The Architecture thread

What do you guys think?

 

http://www.tresparaguascarmel.com/p800763791#h615a50ab

 

I love the mix of elements.....

 

Carmel is my dream place of residence. Once I scratch that off the list..... One day!

 

What do you guys think?

 

http://www.tresparaguascarmel.com/p800763791#h615a50ab

 

I love the mix of elements.....

 

Carmel is my dream place of residence. Once I scratch that off the list..... One day!

 

 

Fkin awesome!

 

Bit of an odd building, but super cool and also one of the most advanced brain centers in the world, in Las Vegas of all places. It's definitely worth driving by to check out next time anyone is in the area. You'll see a bit of my handy work in/on the hardscape design.

 

Lots of stuff in vegas getting a little wild these days. Check out the 60' tall shade structures going in the MGM Park between NYNY and Monte Carlo. That Park and stadium are absolutely awesome. That whole renovation has kept me busy as shit for the past 2 years.

 

This is an actual photo of a completed installation.

VCR, if the general tone of any of my comments sounds mean, that isn't directed at you, just I am extremely critical of contemporary architecture, so when discussing disagreements about it with people, posts can come off as a bit abrasive.

 

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.

 

Well I would have to disagree with you on two things:

 

1) I would disagree that classical design is "conservative." The reason being two-fold, one is that which classical design do you mean? Revival styles, i.e. the use of historical styles in modern times or truly contemporary buildings that nonetheless are grounded in classical principles? Remember, classical architecture is all about innovation and advancement. Also, considering that, for public and many commercial buildings at least, that contemporary design is the norm, I would say that rather than being conservative, it is radical in some ways to utilize classicism. If you want to be the same as many others and not stir up any controversy in the architectural press, you go with a contemporary design. If you are willing to risk being called a Luddite, pastiche, kitsch, etc...you go with a classically-themed design.

 

2) Because so much contemporary architecture is considered very ugly by much of the public, I think it is very wrong for the architectural profession to force such buildings onto the public. The lack of popularity of such buildings is shown in how residential architecture is dominated by classical designs. If one wants to build a contemporary design for their own home, that's one thing, but for a public building, if the public doesn't like the design, it shouldn't be forced onto them IMO.

 

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.

 

I would say that is exactly what many of the "starchitect" architects do. They completely ignore issues of structural integrity, financial validity, regulatory compliance, and usability/practicality. Look at the works of Le Corbusier, which were often unlivable and began falling apart and weathering horribly soon after they were constructed. Look at how expensive many Frank Gehry buildings are, because of how structurally crazy his designs are. For example, take the following building:

 

 

Do you really think this building was designed according to any kind of function or practicality? It was just something that the architect drew up and left to the engineers to figure out how to construct. There is a building made out of glass and steel that is shaped like a giant mirror. As a result, it reflects and focuses the light of the Sun to such a degree that it was literally melting the interiors of cars parked below. The architect said he never thought about that happening. The problem is that many of these buildings really are meant to be icons to the architect's ego as opposed to being based on function, cost-effective, practicality, structural integrity, and whether the public actually likes them or not. The Pruit-Igoe housing complex had to be demolished because of how much of a failure it was.

 

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.

 

A few things I'd say:

 

1) One shouldn't violate proven designs just because one thinks the proven design is boring. The alternative should be an improvement at least

 

2) Classical architecture can be boring or exciting, it depends on the design. And just as many different classical designs were invented over the past 3,000 years since the Greeks started it, many more await to be created that as of yet haven't been thought up.

 

3) Symmetrical geometry is key to most beauty. What you're saying is kind of like saying, "Music is boring because it is just structured sounds combined in a way to sound nice," well I mean that wouldn't justify just producing random noise in place. Also, doing a contemporary radical building here or there might be to one's taste, but these days, it's like every major building project.

 

4) Contemporary design that is aesthetically beautiful that does the equivalent of scale a cliff with bare hands is okay if the public is okay with paying for it, but oftentimes such buildings are ugly and the public does not approve of them and they are forced onto the public. Also, they are not necessarily built to show what can be done but rather are just a monument to the ego of the architect.

 

It's like the difference between the Lambo with square wheels versus newer Lambos that push the limits technologically. Or say a coal-fired jumbo jet. If we could design a coal-fired jumbo jet, because modern materials would allow it, does that mean we should? There is a difference between pushing the limits in the sense of truly improving things versus pushing the limits in what is a regressive manner that is just permitted by newer technology.

 

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.

