The Architecture thread

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.

 

The aesthetic part of architecture has great value to me. My argument is just that where is the skill shown by contemporary architects who design buildings that many find ugly and that are difficult to engineer and construct, and costly to boot? Designing a building like that would generally be what you'd expect from somewhat who does not know what they're doing, not someone who is supposed to be an expert.

 

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.

 

Classical architecture is not about doing the same thing constantly or being against advanced technology. It is about change and innovation, hence how all the difference styles evolved since Greece.

 

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.

 

Very few of them I respect, most of them, aesthetics-wise, I'd say are total POS designs.

 

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.

 

That is interesting that you'd go for a Lambo with square wheels. But the difference is you would choose, of your own volition, to purchase such a car. Such a car is not being forced on you. Whereas with much public architecture these days, it is forced onto the public. Architecture is not supposed to be about designing buildings with no sense of design that are just anarchy to "push the limits" so-to-speak. The building should take into account aesthetics as well. The thing is, how can a building that is considered by many to be ugly, that is very difficult to engineer and construct, and costly to build, be considered some kind of great work of architecture? Sure architects have to consult with city planners, engineers, etc...but that doesn't mean that the basic design, from an aesthetic standpoint at least, isn't something that was essentially just doodled up. Just look at some of the pictures I have provided.

 

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?

 

Being against anarchy in design is not being conservative, IMO. That is like saying that someone who is against just random noise masquerading as music is "conservative." On professional/educational background, I would say that one doesn't need to be a professional in architecture to point out whether a building is ugly or not and whether it is rather anarchistic and doesn't make much sense structurally. The same occurs in the world of high art. You don't need to be a professional to point out that a lot of stuff that looks like junk is just that. You don't need to be a professional in food to determine whether a meal tastes bad or not, or whether music sounds nice or not. Basically, the argument seems to be that if the architectural profession says a building is great, then regular people are just to shut up because they aren't experts on it, even though the building may be hideous, have no real sense of design, and be very difficult to engineer and construct, and very costly----such a building would generally be what you'd expect from someone who does not know what they're doing, not someone who supposedly does.

 

Regarding if the building is perched high on a hill, the thing is, it isn't the public that is paying for the building then. And the public doesn't have to use it either. So it is a little different. There plenty of classical designs that people might not want viewable either. There was a stink in some ritzy neighborhood some years back when someone wanted to build a formal-looking Greek temple-style home. About as classical a design as one can get, but many residents said it looked way too formal for the neighborhood and didn't want it built.

 

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.

 

Not so much that, but rather that the design shouldn't just amount to being pure anarchy. Ever since the architectural profession threw out all the knowledge of classicism in the early 20th century, the public has been horrified repeatedly by the various buildings that were designed, that were not only ugly, but proved to be unfunctional to boot. Public architecture (as in financed by the taxpayer) should be generally seen as aesthetically beautiful, not aesthetically an eyesore that is only considered great by the architectural profession whose attitude is that the public lacks the education to the see the greatness in the building.

 

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.

 

Yes, but the same thing occurs within classical architecture itself. Different cultures have very different styles, but all cultures adhere to the basic concept of beauty. When you look at the great works of architecture of most all cultures, some may not be your cup of tea, but few anyone would define as ugly. Whereas much contemporary architecture is hideously ugly. Yes rock bands and classical quartets are very different, but they also are still expressions of sound in an ordered fashion, and not just random noise. There is structure to them.

 

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.

 

A lot of the people willing to grant the finances for such buildings would never dream of actually living in buildings that look as such and only grant the finances for them because it's the fashionable thing to do right now. Sort of like how every major city wants a Frank Gehry building. No one wants to be regarded as the guy who's supposedly stodgy and conservative and all that.

 

You are right that innovation fuels progress, but that is my point as well. Classical architecture is all about innovation and progress. What you are missing is that innovation works by building on, and advancing, prior knowledge. It does not work by tossing out all known knowledge and starting over repeatedly, which is basically what contemporary architecture does, and as a result, is not an example of progress, but rather an example of anarchy and regressiveness. The great classical music created wasn't just created randomly, it was the result of centuries of development in music. What would music look like if all knowledge of it had been tossed by the wayside? What would food look like if all knowledge of cooking and baking was tossed? What would buildings look like if all acquired structural engineering knowledge was tossed out? Contemporary architecture is not an example of progress 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.

 

I would have to disagree completely. Remember, classical design isn't just about using styles of the past. If that was the case, then how did each of those individual styles ever get developed then? The difference is that the Lamborghini is an advancement of automotive design that is the product of knowledge of prior automotive design. It is not a result of just throwing out automotive design knowledge. The engine placed in the midsection of the Lambo is not because some random designer decided to put it there and then they had to figure out how to engineer the car to work with that, it is designed that way because it gives an advantage in terms of weight distribution.

 

Take all known automotive design knowledge and throw it out the window and then start over and see what you get. You'd end up with some absolutely hideous cars most likely---that is what I mean by anarchy.

 

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

 

Yes, and you wouldn't have any idea which was which. Your only observation of poor design is you don't like it aesthetically, which does not make it poorly designed.

 

Your lack of understanding of the core principles and refusal to accept things because of your ignorance and personal preference is deafening.

 

The "funded by taxpayers" is pretty laughable. Most of these are funded by massive donations in the realm of hundreds of millions.

 

I would like you to cite your source that "most people think looks like an eyesore"... where are you gathering this information? And it better be a fcuk load more legitimate than 10 posts on city-data.com. Because YOU don't like something does not give you the right to speak for hundreds of thousands of other people. Post hard statistics or shut the fcuk up on that point.

 

Because you don't consider architecture a visceral experience does not mean it isn't that way for others. The same way some people just don't get sports cars and see zero value in them. Your opinion is NOT the opinion of the masses, neither is mine, or anyone elses. But that doesn't give you the right to indignantly proclaim something has zero value to others. Whether you like it or not, they are hugely functional. One of the examples you posted is the Disney concert hall in Los Angeles, which is the epitome of functional. It was professionally designed for optimal acoustics and is one of the premier concert halls in the world.

 

That's what I find most hilarious with your post, you didn't take into consideration the function of the buildings you used as examples, just randomly selected designs from a particular architect you don't like, ignoring the principle you are spouting off of form following function. I live in SoCal and I don't know a single person who would have a bad thing to say about the disney concert hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall

 

 

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,

 

No, these are the same classical design concepts that have been around for thousands of years and are equally applied to french gothic arches and beams.

 

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.

