The Architecture thread

Here are some of the incorrect statements you have made:

 

1) Classical architecture is too expensive when involving ornament

 

2) Classical architecture is just about frivolous ornament/trinkets

 

3) Contemporary architecture is much more about function

 

4) Low and middle-class residential architecture doesn't utilize contemporary designs because they are too expensive. When I pointed out that isn't this a major indictment of contemporary architecture as a profession, that in nearly one-hundred years of existence, it still isn't able to produce affordable, aesthetically-pleasing designs that the general public would want for homes, you ignore this and say I don't know what I am talking about when I criticize contemporary architecture as not knowing what it's doing in many ways

 

You criticize me for questioning the profession of contemporary architecture, yet you seem unaware of its standing philosophies regarding what architecture should be (and how frivolous said philosophies are) and of the misconceptions regarding classical design.

 

This is my last reply to you and with this unfortunately I must say I completely lost every amount of respect I had for you.

 

1.

 

I have never said it's too expensive I told you many times that both modern and traditional can be equally as expensive or as cheap, difficult to produce or easy on a case by case basis design and engineering dependent but you are too blinded to open your eyes and read what's in front of you.

What I told you was that YOU aren't aware of what things cost when you are claiming that modern is very expensive to build and I proved that you are talking out of your ass when I asked you to tell me which design you thought cost more to reproduce, you obviously failed that test because there is nowhere you could read about that online nor do you have any kind of experience with it.

 

2.

 

I never said classical architecture is only about trinkets, go back and read, I told you many times that there are many classical designs which I like and appreciate.

 

3.

That's correct, contemporary architecture is more about the function, energy efficiency, etc. I've made my comments in prior posts, not going to repeat myself.

Even that moron, in the link you posted, admitted that he specifies contemporary materials due to their lower cost and other benefits, claiming the only downside is longevity and the fact that they need expansion joints , how does he know? Did he travel in the future, it's just his opinion and like you he can be wrong. Anyway cities evolve buildings go up and come down all the time, what's suitable now might not be suitable in 100 years from now.

 

4.

 

I have no idea what cave you call home but where I live there are plenty of modern entry level and medium level architecturally designed homes, so your statement is ridiculous, I bet you haven't traveled much, I will also bet that you have never been overseas, no, Google maps doesn't count.

Whole estates of modern homes, I am struggling to see traditional design homes, just because they don't exist in your bubble that doesn't mean they don't exist altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is my last reply to you and with this unfortunately I must say I completely lost every amount of respect I had for you.

 

1.

 

I have never said it's too expensive I told you many times that both modern and traditional can be equally as expensive or as cheap, difficult to produce or easy on a case by case basis design and engineering dependent but you are too blinded to open your eyes and read what's in front of you.

What I told you was that YOU aren't aware of what things cost when you are claiming that modern is very expensive to build and I proved that you are talking out of your ass when I asked you to tell me which design you thought cost more to reproduce, you obviously failed that test because there is nowhere you could read about that online nor do you have any kind of experience with it.

 

That's not what you said. You specifically said that classical design, when involving ornament, is very expensive and difficult, and you asked me specifically where I would find the craftsmen to do such a job.

 

2.

 

I never said classical architecture is only about trinkets, go back and read, I told you many times that there are many classical designs which I like and appreciate.

 

Yes, but you also said it's about trinkets and that modern buildings are much more about function. That there are classical designs that you like and appreciate doesn't mean you don't think that a big part of them involves what are ultimately unnecessary trinkets.

 

3.

That's correct, contemporary architecture is more about the function, energy efficiency, etc. I've made my comments in prior posts, not going to repeat myself.

Even that moron, in the link you posted, admitted that he specifies contemporary materials due to their lower cost and other benefits, claiming the only downside is longevity and the fact that they need expansion joints , how does he know? Did he travel in the future, it's just his opinion and like you he can be wrong. Anyway cities evolve buildings go up and come down all the time, what's suitable now might not be suitable in 100 years from now.

 

Modern architecture is not more about the function, or you wouldn't get so many crazy designs. You also never explained how the designs I gave examples of are more about function except for some mockery-based answers. As for how he knows, he knows because buildings utilizing the cheaper materials have been built in the past and ended up falling apart within a few decades. Meanwhile, buildings utilizing the older materials are still standing hundreds of years later, in the case of the Pantheon in Rome, thousands of years later.