 

Why is designing something that looks visually impossible a success? That makes the building extra costly and difficult to design. If it really is a great building that people are excited to see built, then that's one thing, but if it's an eyesore, than that's something else. Also, the point of architecture is not to continually push the limits structurally, it is to create aesthetically-pleasing, functional, cost-effective, environmentally-friendly structures. Pushing the limits structurally is only if the building is a true improvement over prior designs and needs the structural push.

 

Also, IMO, "political correctness" these days is going with the contemporary designs, not anything classically-based. Just look at all the controversy stirred up by Poundbury for example (referred to as "kitsch," "chocolate box," "fake," "toytown," "pastiche," etc...by the architectural profession). The job of architects is not to shock and awe the way much of the profession seems to think.

 

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...

 

I don't think it is all subjective and personal preference. That is why contemporary architecture only is able to thrive in arenas where it can be forced onto the public. Regarding the Veyron, the Veyron is a beautiful car that pushes the limits technologically and that people can choose to purchase for themselves if they have the money. What contemporary architecture does is to essentially design a Veyron with square wheels and a special suspension and then call it progress because the technology allows such a car to be built (in that hypothetical), and then force the public to buy it.

 

I do not think what amounts to anarchy in architecture can really co-exist with artful architecture, no more than anarchy in music or food could exist with real music or food. There are some nice contemporary designs, but those tend not to be anarchistic, which is what makes them nice. But buildings that look like random nonsense that are painful to the eye and difficult to engineer and construct as a result, should not be built. Both architecture and art fell into the trap of basically allowing nonsense to masquerade as art. For example, in the art world, you paint a picture of the Virgin Mary out of dung and it's high art and on the cover of the New York Times.

 

What really bugs me about so much of the contemporary architectural profession is how snooty it is. They will criticize classical architecture proponents who are critical of their designs as not knowing what they are talking about, and yet then go on to show a total ignorance about classical architecture and what it is (i.e. that it is against progress, lacks innovation, costly to construct, etc...).

Damn Wheels brings some heat!

 

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

 

Don't care much for it myself, although from what I understand, most of the Australian public like it. Although I wonder how much of that is they truly like it versus just it becoming collective wisdom that it's a good building and so everyone says they like it without thinking much about it. All that aside, the Sydney Opera House is also an example of a building that was difficult and costly to construct.

What do you guys think?

 

http://www.tresparaguascarmel.com/p800763791#h615a50ab

 

I love the mix of elements.....

 

Carmel is my dream place of residence. Once I scratch that off the list..... One day!

 

Piece of art! Absolutely incredible.

Bit of an odd building, but super cool and also one of the most advanced brain centers in the world, in Las Vegas of all places. It's definitely worth driving by to check out next time anyone is in the area. You'll see a bit of my handy work in/on the hardscape design.

 

IMO, saying it's a "bit" of an odd building is a bit light. To me, that's like saying the Lambo with square wheels is a "bit of an odd car." It looks like a regular building after an earthquake IMO.

Wheels, you the only guy I know who wants to dress like a woman and live in a church

 

As for Frank Gehry, how can you not love the guy? This is what he had to say to his critics I think he would be a perfect fit for LP

 

 

 

 

IMO, saying it's a "bit" of an odd building is a bit light. To me, that's like saying the Lambo with square wheels is a "bit of an odd car." It looks like a regular building after an earthquake IMO.

 

See it in person, it's far more impressive than the pictures suggest.

Wheels, you the only guy I know who wants to dress like a woman and live in a church

 

Naaa, I don't want to dress like a woman or live in a church. Not all classically-themed buildings look like a church and many modern churches look like modern architecture homes:

 

 

 

As for Frank Gehry, how can you not love the guy? This is what he had to say to his critics I think he would be a perfect fit for LP

 

 

 

Yes, IMO though his doing that is a prime example of much of the arrogance of the contemporary architectural profession. If his building designs were for residential purposes, where people chose him as their architect, and someone said his buildings are terrible, then by all means, give the finger, but when you are a form of public servant, and design a lot of public buildings, and lots of people think they are terrible, then you should listen, not force what many consider monstrosities on them.

At this very moment, on architecturepower.com, everyone is breathing a sigh of relief.

IMO, saying it's a "bit" of an odd building is a bit light. To me, that's like saying the Lambo with square wheels is a "bit of an odd car." It looks like a regular building after an earthquake IMO.