 

This just demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the entire process. Architects are given specific criteria and direction for the designs, and in cases of projects this size it's not uncommon to have 6+ firms from several countries making multiple presentations and bids on the job. The architects are selected for their style from the very beginning, so the general direction is known from the very start. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED, it wasn't a drunk architect who scratched something on a napkin and asked for a 7 figure check. The people in charge of the project choose these designs from dozens which were presented. They can absolutely design a cube that meets your criteria, but THAT ISN'T WHAT THE CLIENT REQUESTED. It takes some gall and ignorance to claim their educations were nonsense, when you have made a clear case that you don't comprehend .0001% of what the process involves.

 

When YOU hire someone, you can direct them to build whatever damn thing YOU want to pay to have built. Which is exactly what all these other people have done.

 

The mere notion that you believe these things should be voted on is hilarious. It would cost 10x as much and take three decades to build anything if that were the case. You're completely ignoring the point that we can't get more than 10% of the population to vote for a president. And you want public input on construction projects that will, when professionally managed, take 5-10 years to construct start to finish? Your proposal makes building the pyramids by hand look efficient.

 

Wheels seriously, you're just flat out wrong. It's fine that YOU don't like the designs, and it's even ok to not understand them, but to criticize and degrade things because of your own ignorance is in the same ballpark as cultures who don't believe women should be able to vote because they are inferior to men. Literally every point you have tried to make is as fundamentally incorrect as 2+2= potato. Your myopic stubbornness does nothing but shout ignorance and immaturity.

Totally agree with emanon. In fact, I was about to use the Disney Concert Hall to illustrate the point of looking "unconventional" and it indeed has near-perfect acoustics.

 

Wheels, are you a member or a director of the Flat Earth Society? I do not mean to sound coarse but since I was the one who asked you about your architectual preferences, I am somewhat compelled to carry this through. Why are you steadfastly defending on something which you clearly do not have a comprehensive knowledge of? And that's not limited to architecture but the entire academics behind city planning, financing, sociological behavior/social acceptance etc... Do not discount or reject on something that you do not comprehend; and do not blindly defend on something which you genuinely lack understanding of. And let's not even try to use food and music as your defense. I am no expert in foods but I'll say 2 words --- Molecular Gastronomy. That is enough to dispute the points you made above on foods. As to music, as afore-said, I don't think you want to go there. So according to your analogy of re-inventing the car by throwing everything we know out the window, if someone someday did come up with something like the Landspeeder in Star Wars, you would totally discount it and call it hideous because it doesn't fit the conventional norm? In fact, would you not step foot onto the Maglev train that's been running between the Shanghai airport and one of its major train hubs for the past 11 years? Moreover, Japan just came out with the first Maglev toy train set in the world. It certainly defies all previous conventional toy train sets as the trains have no wheels as we know it. So what would you say to that? Seriously Wheels, you are more than welcome to voice your opinion and preferences. But please don't try to write a book along with lame examples and references to defend yourself when all aspects point to the fact that your are utterly and categorically wrong and ignorant to principles behind the subject. You need not to accept it and you are more than welcome to proceed as you were. But do not try to impose your misconception onto others especially onto those that might actual know a thing or two about it as it would only reflect how lacking you really are in that particular field.

Yes, and you wouldn't have any idea which was which. Your only observation of poor design is you don't like it aesthetically, which does not make it poorly designed.

 

You're wrong there. Aesthetics is only part of it. If the building is functional, environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, structurally makes sense, etc...then I can be fine with that. It is when the building is expensive, difficult to engineer and construct, and ugly to boot, that I find it a poor piece of architecture. As what then is the criteria for a good piece of architecture?

 

Your lack of understanding of the core principles and refusal to accept things because of your ignorance and personal preference is deafening.

 

What are these core principles you speak of?

 

And why is it that contemporary architecture is one of the only fields in which the judgment of whether the building is good or not is left up to the architects themselves and if anyone else tries to offer a contrary opinion, they are told they lack understanding? If someone says a car is ugly, you don't have automotive designers coming out and saying, "Who are YOU to criticize!? You don't know the core principles behind the design, and how brilliant it is, etc..."

 

What are the "core principles" expressed in some of the examples I have cited above that are demonstrations of a lack of any principles whatsoever? Like the building that looks like a giant bashed it in or the classical building with the big glass-looking triangle sticking off of it?

 

The "funded by taxpayers" is pretty laughable. Most of these are funded by massive donations in the realm of hundreds of millions.

 

Lots of them are publicly-funded structures.

 

I would like you to cite your source that "most people think looks like an eyesore"... where are you gathering this information? And it better be a fcuk load more legitimate than 10 posts on city-data.com. Because YOU don't like something does not give you the right to speak for hundreds of thousands of other people. Post hard statistics or shut the fcuk up on that point.

 

I didn't say that most people think that particular building looks like an eyesore, that's my opinion. But many think various contemporary works are eyesores. Just take a look at residential architecture for one, and tell me why then you don't see designs like this found there. Why is it only in the areas where contemporary architecture can be forced onto the public that such architecture thrives?

 

Rather I would flip this question on you...because the architectural profession likes a lot of their buildings doesn't give them the right to force them onto hundreds of thousands of people.

 

Because you don't consider architecture a visceral experience does not mean it isn't that way for others. The same way some people just don't get sports cars and see zero value in them. Your opinion is NOT the opinion of the masses, neither is mine, or anyone elses. But that doesn't give you the right to indignantly proclaim something has zero value to others. Whether you like it or not, they are hugely functional. One of the examples you posted is the Disney concert hall in Los Angeles, which is the epitome of functional. It was professionally designed for optimal acoustics and is one of the premier concert halls in the world.

 

Some of them are functional, yes, but quite many throughout history have been anything but. Look at a lot of Le Corbusier's work as an example (a man considered THE MAN by much of the contemporary architectural profession). And some of Frank Lloyd Wright's. The Disney Concert Hall can be functional on the inside, but it's external appearance is just more madness. People who criticize sports cars are critical of them because of what they are, not because of how they look.

 

And most of the masses do not like such buildings, or such designs would be prevalent in residential architecture as well. But instead, traditional design dominates in residential architecture.

 

That's what I find most hilarious with your post, you didn't take into consideration the function of the buildings you used as examples, just randomly selected designs from a particular architect you don't like, ignoring the principle you are spouting off of form following function. I live in SoCal and I don't know a single person who would have a bad thing to say about the disney concert hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall

 

Do any of them have a home that looks similar or want one? That said, the Disney Concert Hall is owned by Disney, so it wasn't foisted on the public in the way I criticize. Since you say I did not take into account the function of the buildings, what are the "function" of these three buildings?

 

What "function" is served by that big triangle sticking off?

 

 

What function is served by making the building look like a giant fist punched it hard?

 

 

What function is served by those twirly-bendy shapes?

