands of design hours to get the proportions, scale, and dimension right. The mere fact that it looks so simple is a testament to the skill involved in executing it. But you will NEVER understand that until you try to design something more elaborate than a bbq.

 

If "anyone" can do it, why don't they? There is BIG money in it.

 

There was big money for the guy who made the stuffed shark, but you don't see fishermen all becoming instant millionaires because of that do you? And what exactly is getting the proportions, scale, and dimension "right" when they are clearly all wrong to most anyone who looks at the structure? Why is it that whether the structure looks good or not is supposed to only be the purview of those with advanced training? How about the examples of the homes for the Katrina victims I provided? You think those require years to design and/or construct?

 

And somehow drawing the same arcs that have been around for thousands of years is more skillful?

 

We get it, you don't like it. But everything you have done to attempt to discredit these designs makes you look just plain ignorant, end of story.

 

Nope, not end of story at all. Discrediting these designs hasn't been much of a problem. Rather, discrediting my points I'd say is where all the failure here has been. You also demonstrate the attitude of much of the profession, in that it just can't stand being criticized.

 

For the final time, WHAT IS FORCED ON THE PUBLIC? You pointed out ONE public example (Dallas) that is pretty mild. Everything else is privately owned, so you can't use them as examples in your argument, because you don't care about private work.

 

Well actually, I would modify that view as I've been thinking about that, because actually, even many of these private structures are in fact forced onto the public in terms of the fact that the public is forced to look at them everyday. Architects ought to at least take the public into account when designing structures, but they rarely do. Okay, so the structure may not be publicly-owned, but that still doesn't stop it from being an eyesore. And I cited multiple examples of ugly public buildings.

 

 

Wow, what sports do they play in this thing? (I see there are 2 fields?)

'll post some pics of interesting things I'm working on in a bit.

 

I can't wait to see! Maybe you could teach me a few things! I'm always looking for new inspiration. I've been designing CAD files non-stop lately and it's hard work. I'm trying to find things to help me think of new designs and different ideas.

 

I look forward to it!

The allianz arena is proper badass. Just google it because there are so many pictures of it in different colours.

Real benchmark for a modern stadium.

 

 

Wheels, stop being a div.

 

You are living in the past, you seem to read a book on every subject in the land except the book on how to be normal.

Who the fcuk reads books on bricklaying and talks about it on an automotive forum?

Take a step back and look at your posts, looks at the responses you are getting. You need to spend some time understanding the world a bit better, put the book on "How to knit your own Victorian themed Merkins" down and go and look at real life.

It is getting a bit tiresome now.

Why waste time & bandwidth emanon? Our responses would only give him more excuses to talk crap and getting his kicks. Why fall into his trap? Why feed him at all?

 

 

 

Anyway, more pics of some cool-looking stadium.

 

One is from southern China, the other from northern Japan.

 

No opening roofs no care

 

As a separate note on wheels' whatever that was, the protector of bricks, arches, gargoyles and other unnecessary ornaments, discontinued lightbulbs and all that is old, musty and moldy, in spite of the fact that he talks a lot of crazy, A LOT, few good things came out if it, we got to see some amazing modern designs, discuss the works of some incredible architects and most importantly gain a new member, zoidberg, who with only two posts made a lasting impression on me, zoidberg welcome to LP I hope you stick around and contribute

Fortis, I am not trying to learn bricklaying from a book. That particular book is about the HISTORY of the brick in world architecture, and how it has been used in all sorts of architecture through human history.

 

 

 

Yes, but here's where this argument, IMO, doesn't hold. If you are talking about say construction or actual engineering, then of course I'd be wrong to be criticizing people with real experience. For example, if abolfaz is showing pictures of how he builds yachts, and I go and say, "Abolfaz, that's wrong how you're building your yachts. I know 'cause I read about it in a book!" well then of course that is ridiculous. But that is not what I am doing.

 

What I am criticizing is ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, i.e. the aesthetics and basic layout of the building. And what I criticize are designs that, as far as I can tell, are completely crazy and wacky. So I criticize them and the following happens:

 

L/P Member: "Wonderful building!"