 

I skimmed through your replies above, I appreciate the fact that you have a different style but thinking those buildings are easy to construct, engineer and cheap to build shows how inexperienced you are when it comes to having an opinion on the subject, to make that twisted metal cladding requires more skill than having to brick an arched window and the cost would make your eyes water.

 

Architecture is pure expression, it's the freedom to do whatever the hell you like providing you can afford it and it's physically possible, what would life be without challenges, without thinking outside of the box?

 

I look at things from a different perspective, even if they are visually unappealing to me I still appreciate what went into them.

Naaa, I don't want to dress like a woman or live in a church. Not all classically-themed buildings look like a church and many modern churches look like modern architecture homes:

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, IMO though his doing that is a prime example of much of the arrogance of the contemporary architectural profession. If his building designs were for residential purposes, where people chose him as their architect, and someone said his buildings are terrible, then by all means, give the finger, but when you are a form of public servant, and design a lot of public buildings, and lots of people think they are terrible, then you should listen, not force what many consider monstrosities on them.

 

Almost every photo in the examples you gave VCR were of churches.

 

I'd have Frank Ghery design me a residential building but frankly I don't think I could afford to build it, you have no idea what goes into pulling something like that off.

 

What do you guys think of Gaudi? Having seen this in person a week ago, I was at a loss of words. To me it looked like someone made this on another planet and brought it here. Some people wonder if Gaudi was a genius or not...that's an easy answer - YES he was, to be able to convince people to fork over the money for this project you have to be one!

 

 

So they've been building it for 90 years after his death...and they have A LOT to go..the main tower has to be 2x as high as the current ones. They want to finish it in 9 years to 100 year celebration of Gaudi's death. But the thing is not only is that highly unlikely, they build 2 subway train lines under the thing.. so there is a big chance it might all end up in a disaster.

 

 

 

 

I skimmed through your replies above, I appreciate the fact that you have a different style but thinking those buildings are easy to construct, engineer and cheap to build shows how inexperienced you are when it comes to having an opinion on the subject, to make that twisted metal cladding requires more skill than having to brick an arched window and the cost would make your eyes water.

 

Fortis matey, you missed my point as I was arguing the exact opposite. One of my repeated arguments is that those buildings are NOT easy to construct, that they are very difficult to construct, and that is one of the problems with them. One of the classic criticisms of classical architecture by the contemporary architectural profession is that it is difficult and expensive to construct, yet that is not the case, but very much is the case with much contemporary architecture itself. One of the reasons being because such buildings are oftentimes designed without taking the issues of construction, engineering, and structure into account.

 

Architecture is pure expression, it's the freedom to do whatever the hell you like providing you can afford it and it's physically possible, what would life be without challenges, without thinking outside of the box?

 

That's fine for personal buildings, but for public buildings, it is not just about pure expression. The architect should take into account of whether the public likes their design, and issues of cost, functionality, environmental friendliness, etc...Cooking and baking are all about pure expression too, but the food must still taste good. Music is all about expression, but music, like classical architecture, is a language with various rules to it. But like any language, it constantly evolves, and is open to constant creativity and innovation. Anarchy in music would be someone who knows nothing of how to compose music just making random noise. That is what much of contemporary architecture is. Of course challenge and thinking outside the box are good, but like I said, challenge is making the car faster, not making it drivable with square wheels.

 

I look at things from a different perspective, even if they are visually unappealing to me I still appreciate what went into them.

 

If a lot of design skill went into it, then sure. But if the building's design is something that pretty much anyone could dream up and looks ugly to boot, then that tells me it didn't take a whole lot of skill and is more just anarchy.

Almost every photo in the examples you gave VCR were of churches.

 

I gave a link to VCR filled with all sorts of residential designs and pictures.

 

I'd have Frank Ghery design me a residential building but frankly I don't think I could afford to build it, you have no idea what goes into pulling something like that off.

 

Like I said, you missed the content of my posts, as one of my main criticisms is how difficult such structures are to pull off. I think in your skimming, you saw where I criticized much contemporary architecture as not requiring skill and interpreted that to mean the construction as opposed to the design.

That's fine for personal buildings, but for public buildings, it is not just about pure expression. The architect should take into account of whether the public likes their design, and issues of cost, functionality, environmental friendliness, etc...Cooking and baking are all about pure expression too, but the food must still taste good. Music is all about expression, but music, like classical architecture, is a language with various rules to it. But like any language, it constantly evolves, and is open to constant creativity and innovation. Anarchy in music would be someone who knows nothing of how to compose music just making random noise. That is what much of contemporary architecture is. Of course challenge and thinking outside the box are good, but like I said, challenge is making the car faster, not making it drivable with square wheels.