 

 

No, these are the same classical design concepts that have been around for thousands of years and are equally applied to french gothic arches and beams.

 

Why did the profession completely reject the use of ornament and deride it as a crime even for many years? Look at Le Corbusier's 1926 Five Points, which had no realistic relationship to how buildings actually function. If the profession still uses concepts that have been around for thousands of years and which are applied to things like French gothic arches and beams, then tell me the following:

 

1) Why are contemporary architects completely incapable of designing any classical architecture?

 

2) Why do contemporary architects hold numerous misconceptions about classical architecture?

 

I mean one would think that if they were educated in the same principles as those used in classical architecture, that they'd at least understand the basics of how to design in classical architecture.

 

3) Why were most classical buildings ordered and pleasing to people while so much contemporary architecture looks like anarchy and has to be forced onto the public and is hated by many?

 

cont'd...

 

This just demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the entire process. Architects are given specific criteria and direction for the designs, and in cases of projects this size it's not uncommon to have 6+ firms from several countries making multiple presentations and bids on the job. The architects are selected for their style from the very beginning, so the general direction is known from the very start. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED, it wasn't a drunk architect who scratched something on a napkin and asked for a 7 figure check. The people in charge of the project choose these designs from dozens which were presented. They can absolutely design a cube that meets your criteria, but THAT ISN'T WHAT THE CLIENT REQUESTED. It takes some gall and ignorance to claim their educations were nonsense, when you have made a clear case that you don't comprehend .0001% of what the process involves.

 

In terms of architecture, I would say their education is nonsense. So that is what the client wants, so what? (and if the client is a government, it oftentimes is not what the people want). That doesn't mean the design involved any real skill to come up with from an aesthetic standpoint. Take the big triangle put onto the classical building. I could design that aesthetically in two seconds. Or the building that looks like it was bashed in. Again, not difficult to design. What the process you speak of involves is then making the interior functional and the engineers working out how to actually make the structure stand.

 

When YOU hire someone, you can direct them to build whatever damn thing YOU want to pay to have built. Which is exactly what all these other people have done.

 

As I said, if it's a private operation, then FINE, build what they want. But that doesn't mean that aesthetically, it is any great work of architecture that required real skill to design, even though a supposed top architect may have been employed to design it. The real skill in such buildings is in the engineering and manufacturing to make said design work.

 

The mere notion that you believe these things should be voted on is hilarious. It would cost 10x as much and take three decades to build anything if that were the case. You're completely ignoring the point that we can't get more than 10% of the population to vote for a president. And you want public input on construction projects that will, when professionally managed, take 5-10 years to construct start to finish? Your proposal makes building the pyramids by hand look efficient.

 

It doesn't take a whole lot to determine whether a building is an eyesore or whether it's something aesthetically-pleasing. The architectural profession for many years has been quite elitist in the sense of thinking it knows best in what to foist onto the public.

 

Wheels seriously, you're just flat out wrong. It's fine that YOU don't like the designs, and it's even ok to not understand them, but to criticize and degrade things because of your own ignorance is in the same ballpark as cultures who don't believe women should be able to vote because they are inferior to men. Literally every point you have tried to make is as fundamentally incorrect as 2+2= potato. Your myopic stubbornness does nothing but shout ignorance and immaturity.

 

I think it is yourself that doesn't understand my own points. And yes I have every right to criticize and degrade buildings that look hideously ugly and are also very difficult to engineer and construct, and costly if public buildings. Again, beauty is not something that requires a degree to understand. In virtually no other artistic profession is the public told that buildings are wonderful and that their dislike of them is just due to ignorance. And my opinion is not anywhere compatible to saying that women are inferior to men.

Wheels, are you a member or a director of the Flat Earth Society? I do not mean to sound coarse but since I was the one who asked you about your architectual preferences, I am somewhat compelled to carry this through. Why are you steadfastly defending on something which you clearly do not have a comprehensive knowledge of? And that's not limited to architecture but the entire academics behind city planning, financing, sociological behavior/social acceptance etc... Do not discount or reject on something that you do not comprehend; and do not blindly defend on something which you genuinely lack understanding of.

 

Comparing critics of contemporary architecture to being Flat Earthers is a prime example of the lack of understanding of my argument. For one, you do not need an in-depth understanding of architecture to see whether buildings are hideous. That is not something that requires expertise to determine.

 

The "academics" behind city planning and architecture have made so many titanic mistakes throughout the 20th century and demonstrate such a level of ignorance about the subject of classical architecture, that I do not take them very seriously. You say it is me who doesn't understand the subject, yet from what I have seen, it is they themselves who do not understand much of the subject. Look at Poundbury. They said it would fail. It has turned out to be a huge success. Look at Pruit-Igoe and similar such designs, and Corbusier's various designs, all foisted onto the public, and almost all miserable failures. There are professors of architecture who criticize classical architecture in ways that show they have no understanding of it.

 

So I do not have a whole lot of respect for the "experts" in this field.

 

And let's not even try to use food and music as your defense. I am no expert in foods but I'll say 2 words --- Molecular Gastronomy. That is enough to dispute the points you made above on foods. As to music, as afore-said, I don't think you want to go there. So according to your analogy of re-inventing the car by throwing everything we know out the window, if someone someday did come up with something like the Landspeeder in Star Wars, you would totally discount it and call it hideous because it doesn't fit the conventional norm?

 

I think you are wrong in discounting my comparisons with music and food. As for the land speeder, no I wouldn't discount that because that is not tossing of design knowledge out the window. That would just be a new design based on more advanced technology.

 

In fact, would you not step foot onto the Maglev train that's been running between the Shanghai airport and one of its major train hubs for the past 11 years? Moreover, Japan just came out with the first Maglev toy train set in the world. It certainly defies all previous conventional toy train sets as the trains have no wheels as we know it.

 

Again, you aren't understanding my arguments. A land speeder or Maglev train are not examples of tossing out previous design knowledge to start over, they are advancements on existing design knowledge. They had to first start with wheeled trains powered by steam, then wheeled trains powered by diesel-electric and electric, and then Maglev trains.

 

These technologies are actual progress. They are an actual improvement on what has come before. They are not things that make absolutely zero sense from an engineering standpoint and that look hideous, but which they decide to build anyway.

 

So what would you say to that? Seriously Wheels, you are more than welcome to voice your opinion and preferences. But please don't try to write a book along with lame examples and references to defend yourself when all aspects point to the fact that your are utterly and categorically wrong and ignorant to principles behind the subject. You need not to accept it and you are more than welcome to proceed as you were. But do not try to impose your misconception onto others especially onto those that might actual know a thing or two about it as it would only reflect how lacking you really are in that particular field.

 

I would disagree that I am utterly and categorically wrong and ignorant to principles behind the subject. If so, then tell me how some of these various crazy buildings make any sense from a design standpoint.

 

If the building is functional, environmentally-friendly, cost-effective, structurally makes sense, etc...then I can be fine with that. It is when the building is expensive, difficult to engineer and construct, and ugly to boot,

 

Cost effective compared to what? Ugly, says who? You? All the things you state are relative with no baseline as a reference. The Burj-Dubai is difficult to engineer, so?

 

Lots of them are publicly-funded structures.

 

List them

 

 

I didn't say that most people think that particular building looks like an eyesore, that's my opinion. But many think various contemporary works are eyesores. Just take a look at residential architecture for one, and tell me why then you don't see designs like this found there. Why is it only in the areas where contemporary architecture can be forced onto the public that such architecture thrives?

 

By stating many think that, who are these many? How are you gaining this perspective from them? Where is the data to support it? Post a source or stop it.

 

You do see it in residential architecture quite a bit, when people have the finances to build exactly what they want. 99.999% of residences have to appeal to a wild majority of people purely because the owner does not intend to live there indefinitely and it helps resale value. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the design and its function, just that common is easier to sell later. The same can be said for a black car vs a purple one. I saw a guy pay six figures to paint a fcuking dolphin on the hood of a viper because HE LIKED IT. It was a fantastic painting, but the car is his forever. And the people who can afford to build such things want it the way they want it, and most of the time don't want what someone else already built. If you had any experience in building/buying/selling even moderately priced homes you would understand this. There is literally zero comparison for residential vs. commercial. Again, stop it.

 

Rather I would flip this question on you...because the architectural profession likes a lot of their buildings doesn't give them the right to force them onto hundreds of thousands of people.

 

The architectural profession likes WHAT THE CLIENTS ASK FOR AND PAY FOR. Architects ARE NOT FUNDING THESE OUT OF THEIR POCKETS JUST TO PISS YOU OFF. You need to re-re-read this. They only design what they are paid to design, with strict direction from the client, who then has to approve the design before the first drop of water hits concrete. Architects can't force a damn thing on anyone if someone doesn't buy it. Jesus-tap-dancing-christ, why can't you comprehend this.

 

 

Some of them are functional, yes, but quite many throughout history have been anything but. Look at a lot of Le Corbusier's work as an example (a man considered THE MAN by much of the contemporary architectural profession). And some of Frank Lloyd Wright's. The Disney Concert Hall can be functional on the inside, but it's external appearance is just more madness. People who criticize sports cars are critical of them because of what they are, not because of how they look.

 

And most of the masses do not like such buildings, or such designs would be prevalent in residential architecture as well. But instead, traditional design dominates in residential architecture.

 

For the final time, post your source for citing the masses or STFU. See my point above, you can't compare residential to commercial, they serve completely different purposes.

 

Do any of them have a home that looks similar or want one? That said, the Disney Concert Hall is owned by Disney, so it wasn't foisted on the public in the way I criticize. Since you say I did not take into account the function of the buildings, what are the "function" of these three buildings?

 

 

 

What "function" is served by that big triangle sticking off?

 

 

 

What function is served by making the building look like a giant fist punched it hard?

 

 

 

What function is served by those twirly-bendy shapes?

 

First of all, Those are ALL PRIVATELY OWNED. So your justification for criticism is admittedly null and void. Have you been to Prague to criticize their style and use of ornament? Because one of them is a hotel in prague and the "ugly twirly thing" is a pretty fantastic shade structure among other things. You should research some german history on that "wedge" for the german war museum before you look more uneducated. And I don't see anything that looks like a fist punched it.

 

 

1) Why are contemporary architects completely incapable of designing any classical architecture?

 

2) Why do contemporary architects hold numerous misconceptions about classical architecture?

 

I mean one would think that if they were educated in the same principles as those used in classical architecture, that they'd at least understand the basics of how to design in classical architecture.

 

3) Why were most classical buildings ordered and pleasing to people while so much contemporary architecture looks like anarchy and has to be forced onto the public and is hated by many?

 

1. They aren't. THEY ARE PAID TO DESIGN WHAT PEOPLE WANT

2. Where do they? Post their statements which are proven misconception. Site your sources or STFU.

3. POST YOUR DAMN SOURCES ON WHO/HOW MANY PEOPLE HATE THESE BUILDINGS.

 

Cost effective compared to what? Ugly, says who? You? All the things you state are relative with no baseline as a reference. The Burj-Dubai is difficult to engineer, so?

 

Cost-effective as in doesn't cost an arm-and-a-leg to construct because the design is wacky. Ugly according to generally-accepted concepts of beauty. I mean sure, some may like such designs, but if such designs have to be foisted onto the public, that's a good indicator that they are generally not viewed as attractive. The Burj-Dubai is difficult to engineer because of how tall it is, not because the design is wacky.

 

List them

 

I do not know all of them off of the top of my head. One example could be I. M. Pei's pyramid for the Louvre. Another could be the Pruit-Igoe housing complex which had to be demolished because it was such a failure. Another could be Dallas City Hall. Another could be China Central Television's headquarters in Beijing, hated by many Chinese even though lauded by the architectural press.

 

By stating many think that, who are these many? How are you gaining this perspective from them? Where is the data to support it? Post a source or stop it.

 

You do see it in residential architecture quite a bit, when people have the finances to build exactly what they want. 99.999% of residences have to appeal to a wild majority of people purely because the owner does not intend to live there indefinitely and it helps resale value. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the design and its function, just that common is easier to sell later. The same can be said for a black car vs a purple one. I saw a guy pay six figures to paint a fcuking dolphin on the hood of a viper because HE LIKED IT. It was a fantastic painting, but the car is his forever. And the people who can afford to build such things want it the way they want it, and most of the time don't want what someone else already built. If you had any experience in building/buying/selling even moderately priced homes you would understand this. There is literally zero comparison for residential vs. commercial. Again, stop it.

 

Note the point you just made, that traditional design is what appeals to the wild majority of people. Why doesn't contemporary design, if it is so great or such an example of progress, also appeal to them? And in terms of cost, why is it so expensive? Why aren't there contemporary designs available to regular people? One of the arguments FOR contemporary design was that classical designs were too expensive and costly. This problem doesn't exist in automobiles, or appliances, or consumer electronics, or computers, etc...where the contemporary is very popular with the public.

 

The architectural profession likes WHAT THE CLIENTS ASK FOR AND PAY FOR. Architects ARE NOT FUNDING THESE OUT OF THEIR POCKETS JUST TO PISS YOU OFF. You need to re-re-read this. They only design what they are paid to design, with strict direction from the client, who then has to approve the design before the first drop of water hits concrete. Architects can't force a damn thing on anyone if someone doesn't buy it. Jesus-tap-dancing-christ, why can't you comprehend this.

 

A few things:

 

1) For private clients, yes, that is what they demand, but not necessarily what the public wants when the client is the government. In addition, what the client demands has to do with looking contemporary and progressive a lot. That is why every city wants a Frank Gehry building. Because no one wants to be accused of being the stodgy flat-Earther. The same happens in the art world.

 

2) The architectural profession likes what it determines is good architecture, not per se what the clients ask for. The clients may want architecture that the profession does not like.

 

For the final time, post your source for citing the masses or STFU. See my point above, you can't compare residential to commercial, they serve completely different purposes.

 

You very much can compare them. You don't see any problems with classical architecture being applied to residential (of every price range), commercial, government, etc...buildings. So why can't contemporary be applied? Contemporary ought to be as applicable and attractive to lower-income and middle-class people as it is for certain wealthy people, government, and commercial interests. That it isn't is a testament to the fact that so many people do not like it. Also, do some reading up on Le Corbusier and the numerous unfunctional buildings he designed. One titanic example is his design for Chandigarh in India.

 

First of all, Those are ALL PRIVATELY OWNED. So your justification for criticism is admittedly null and void. Have you been to Prague to criticize their style and use of ornament? Because one of them is a hotel in prague and the "ugly twirly thing" is a pretty fantastic shade structure among other things. You should research some german history on that "wedge" for the german war museum before you look more uneducated. And I don't see anything that looks like a fist punched it.

 

They can very much be criticized in terms of their aesthetics, private or public. That ugly twirly (I should have said wavy) thing may be a shade structure, but they couldn't design a more decent-looking shade structure? Regarding the war museum, according to Wikipedia:

 

Before opening in October 2011 as the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, the building underwent six years of extensive construction. Using the design of architect Daniel Libeskind, the Neo-Classicist facade on the historic arsenal has been interrupted. Libeskind added a transparent arrowhead to the façade of the building, creating an outwardly visible expression of innovation.[3] This striking element is also reflected in the logo of the museum. The architect wanted to penetrate the historic arsenal and create a new experience with the addition. The openness and transparency of the new façade, representing the openness of democratic society, contrasts with the rigidity of the existing building, which represents the severity of the authoritarian past.[1] The silver arrowhead protrudes from the center of the traditional Neo-Classical building and provides a five story, 98 foot high viewing platform which overlooks the evolving city.[2]

 

IMO, it's a lousy justification for what is a hideous eyesore on the building. Plenty of buildings could have been said to represent authoritarianism, but that doesn't mean you destroy the building's appearance in some anarchistic fashion. Like every building constructed in the Roman Empire. Or in the British Empire. Why not add a big new object to the Colosseum, site of much slavery. And to call it an "outwardly visible expression of innovation" is just head spinning. That's like taking a picture of a beautiful woman and adding a big fat pimple to it and calling it innovation. There are plenty of ways they could have added an addition to that building to represent democracy and freedom in a way that would only have enhanced its beauty.

 

As for the fist building, I'm talking about this one:

 

 

1. They aren't. THEY ARE PAID TO DESIGN WHAT PEOPLE WANT

2. Where do they? Post their statements which are proven misconception. Site your sources or STFU.

3. POST YOUR DAMN SOURCES ON WHO/HOW MANY PEOPLE HATE THESE BUILDINGS.

 

1) They aren't!? Most contemporary architects are absolutely clueless regarding how to design classical architecture, because it is not taught in most all of the architecture schools. Notre Dame is the only school with such a program in the United States.

 

2) Well for one, the rejection of things like ornament and historical styles, and the quasi-religious belief that use of any kind of historical style is morally wrong. These are dominant views in contemporary architecture. But they're also baseless. By those arguments, then Palladio was morally wrong to revive Greek and Roman architecture. And Parliament is a kitsch building because it is Gothic Revival as opposed to being true Gothic. Another criticism of classical architecture is that its proponents are "conservative" and desire the architecture of a time of class and oppression.

 

Here is an article that I found very interesting:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/justinshubow/2...ion-is-failing/

 

And here is one in which a critic demonstrates his snootiness and ignorance regarding classical architecture:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/20...-10-better-ones

 

Here is one by a professor of architecture who also demonstrates ignorance of classical architecture:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/w...L7YU_story.html

 

Here is one where a classical architect explains some of the major misconceptions that exist about classical architecture (he would know!): http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/18239032/th...al-architecture

 

3) Frank Gehry himself (ironically an architect I criticize a whole lot) said that 98% of all architecture done today is crap. See the first article in 2) that I linked to. You could also look at the public support Prince Charles in the UK has gotten for his criticism of much contemporary architecture.

I would disagree that I am utterly and categorically wrong and ignorant to principles behind the subject. If so, then tell me how some of these various crazy buildings make any sense from a design standpoint.

 

Read your last sentence above Wheels, you fundamentally answered your own question already and yes, your own answer precipitated that you are wrong. If you fail to see the design aspect of the structure and the merits within, then you simply don't get it and the point is moot to elaborate any further. I will, however, say the following 2 points:

 

1) Just because you think it's ugly, hideous, non-functional and/or you simply don't get it does not make the structure pointless. Even if some from the public share your ignorance, the fact remains that none of these buildings had to be torn down and/or they sit unoccupied. That itself serves the purpose and the function. As for the form, it generated a heated debate right here didn't it; and this won't be the only debate at any given time. So obviously the form attracted the attention. Some like it, some don't. But the purpose of attention-grabbing has been served. Q.E.D.

 

2) So why is it that, save perhaps one, all of us here do not understand or misunderstand what you are trying to say and we are basically all in agreement to disagree with you? I am not a person that usually conform to the majority either but clearly when everyone says something is wrong with your rationale, you should at least pause and examine why are you the only one who is perceiving things differently and your argument/evidences are quite weak thus far.

Read your last sentence above Wheels, you fundamentally answered your own question already and yes, your own answer precipitated that you are wrong. If you fail to see the design aspect of the structure and the merits within, then you simply don't get it and the point is moot to elaborate any further.

 

Which sentence are you referring to?

 

I will, however, say the following 2 points:

 

1) Just because you think it's ugly, hideous, non-functional and/or you simply don't get it does not make the structure pointless. Even if some from the public share your ignorance, the fact remains that none of these buildings had to be torn down and/or they sit unoccupied. That itself serves the purpose and the function. As for the form, it generated a heated debate right here didn't it; and this won't be the only debate at any given time. So obviously the form attracted the attention. Some like it, some don't. But the purpose of attention-grabbing has been served. Q.E.D.

 

IMO it isn't about ignorance. That is a cop-out IMO that the architectural profession uses to justify what are designs that they can't otherwise justify. Sure if a building here or there looked ugly and there was real reason for it, then okay, but when so many of them look ugly, then one begins to realize that maybe it isn't that there's something wrong with the critics but rather something wrong with the architects. And sure the buildings may be used, that doesn't mean that there weren't much better alternatives to accomplish the same thing. The British Library serves its purpose, but that doesn't stop it from being a staid eyesore. Look at Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water. It is hailed as being one of the greatest works of architecture of the 20th century. Well what exactly is so great or creative or genius or brilliant about it? To me, it just looks like an average structure that any third-rate designer could have conjured up.

 

2) So why is it that, save perhaps one, all of us here do not understand or misunderstand what you are trying to say and we are basically all in agreement to disagree with you? I am not a person that usually conform to the majority either but clearly when everyone says something is wrong with your rationale, you should at least pause and examine why are you the only one who is perceiving things differently and your argument/evidences are quite weak thus far.

 

Well obviously I would disagree that my arguments are weak; I agree with pausing to examine one's perception if others disagree, but thus far I haven't seen anyone really refute what I am saying.

 

The gist of my argument is that all professions and arts advance by innovation that builds on and advances existing knowledge. Architecture did that for 3,000 years, but then stopped doing it in the 20th century. It adopted what were many baseless principles and ideas (such as ornament is wrong, historical styles are wrong, classical design is restrictive, etc...) and created a number of unfunctional buildings that people didn't like. Today architectural design is mainly just anarchy, not based on any kind of real system, hence why so many of the buildings look so anarchistic. It also continues to adhere to some of these misconceptions, such as that classical design is restrictive or historical styles are wrong.

 

Emanon says that the one building I dislike is based on a system of geometry, but aesthetics-wise, it looks like something anyone could design. Whereas classical architecture, which is also based on geometry and proportion, is not something just anyone can design. It requires a lot of training and skill development.

Emanon says that the one building I dislike is based on a system of geometry, but aesthetics-wise, it looks like something anyone could design. Whereas classical architecture, which is also based on geometry and proportion, is not something just anyone can design. It requires a lot of training and skill development.

 

Try it either way and lets see your design. If it's so simple then you should be able to make a significant fortune sketching bullshit on paper. Gehry is worth ~$60m, it's so easy why wouldn't you do it?

 

Well obviously I would disagree that my arguments are weak; I agree with pausing to examine one's perception if others disagree, but thus far I haven't seen anyone really refute what I am saying.

 

Wheels, that is the greatest display of denial I have ever read. We have punched more holes in your entire theory than a swiss cheese factory, and you keep parroting back the same nonsensical generalized statements. You're the equivalent of telling a 4yr old the sky is blue, and you're throwing a tantrum proclaiming it's actually red. From this point on you're banned from using anarchy, public, or any insinuation that you're speaking for anyone but yourself.

 

3) Frank Gehry himself (ironically an architect I criticize a whole lot) said that 98% of all architecture done today is crap. See the first article in 2) that I linked to. You could also look at the public support Prince Charles in the UK has gotten for his criticism of much contemporary architecture.

 

No shit, it's good business for him to say everything else is crap. Nor do I give two fucks what the people of the UK think, I don't live there. The fact that you're scouring the globe for something to backup your statement shows nothing but defeat. Give some concrete example of a US based building that is so hated? I don't see anyone complaining about the dallas city hall, and it's not even that wild.

 

1) They aren't!? Most contemporary architects are absolutely clueless regarding how to design classical architecture, because it is not taught in most all of the architecture schools. Notre Dame is the only school with such a program in the United States.

 

Considering you've never step foot in the halls of a design or architecture school, how do you have any clue what is taught? Or any minuscule idea of the art history required in these schools? Because it isn't a specialized classical architecture degree, same as there isn't a specialized modern architecture degree, doesn't mean it isn't taught. What the hell do you think they do there for 4 years, draw various rectangles? Again, the misconceptions of the uneducated by wheels.

OMG Wheels where do you find the time to worry/argue about this just because you don't like the aesthetics of something, I am jealous, time is something I value so much because I am always short of.

 

You are so wrong on so many aspects that's not even funny, it clearly shows your total lack of real word experience with all your information coming from what you read in books or the Internet.

 

You do understand your argument is totally aesthetic based? You have no knowledge of engineering, town planning, financing, construction, you might have few criticizing it but that's always going to happen, everything gets criticized, there are failures in everything, modern and traditional, basing your argument on few failed examples is juvenile, of course there are failures, there are modern buildings which I also consider ugly as there are classical buildings, it is called TASTE, many like both classical and modern.

 

Your argument about public funding expenditure on various projects and having to subject everything to a vote makes me LOL, are you insane?

 

You do understand the principle of a democratic society, right?

 

It's very simple, a bunch of people decide to select leaders who will represent their "opinion/voice" entrust them with making the decisions on their behalf so they aren't asked to vote everyday on crap.

As a result of that a bunch of dickheads, mostly who aren't interested in working for themselves but love nothing more than bumming around spending other people's money while enjoying free food and transport put their hand up for the job.

Now the majority of the people vote, which lets just admit most are also dickheads, and select those who promised them the world.

 

Now you have your representatives! That's what you are getting!! Now they call Frank Ghery and the rest is history so stop bitching because in democracy majority rules!

 

If you don't like it go to a place where only one or a handful of dickheads call the shots and if those dickheads share your views on modern architecture you are in luck !

 

Now I know why you were so interested in bricklaying

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!

 

looks fantastic, Brutalist with a warm edge to it.

looks fantastic, Brutalist with a warm edge to it.

 

Perfect description, I'd love some of those items against a very clean "sterile" design.

 

That's what annoys me, I could never come up with anything like that, I am not creative enough

Perfect description, I'd love some of those items against a very clean "sterile" design.

 

That's what annoys me, I could never come up with anything like that, I am not creative enough

 

Sure you can...as proven by another thread elsewhere.

 

Look under Bauhaus & Brutalism for clues although I would not object if some say Brutalism is a subform of Bauhaus.

Try it either way and lets see your design. If it's so simple then you should be able to make a significant fortune sketching bullshit on paper. Gehry is worth ~$60m, it's so easy why wouldn't you do it?

 

One of the richest artists in the world is a guy who produced works such as a stuffed shark and statues made of frozen blood. Just because the creator is worth a lot doesn't mean that the work demonstrates any kind of real skill. What would be a test of my contemporary architectural chops would be if I was to draw up a design for a building, then have Frank Gehry present it as his, and see how the clients react.

 

Wheels, that is the greatest display of denial I have ever read. We have punched more holes in your entire theory than a swiss cheese factory, and you keep parroting back the same nonsensical generalized statements. You're the equivalent of telling a 4yr old the sky is blue, and you're throwing a tantrum proclaiming it's actually red. From this point on you're banned from using anarchy, public, or any insinuation that you're speaking for anyone but yourself.

 

IMO, I've been punching holes into your arguments The reason why I end up repeating myself is because it seems a lot of times people either don't see or ignore the points I am making.

 

No shit, it's good business for him to say everything else is crap. Nor do I give two fucks what the people of the UK think, I don't live there. The fact that you're scouring the globe for something to backup your statement shows nothing but defeat. Give some concrete example of a US based building that is so hated? I don't see anyone complaining about the dallas city hall, and it's not even that wild.

 

I scour the globe to show various examples. There are hundreds of modernist buildings around and people haven't been polled on all of them or even most of them. But that people don't use such designs for homes I think is a good demonstration that they do not much like such designs. Regarding the UK, it's an English-speaking country, one very similar in many ways to the United States, and we aren't just talking about architecture in the U.S. itself. In terms of some lists if ugly buildings (including outside the U.S.), here are some:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21...ove-design.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/propert...l?frame=2159771

 

Considering you've never step foot in the halls of a design or architecture school, how do you have any clue what is taught? Or any minuscule idea of the art history required in these schools? Because it isn't a specialized classical architecture degree, same as there isn't a specialized modern architecture degree, doesn't mean it isn't taught. What the hell do you think they do there for 4 years, draw various rectangles? Again, the misconceptions of the uneducated by wheels.

 

A few ways:

 

1) Classical architects themselves have talked extensively about the fact that classical architecture is not taught in most architecture schools

 

2) The program devoted to classical architecture at Notre Dame is rather different than the programs at other schools

 

3) At an architecture forum in which someone asked about the study of classical architecture, Notre Dame was recommended as being where to learn it as other places don't really teach it

 

4) A major part of the study and learning of classical architecture is learning how to draw it in detail, which architects in most schools are not taught

 

5) There are on-going attempts at reviving the teaching of classical architecture for those who are not students at Notre Dame and also for architects who want to learn it who are not students there.

 

6) The publishing of many seminal classics of classical architecture was stopped and they went out-of-print for many years due to the rejection of such teachings by most of the architectural profession, leading to a further loss of knowledge

 

7) There is a lot of bad classical architecture done (oftentimes mocked by contemporary architects), this being because a lot of people who design classical do it half-assed because they don't really know what they're doing

 

Regarding understanding classical architecture from a historical sense, the basics like that can be taught in an art history course. But to get where one can have a deep understanding of it and design good buildings with it takes much training and study in it, which the contemporary profession does not do. Early on, it used to be required that architects learned to design in classical architecture before doing contemporary architecture, but that was then done away with.

OMG Wheels where do you find the time to worry/argue about this just because you don't like the aesthetics of something, I am jealous, time is something I value so much because I am always short of.

 

You are so wrong on so many aspects that's not even funny, it clearly shows your total lack of real word experience with all your information coming from what you read in books or the Internet.

 

You do understand your argument is totally aesthetic based? You have no knowledge of engineering, town planning, financing, construction, you might have few criticizing it but that's always going to happen, everything gets criticized, there are failures in everything, modern and traditional, basing your argument on few failed examples is juvenile, of course there are failures, there are modern buildings which I also consider ugly as there are classical buildings, it is called TASTE, many like both classical and modern.

 

Fortis you misunderstand my criticisms, as they are not solely aesthetics-based. And there are not failures in things the way there have been in architecture. The architectural profession collectively lost its mind for awhile. It is, IMO, in many ways similar to the economics profession, which also collectively lost its mind for awhile. The failures of architecture were not due to a trial-and-error, learning experience, in the way say that the first NASA rockets that crashed and burned were. Rather, they were completely avoidable, but due to what was (and still is to a certain degree) a very arrogant architectural profession.

 

You mention about engineering and finance, well one of my main criticisms is that much contemporary architecture seems to completely reject concern about engineering and cost altogether.

 

Your argument about public funding expenditure on various projects and having to subject everything to a vote makes me LOL, are you insane?

 

No, not everything need be subject to a vote, but for some major projects, a vote would be nice, to hear if the public actually likes the design or finds it an eyesore, so that it isn't just foisted onto them.

 

You do understand the principle of a democratic society, right?

 

It's very simple, a bunch of people decide to select leaders who will represent their "opinion/voice" entrust them with making the decisions on their behalf so they aren't asked to vote everyday on crap.

As a result of that a bunch of dickheads, mostly who aren't interested in working for themselves but love nothing more than bumming around spending other people's money while enjoying free food and transport put their hand up for the job.

Now the majority of the people vote, which lets just admit most are also dickheads, and select those who promised them the world.

 

Now you have your representatives! That's what you are getting!! Now they call Frank Ghery and the rest is history so stop bitching because in democracy majority rules!

 

If you don't like it go to a place where only one or a handful of dickheads call the shots and if those dickheads share your views on modern architecture you are in luck !

 

Now I know why you were so interested in bricklaying

 

That's partially-right, but remember, the elected representatives don't just get elected to lord over the populace and that's that, they regularly hear from their representatives on issues all of the time. For example, if a particular piece of legislation is up for a vote, and representatives start getting flooded with calls saying, "DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS LEGISLATION!" then that impacts their decision. With architecture, if they hire an architect who comes up with a design, and the public sees it and hates it, then the representatives should hear from them and listen.

 

As an aside, since you mentioned bricklaying, I just started reading this book

 

IMO, I've been punching holes into your arguments

 

If we were to take a poll on this forum, how do you think that would fare for you? You have engineers, investors, and professional developers telling you, you're talking out of your ass. Thank about it for a minute.

 

But we don't get it... the well educated, successful, highly experienced group doesn't know shit.

 

If you truly believe that statement, you need help. Your attitude here will prove to be a massive issue in the grand scheme of your life, mark my words. And you'll always wonder why things didn't work out.

 

Regarding understanding classical architecture from a historical sense, the basics like that can be taught in an art history course. But to get where one can have a deep understanding of it and design good buildings with it takes much training and study in it, which the contemporary profession does not do. Early on, it used to be required that architects learned to design in classical architecture before doing contemporary architecture, but that was then done away with.

 

Without having done any of it, how the fcuk would you know? Your reading comprehension skills sure don't display a deep understanding of any concepts to that fact. So again, what the hell do you think people do in design school for 4 years? This is the downfall of google, you can read six sentences from a forum and think you have the full grasp of everything that transpires in a 4 year school. YOU CAN'T! If I gave you the syllabus for every required class you wouldn't have 1% a clue of what was actually taught and covered. Until you posses some form of experience or education here, you might as well be talking about brain surgery, because you're equally educated in both subjects.

If we were to take a poll on this forum, how do you think that would fare for you? You have engineers, investors, and professional developers telling you, you're talking out of your ass. Thank about it for a minute.

 

But we don't get it... the well educated, successful, highly experienced group doesn't know shit.

 

If you truly believe that statement, you need help. Your attitude here will prove to be a massive issue in the grand scheme of your life, mark my words. And you'll always wonder why things didn't work out.

 

The problem with your argument here is that none of your points have refuted what I've said. Most of what I have read thus far is just that I am wrong because I am wrong and that's that. And no, I do not believe that the people here "don't know shit." I am just arguing that they are mistaken. There's a difference.

 

Thus far the main argument I have seen is: "Wheels, you have no idea what goes on at an architecture studio or what goes into designing a building. Whole engineering firms are involved, multiple architectural design firms can be involved, etc..." yes, but that doesn't refute my points that many contemporary buildings are ugly and designed without regard to cost, engineering, and many historically, for function. Fortis himself has pointed out how incredibly difficult and expensive it is to construct many of these buildings, which is part of my point. How is a work of architecture "great" if it is so difficult to create? At that point, the only way to judge its greatness is via its aesthetics, which are often anarchy.

 

Architecture is one of the only professions where the more expensive and difficult the product design is, the more "great" it supposedly is. Nowhere else is that considered success. Success in design of aircraft, automobiles, computers, electronics, etc...is all about making things less expensive, easier, better, etc...you only find difficult engineering and expensive in such products where it is literally needed to improve the product's performance. For example, the Veyron is a million or more dollars because that is the cost needed to create such a vehicle. Whereas a million-dollar Lambo special edition would be considered a waste by many because the technology doesn't justify the price.

 

Without having done any of it, how the fcuk would you know? Your reading comprehension skills sure don't display a deep understanding of any concepts to that fact. So again, what the hell do you think people do in design school for 4 years? This is the downfall of google, you can read six sentences from a forum and think you have the full grasp of everything that transpires in a 4 year school. YOU CAN'T! If I gave you the syllabus for every required class you wouldn't have 1% a clue of what was actually taught and covered. Until you posses some form of experience or education here, you might as well be talking about brain surgery, because you're equally educated in both subjects.

 

The difference is that brain surgery is a subject where one needs education to be able to offer an opinion. Architecture does not take a formal education to be able to offer an opinion about a building. And I've read far more than "six sentences" from Google. As for what architects do in school, it most definitely is not classical design. Which refutes your claim that contemporary architects know how to design classical architecture. If that was the case, than Notre Dame wouldn't be known as having the only program in classical architecture.

 

The reason why I end up repeating myself is because it seems a lot of times people either don't see or ignore the points I am making.

 

Wheels, can you think just a bit beyond of what you wrote above? I.e. Instead of keep repeating yourself, have you ever tried to understand why people don't see or ignore your points? Ever think of why people keep "misunderstanding" you?

 

I will admit that when I first asked you the question, I was expecting some amusement out of your answers; however; what you have responded and continue to defend are simply outlandish! Seriously Wheels, you really are making an absolutely buffoon out of yourself and you really are going no where. You can quote/link or even write a book on your defenses but it would only indicate how lacking you really are on the subject. The more you try to defend, the worse that make you look.

Wheels, can you think just a bit beyond of what you wrote above? I.e. Instead of keep repeating yourself, have you ever tried to understand why people don't see or ignore your points? Ever think of why people keep "misunderstanding" you?

 

On the not seeing bit, I think it is because my posts get too long and people skim them and thus don't get the full gist of what I am saying. On the ignoring bit, I think it is because to acknowledge some of my points would mean refuting some of their own views on the subject.

 

I will admit that when I first asked you the question, I was expecting some amusement out of your answers; however; what you have responded and continue to defend are simply outlandish! Seriously Wheels, you really are making an absolutely buffoon out of yourself and you really are going no where. You can quote/link or even write a book on your defenses but it would only indicate how lacking you really are on the subject. The more you try to defend, the worse that make you look.

 

I will look like a buffoon with a clown nose with its head stuck up its rearend if I have to. But saying things like this, asking if I am a flat-Earther, etc...doesn't address the meat of my points. You say that my arguments are outlandish. In what way? Where do building designs like these make any sense or demonstrate any architectural skill?

 

 

...many contemporary buildings are ugly and designed without regard to cost, engineering, and many historically, for function.

 

How is a work of architecture "great" if it is so difficult to create? At that point, the only way to judge its greatness is via its aesthetics, which are often anarchy.

 

Wheels, you need serious help...

 

How long do you think an architect would survive in the real world if he/she are designing without regard to cost, engineering etc...? How would they graduate in the first place?

 

By the mere and simple fact that it is "difficult" to create and it had been done, that is how and why it is "great". And you can apply this formula to the Veyron as that's exactly why.

 

I hate to say it Wheels, at this point, no one but your very own self fit the definition of "anarchy" best.

 

 

 

 

 

Wheels, you need serious help...

 

How long do you think an architect would survive in the real world if he/she are designing without regard to cost, engineering etc...? How would they graduate in the first place?

 

Well Frank Gehry does and he is a huge success. If the design is considered "fashionable" and thus approved by the client and they are willing to pay for it, concern about cost and engineering can go out the window. Le Corbusier also did for many years and he is considered one of the greats by the profession. I'm not talking about your average commercial building, like say the architectural design for a dentist's office or something, I'm talking about these award-winning buildings that the architectural press raves about that are designed by the "starchitects."

 

By the mere and simple fact that it is "difficult" to create and it had been done, that is how and why it is "great". And you can apply this formula to the Veyron as that's exactly why.

 

The Veyron's engineering isn't difficult for the sake of being difficult, it is difficult because of what the requirements of the car are. That is why its engineering is difficult. The comparison in architecture would be say a very high skyscraper. Designing a building that is just random nonsense that is very difficult to engineer is not an accomplishment, it's more the architect conjuring up a random design and then leaving it to the engineers to figure out how to make it work.

 

It also completely eliminates the whole "architecture" aspect of the design as basically it just becomes about an engineering challenge instead of being a good architectural design. If someone designs a building that is very difficult to engineer and construct, but doable nonetheless, the credit there goes to the engineers, not the architect. The architect is primarily judged on the aesthetics of the building.