 

WheelsRCool: "Crazy, ugly building. The so-called architect should have his head examined."

 

L/P Member: "You are not an architect. And you have no experience with architecture. Who are YOU to criticize?"

 

WheelsRCool: "Okay, so how is the building an example of skill? To me it is ugly, and also it's expensive, difficult to engineer, and difficult to construct. So where is the skill of the architect demonstrated?"

 

L/P Member: "You have no real experience in an architecture firm."

 

WheelsRCool: "That's not an answer."

 

L/P Member: "Do you have any idea of the difficulty involved in creating such a building??"

 

WheelsRCool: "That's an example of engineering achievement, not architectural achievement. The design looks like someone took a normal building an hit it with a wrecking ball. How is that skill on the architect's part?"

 

and so forth...

 

The problem is that the contemporary architectural profession likes to think of itself as being in a class like engineers, medical doctors, etc...where one cannot criticize unless one has special knowledge. For example, if a structural engineer designs a bridge, and I say, "That bridge looks like it will collapse," it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "It looks like that because you just do not understand the engineering that went into it. Trust me, the structure will stand."

 

But the reality is that architecture is not in that same realm. If the average Jane or Joe sees a building that looks incredibly stupid and ugly, chances are it's because the building design is quite literally incredibly stupid. Take the example I keep using of the trailer broken in two. What advanced architectural knowledge is needed to see the "genius" in that design? If someone says that design looks extremely dumb, that's because it pretty much is. Or the design of the rectangle with half the ground underneath it missing.

 

 

 

Fortis, if contemporary architecture is such an advancement over classical architecture, then why is it only for rich people, institutions, and governments? Classical architecture doesn't have this problem. It is for poor, rich, government buildings, commercial buildings, etc...for everybody. Why is it that contemporary architecture is completely unable to produce viable designs for normal middle-class homes? Why is it that when tasked with creating viable home designs for Hurricane Katrina victims, the designs were not only total failures, but basically consisted of taking normal designs and wacking them out. For example, the trailer broken in two design?

 

If contemporary architecture is such an advancement, and the architects have actual skill, then they ought to be able to meet the very basic, societal requirement of designing viable homes for people to live in---homes that are elegant and pleasing to look at, affordable, easy to construct, etc...not homes that are seen by many as ugly, wacky, and that are expensive, difficult to engineer, and difficult to construct, and that have problems with mold and leaky roofs.

 

And how is contemporary architecture any kind of progress or advancement in architecture period if their buildings for rich clients are so expensive and difficult? Expensive and difficult should only come into play if great beauty in the structure is involved, and the client wants to pay for it. But many (most?) of these structures are nothing of the sort appearance-wise.

 

 

Clearly you completely disregarded my last post, with a number of references and precedents, which disproves most of your claims that you keep reinforcing with no substance whatsoever.

No opening roofs no care

 

As a separate note on wheels' whatever that was, the protector of bricks, arches, gargoyles and other unnecessary ornaments, discontinued lightbulbs and all that is old, musty and moldy, in spite of the fact that he talks a lot of crazy, A LOT, few good things came out if it, we got to see some amazing modern designs, discuss the works of some incredible architects and most importantly gain a new member, zoidberg, who with only two posts made a lasting impression on me, zoidberg welcome to LP I hope you stick around and contribute

 

 

Thanks for the kind words, Fortis. Looking forward to continue discussing topics, architecture and lamborghini related, with you.

Wheels, stop being a div.

 

What's a div?

 

You are living in the past, you seem to read a book on every subject in the land except the book on how to be normal.

Who the fcuk reads books on bricklaying and talks about it on an automotive forum?

 

1) It's not a book on bricklaying, it's a book on the history of brick architecture

 

2) I talk about it in the architecture thread on an automotive forum. So I don't see what the big deal is there. I like architecture a lot, and the history of architecture and the history of building construction interest me a lot. How the brick has been used in the history of architecture is an interesting subject, as the brick is an ancient building material.

 

3) It was a response to Fortis on bricklaying

 

4) How am I "living in the past?"