 

 

 

If a lot of design skill went into it, then sure. But if the building's design is something that pretty much anyone could dream up and looks ugly to boot, then that tells me it didn't take a whole lot of skill and is more just anarchy.

 

Wheels, with all due respect you have no idea what the fcuk you are talking about. The level of design, engineering, re-engineering, VE-ing, re-re-engineering, and redesigning to make it not look like a clusterfuck on with these projects is absolutely mind boggling.

 

All the things you discussed, cost/LEED cert/materials are fighting with one another. LEED platinum is sweet, and so damn expensive it's only viable if that is a focal point of your project. The notion that you don't believe these things are discussed ad nauseum in the multi-year design phase before a guy in a $5k suit sticks a chrome shovel in the ground it absolutely hilarious to me, almost as funny as you going toe to toe with Fortis on this subject.

 

As for the "public" liking the design, it isn't the damn DMV and doesn't have to look like a tilt-up. If you think "anyone" could design that building facade and make it look as spectacular as it does, you're off your meds.

 

Go see it, it's pretty damn stunning in person.

 

A photo I took there shortly after the project was completed.

 

 

Wheels, with all due respect you have no idea what the fcuk you are talking about. The level of design, engineering, re-engineering, VE-ing, re-re-engineering, and redesigning to make it not look like a clusterfuck on with these projects is absolutely mind boggling.

 

Like Fortis, you are misunderstanding my point. Why do you think it is that there is such a level of design, engineering, re-engineering, etc...on these projects? It's because there is very little skill utilized in the architectural portion of the design. A skilled architect will take into account the basic structural engineering aspects of the building. They will reason, "Is this going to be incredibly, mind-bogglingly difficult for the engineers and construction crews to figure out how to build?" and if yes, then maybe make some redesigns. But they don't do that.

 

All the things you discussed, cost/LEED cert/materials are fighting with one another. LEED platinum is sweet, and so damn expensive it's only viable if that is a focal point of your project. The notion that you don't believe these things are discussed ad nauseum in the multi-year design phase before a guy in a $5k suit sticks a chrome shovel in the ground it absolutely hilarious to me, almost as funny as you going toe to toe with Fortis on this subject.

 

Of course such things are discussed. I'm talking about the architectural design aspect, not the engineering aspect. In the architectural sense, many contemporary buildings make no sense and have proven to be abject failures.

 

As for the "public" liking the design, it isn't the damn DMV and doesn't have to look like a tilt-up. If you think "anyone" could design that building facade and make it look as spectacular as it does, you're off your meds.

 

Go see it, it's pretty damn stunning in person.

 

A photo I took there shortly after the project was completed.

 

Many of these buildings pretty much anyone could design architecture-wise, as they look what you'd get if someone with no skill was the designer. And their construction and engineering, not surprisingly, reflects that, as they prove to be extremely difficult to engineer and construct, very expensive, and oftentimes start falling apart not long after. If I myself designed a building, and the engineers looked at it, and said, "Wheels, this building you designed is going to be extremely difficult to engineer and construct, and very expensive to build and maintain," people would respond by saying, "Well what did you expect, you had a guy who is not a trained architect design the thing!" Except that in the case of various contemporary buildings, the designers are trained architects.

 

I'll try to go and see that building in person, but from the pictures, to me at least, it is an eyesore. And yes, what the public thinks does in fact count as they have to look at the building regularly and use it.

I gave a link to VCR filled with all sorts of residential designs and pictures.

 

 

 

Like I said, you missed the content of my posts, as one of my main criticisms is how difficult such structures are to pull off. I think in your skimming, you saw where I criticized much contemporary architecture as not requiring skill and interpreted that to mean the construction as opposed to the design.

 

The design is equally as difficult, architects don't drop things in the engineer's lap after they draw what you perceive to be ridiculous impossible lines, they work together until they complete the whole package.

 

As for modern architecture, it might look very random and simplistic to you but you know what they say a "messy" just got out of bed looking hair style is a lot more difficult to achieve than a very slick traditional one.

Like Fortis, you are misunderstanding my point. Why do you think it is that there is such a level of design, engineering, re-engineering, etc...on these projects? It's because there is very little skill utilized in the architectural portion of the design. A skilled architect will take into account the basic structural engineering aspects of the building. They will reason, "Is this going to be incredibly, mind-bogglingly difficult for the engineers and construction crews to figure out how to build?" and if yes, then maybe make some redesigns. But they don't do that.