 

And what makes you think past architecture wasn't about function? The origin of classical architecture itself had strictly to do with function. The original first two orders of architecture evolved solely based on function, and only evolved into forms of decorative architecture later on. People then didn't have the luxury of knowing calculus, physics, modern materials, air conditioning, etc...so their buildings had to be designed extremely functionally. The very fact that so many modern buildings have to make use of advanced modern materials to even be feasible shows how lacking in function those designs are.

 

4

 

I have no idea what cave you call home but where I live there are plenty of modern entry level and medium level architecturally designed homes, so your statement is ridiculous, I bet you haven't traveled much, I will also bet that you have never been overseas, no, Google maps doesn't count.

Whole estates of modern homes, I am struggling to see traditional design homes, just because they don't exist in your bubble that doesn't mean they don't exist altogether.

 

Now you contradict yourself again: why then in previous posts did you say to me that the reason why modern design is not prevalent in residential architecture is because it is too expensive? Now you are saying that it actually is rather prevalent, so which is it? And in the United States at least, the vast majority of residential design is classically-themed.

Unbelievable, here you go again!

 

Why do you generalize? Are you really that simple?

 

How can one blanket statement cover all aspects? not all buildings which have ornaments are expensive, it depends on the God damn ornaments, the reason why I gave you that example is to explain to you that traditional design can be as expensive and as difficult to execute, why you don't get that is beyond me.

 

Can you now go away back to Wheel's World and start your own thread about the building designs you like and people who share your views will join you there to discuss them?

Unbelievable, here you go again!

 

Why do you generalize? Are you really that simple?

 

How can one blanket statement cover all aspects? not all buildings which have ornaments are expensive, it depends on the God damn ornaments, the reason why I gave you that example is to explain to you that traditional design can be as expensive and as difficult to execute, why you don't get that is beyond me.

 

From my standpoint, it was you who was generalizing. And sure traditional design can be expensive and difficult, but you had said it as if referring to all classical design. That is why you mentioned about where would I find the craftsmen for a classical design with lots of ornament. My counter-argument was that the ornament need not be hand-crafted and also that the craftsmen can be more available then you might think.

 

..

Wow, very impressive to engineer something which spans that much and still be able to move.

 

What's the second one? Very interesting roof structure, what's the material they used, do you know?

 

British Columbia (B.C.) Place Stadium in Vancouver, Canada.

The material is Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE).

More info here: LINK

British Columbia (B.C.) Place Stadium in Vancouver, Canada.

The material is Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE).

More info here: LINK

 

The specs of that roof are incredible. Thanks for posting the info.

Am I the only one bored to tears by now?

 

Let's move the fcuk on.

 

Sorry fortis, not bored by the roof specs, but by the wheels debacle.

From my standpoint, it was you who was generalizing. And sure traditional design can be expensive and difficult, but you had said it as if referring to all classical design. That is why you mentioned about where would I find the craftsmen for a classical design with lots of ornament. My counter-argument was that the ornament need not be hand-crafted and also that the craftsmen can be more available then you might think.

 

Am I the only one bored to tears by now?

 

Let's move the fcuk on.

 

Sorry fortis, not bored by the roof specs, but by the wheels debacle.

 

My mistake, I was bored and kept on feeding the troll

 

 

I don't care for reading other's opinions I just go out there and experience it for myself, I've never read anything on modern architecture other than few snippets here and there, few paragraphs at most, so no I will not waste my time opening the links you've provided and I have no links to provide to you.

 

 

Then how on Earth can you speak as any kind of authority on architecture of any kind if you don't know anything about it? You have made statements about both contemporary architecture and classical architecture that are flat-out not true. And you act perplexed about my reaction, so I provide you with two articles about misconceptions of classical architecture by classical architects who have both designed many buildings, so that you can get a better understanding of my points-of-view, and you refuse?

 

Plenty of things sound silly if one doesn't understand why they are being argued.

 

Well, I'm glad Fortis and Captain took over the torch from emanon and me.

 

Right, Fortis doesn't know anything about architecture. Well, frankly, I don't think anyone here would care the slightest bit at all on whether he knows it or not because the results speak for themselves. What does Fortis know

Emanon maybe you can answer this, I am looking at Frank Ghery's Walt Disney Concert Hall

(freaking insane) I can not figure out what cladding material he used, looking at the attached photo in particular, I am thinking, mainly because the size of the sheet, it can't be aluminum cladding, do you happen to know what it is?