 

Take a step back and look at your posts, looks at the responses you are getting. You need to spend some time understanding the world a bit better, put the book on "How to knit your own Victorian themed Merkins" down and go and look at real life.

It is getting a bit tiresome now.

 

The responses, IMO, were because I said something controversial and when told I don't know what I'm talking about debated back.

 

Clearly you completely disregarded my last post, with a number of references and precedents, which disproves most of your claims that you keep reinforcing with no substance whatsoever.

 

I did not disregard your post and provided a response to it.

 

EDIT: WHOOPS! I realize I didn't!. Sorry. I will read it now.

The whole point of architecture is to push the envelope of fabricational technologies and spatial experiences, and always have been. Baroque architecture pushed the limits of ornamentation, Gothic vaults pushed the limit of unecessary height - All of these 'unecessary practices' were criticized, but are celebrated today. Gehry, whether one says he's doing it correctly or not, again is purely subjective. What you seize to look at is the theoretical side of architecture, which many classical examples including Etienne Boulle, Borommini was based on theorectical arguments that probably would have seem odd back in the day. I wouldn't be surprised if they had the exact same conversation we are having.

 

The point of architecture is not to push the envelope, it is to produce aesthetically-pleasing, functional, livable, workable, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly structures to improve the built environment and the human condition. It is not to create monstrosities that are basically monuments to the ego of the architect. Pushing the limits structurally can be one of the elements for certain buildings, but it most definitely is not the point of architecture, as most architecture is not for people who have lots of money to spend. For example, the purpose of the Katrina homes should not have been to push the envelope structurally, it should have been to do the exact opposite.

 

Regarding the architecture of the past you mention, most of those older forms of architecture were not considered ugly by people though. Some of them may be too plain, others too ornamental, but all generally are pleasing to the eye. Most contemporary architecture is not pleasing to the eye, IMO, and much of it is just plain stupid, for example the Katrina homes I showed. I had said this to Fortis, who said that the reason you don't find contemporary architecture in most residential home design is because it is too costly...well isn't that a pretty bad indictment of the architectural profession? In other words, it's a profession only for the rich and elite, and not at all for the general population.

 

If Gehry can design truly beautiful, truly contemporary buildings, that push the limits structurally, that's fine if someone is willing to pay for it, but to force ugly buildings that look like normal buildings hit by a sledgehammer onto the public is wrong. It also calls into question the skill of him as an architect.

 

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Gehry created something that is impossibly difficult to construct, so he opened a door to make it possible. The heroes are all the people who combine to design and create the building, no single group or single person. Gehry is actually part of his structural engineering team on every one of his project, so to say the real heroes are the engineers says it includes Gehry (who is the architect) as well. He is simply paving the road to the next mystery door to be open.

 

Anarchistic design need not be the way to do that though. The way to do that is like with any art, where you build on what has come before. Modern car design is a result of the cumulative knowledge of automotive design from when cars first appeared. That is what modern architecture should be, but isn't, because the last 3,000 years worth of accumulated knowledge was done away with. Modern music composition and modern cooking and baking are also the result of building on accumulated knowledge. Architecture doesn't do this, and thus we get buildings that look like someone hit them with a sledgehammer, or that look like a trailer broken in two.

 

Not very different from car technology. Take porsche for example. A lot of the technology from the 959 trickled down into the 993, and the same thing will probably happen with the 918 where we will see and KERS system of some sort in the next GT3 RS. Sure, the 959/918 are not perfect and far from practical, but their pioneered technologies will trickle down into their more common lines of cars such as the cayman or the 911. Of course while all this happening, Porsche is probably already working on the successor to the 918, maybe something with hydrogen and electric and petrol combination. Who knows. Fact is, this is the same thing with architecture. It's pushing the envelope and after that envelope is open you look for the next one to open. Some may fail, some may succeed.