 

Wheels you got to be joking, quit while you are ahead! Do you really think architects involved in modern architecture just doodle things on paper or on their computers with total disregard for everything and everyone else ??

 

Looking at some of the finished product might seem that way but you can't be further from the truth.

 

This is what blows my mind about you, at times you come across as extremely knowledgable, intelligent and at times you seem like you would have difficulties passing 5th grade.

Like Fortis, you are misunderstanding my point. Why do you think it is that there is such a level of design, engineering, re-engineering, etc...on these projects? It's because there is very little skill utilized in the architectural portion of the design. A skilled architect will take into account the basic structural engineering aspects of the building. They will reason, "Is this going to be incredibly, mind-bogglingly difficult for the engineers and construction crews to figure out how to build?" and if yes, then maybe make some redesigns. But they don't do that.

 

Just because things are difficult does not make them poorly designed. If everything in the world were designed purely for economy in production and ease of assembly we would live and work in nothing but galvanized steel cubes. The empire state building and 15 CPW are wildly inefficient in the use of materials but you can't call either one poorly designed.

 

Considering you're not an architect who had any idea what the OWNERS and FINANCIERS of these projects wanted, how are you to say they were not skillfully designed? You know what, they give ZERO FUCKS what you or anyone else thinks of their building, because they are writing the nine figure check.

 

You're failing to grasp the fundamental component of architecture, and if you believe they just skectch something on a napkin without the consultation of a massive engineering firm through every step (including construction budget) you're just solidifying that you have no clue how this process goes. There is literally 400+ pages of construction plans and documents for that single building, which outline every single damn part down to the door handles and lightbulbs.

 

Many of these buildings pretty much anyone could design architecture-wise, as they look what you'd get if someone with no skill was the designer. And their construction and engineering, not surprisingly, reflects that, as they prove to be extremely difficult to engineer and construct, very expensive, and oftentimes start falling apart not long after. If I myself designed a building, and the engineers looked at it, and said, "Wheels, this building you designed is going to be extremely difficult to engineer and construct, and very expensive to build and maintain," people would respond by saying, "Well what did you expect, you had a guy who is not a trained architect design the thing!" Except that in the case of various contemporary buildings, the designers are trained architects.

 

What you're untrained brain is completely missing, is the mere fact that you can look at it and think it's simple, is an absolute testament to just how well it is designed. You don't have the training to understand just how much work it is to get the scale and proportions right so it doesn't look like an absolute disaster. I would bet a massive amount of money that I could sit you in front of that building for a week and staring at it all day long, you couldn't sketch an accurate representation of the physical structure standing before you. And that is wildly simple compared to taking a vision in your mind, putting it onto paper/3D space, and then turning that into a functioning space.

 

These buildings are not difficult for the sake of being difficult, they are done with deliberate intent. Fortis could have put a $300 jeld-wen slab door on the front of his house, but instead he has a marvel of steel and granite that amounts to decent used car in cost. By your notion he made a massive error due to the complexity and expense involved.

 

The greatest irony in all of this, is you are proclaiming this wasted engineering and financial resources merely for the sake of a viceral experience, on a site dedicated to half a million dollar sports cars. Lamborghini's are the epitome of everything you're claiming to be grossly wasteful. You sound like every asshole who thinks his modified camaro is superior to an aventador roadster because it's faster for 1/10 the price. You haven't learned enough to even grasp how little you actually understand about what is going on in these structures. Analyzing the architectural detail of that building, the use of angular geometric texture over elliptical compound curves (try to grasp that concept for a minute) mixed with negative spaces and multiple layers/elevations, it could be a masters thesis paper.

 

I would love to take you into a design class, show them these pictures, and have you state your opinions there. You would be laughed out of that room faster than you can say golden mean.

 

The design is equally as difficult, architects don't drop things in the engineer's lap after they draw what you perceive to be ridiculous impossible lines, they work together until they complete the whole package.

 

Whether they drop it in their lap or work side-by-side with them, they still create designs that are very difficult to construct. And many of those designs have turned out to be failures over the years.

 

As for modern architecture, it might look very random and simplistic to you but you know what they say a "messy" just got out of bed looking hair style is a lot more difficult to achieve than a very slick traditional one.

 

If it looks messy and simplistic and there is some kind of design philosophy hidden in it, that is one thing, but many such buildings basically look just look like simple ordinary buildings that a giant fist went and bashed a couple of times. As it is though, modern architecture doesn't adhere to any real kind of language, it is to a good degree based on anarchy. If anyone could design the structure aesthetics-wise, then the basic design doesn't require much skill.

 

Much of this started about a century ago when Adolf Loos in 1908 asserted that "ornament is a crime" (a completely baseless assertion) and then Le Corbusier in 1926 wrote his Five-Points, none of which were based on any intelligent understanding of how buildings are built or function, but they became commandments of the profession. This lead to some titanic architectural disasters throughout the twentieth century. Architecture has moved on theory-wise since then, but still adheres a good deal to these basic ideas.

 

Wheels you got to be joking, quit while you are ahead! Do you really think architects involved in modern architecture just doodle things on paper or on their computers with total disregard for everything and everyone else ??

 

Quite a few throughout history have done precisely that and continue to. Not all, but a lot. They designed without regard for the livability of the structure, the local culture, the local environment, the structural engineering aspect, etc...otherwise, why do you think such architecture is not prevalent in residential architecture? Why is it only in architecture that can be forced onto the public? Why does the public often hate such architecture?

 

And how are buildings that are very expensive, and difficult to design and construct, and anarchistic in their appearance to boot, signs of a skilled architect? Here's an example I cited earlier, you think this addition to this classical building involved any skill in terms of the aesthetics?

 

 

Looking at some of the finished product might seem that way but you can't be further from the truth.

 

This is what blows my mind about you, at times you come across as extremely knowledgable, intelligent and at times you seem like you would have difficulties passing 5th grade.

 

As said, not all architects are like this, but many.

 

Just because things are difficult does not make them poorly designed. If everything in the world were designed purely for economy in production and ease of assembly we would live and work in nothing but galvanized steel cubes. The empire state building and 15 CPW are wildly inefficient in the use of materials but you can't call either one poorly designed.

 

Yes, but there's a difference between something difficult that is well-designed, versus something that is difficult precisely because it is poorly-designed.

 

Considering you're not an architect who had any idea what the OWNERS and FINANCIERS of these projects wanted, how are you to say they were not skillfully designed? You know what, they give ZERO FUCKS what you or anyone else thinks of their building, because they are writing the nine figure check.

 

YES, I said already if it's a private building, then they can design it however they want. But such buildings often are NOT private buildings, they are often PUBLIC buildings built using taxpayer money, and oftentimes the taxpayers are ignored in their opinion of the building. But also, even though the owners and financiers may like the design, that doesn't mean the basic design itself requires any skill.

 

You're failing to grasp the fundamental component of architecture, and if you believe they just skectch something on a napkin without the consultation of a massive engineering firm through every step (including construction budget) you're just solidifying that you have no clue how this process goes. There is literally 400+ pages of construction plans and documents for that single building, which outline every single damn part down to the door handles and lightbulbs.

 

What is the "fundamental component of architecture" you speak of that I am missing? And of course they have to consult an engineering firm, because otherwise their building would quite clearly never be feasible. Some buildings historically have been difficult to make feasible from an engineering standpoint regardless.

 

What you're untrained brain is completely missing, is the mere fact that you can look at it and think it's simple, is an absolute testament to just how well it is designed. You don't have the training to understand just how much work it is to get the scale and proportions right so it doesn't look like an absolute disaster.

 

You are falling into one of the classic arguments of the contemporary architectural profession, which is that if they design a building that most think looks like an eyesore, it is the people who are wrong as they lack the special training needed to see the "genius" or "beauty" of the structure. Now the problem with this is that beauty is not something that requires a Ph.D to understand at all. And you don't find this in things like automobiles for example. No one designs a car that is hideous and then claims that it is the public who is wrong and just lacks the education to understand the skill that went into the design. If people say the design looks hideous, generally that's because the design looks hideous. This applies to most things, as beauty is something all people can naturally understand. Only in contemporary architecture is the idea taken seriously that only the experts understand whether a building is very nice or not.

 

Also, what do you mean it doesn't look like an absolute disaster? What would a disaster look like? To me, the whole thing looks like a disaster.

 

I would bet a massive amount of money that I could sit you in front of that building for a week and staring at it all day long, you couldn't sketch an accurate representation of the physical structure standing before you. And that is wildly simple compared to taking a vision in your mind, putting it onto paper/3D space, and then turning that into a functioning space.

