The Architecture thread

is that good or bad shock?

 

I love it, its brutalist architecture, mixed with organic design and considering it was designed in 1970 its mind blowing to me.

 

Very good, I love architecture which is totally out there, the view, location is also fantastic, I wish I could find a place like that where it would be convenient to live.

Another must have in an architecture thread has to be Mies van der Rohe's German Pavilion.

 

built in 1929

 

 

Sublime, one day I will build a house like that, with that amount of furniture

Very good, I love architecture which is totally out there, the view, location is also fantastic, I wish I could find a place like that where it would be convenient to live.

 

 

Yeah, I know what you mean.

 

Down here where I am there's nothing with nice proximity on hillside/cliffside locations

 

up where you are it's pretty much the same.

 

only place I can really think of in Australia that would fit the bill would be Point Piper or Vaucluse, but you'd be looking $20m starting price for a decent plot (if you can find one)

is that good or bad shock?

 

I love it, its brutalist architecture, mixed with organic design and considering it was designed in 1970 its mind blowing to me.

 

Isnt that the house they used for Tony Starks house in Ironman?

Sublime, one day I will build a house like that, with that amount of furniture

 

 

Dude that's not a house, that's a glamorous bus station!

 

 

 

Ameer, I believe that house is modern, also one next to it is done in similar white modern style but more traditional square shape.

Isnt that the house they used for Tony Starks house in Ironman?

 

 

you could be forgiven for thinking so. I actually discussed it with an Architect friend of mine who also had hoped it was a John Lautner, however Ironman's house was unfortunately CGI

Dude that's not a house, that's a glamorous bus station!

 

Blasphemy

 

That's was actually quite funny LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Casa Brutale:

 

 

 

 

http://opaworks.com/portfolio/casa-brutale/

That design makes me feel like I am suffocating and drowning. No thanks!

That design makes me feel like I am suffocating and drowning. No thanks!

 

Definately not for people with children.

1. They run at the yard free -> dead at the bottom of ocean.

2. Broke any of the pool glass surface and risk of everyone dying is very high.

3. Break window glass or go over board of balcony -> go back to first.

Ha! Yeah, that and it looks like a gigantic coffin, so it's perfect. I have a serious phobia with water and so does my wife. Kids, not so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO, absolutely horrible. Not worthy of the term "architecture" IMO.

IMO, absolutely horrible. Not worthy of the term "architecture" IMO.

 

Wheels, what in your eyes would be considered "architecture"? Feel free to post pics to illustrate your point.

Wheels, what in your eyes would be considered "architecture"? Feel free to post pics to illustrate your point.

 

That requires a rather big post, so I'll split it into two or three posts so that it is easier to read. To answer your question there though, most classical buildings. The thing with architecture is that it is like a language, with a grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. In terms of Western architecture, this was started with the Greeks, who started the initial orders of architecture, and then further developed by the Romans. From there sprang all the other styles of Western architecture, everything from Gothic cathedrals to Russian churches to even certain Islamic architecture, can be traced back to the Greek architecture. Basically 3,000 years of architectural development.

 

Then in the early 20th century, the architecture profession threw all this knowledge out and started over from scratch, conjuring up some oddball rules in the process (such as claiming that ornament is a crime, or that usage of any historical style in modern times is morally wrong)), and proceeding to develop some of the most hideous buildings in the history of humanity. This isn't surprising, as what they did with architecture was the equivalent of say tossing out all knowledge of cooking and baking and starting over, or tossing out all knowledge of music that has been built up over thousands of years and starting over. You would end up with horrible food and noise. Architecture, and modern art, are pretty much the only two professions to do this. In any other profession, such an action would be considered bananas.

 

Today, contemporary architecture is primarily anarchy. There is no order to it at all and many of the buildings constructed are extremely expensive, difficult to engineer, difficult to construct, expensive to maintain, and begin falling apart very quickly. In any other profession, if the experts failed to such a degree, it would be considered that they don't know what they are doing. Regarding classical architecture (i.e. the Western architectural canon developed since Greece), the current architectural profession has numerous misconceptions:

1) That classical architecture is expensive and contemporary architecture affordable---this has been repeatedly shown to be not true. If anything, it is oftentimes the opposite.

 

2) That classical architecture is "fake," i.e. that if say you use a Greek temple design for a modern building, it is pastiche, kitsch, etc...but that is because of a made-up rule on the part of modern architects that usage in modern times of any historical style is morally wrong. It is a baseless assertion, as throughout history this has been done. One only need look at Palladio, who revived what was a 2,000 year-old style when he revived the Greek (and Roman) architecture. Or when Palladio himself was later revived after the Baroque period. Was Palladio's use of Greek and Roman architecture "fake," "pastiche," "kitsch," etc....at the time? Britain's Parliament is Gothic Revival. it was built in the 19th century, many hundreds of years after Gothic architecture's period. Is it to thus fake, morally wrong, kitsch, etc...?

 

3) That classical architecture is restrictive in creativity, because of the rules that it has---this is a huge misconception. If that was really the case, then classical architecture never would have evolved beyond what the Greeks did. Like a language, architecture changes with time. For example, the old English of medieval times is a lot different than today's English. And the English of the 18th century was also different. The language changes, but within the language, one can create all manner of different writings. Architecture is the same. One could create all manner of different buildings in the classical Greek design, in the classical Roman design, in the Byzantine design, in the Gothic design, in the Palladian design, in the Russian design, etc...classical architecture is all about creativity

 

4) That classical architecture is against innovation and change---like with the belief about creativity, this is a misconception. Classical architecture is all about constant innovation and constant change.

 

5) That classical architecture is not applicable to many modern buildings. For example, a modernist may say something like, "Okay, sure, a Greek temple design could be usable for say a library, but it would be totally inappropriate and look stupid for something like an airport." This is correct, but the reason is because the profession was never allowed to advance into the 20th century. The architectural profession pretty much destroyed it, so classical designs using modern materials, construction methods, etc...were never created. If they had, we'd have a 20th century's worth of contemporary architectural design that would clearly be modern and appropriate for airports and the like, yet also clearly traceable back to ancient Greece.

 

6) That proponents of classical architecture are against progress and advancement and want to take us backwards and design buildings that portray an idealized view of history---again, this is nonsense.

 

7) That classical architecture is only for the rich---this is based on the misconception that classical designs are super expensive and only for those who can afford exquisite craftsmanship and expensive materials and so forth. The reality is that classical is for everyone. It can be very simple, clean, and elegant, for the average or lower-income person, or it can be extremely grandiose and expensive, like an English manor that the aristocracy used to live in or a palace.

 

The same also applies with furniture (which historically has been heavily-influenced by architecture---classical furniture can be very ornate and expensive, like the gilt-bronze French furniture by Andre Charles Boulle in Versailles, or the middle-class Biedermeier furniture to the very simple Shaker furniture.

Contemporary architecture, by contrast, tends to be pure anarchy. It is also tyrannical and elitist in nature, as it must oftentimes be forced onto the public who often don't want it. That is why it is only in the public and commercial realm where modern architecture dominates. In the residential realm, where people have a say, it is generally rejected and dominated by classical styles.

 

One problem with modern architects is they seem to think that they have a monopoly on knowledge of what is considered beautiful. So if they design a building and the public say it's an eyesore, well that's because the public are a bunch of ignorant rubes supposedly, who lack the sophistication to see otherwise. The thing is, in few other places is this considered a legitimate point. For example, in automobiles. Generally, if an automobile is considered beautiful, it isn't because a group of self-appointed experts consider it so, but rather that the public likes it a lot. You don't see hideous-looking cars that the automotive design profession loves, but that everyone else hates. This is because unlike with public architecture and public art, the people decide which automobiles are successful. Same with food. And music.

 

There also seems to be an almost knee-jerk aversion to beauty in architecture on the part of the profession. Make any kind of colorful, joyous, ordered, happy architecture, and it is derided as pastiche, toytown, fake, kitsch, etc...

Ok Wheels, thank you.

 

Having written all that, now show us some examples of good architecture that matches your definition please.

I.e. post some pics of the structures that fit your description of the term architecture. Preferably "modern" ones by means of those that were built in the past 50 years.

Ok Wheels, thank you.