 

Cars I'd say are a different comparison, because the analogy with architecture would be the car design aesthetically, not the car's engineering. All expensive cars, in order to sell well, have to be aesthetically pleasing to a large enough audience. And if a car is produced and people start saying, "That thing is ugly!" you don't then get the automotive design profession coming out and complaining that such people have no business criticizing, that they are not trained automotive designers and thus don't know what they're talking about. When automobiles win design awards, most of the public agrees. But not so with architecture awards, where it's basically the profession congratulating itself.

 

And sports cars are very practical for their intended purpose, which is to be beautiful cars that go very fast, and constantly push the engineering and design envelope in that sense. But contemporary architecture is just stupid for its intended purposes, and unnecessarily costly. It is the equivalent of making a sports car that weighs 6,000 lbs and is not aerodynamically shaped, and then trying to make it go very fast anyway.

 

Slowly but surely, the cost of this 'expensive gehry fabrication' will become less and less expensive, just like how computers have since the 80s. If you calculate inflation for a 3000$ computer in the 90s that would make the top of the line macbook seem like a bag of chips, a bag of chips that 20x more powerful.

 

So why not push the limits structurally with beautiful buildings?

 

Residential design is dominated by classical architecture because it has become the norm. Before classical vernacular residential architecture, we were living huts and brick shacks, before columns (styled or not) came into play. Modernism and forward is simply another cycle in architecture that will continue to cycle for as long as mankind needs shelter and wishes to make it unique.

 

It isn't because it's the norm. Classical design is prevalent in many public buildings as well still, and people like it. So one would think that if the contemporary designs in many buildings are really so popular, that people would utilize them in their own home designs as well. Yet they don't. Why is this? I mean who wouldn't want a modern, contemporary, awesome-looking, beautiful designed contemporary home? Why is it that modern appliances are beautiful, modern cars are beautiful, but for homes, people stay traditional? The reason is because of the failure of the architectural profession to actually produce any homes that people can afford, that people actually want (that look nice), and that aren't totally crazy (like the Katrina home designs).

 

You quote Corbusier's bulding as non functional, but his practice has lead to mid century pioneers such as Meirer, Neutra, Mies, Kahn, and Eames whom created very, very functional and aesthetically beautiful homes. Fell free to look up works, I'm sure you will recognize them. The Seagram Building in NYC, which in a sense is a direct decendant of Villa Savoye, is very much functional and still is functional today. So while Villa Savoye may not have been comfortably habitable, it paved the road for buildings to come. If you live in an apartment, it's model is probably not far from Corbusier's Cité Radieuse and Mies' Skyscraper explorations.

 

All of those architects you mention aside from Corbusier I'd say were terrible as well. The only exception I give is Mies's glass and steel skyscrapers, which were good architecture, but note that they weren't crazy either. They're a highly-functional, aesthetically-beautiful design. Otherwise, his other designs and the works of Kahn, Meirer, Neutra, and Eames I'd say were ugly, which is probably why you don't see them used much for residential design.

 

Similarly, while Gehry's buildings may not seem functional to you, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl, and even Peter Eisenman who was previously part of the Mid Century School, are working with free forms that not only prove spatially interesting, but also functionally practical. Have a look at Holl's Nelson Atkin's Museum's interior spaces, and tell me they are not both beautiful functional, and address the phenomenological aspect (that I think you are constantly referencing in your classical gothic/ornamental examples) with the use of high tech and exotic materials. Another project you can look at are the bath houses by Peter Zumthor.

 

The Nelson Atkin's Museum to me just looks cold and white, not beautiful at all unless that is the look one prefers. But I do not see where there is any real design skill involved in that. Same with Zumthor's bath houses. Just a bath with some interesting walls, but nothing where I'd say, "Wow, whoever designed this must REALLY be skilled!"

 

Side note, the Katrina houses you shows to VCR have proven to have very poor craftmanship, as many of them are cookie cutter and are made on a budget. Come back in 20 years and see if even 30% of them are still standing/in good functional condition. While many may not agree with the morphology used the MRVDV's proposal, materials would be much more solid and durable (such concrete and steel) simply because the form demands such robust material. I would rather pay a bit more initially and have things last longer than to buy a cheap house made from polyurethane panels from Lowe's put together in a week and have it come down in 3 years.