 

Not sure what you mean about sketching an accurate representation of it. It looks like a lot of dents, bends, and wobbles. And yes, it take skill to make a functioning space, that doesn't mean that the external appearance isn't still an eyesore. And a lot of contemporary buildings historically were not functional inside.

 

These buildings are not difficult for the sake of being difficult, they are done with deliberate intent. Fortis could have put a $300 jeld-wen slab door on the front of his house, but instead he has a marvel of steel and granite that amounts to decent used car in cost. By your notion he made a massive error due to the complexity and expense involved.

 

Putting a more expensive door on your home because you like it better is not what I am talking about. People have been doing that kind of thing in classical architecture for centuries. If Fortis was building a public building and did that with the public's money, that might be an error, unless the public held a vote and really liked the more expensive door.

 

The greatest irony in all of this, is you are proclaiming this wasted engineering and financial resources merely for the sake of a viceral experience, on a site dedicated to half a million dollar sports cars. Lamborghini's are the epitome of everything you're claiming to be grossly wasteful. You sound like every asshole who thinks his modified camaro is superior to an aventador roadster because it's faster for 1/10 the price. You haven't learned enough to even grasp how little you actually understand about what is going on in these structures.

 

This is incorrect. I am not talking about wasted engineering and financial resources for a visceral experience. For many, such buildings are not visceral at all in the experience they provide, and engineering-wise, are ridiculous because the extra engineering is needed to create what is an ugly, unfunctional structure. Like I said, if for private purposes, then build what you like, but otherwise, for public buildings, the engineering in many of these structures is not being utilized to create something truly glorious that people really like.

 

Analyzing the architectural detail of that building, the use of angular geometric texture over elliptical compound curves (try to grasp that concept for a minute) mixed with negative spaces and multiple layers/elevations, it could be a masters thesis paper.

 

I'd say it's a thesis of utter nonsense. The modern architectural profession has a lot of technical jargon that it utilizes to try and make itself feel that it knows what it's doing, but all that technical jargon leads to are buildings that strike most people as being eye sores and that, when used for public buildings, are a waste of engineering and financial resources, and more just a monument to the ego of the architect. They can call that particular structure "angular geometric texture over elliptical compound curves" if they want, but if it's ugly and looks like something any random person could come up with (which let's face it, that's not exactly a difficult design to do from an aesthetic standpoint), then at the end, it's just gibberish they are spouting.

 

Again, you'd never see any such arguments made regarding automotive design, food, music, etc... A Lamborghini looks beautiful because it looks beautiful, not because the public is told it is a wonderful design because of angular geometric this or that. A good cuisine is delicious because it is delicious, not because the chef makes something and instructs people it tastes good and is a work of art even if most think it tastes terrible.

 

I would love to take you into a design class, show them these pictures, and have you state your opinions there. You would be laughed out of that room faster than you can say golden mean.

 

And I would bet in the process that not one of them would be able to refute any of the points that I have made. If I hire you to design a building and you are supposed to be skilled and thus produce a "sophisticated" design that is an eye sore, difficult to engineer and construct, and expensive to build, then to me all your education was nonsense because you can't design a building that meets even basic criteria.

 

In addition, I would bet that upon bringing up the subject of classical architecture, most of them would cite a lot of criticism demonstrating that they are clueless about it. I say this because there have been some critical articles written and critical statements made by professors of architecture on the subject of classical architecture that show an astounding level of ignorance. If the architectural professors, and hence the profession, do not even really understand classical architecture, then how can they possibly criticize its use, or claim that critics of contemporary architecture are ignorant?

I think I get what Wheels is trying to express.

 

He's saying architecture quality is based on how easy the building is to engineer structurally (and other disciplines). The aesthetic part has little value to him, or at least he's not into the super modern and exotic design.

 

My dad's an SE, and is into classical design, form follows function, etc. He wishes there was a car manufacturer that could build the same model for 30 years straight, have super simplified technology that's dummy proof, etc. He's "that guy",and if it weren't for the two of us looking identical you could question the blood line slightly.

 

From his stories he's told me about the headaches of getting fancy architect ideas implemented in the real world. To him it's a nuisance probably because he doesn't support the design cause. On some level I respect it because it's like asking an interior designer to decorate a house supporting the gaudy taste of an owner, or asking my friend to tune a sound system with what he considers to be sh$& gear, just because he can.

 

Now to an SE that loves that design, they'll love the challenge. All engineers love a challenge, just not ALL challenges.

 

It's one of those difference of opinion thing, and not all the elements are brought into the conversation.

