The Architecture thread

I HIGHLY recommend implementing the ignore feature. Then review the meditation thread. Breathe ooooooooout bullshit.

 

By the end of the weekend wheels may be banished from the view of contributing members, and he will never even know it (how ironic).

 

I didn't know that feature existed but man am I glad it does. Between this and the Jenner thread I want to shoot myself every time I get an email from LP.

 

 

Back on topic someone earlier posted about a building that looks like it was hit by an earthquake. Well my current office was designed by architects out of Carnegie Mellon and that is the exact effect they were going for.

 

http://www.pwwgarch.com/portfolio/general/fore-systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know how it is, crazy people think they are sane and that everyone else around them is crazy so forget about him

 

Fortis you might have missed it (I posted it again above in the post you quoted but I'll do it again) but here is a link by a classical architect on the issue of ornament and in the third fallacy, he talks about some of the things you bring up (where you say finding the craftsmen is difficult, that ornament is expensive, etc...): LINK

 

Also you still haven't answered my basic questions about the architectural profession. What I am saying is not insanity.

Wheels, do you know what a skirting board is?

 

I mean actually actually know. Not a sly google. I am talking straight off the bat and tell us its role.

I think how you dismiss modern design is carefree. Once Classical music was the rock and roll of its era but it is still appreciated to this day but rarely reproduced.

 

But rock N roll wasn't any step backwards from classical, it wasn't anarchy in music, it was just something different. And both are now timeless. Classical is to a good degree reproduced, and with new instruments, in the musical scores of films and video games. Hans Zimmer's score for Crimson Tide was a great example of this, how he combined in electronic sounds in a way that hadn't been done before. To give you an idea of the ideology of contemporary architecture, if applied to music, all film scores would be morally wrong and "kitsch" and "fake" because utilizing classically-themed music in modern times is wrong, "not in the spirit of our times," etc...

 

I think you overlook how modern design works. It is the detail.

Having been in a few stately homes here you see that the plaster is not right, the mouldings after not perfectly symmetrical but because the room is so busy you are not drawn to it.

 

To many people, sometimes those mistakes are what separate the hand-crafted mouldings and details from the machine-produced ones (unless the mistakes are just due to pure sloppiness or lack of skill). But if contemporary architecture "works," then why do the designs look so crazy? Why did the firms hired to design for the Katrina victims produce designs like the trailer broken in two and the trailer lifted up on one end or the trailers piled on top of one another? How is that an advancement?

 

Modern design is an evolution of design of a bygone era. We as humans evolve and so our surroundings must as well. We question why does that wall need to be there, why must this material must be used? We question does the labour cost reflect the result. After the war, vast areas of England was descimated by the bombing. The solution was prefab buildings. Simple cubes pre fabricated buildings. Cheap, light, easy to maintain, easy to construct. That is how Britain rebuilt itself. That is the point of those houses you mention. The design criteria is exactly the same.

 

Cappy cappy, you hold what is one of the most huge misconceptions about modern architecture. Modern design is ***NOT*** the evolution of a bygone era. IF ONLY IT WAS! Modern design came about by completely doing away with all the accumulated knowledge of the past in architecture. That is my whole point. Modern design is NOT an evolution, it is a starting over, a starting over based on very questionable principles and a complete rejection of what came before. That is why I have made comparisons with it being the equivalent of throwing out all known knowledge of cooking and baking and starting over.

 

And yet, in spite of this, the profession is so arrogant that it claims that only its practitioners have the knowledge to be critical of modern designs and anyone not formally educated in architecture is just a dumb idiot who's out of their element. Pre-fabricated buildings that were simple and easy to construct because of the war is fine, but you'd think that after almost 100 years, the profession would be able to design aesthetically-pleasing structures that are affordable and livable for the masses, yet it can't. And Heaven-forbid anyone design any kind of prefab buildings in a classical manner, like the Katrina cottages, which then get derided and jeered at by the profession.

 

When you are affected by poor conditions you want to live, you want a quality of life. You don't want to wait around for a plaster to go off, you don't want a guy scratching his arse and pointing some brickwork. That is the beauty of those designs, simple, quick, efficient.

 

Going forward they are easy to maintain.

 

But much modern design is not simple, quick, efficient, or easy to maintain. They are complicated, long, inefficient, expensive, and costly and difficult to maintain.

 

One fact of modern design you are so quick to overlook is that top end modern design needs quality finish, needs a quality thought out process. Its simple design needs to be executed with precision.

Any detail designed and built wrong will stick out like a sore thumb. The devil is in the detail and you have to think about everything.

 

But again, how is modern design simple? Much of it is highly-complicated.

Wheels, do you know what a skirting board is?

 

I mean actually actually know. Not a sly google. I am talking straight off the bat and tell us its role.

 

I have no idea....Googling to get a basic understanding....okay, it is the base moulding that covers the intersection of the floor and wall. What about it?

Aesthetics or engineering-wise. Because aesthetics-wise, they are not nearly equal in terms of design.

 

 

 

A more proper comparison, IMO, would be an Aventador with square wheels versus the 1985 3-Series and people saying that the Aventador with square wheels was the superior car.

 

 

 

No, because that doesn't address my point. Contemporary architecture isn't something new, it's been around for almost a century now in its various manifestations, and in all that time, it still hasn't been able to produce any home designs that are affordable and aesthetically-pleasing to people. That's a pretty bad thing for the profession IMO.

 

 

 

I was assuming the traditional designs you pictured cost more. If the modern designs cost more, that just underlines my point.

 

 

 

What is the high-level of skill shown in that staircase design? And if the traditional design cost less than the contemporary design, you are contradicting yourself and only underlining my original point, which is that classical architecture need not cost a whole lot. You said it does cost a lot because of the craftsmen needed.

 

 

 

So why, then, can't contemporary architecture design buildings for the residential field? They've had nearly a century to do it and still can't. And what creative genius is shown in designing what looks like a normal building that got smashed? And I DO care about the interior, but the interiors generally look pretty normal, just with more contemporary materials and minimalist design. If the interiors looked like the exteriors, the floors would be wavy and the walls would be wavy and so forth.

 

 

I am sorry but I can't argue with crazy, I've tried

 

 

Well first off, well done for googling and thank you for your honesty on that.

 

But the skirting board is a massive no no in modern design. It is an extra line in a room.

But how you mask that gap between the wall and the floor? Have in mind that the wood floor in a modern build can move, heat and cool, the wood will expand and contract. A modern design will need to have the contact point between the wall and floor designed in such a way that there is no need for a skirting board.

 

So just using one strip of material you are automatically using a cleverer, more thought out process to make your design work. Otherwise that gaping hole running along the wall between it and the floor will be a distraction from your design. On the face of it simple but the actual delivery is much more complicated.

 

Reread my post 224 in this thread.

I am sorry but I can't argue with crazy, I've tried

 

My questions aren't crazy and you contradicted yourself. You said that classical design is more expensive and difficult to do because of the craftsmen needed. I said that is not true due to modern technology and materials and also provided a link to a classical architect showing that this is not the case. You then said that the classical design is not necessarily cheaper than the modern design, because the modern design's materials might cost more. Okay, so then the classical design is the cheaper one...?

I have no idea....Googling to get a basic understanding....okay, it is the base moulding that covers the intersection of the floor and wall. What about it?

 

 

:lol2:

 

and I argued about architecture, design, cost of construction with you? Damn I feel like an idiot right now

:lol2:

 

and I argued about architecture, design, cost of construction with you? Damn I feel like an idiot right now

 

 

See. I had to ask a question to access what we are dealing with.

I genuinely think Wheels has dismissed modern design just as whim without giving it a deeper thought.

Whilst you and I often clash over things (red is the slowest colour) but we both appreciate design and what it brings to the quality of life to the user.

Well first off, well done for googling and thank you for your honesty on that.

 

But the skirting board is a massive no no in modern design. It is an extra line in a room.