 

You asked Architecture tends to be very political/religious to people, and my opinion is highly-controversial to proponents of contemporary architecture, but I just wanted to explain it fully. Another point, I think it was the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects (I think Jane Duncan) who said that one problem with classical architecture is that it is too costly. That shows just how clueless about the classical the contemporary architecture profession is.

 

Having written all that, now show us some examples of good architecture that matches your definition please.

I.e. post some pics of the structures that fit your description of the term architecture. Preferably "modern" ones by means of those that were built in the past 50 years.

 

Take any historical style, built in the last fifty years, or before, and those are my ideas of architecture.

 

Here is a link with some pictures: LINK

 

Also check this link: LINK2

 

 

 

 

A proposal:

 

 

Here are some examples of what I mean when I say contemporary architecture is to a good degree anarchy:

 

This is a modern addition to a classical building:

 

 

Most of these buildings were designed by award-winning architect Frank Gehry. Some also by I. M. Pei (Gehry, IMO, doesn't deserve the title of architect). Basically these buildings do not require any real skill to design because of their randomness and it also shows in the costliness and difficulty there is in constructing them. Essentially the architect just makes up some random design and then demands the engineers build it and the city or whatnot finance it. There is no language or rules to it to be learned, no skill involved like with say classical architecture, music, cooking and baking, automotive design, etc...

 

Some of these buildings are only possible due to the existence of modern materials, and IMO are the architecture equivalent of if someone designed a Lambo with square wheels that were made out of a special material that allowed them to stay square while at high speed and a special suspension system that would allow a smooth ride. Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Note how some of these buildings consist of taking what are basically normal, ho-hum looking buildings and just designing them to look like they were bashed in by a giant fist or something, and that is considered creativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is pretty much all I crave right now.

 

http://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/12/house-in-...-mountain-home/

 

 

 

Another must have in an architecture thread has to be Mies van der Rohe's German Pavilion.

 

built in 1929

 

 

Lots of corian and I like it:

http://www.contemporist.com/2015/03/09/vil...waterstudio-nl/

 

 

 

Now these designs are considered modern or contemporary, but I wouldn't say anarchy, because there is an order to them, however they are not my taste. I do smile every time I think about what it would look like if Cappy or Fortis and I had to co-design a building together, or split an apartment together, how it would look

Thanks again Wheels. So basically, you prefer classical, traditional and conservative design. Nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, there isn't anything "wrong" with contemporary design either. Integrating/mixing classical and contemporary forms will always be controversial and it certainly won't be everyone's cup of tea.

 

I am not sure about this though: "do not require any real skill to design because of their randomness and it also shows in the costliness and difficulty there is in constructing them. Essentially the architect just makes up some random design and then demands the engineers build it and the city or whatnot finance it." You just said there is difficulty in constructing them so why would they not require any real skill to design them? Both engineers and architects require to take structural integrity, financial viability, regulatory compliance and usability/practicality into account. Engineers don't just built them out of an architect's sketches and architects do not just doodle something and pass them onto the engineers.

 

There really isn't any right or wrong to any of these. As much as some may say contemporary is a violation of proven designs, others may say classical design is outright boring as it basically is symmetrical geometry at play that consists of squares, rectangles, parallelograms, circles and arches. Contemporary design may also reflect the analogy of why scale a steep cliff with bare hands --- just to proof that one is capable of doing so. What seems visually impossible in generalized terms can actually be constructed is the key, the challenge and hence the success when it is completed. There is no wrong --- just controversy and/or perhaps political correctness. It's all subjective and personal preference; not unlike some contemporary art. Extend the analogy a bit and it's like asking what's the point of producing the Veyron. I am neither an advocate of contemporary design; but nor am I a defender of classical design. Both can exist and co-exist. Although sometimes, it is fun to think outside of the box or to take a leap out of the ordinary. Conversely, it is always good to play it safe and adhere to designs which had proven to be universally accepted. Variety is the spice of life, so the cliche goes...

My house circa 1957:

 

 

2013

 

 

 

Damn Wheels brings some heat!

 

I wonder what you think of the Sydney Opera House Wheels....

 

 

 

 

Damn assholes punching everything in sight.

 

 

Wait..what do you mean, sails?