 

Wheels I'm sure is respecting these exotic designs on some level but is allowing his biases to make him say what he says that comes off like they are total POS designs.

 

FWIW, imho.

 

 

Well, it looks like I opened a can of worms.

 

First off, Wheels, you did not come across as mean and/or abrasive. So no worries there at all.

 

That said, however, I think everyone who cared to comment after your posts had made some obvious points and I must say I echo their views; and to that, it's my turn to say I hope I don't come across as aggressive or ill-mannered. But Wheels, you logic is illogically and you really don't have much idea, if any at all, on what goes on in an architect studio and how they interact with engineers and city planners. You make it sound like an architect took a good dose of bath salt, doodled something, then simply passed the chicken-scratch to the engineers and then imposed on them to build the actual thing. Or an architect woke up from a long night, having a hangover and decided on "let's see how I can further ruin the day of that a-hole engineer." I give you credit that, at times, the architect would test the limit of the city planners and the engineers (or his own self) on how far the design envelope can be pushed. And that is the challenge and, if I may, the fun from it all. How far can it go and how close can it gets to actually being literally impossible? Quiet honestly, if Lamborghini managed to build a car with square wheels and yet it retains all the comfort, performance and reliability as its "conventional" design; providing I can afford it; I would camp overnight outside of the Lamborghini dealership to be the first in line to order one. And I am 1000% sure I won't be the lone camper there.

 

As previously said, with due respect, you are conservative and, frankly, rather stubborn; plus you are advocating on something you really don't have much knowledge on. Do you realize how arrogant you sound from your post above (post #123)? So what professional and educational background do your possess to qualify you to say that? To be fair, you are fully entitled to your views and opinion. But there are fundamental flaws to your argument. So in your view, a private residence can be as wild and controversial looking as it can be as it serves its owner/residents only. Well, what about if it is perched high on a hill top where it is visible to the majority of "other" people (i.e. the public)? Is that imposing onto the public then? So according to your theory, all/most contemporary designs should be private and hidden away from the public eye then? Also according to your definition of good architecture, augmented by the photos that you posted/linked, everything should be symmetrical, practical, adhering to proven designs and non-offensive to the public. So by those rules, any rectangular structure that follows the golden ratio should be a winning design, wouldn't it? In other words, for maximum practicality and to minimize being offensive, the safest approach is to built boxes after boxes after boxes. I am not saying I dislike your preference; quite the contrary in fact. But there is plenty of room for other forms of architecture to co-exist in the public as well.

 

As to music, I suggest you not to go there and I think you understand why. But just for discussion sake, take out the composer's expressions and how he meant to convey the feeling and the mood, how do you define a symphony? It is a culmination of various sound produced from several musical instruments arranged in an orderly and coherent manner. Through "proper" arrangements, feelings and expressions can be conveyed. But the preference is based on culture, past experience, education and even; dare I say; maturity and all have great variances. Members of a classical quartet ensemble and a heavy metal rock band are both considers as musicians. But almost nothing can be further apart with their presentations and expressions of music and themselves (the latter being how they are dressed). So does the respective piece from either of the group fit the definition of "music" then? Either group might not agree with each other or have too many common grounds but none are wrong. And chances are if you prefer one, you may not like the other (although they are plenty who actually like both) but that does not and cannot deny either one's performance as being considered as music.

 

And hence the freedom of expression and it's the same analogy on various forms of architecture. Please don't discount them simply because they do not fit YOUR definition of the very term or the genre --- and especially when you lack the knowledge of the subject in depth. Innovation fuels progress and vice versa. I acknowledge that some of your contemporary examples do look a bit controversial. But again, people in general aren't entirely stupid especially when serious finances and planning are involved and, as controversial as some may seem, they obviously are pleasing enough to some who were willing to grant them the permit and the funding to build them. There is nothing anarchy about that at all.

 

Finally, since this is a Lamborghini forum, consider this: if we base our interpretation of a good sports car with proven classical design elements, i.e. "conventional" 3-box styling with well-balanced symmetrical front & rear overhangs, wheelbase that conforms to the proper ratio of the overall length with a top that provides good visibility all around and with conventional doors plus with front-engine-RWD-configuration--- say a BMW M3 --- wouldn't a Lamborghini be a design of an absolute anarchy then? Just think about how different an Aventador had deviated from the design of a M3! So then, Wheels, are you disliking Lamborghini's as it probably is as far from classical as it can get and, without the slightest of doubt, it fits the definition of anarchy perfectly.