 

I don't think they're supposed to house people for twenty years. That said, your argument that they won't last long I don't think is fair, because the exact same problem exists with much contemporary design, which also ends up not lasting long. Nor were the materials used in the MRVDV proposals very good, as their homes ended up with problems of molding. If you want to pay more for robust material for the cottage, then do so, but that doesn't mean the design needs to be wacky.

 

You say that the cottages I posted are "cookie cutter." Well what are the designs of MVRDV? They are not some kind of highly-creative works, rather they basically take normal-looking trailers and do things like break them in half, lift up one end, stack them on top of each other, etc...the other designs are "cookie cutter" because they are traditional-based designs.

No opening roofs no care

 

Ask and you shall receive.

 

Rogers Arena in Toronto. The roof is cool but the overall aesthetics is nothing to write home about.

 

B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver. The centre section opens & closes.

No opening roofs no care

 

As a separate note on wheels' whatever that was,

 

Did you read my points? I was just addressing the arguments you made. One point I made on your saying contemporary architecture is too expensive for residential purposes is that why is this the case? Isn't that an indictment of the contemporary architecture profession?

 

the protector of bricks, arches, gargoyles and other unnecessary ornaments, discontinued lightbulbs and all that is old, musty and moldy, in spite of the fact that he talks a lot of crazy, A LOT, few good things came out if it, we got to see some amazing modern designs, discuss the works of some incredible architects and most importantly gain a new member, zoidberg, who with only two posts made a lasting impression on me, zoidberg welcome to LP I hope you stick around and contribute

 

I still haven't had anyone explain how my points are "crazy" regarding architecture. I just get a lot of being told I am wrong, a fool, flat-Earther, joker, no one agrees with me, etc...by some, but no solid answers otherwise. IMO, it is the contemporary architecture and its profession that is crazy. Also Fortis, you mention old, musty, and moldy, but it is a lot of contemporary architecture designs that end up with those problems of must and mold and the classical designs that do not. Regarding unnecessary ornament, well the thing is, what about all the unnecessary structural features of many modern buildings, like the wavy paneling, bent structural designs, etc...why is that kind of thing okay and ornament is not?

 

Also, ornament need not be classical ornament. It could be ornament that is totally new and fresh. There is no law that contemporary architecture need be ornament-free and that new ornament be what was used in the past.

 

I think you interpret me as being stodgy and/or conservative, but actually I am very much all about new technology and innovation and advancement, but that's the key word---advancement, i.e. the new technology is better than what came before. My argument is that most contemporary architecture is NOT an advancement, that it's a regression, a step backwards, to the more primitive. That is my same argument about the light bulbs. That the replacement technology for the incandescent is inferior, i.e. a step backwards. It is not advancement forwards.

I can't wait to see Wheels give Fortis advice on finishing designing his home!

I can't wait to see Wheels give Fortis advice on finishing designing his home!

 

Why would I do that? Fortis can design his home however he wants, as that's his business.

 

 

Wow, what sports do they play in this thing? (I see there are 2 fields?)

 

I would say every summer sports under the sun. This was one of the primary venues for the 2010 Asian Games.

What's a div?

 

 

 

1) It's not a book on bricklaying, it's a book on the history of brick architecture

 

2) I talk about it in the architecture thread on an automotive forum. So I don't see what the big deal is there. I like architecture a lot, and the history of architecture and the history of building construction interest me a lot. How the brick has been used in the history of architecture is an interesting subject, as the brick is an ancient building material.

 

3) It was a response to Fortis on bricklaying

 

4) How am I "living in the past?"

 

 

 

The responses, IMO, were because I said something controversial and when told I don't know what I'm talking about debated back.

Point one is enough of a clarification on my point.

 

Look at the simple fact here. You have your opinion, it is one that the majority do not agree with. You seem to be unswerving from that viewpoint which naturally creates a friction when you go against the majority.

You are being more and more difficult because you do not see a way other than your opinion. Open your mind, start basing your opinion on actual real life experience rather than a book.

Watch how your world changes