But how you mask that gap between the wall and the floor? Have in mind that the wood floor in a modern build can move, heat and cool, the wood will expand and contract. A modern design will need to have the contact point between the wall and floor designed in such a way that there is no need for a skirting board.

 

So just using one strip of material you are automatically using a cleverer, more thought out process to make your design work. Otherwise that gaping hole running along the wall between it and the floor will be a distraction from your design. On the face of it simple but the actual delivery is much more complicated.

 

Function-wise, sure, and for a modern interior that can be an excellent idea. Aesthetics-wise, I think it depends. I mean an "extra line" is not per se a bad thing, that depends. Skirting boards can be highly decorative. But things like that aren't so much what I am talking about. My criticisms of modern architecture, as a profession, are the following:

 

1) The profession thinks only those formally educated in architecture can criticize it aesthetically (not done in the aesthetics of automobiles, food, music, etc...)

 

2) The profession thinks that use in modern times of any kind of historical styles is morally wrong, and any such styles of "fake," "pastiche," "toy town," "kitsch," etc...

 

3) The profession thinks that classical design is more expensive and difficult

 

4) The profession thinks that ornament is wrong.

 

5) The profession argues that it is an evolution of what came before but it in reality is a complete rejection of what came before for 3,000 years and a starting over from scratch

 

6) The profession has been a complete failure in being able to design affordable, aesthetically-pleasing homes for the masses. This isn't a problem in the automotive profession, where new cars look awesome, or the consumer electronics profession, where things like the iPad and iPhone have set standards for design and everyone loves them, or in modern music, but yet in contemporary architecture, there are no designs that appeal to the masses for homes. So the masses instead stick to traditional designs that go back centuries.

 

7) Many of the profession's designs for buildings it does do are structurally and aesthetically anarchistic. Look at the office Doc_K showed, where he said the whole point of the design was to make it look like it had been hit by an earthquake. Okay, well how is that architectural creativity?

:lol2:

 

and I argued about architecture, design, cost of construction with you? Damn I feel like an idiot right now

 

You still haven't answered my basic questions I have posed.

See. I had to ask a question to access what we are dealing with.

I genuinely think Wheels has dismissed modern design just as whim without giving it a deeper thought.

Whilst you and I often clash over things (red is the slowest colour) but we both appreciate design and what it brings to the quality of life to the user.

 

To the contrary, I'd say I have given it very deep thought. From what I can gather thus far from yours and Fortis's arguments on the subject, it is yourselves that hold some major misconceptions about both modern design and classical design. And I don't mean that in any snooty way, just an observation.

 

But I get what your idea with the skirting board was, since I didn't know it, you want to use that as a way to then discredit all that I have said about architecture, all the points I have made, all the questions I have asked. They can now be ignored because I didn't know what a skirting board is.

To the contrary, I'd say I have given it very deep thought.

YOU DID NOT EVEN fcuking KNOW WHAT IT WAS!!!!

 

HOW CAN YOU GIVE IT DEEP THOUGHT YOU BLOODY HALFWIT.

 

My questions aren't crazy and you contradicted yourself. You said that classical design is more expensive and difficult to do because of the craftsmen needed. I said that is not true due to modern technology and materials and also provided a link to a classical architect showing that this is not the case. You then said that the classical design is not necessarily cheaper than the modern design, because the modern design's materials might cost more. Okay, so then the classical design is the cheaper one...?

 

No that's not what I said, go back and read, what I said is that you have no understanding of architectural design, skills required to construct and/or construction costs but you are claiming modern is more expensive, more difficult to engineer etc.

 

I also said modern isn't necessarily more expensive and I gave you few examples to test your capacity which is the basis of your claims, of course you danced around that post like McHammer.

 

I also said you should only be talking about aesthetics because that's the extent of your capacity.

 

I also said that modern can be equally or more expensive to design, engineer, complex to build than traditional and/or vice versa judged on case by case scenario.

 

Where and how am I contradicting myself?

Well my current office was designed by architects out of Carnegie Mellon and that is the exact effect they were going for.

 

Pff, anyone could do that. All he did was take a square building and hit the rotate button in autocad, where is the skill in that? /wheels

 

 

Check out these two additions to my High School which were recently completed. A complete redesign of the gym and an absolutely stunning arts center. For a public high school this shit is off the charts. And the best part, the city voted on it and approved funding for both projects by a massive margin, with the voting public fully aware of the intended designs. The residents of the city (which is very much fashioned in a western country theme, with an annual rodeo, and it's a big deal) absolutely love the architecture and sophistication.

 

http://www.rachlinarchitects.com/m/work/pr...er-for-the-arts

 

http://www.rachlinarchitects.com/work/proj...chool-gymnasium

 

 

I was worried my post was buried in the deluge of wheels related insanity.

 

That high school is boss!!! I also understand why your taxes are so high.

One of the many problems here Wheels is that you cite the New Orleans design as modernist without understanding the function and then talk about cost when that has been resolved in my post earlier. See #224

 

You dance around what is being said but no one else hears the music you are dancing to.

You still haven't answered my basic questions I have posed.

 

Nobody can answer your questions because you lack the ability of comprehension so it's akin with pissing against the wind, sorry Wheels I've tried.

7) Many of the profession's designs for buildings it does do are structurally and aesthetically anarchistic. Look at the office Doc_K showed, where he said the whole point of the design was to make it look like it had been hit by an earthquake. Okay, well how is that architectural creativity?

 

 

Currently on TV I am watching a documentary on the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire and the Hurricane ruled. They were designed to be quick and light, cheap to make.

 

You may question why a building is designed to look like it has been hit by a Earthquake.

Well our skies these days are patrolled by a plane called a Euro fighter or a Typhoon.

That is modern day plane, it is designed so that when flies, it is unstable. Aerodynamically it is unstable, the computers makes it work. Yet it works far better than that of the Hurricane and the Spitfire.

It is modern design. It is an evolution of how we use to think. Progress.

 

Progress, It is good stuff.

See. I had to ask a question to access what we are dealing with.

I genuinely think Wheels has dismissed modern design just as whim without giving it a deeper thought.

Whilst you and I often clash over things (red is the slowest colour) but we both appreciate design and what it brings to the quality of life to the user.

 

and why didn't you ask the skirting board question few pages back??

 

BTW red is the fastest!

Definitely the slowest colour. Definitely.

Definitely the slowest colour. Definitely.

 

I just Wheeled your ass on this one, boom!!

 

 

One particular kind of glass, for example, the index of refraction (c/v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum and v is the speed of a particular frequency of light in glass) is 1.514 for red light and 1.54 for blue light, so in this case the red light travels at c/1.51, and the blue light travels at c/1.54.

 

The result is that red light travels 2% faster than the blue light.

 

 

BTW red is the fastest!

 

Shit now you guys have me thinking. Obviously light travels at a uniform speed through a vacuum.

 

299 792 458 m/s to be exact.

 

The different colors of light travel on different wavelengths however. When looked at on a graph all the colors arrive on the y axis at the same time however one color may cover more distance based on how far up and down the Y axis it has to travel (the wavelength).

 

 

Red IS the slowest color. Sorry Forits. :/

I just Wheeled your ass on this one, boom!!

 

 

One particular kind of glass, for example, the index of refraction (c/v, where c is the speed of light in vacuum and v is the speed of a particular frequency of light in glass) is 1.514 for red light and 1.54 for blue light, so in this case the red light travels at c/1.51, and the blue light travels at c/1.54.

 

The result is that red light travels 2% faster than the blue light.

 

 

Shit now you guys have me thinking. Obviously light travels at a uniform speed through a vacuum.

 

299 792 458 m/s to be exact.

 

The different colors of light travel on different wavelengths however. When looked at on a graph all the colors arrive on the y axis at the same time however one color may cover more distance based on how far up and down the Y axis it has to travel (the wavelength).

 

 

Red IS the slowest color. Sorry Forits. :/

 

 

Between what you wrote and what I wrote my head hurts. Emanon come save us. I'm going back to building Nuke plants...that doesn't make my head hurt.