 

 

 

Fortis,

 

I was in LA last week and visited the Walt Disney concert hall. Its stainless steel paneling bolted and layered on to CATIA derived steel beams I mentioned earlier.

 

 

Here are some pics of the structure from behind the panels:

Interesting info zoidberg thank you very much, I am assuming they are bringing the stainless steel in coil format in order to get those size sheet installed.

 

I am cladding my garage in a similar fashion using aluminum composite panels.

Interesting info zoidberg thank you very much, I am assuming they are bringing the stainless steel in coil format in order to get those size sheet installed.

 

I am cladding my garage in a similar fashion using aluminum composite panels.

 

 

Not entirely sure, but I think they are pre cut in sheets and bent into place on site.

 

have a look at this article, should bring light on how a CAD modeled form goes from computer to realized paneling.

 

http://archinect.com/blog/article/46577432...cladding-system

 

 

You just quoted the dude, Fortis. You gained mega cool points! Not that it matters because I am a humble serf compared to yourself, sir! I was out and about and I saw this and started cracking the fcuk up!

My favorite movie

This thread turned into the equivalent of a Christian Scientist knocking on the door of a medical school...amusing to behold, but such a waste of time. I applaud all the effort on both sides though. It's been a fun read the last couple days.

 

 

Wheels, in real world, knowledge is just one of the components. Knowledge without experience (which begets wisdom) is pretty much armchair qb.

 

 

 

“Knowledge without courage is sterile.”

 

 

― Baltasar Gracián

This thread turned into the equivalent of a Christian Scientist knocking on the door of a medical school...amusing to behold, but such a waste of time. I applaud all the effort on both sides though. It's been a fun read the last couple days.

 

Agreed.

 

Wheels is a modern Don Quixote, lol.

Emanon maybe you can answer this, I am looking at Frank Ghery's Walt Disney Concert Hall

(freaking insane) I can not figure out what cladding material he used, looking at the attached photo in particular, I am thinking, mainly because the size of the sheet, it can't be aluminum cladding, do you happen to know what it is?

 

 

Has to be stainless steel, they wouldn't likely use Aluminum out here (Corrosion and what have you). I may have the plan specs at work, I'll check it tomorrow.

 

edit: zoidberg beat me to it.

 

One day I hope I can be as uninformed and uneducated as you Fortis, one day!.

 

 

PS, you guys quoting wheels are totally F-ing up my "ignore" feature utilization.

You guys quoting big lebowski is fair enough but I think a quote from se7en would be more appropriate

 

Fortis, you showed that you didn't understand some basic things about classical architecture and contemporary architecture. That is all I was pointing out. And I was not being any troll (or not trying to be anyway).

Well, I'm glad Fortis and Captain took over the torch from emanon and me.

 

Right, Fortis doesn't know anything about architecture. Well, frankly, I don't think anyone here would care the slightest bit at all on whether he knows it or not because the results speak for themselves. What does Fortis know

 

Fortis himself said he has barely read anything about architecture. I then questioned how does that make him able to speak authoritatively about it? He said that real-world experience is what matters and I pointed out then that why do architects go to school for four to five years? That he has barely read anything about architecture would be a perfect explanation of why he holds some of the misconceptions he does.

This thread turned into the equivalent of a Christian Scientist knocking on the door of a medical school...amusing to behold, but such a waste of time. I applaud all the effort on both sides though. It's been a fun read the last couple days.

 

You guys can compare me to a flat-Earther, stodgy conservative, creationist, etc...all you want, but the fact remains that no one refuted any of my central points. All people resorted to were appeals to authority, ad hominems, experience, etc...without addressing the actual substance. I'm rather amazed at the level of denial regarding this by the people on this forum. A few did try to address the arguments, but in doing so, themselves showed they have some misconceptions about architecture.

 

But if criticizing the profession of architecture today for its baseless assertions that display ignorance of classical architecture, for its "functional" designs like a trailer broken in two or a smashed building, for its utter failure to design residential architecture that is affordable and pleasant for the masses, is a sign of being a flat-Earther, well I can't help people there.

 

It's interesting you make the religion example, as the philosophies adhered to by the contemporary architectural profession do mimic a religion. For example, that we should only design architecture for the "spirit of the ages," that ornament is wrong, that architectural styles of the past are wrong, that architecture is supposed to shock, that it is to push materials and structural engineering to its limits, that only those formally learned in the profession can criticize it, etc...

PS, you guys quoting wheels are totally F-ing up my "ignore" feature utilization.

 

Here's what you missed out on: