The Architecture thread

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.

 

People get what you are saying Wheel, they just don't understand why you are saying it...

And are you allowing others to refute your own views on the subject?

 

 

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?

 

Trust me Wheels, if you aren't there already, you aren't far from it. Everyone who responded had been addressing the meat of your points; just that you are not clicking or you utterly refuse to accept them. I will give you credit that the designs are not to everyone's taste. But that does not make them wrong. Just because it makes no sense to you does not render them as anarchy. Architectural skills involve far more than mere aesthetics. Personally, I am not a fan of the Dresden Military Museum either but I very much admire the skills involved to create it. If you do not understand the skills involved on these 2 designs, then this discussion is absolutely moot. You don't get it, you refuse to get it, that's fine. But don't discount it simply because YOU find it ugly and don't get it.

 

 

 

 

Here is an article by architects in the New York Times that outlines much of what I am saying about the contemporary architectural profession: LINK

People get what you are saying Wheel, they just don't understand why you are saying it...

And are you allowing others to refute your own views on the subject?

 

I don't know if people understand what I am saying. If they do, then it should be easy to understand why I am saying it. Not sure what you mean about am I allow others to refute my own views?

 

Trust me Wheels, if you aren't there already, you aren't far from it. Everyone who responded had been addressing the meat of your points; just that you are not clicking or you utterly refuse to accept them. I will give you credit that the designs are not to everyone's taste. But that does not make them wrong. Just because it makes no sense to you does not render them as anarchy. Architectural skills involve far more than mere aesthetics. Personally, I am not a fan of the Dresden Military Museum either but I very much admire the skills involved to create it. If you do not understand the skills involved on these 2 designs, then this discussion is absolutely moot. You don't get it, you refuse to get it, that's fine. But don't discount it simply because YOU find it ugly and don't get it.

 

So what are the skills involved in adding a big pointed triangle onto the museum and in making that building that looks like it was punched? And why is it that one needs some kind of sophisticated understanding to see the skill or "genius" of these buildings? If you mean the skills of the engineers and construction crews to create it, that's a different matter.

 

Also see the link above, in which architects themselves admit that the profession has forced unfunctional and ugly designs onto the public.

 

Note also the Forbes article I cited, which speaks about the NYT article:

 

The authors observe that self-congratulatory, insulated architects are “increasingly incapable … of creating artful, harmonious work that resonates with a broad swath of the general population, the very people we are, at least theoretically, meant to serve.” Bingler and Pedersen note that this has been a problem for over forty years (my emphasis), and that things are even worse today.

 

As a case in point, they mention the 2007 “Make It Right” charity program, founded by amateur architect and furniture designer Brad Pitt. The program invited firms, most of them avant-garde, to design housing for poor New Orleanians whose homes were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The architecture world was exhilarated: The initiative was to be a showcase for how the best contemporary design could improve lives.

 

The predictable result was weird, sometimes discomforting houses of non-native motley futuristic design that have virtually no relation to each other or the beloved historic architecture of the city. A story in The New Republic called the 90-some houses a waste of money and a distracting sideshow: The homes were expensive to build ($400,000 on average) and the high-tech fabrication has made them expensive to fix; mold has grown on the untested experimental materials, and the eco-wood decks and stairs are already rotting. The neighborhoods are wastelands—failures of urban planning that isolate residents from social networks and public services.

 

~~~http://www.forbes.com/sites/justinshubow/2015/01/06/architecture-continues-to-implode-more-insiders-admit-the-profession-is-failing/

 

^^^^^^ textbook example of what I mean by contemporary architecture not knowing what on Earth it's doing. They design buildings for the poor that are (surprise surprise) ugly, expensive, difficult to maintain, and that do not last.

 

Note here:

 

Bingler and Pedersen report that “The residents weren’t impressed, and asked perfectly logical questions: What’s with the flat roofs — you know it rains a lot here, right?”

 

What architect designs a building with a flat roof, and in New Orleans of all places? Yet a highly successful low-income housing program are the classically-based Katrina Cottages: http://mississippirenewal.com/info/dayAug23-06b.html

One of the best threads lately.

WheelsRCool, you've gained my utmost respect.

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.

 

I've been refraining myself from using the following word but you seriously left me no choice. Do you know how naive that statement is? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are simply pulling words out of your rear end.

 

 

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.

 

So when did you become an expert of the Veyron? Have you ever been in one? Well, to be fair, I am no owner but the dealer gave one to me to try for half a day hoping that I would order one. I was also present when the car was apart with the factory tech so I know a thing or two about its engineering. Your comparison is totally wrong.

 

Where do you get the idea of architects merely scribbled on a piece of paper and threw it to the engineers to figure out the rest? Just because it looks crap to you doesn't mean that it is crap. Ignorance usually leads to fear, and fear usually leads to avoidance and criticism; is that what it is? You are denouncing and trash-talking contemporary design because you simply have no clue whatsoever on what it is all about? Radical doesn't translate into uselessness; and while bold isn't necessarily beautiful; it isn't guaranteed to be ugly either. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it serves no purpose and becomes pointless.

So what are the skills involved in adding a big pointed triangle onto the museum and in making that building that looks like it was punched? And why is it that one needs some kind of sophisticated understanding to see the skill or "genius" of these buildings? If you mean the skills of the engineers and construction crews to create it, that's a different matter.

 

Also see the link above, in which architects themselves admit that the profession has forced unfunctional and ugly designs onto the public.

 

If you must know: to begin with, it's not really a big pointed triangle, but a sideways V. The skills involved are how to integrate a contemporary design with a classical one and intertwine them together. And that involves more that just aesthetics or, in your books, the lack thereof. How do you build something totally modern "into" (literally) something else that was built in the 1800's and risking the old building from crumbling down? How do you build a modern structure with a glass exterior cladding that protrudes from a 100yr+ building at the risk of both failing? And that's just the exterior. Think about the foundation and seismic upgrade required. Now let's talk about lighting, ventilation, IT and directional flow (corridors and walkways) --- the latter is of utmost importance since it is a museum. By the same token and requirements, how about storage, archiving and preservation chambers? This while preserving and rehabilitating the original armory building of old. The mere fact that it can be done is an architectural triumph and an engineering success. You dislike the visual end results, fine. As previously stated, I am not a big fan of it either. But I applaud for its very existence and it beat the challenge and it is functional as planned. Need I go further? And don't just give all the credits to the engineers as at the end of the day, the master architect needs to sign off on the design and submit it to the authorities for the permit; it's his reputation at risk and if something goes wrong, he will pay dearly for it --- such his career. So architects, engineers and government authorities work hand in hand on the overall project. The same applies to the other building, it's in smaller scale but glass curvatures made it the more challenging. One does not need special skills to realize the work involved. If you don't get it, a paragraph or two or even a page or two wouldn't make one clicks anyway; and that's without the bias and stubbornness involved.

 

As to you other question, name me one profession that does not "force" something onto their clients. Heck, the government had been doing that since the first government on Earth was in session and that applies to whatever forms of governance.

 

Just as your term modern architecture as ugly, of some I do not dispute, classical architecture is not all beautiful either. To generalize on sometime that you do not fully understand is not fair to anyone including yourself. Some of your links are, at best, anecdotal. I would not call them 100% BS but by the same account, I ask the same from you for your views on modern architecture. But it looks like you just keep ramming your points through regardless of the lack of rationale, logic and even some basic knowledge.

 

I've been refraining myself from using the following word but you seriously left me no choice. Do you know how naive that statement is? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are simply pulling words out of your rear end.

 

A lot of these structures are clearly designed without regard for basic structural engineering principles. That is why they are so difficult to engineer and construct and so costly. So yes, cost and engineering can go out the window.

 

So when did you become an expert of the Veyron? Have you ever been in one? Well, to be fair, I am no owner but the dealer gave one to me to try for half a day hoping that I would order one. I was also present when the car was apart with the factory tech so I know a thing or two about its engineering. Your comparison is totally wrong.

 

Where am I wrong on the Veyron? I said the Veyron's engineering was difficult because that is what is required to make the car go up to the speed it is capable of. You saying I am wrong on this?

 

Where do you get the idea of architects merely scribbled on a piece of paper and threw it to the engineers to figure out the rest? Just because it looks crap to you doesn't mean that it is crap. Ignorance usually leads to fear, and fear usually leads to avoidance and criticism; is that what it is? You are denouncing and trash-talking contemporary design because you simply have no clue whatsoever on what it is all about? Radical doesn't translate into uselessness; and while bold isn't necessarily beautiful; it isn't guaranteed to be ugly either. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it serves no purpose and becomes pointless.

 

Yes, and that can apply to certain designs, but a LOT of designs are precisely that, the equivalent of something scribbled on paper that then the architect tells the engineers to build. And no I do not hold the views I have due to ignorance leading to fear and thus avoidance and criticism. If anything, I'd say it is more the opposite, that it is the architectural profession that holds ignorance, and thus criticism, of classical architecture.

 

If you must know: to begin with, it's not really a big pointed triangle, but a sideways V. The skills involved are how to integrate a contemporary design with a classical one and intertwine them together. And that involves more that just aesthetics or, in your books, the lack thereof. How do you build something totally modern "into" (literally) something else that was built in the 1800's and risking the old building from crumbling down? How do you build a modern structure with a glass exterior cladding that protrudes from a 100yr+ building at the risk of both failing? And that's just the exterior. Think about the foundation and seismic upgrade required. Now let's talk about lighting, ventilation, IT and directional flow (corridors and walkways) --- the latter is of utmost importance since it is a museum. By the same token and requirements, how about storage, archiving and preservation chambers? This while preserving and rehabilitating the original armory building of old. The mere fact that it can be done is an architectural triumph and an engineering success.

 

But here's the thing: everything you just said is all about the ENGINEERING aspect of the design, NOT the architectural design. The architectural design is just a big V sticking out of the building. How to make said V work is where the engineering comes in. And sure it's an engineering triumph to make that work, and if you want to celebrate that aspect, fine, but the design as a work of architecture is just flat-out stupid and an eyesore to the building, and a complete waste of engineering talent and resources. It's the equivalent of creating a coal-fired jumbo jet. That would be an engineering triumph too. It also would be a waste of engineering talent.

 

You dislike the visual end results, fine. As previously stated, I am not a big fan of it either. But I applaud for its very existence and it beat the challenge and it is functional as planned. Need I go further? And don't just give all the credits to the engineers as at the end of the day, the master architect needs to sign off on the design and submit it to the authorities for the permit; it's his reputation at risk and if something goes wrong, he will pay dearly for it --- such his career. So architects, engineers and government authorities work hand in hand on the overall project. The same applies to the other building, it's in smaller scale but glass curvatures made it the more challenging. One does not need special skills to realize the work involved. If you don't get it, a paragraph or two or even a page or two wouldn't make one clicks anyway; and that's without the bias and stubbornness involved.

 

Where is the skill of the architect themselves in putting a giant V on a museum? I could have designed that. Where is the skill in the bent glass? Again, the credit primarily goes to the engineers, not the architect, as anyone could conjure up that design. You say the architect has to sign off on the design and if something goes wrong, it hurts his career, well my question is, how is the architect qualified to sign off on the engineering feasibility of the design when these designs are difficult to pull off? If the structure fails, how is that the architect's fault? That would be on the engineers right?

 

Just because it's "challenging" doesn't mean it should be done. If it's all about "challenge" and that's what makes the building great, then why not just do away with the architect altogether, and just have some random person conjure up a crazy design and then hand it to the engineers to build, and you get the same result.

 

As to you other question, name me one profession that does not "force" something onto their clients. Heck, the government had been doing that since the first government on Earth was in session and that applies to whatever forms of governance.

 

Foods are not forced onto people. If people don't like what is cooked or baked, the cook/chef/baker goes out of business or changes what they produce. Cars are not forced onto people. Companies must make what people like or go out of business. Music is not forced onto people. Homes are not forced on people. Clothing and consumer electronics are not forced onto people.

 

Just as your term modern architecture as ugly, of some I do not dispute, classical architecture is not all beautiful either. To generalize on sometime that you do not fully understand is not fair to anyone including yourself. Some of your links are, at best, anecdotal. I would not call them 100% BS but by the same account, I ask the same from you for your views on modern architecture. But it looks like you just keep ramming your points through regardless of the lack of rationale, logic and even some basic knowledge.

 

The worst classical architecture still usually looks better than most of these starchitect-designed buildings. And one shouldn't need to "understand" modern architecture to determine whether it is good or not. Beauty is not something that requires an advanced education to understand. Only in architecture (and much modern art) is this stated, where if some award-winning building is produced, and someone says, "That thing is hideous!," are they told that, "You do not have the education to understand the building." Beauty in humans, in nature, in automobiles, etc...does not require any advanced education to understand.

 

You never see some ugly car produced, and then the automotive design profession come out and say, "You people just do not understand the design involved with this car. You lack the education to understand the underlying design..." nope, if the car is ugly, that's because it's ugly.

For the sake of clarification, on high end projects there are often two architects:

 

Design Architect - Your Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Gehry, Daniel Libiskind

Architect of Record - the Architect who will file the job with the city, deal with permits, zoning, MEP and structural coordination, life safety issues, etc.

 

There's always an Architect of Record and every project usually has just one, it's just that he/she gives up the artistic role when these famous hired guns are called in.

 

As for the technical knowledge of the famous Architects, I'm not sure. I'd imagine they would know a bit about the practical limitations on what can be built, probably more than a typical architect because that's all they do. But for regular construction, they probably aren't as good.

 

There's certainly an aspect of being an architect that's more technical than they get credit for in the construction community and maybe some lay people. At the same time, there are many regular people who think an Architect does the structural engineering on a skyscraper, which is never the case for an Architect. On anything more than a few floors they are out of their element. But that's nothing to be ashamed of as that's not what they went to school for.

 

 

 

 

Wheels, you genuinely crack me up. I now am really glad that I popped the question to you as your answers and "rationale" really offer a glimpse of what you are. I give you full credit on sticking to your guns and standing firmly on your own grounds, however volatile they may be. At the same time, however, through the rebuttal that you wrote above, you also stuck your foot into your own mouth as you are so totally wrong on so many levels. And no I am not going to spend time explaining it to you on why because you would not accept it even if I spelled it out for you. It would simply turn into an ongoing volley which is pointless. Entertaining, yes; will it resolve anything, no; simply because of your denial. It also precisely demonstrated ---likely many had said all along here --- that you absolutely don't know what you are talking about; from what really goes on in an architectural firm to what consumers are really being forced onto them and everything in between. All your posts elsewhere have been quite entertaining and we love you for that; however; I hate to be the one who is telling you this but the posts that you have made on this thread are making you sounding more and more like BrianWilsonUK/Dick Simmons.

There's certainly an aspect of being an architect that's more technical than they get credit for in the construction community and maybe some lay people. At the same time, there are many regular people who think an Architect does the structural engineering on a skyscraper, which is never the case for an Architect. On anything more than a few floors they are out of their element. But that's nothing to be ashamed of as that's not what they went to school for.

 

Precisely. And, if I may, not unlike the conductor of a symphony orchestra. He doesn't play the instruments and more than likely he did not compose the piece. But neither of which is his role and he is certainly needed.

 

Wheels, you genuinely crack me up. I now am really glad that I popped the question to you as your answers and "rationale" really offer a glimpse of what you are. I give you full credit on sticking to your guns and standing firmly on your own grounds, however volatile they may be. At the same time, however, through the rebuttal that you wrote above, you also stuck your foot into your own mouth as you are so totally wrong on so many levels. And no I am not going to spend time explaining it to you on why because you would not accept it even if I spelled it out for you.

It would simply turn into an ongoing volley which is pointless. Entertaining, yes; will it resolve anything, no; simply because of your denial. It also precisely demonstrated ---likely many had said all along here --- that you absolutely don't know what you are talking about; from what really goes on in an architectural firm to what consumers are really being forced onto them and everything in between. All your posts have been quite entertaining and we love you for that; however; I hate to be the one who is telling you this but the posts that you have made on this thread are making you sounding more and more like BrianWilsonUK/Dick Simmons.

 

No idea who BrianWilsonUK/Dick Simmons is or was. And what "denial" do you speak of? Where has it been "precisely demonstrated" that I absolutely don't know what I am talking about? Because from what I have seen thus far, that is about the crux of the argument against my points. No one has successfully refuted them. Saying that I just "don't understand" or "don't know what I am talking about" is not an argument. I think it is yourself that is in denial here and also yourself that does not understand what he is talking about.

 

Here is another example of what I mean about the ignorance and ridiculousness of contemporary architecture---Note the example I cited above of the architecture designed for Hurricane Katrina, where top-end design firms were brought in that all proceeded to produce what were utter failures of design.

 

Here is an example of a design for New Orleans that was produced by the firm MVRDV:

 

 

That is the work of a top architecture firm. A trailer broken in two. And for the victims of a hurricane! So people who went to school for four to five years, who are supposed to be trained experts, produce this as their grand idea...!!!

 

This next one must have taken real, hard-earned design skill to come up with:

 

 

This makes sense:

 

 

Take two homes, pile one on top of the other and turn it into a different direction, and whala:

 

 

WHY???

 

 

Note the thing here though. It's just like the other buildings I have showed pictures of that look like normal buildings that someone smashed with a sledgehammer or whatnot. These buildings adhere to the same principle, in that all they do is take very normal buildings, completely screw them up, and then call themselves brilliant for such "creative" design.

Wheels, why are you throwing the baby out with the bath water? No one ever said the "starchitects" are design gods. A few anecdotal examples of ill-conceived designs do not render the entire genre of contemporary architecture as lousy. And why would I be in denial at all? I am not the one who needs to proof something to the majority here. Likewise, the majority who knows a thing or two about architecture is not saying I don't understand what I am talking about; so that is a non-issue.

 

What's the point of refuting when you simply refuse to accept it. From you answers, you had clearly demonstrated that you never had any proper training in architecture regardless of which "-ism" of concept (that's an inside archi-jargon, btw). You seem to have a soft spot for engineers so perhaps you are related to the field. And you have zero ideas on how city/community planning works. So, at best, you actually understand 1 out of 3 basic requirement. Attempting to explain it to you is a fool's errand as it would only result in further rebuttal --- as already been clearly demonstrated.

 

Given the illustration you provided above, there may be merits to your argument. But rather than refuting you, let's take a more positive and pro-active route. Since you say it is so easy, tell us how you would have designed it if you were delegated the task of the New Orleans design. And do integrate the engineering aspect into it. By all means, use only basic geometry to illustrate your points since you think that's all the architects require. Many here are owners of construction/contracting/development businesses; let's see what they have to say.

 

Oh, one more thing: just because they are not visually pleasing and/or they violate what is largely considered the norm does not mean they do not "work" in actual practice. Weird, perhaps; failed, not necessarily. And that's the whole point all along.

Wheels,

 

A lot of the projects you cited are from the deconstructivist era/style of architecture, which I recommend you do some research on the theory before formally criticizing it on an online forum. You have cited works by Daniel Libeskind (Dresden Military Museum) Multiple Gehry works, and MVRDV throughout the thread. I haven't read every single post and conversation between you and other participants within this thread; however I would like to say a few words and put in my own 2 cents.

 

 

Lets just start with Frank Gehry:

 

What you seized to mention and research before criticizing Gehry's work is the amount of innovation and attention this 'starchitect' has brought to contemporary architecture. Personally, I'm not necessarily a fan of his formwork, but the logic behind his madness is comprehensible if you are familiar with his earlier works, especially his spatial delineation.

 

Take Bilbao's museum for instance. Known as the 'bilbao effect' which is a term coined and used by many architectural critics today, the shear unfamliarness of Gehry's free form completely gentrified the small city of Bilbao, turning it into a tourist destination and boosted Bilbao's revenue exponentially due to the shear oddness of the building since everyone wanted to see it, which is still attracting visitors today. This 'Bilbao effect' is happening in many cities in North america and Asia. Just take a look at Dubai - everyone wants to visit Dubai. (Palm tree island, Burj Arab, to name a few) Good architecture draws interests, regardless of style.

 

Another aspect you seem to be completely oblivious about (even though you mention you are highly critical of contemporary architecture) is that Gehry in fact PIONEERED HIS OWN ENGINEERING PROGRAM known as CATIA (on version 6 now i believe) that actually calculates the curvature and creates digital fabrication documents needed for the structural steel manufacturers, and streamlines the workflow between architect, engineer, and contractor. (An earlier version of program was originally used for ship building and aerospace but Gehry changed it to work for architecture) This not only brings the cost down, as Gehry's BIM system (Building information modeling) streamlines communication between each point of creating a building (less errors occur because transferring information is no longer a game of telephone with BIM/CAD Computer technologies) but it makes the building go up much quicker than it would, say, if we would construct something crazy like Gehry's form without streamlined backwards-compatible CAD programs. While the cost is still astronomical, it is much lower than it would be if there were constant mistakes made and had to be corrected due to miscommunication by shuffling giant construction documents around. This BIM system that Gehry was one of the Pioneers for has pushed competing companies such as Autodesk (Revit and AutoCAD) and Rhino to have the same backwards compatability, if not more so which pushes the digital envelope of architectural fabrication, so much so that architecture students are using these systems in their hypothetical studio projects. This has also trickled down to something as common as vernacular residential projects, and it is the reason why the same house that would've taken 3 years to building back in 2000, takes 8 months to build in 2015. So yes, Gehry does infact factor in budget and structure and doesn't just crumple a piece of paper and call it a building.

 

 

 

One more important question:

 

Have you ever been in any of these buildings to experience them spatially? Most of the precedents you are pulling have no reference to the interior spaces of each building, which is the whole point of architecture: to enclose someone in a space, and then make that space special. I completely disagree with your statements because each architect, contemporary or not, has created a shelter for its user, and transformed the shelter into a special experience for its users, under their own special interpretation. Whether you agree with their interpretation or not is purely subjective, just like all the examples posted by other forum members so far.

 

 

Just my brief two cents. Hopefully everyone understands since my post is probably littered with grammatical errors, as I typed this up pretty quickly.

Wheels, why are you throwing the baby out with the bath water? No one ever said the "starchitects" are design gods. A few anecdotal examples of ill-conceived designs do not render the entire genre of contemporary architecture as lousy. And why would I be in denial at all? I am not the one who needs to proof something to the majority here. Likewise, the majority who knows a thing or two about architecture is not saying I don't understand what I am talking about; so that is a non-issue.

 

IMO, you are in denial that contemporary architecture is the degree of nonsense that I criticize it as, and I think the arguments you have provided demonstrate this (and I don't mean that in a nasty fashion, just as my observation of your POV). And I haven't provided a few anecdotal examples, I have provided quite a few serious examples.

 

What's the point of refuting when you simply refuse to accept it. From you answers, you had clearly demonstrated that you never had any proper training in architecture regardless of which "-ism" of concept (that's an inside archi-jargon, btw). You seem to have a soft spot for engineers so perhaps you are related to the field. And you have zero ideas on how city/community planning works. So, at best, you actually understand 1 out of 3 basic requirement. Attempting to explain it to you is a fool's errand as it would only result in further rebuttal --- as already been clearly demonstrated.

 

Again you are repeating that I just "refuse to accept it" and "don't have training," etc...these aren't arguments and don't address my criticisms.

 

Given the illustration you provided above, there may be merits to your argument. But rather than refuting you, let's take a more positive and pro-active route. Since you say it is so easy, tell us how you would have designed it if you were delegated the task of the New Orleans design. And do integrate the engineering aspect into it. By all means, use only basic geometry to illustrate your points since you think that's all the architects require. Many here are owners of construction/contracting/development businesses; let's see what they have to say.

 

I honestly do not think I am trained enough to design the buildings that would be best for the New Orleans residents, but I would most definitely know what NOT to design, i.e. the examples I showed above that were done by supposed experts---their "expertise" basically consisting of taking normal buildings and screwing them up in every way possible. I mean their level of creativity essentially is crap. I especially like the rectangle that has half the ground underneath it missing. What architectural skill is needed in designing that!?

 

What I would seek to design though would be buildings like the Katrina Cottages (which have proven highly successful and popular). Basically simple, affordable, elegant:

 

 

 

 

Oh, one more thing: just because they are not visually pleasing and/or they violate what is largely considered the norm does not mean they do not "work" in actual practice. Weird, perhaps; failed, not necessarily. And that's the whole point all along.

 

These were failures. They were excessive in cost, difficult and expensive to maintain, grew mold, etc...also, yes, just because something is not visually pleasing or violates what is considered the norm doesn't mean it doesn't work, but there is a difference between being truly creative versus just taking what is normal and messing it up. Basically they did the equivalent of trying to create economy cars for poor people that have square wheels.

Wheels,

 

A lot of the projects you cited are from the deconstructivist era/style of architecture, which I recommend you do some research on the theory before formally criticizing it on an online forum. You have cited works by Daniel Libeskind (Dresden Military Museum) Multiple Gehry works, and MVRDV throughout the thread. I haven't read every single post and conversation between you and other participants within this thread; however I would like to say a few words and put in my own 2 cents.

 

 

Lets just start with Frank Gehry:

 

What you seized to mention and research before criticizing Gehry's work is the amount of innovation and attention this 'starchitect' has brought to contemporary architecture. Personally, I'm not necessarily a fan of his formwork, but the logic behind his madness is comprehensible if you are familiar with his earlier works, especially his spatial delineation.

 

Take Bilbao's museum for instance. Known as the 'bilbao effect' which is a term coined and used by many architectural critics today, the shear unfamliarness of Gehry's free form completely gentrified the small city of Bilbao, turning it into a tourist destination and boosted Bilbao's revenue exponentially due to the shear oddness of the building since everyone wanted to see it, which is still attracting visitors today. This 'Bilbao effect' is happening in many cities in North america and Asia. Just take a look at Dubai - everyone wants to visit Dubai. (Palm tree island, Burj Arab, to name a few) Good architecture draws interests, regardless of style.

 

What innovation has he brought to architecture? Most all of his designs are either versions of normal buildings that are seriously messed up or just pure anarchy. As for the Bilbao effect, that's great if the building attracts lots of visitors, but so does Falling Water and Villa Savoye, but few would want to live in buildings like those. A lot of it is also just collective thinking I think---for example, people who go to see "modern art" such as a melting toilet or random paint splashed on a canvas.

 

Another aspect you seem to be completely oblivious about (even though you mention you are highly critical of contemporary architecture) is that Gehry in fact PIONEERED HIS OWN ENGINEERING PROGRAM known as CATIA (on version 6 now i believe) that actually calculates the curvature and creates digital fabrication documents needed for the structural steel manufacturers, and streamlines the workflow between architect, engineer, and contractor. (An earlier version of program was originally used for ship building and aerospace but Gehry changed it to work for architecture) This not only brings the cost down, as Gehry's BIM system (Building information modeling) streamlines communication between each point of creating a building (less errors occur because transferring information is no longer a game of telephone with BIM/CAD Computer technologies) but it makes the building go up much quicker than it would, say, if we would construct something crazy like Gehry's form without streamlined backwards-compatible CAD programs. While the cost is still astronomical, it is much lower than it would be if there were constant mistakes made and had to be corrected due to miscommunication by shuffling giant construction documents around. This BIM system that Gehry was one of the Pioneers for has pushed competing companies such as Autodesk (Revit and AutoCAD) and Rhino to have the same backwards compatability, if not more so which pushes the digital envelope of architectural fabrication, so much so that architecture students are using these systems in their hypothetical studio projects. This has also trickled down to something as common as vernacular residential projects, and it is the reason why the same house that would've taken 3 years to building back in 2000, takes 8 months to build in 2015. So yes, Gehry does infact factor in budget and structure and doesn't just crumple a piece of paper and call it a building.

 

What you're saying though is that his buildings are so expensive and difficult that he had to find a way to reduce the cost or else they'd likely never be built IMO. That still doesn't change the fact that his designs are basically, to use your words, crumpling a piece of paper and calling it a building. Also, what your point shows is again that the real heroes in all this are the engineers, not the architect. The architect creates a crazy design and the engineers and manufacturers have to figure out how to build it. In the case of Gehry, his designs are so extreme, that he had to partially streamline the process.

 

One more important question:

 

Have you ever been in any of these buildings to experience them spatially? Most of the precedents you are pulling have no reference to the interior spaces of each building, which is the whole point of architecture: to enclose someone in a space, and then make that space special. I completely disagree with your statements because each architect, contemporary or not, has created a shelter for its user, and transformed the shelter into a special experience for its users, under their own special interpretation. Whether you agree with their interpretation or not is purely subjective, just like all the examples posted by other forum members so far.

 

I would say that architecture is not as subject as you think. That is why, as I pointed out earlier, residential design is dominated by classical designs, and not contemporary designs. I have not been to the interiors of these buildings, however, the interiors are not so much what I am criticizing, although the interiors to some buildings were very unfunctional (Le Corbusier's). But my criticism thus far has more been on the exteriors.

What innovation has he brought to architecture? Most all of his designs are either versions of normal buildings that are seriously messed up or just pure anarchy. As for the Bilbao effect, that's great if the building attracts lots of visitors, but so does Falling Water and Villa Savoye, but few would want to live in buildings like those. A lot of it is also just collective thinking I think---for example, people who go to see "modern art" such as a melting toilet or random paint splashed on a canvas.

 

 

The whole point of architecture is to push the envelope of fabricational technologies and spatial experiences, and always have been. Baroque architecture pushed the limits of ornamentation, Gothic vaults pushed the limit of unecessary height - All of these 'unecessary practices' were criticized, but are celebrated today. Gehry, whether one says he's doing it correctly or not, again is purely subjective. What you seize to look at is the theoretical side of architecture, which many classical examples including Etienne Boulle, Borommini was based on theorectical arguments that probably would have seem odd back in the day. I wouldn't be surprised if they had the exact same conversation we are having.

 

 

 

What you're saying though is that his buildings are so expensive and difficult that he had to find a way to reduce the cost or else they'd likely never be built IMO. That still doesn't change the fact that his designs are basically, to use your words, crumpling a piece of paper and calling it a building. Also, what your point shows is again that the real heroes in all this are the engineers, not the architect. The architect creates a crazy design and the engineers and manufacturers have to figure out how to build it. In the case of Gehry, his designs are so extreme, that he had to partially streamline the process.

 

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Gehry created something that is impossibly difficult to construct, so he opened a door to make it possible. The heroes are all the people who combine to design and create the building, no single group or single person. Gehry is actually part of his structural engineering team on every one of his project, so to say the real heroes are the engineers says it includes Gehry (who is the architect) as well. He is simply paving the road to the next mystery door to be open.

 

Not very different from car technology. Take porsche for example. A lot of the technology from the 959 trickled down into the 993, and the same thing will probably happen with the 918 where we will see and KERS system of some sort in the next GT3 RS. Sure, the 959/918 are not perfect and far from practical, but their pioneered technologies will trickle down into their more common lines of cars such as the cayman or the 911. Of course while all this happening, Porsche is probably already working on the successor to the 918, maybe something with hydrogen and electric and petrol combination. Who knows. Fact is, this is the same thing with architecture. It's pushing the envelope and after that envelope is open you look for the next one to open. Some may fail, some may succeed.

 

 

Slowly but surely, the cost of this 'expensive gehry fabrication' will become less and less expensive, just like how computers have since the 80s. If you calculate inflation for a 3000$ computer in the 90s that would make the top of the line macbook seem like a bag of chips, a bag of chips that 20x more powerful.

 

I would say that architecture is not as subject as you think. That is why, as I pointed out earlier, residential design is dominated by classical designs, and not contemporary designs. I have not been to the interiors of these buildings, however, the interiors are not so much what I am criticizing, although the interiors to some buildings were very unfunctional (Le Corbusier's). But my criticism thus far has more been on the exteriors.

 

Residential design is dominated by classical architecture because it has become the norm. Before classical vernacular residential architecture, we were living huts and brick shacks, before columns (styled or not) came into play. Modernism and forward is simply another cycle in architecture that will continue to cycle for as long as mankind needs shelter and wishes to make it unique.

 

You quote Corbusier's bulding as non functional, but his practice has lead to mid century pioneers such as Meirer, Neutra, Mies, Kahn, and Eames whom created very, very functional and aesthetically beautiful homes. Fell free to look up works, I'm sure you will recognize them. The Seagram Building in NYC, which in a sense is a direct decendant of Villa Savoye, is very much functional and still is functional today. So while Villa Savoye may not have been comfortably habitable, it paved the road for buildings to come. If you live in an apartment, it's model is probably not far from Corbusier's Cité Radieuse and Mies' Skyscraper explorations.

 

Similarly, while Gehry's buildings may not seem functional to you, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl, and even Peter Eisenman who was previously part of the Mid Century School, are working with free forms that not only prove spatially interesting, but also functionally practical. Have a look at Holl's Nelson Atkin's Museum's interior spaces, and tell me they are not both beautiful functional, and address the phenomenological aspect (that I think you are constantly referencing in your classical gothic/ornamental examples) with the use of high tech and exotic materials. Another project you can look at are the bath houses by Peter Zumthor.

 

 

Side note, the Katrina houses you shows to VCR have proven to have very poor craftmanship, as many of them are cookie cutter and are made on a budget. Come back in 20 years and see if even 30% of them are still standing/in good functional condition. While many may not agree with the morphology used the MRVDV's proposal, materials would be much more solid and durable (such concrete and steel) simply because the form demands such robust material. I would rather pay a bit more initially and have things last longer than to buy a cheap house made from polyurethane panels from Lowe's put together in a week and have it come down in 3 years.

IMO, you are in denial that contemporary architecture is the degree of nonsense that I criticize it as, and I think the arguments you have provided demonstrate this (and I don't mean that in a nasty fashion, just as my observation of your POV). And I haven't provided a few anecdotal examples, I have provided quite a few serious examples.

 

 

 

Again you are repeating that I just "refuse to accept it" and "don't have training," etc...these aren't arguments and don't address my criticisms.

 

 

 

I honestly do not think I am trained enough to design the buildings that would be best for the New Orleans residents, but I would most definitely know what NOT to design, i.e. the examples I showed above that were done by supposed experts---their "expertise" basically consisting of taking normal buildings and screwing them up in every way possible. I mean their level of creativity essentially is crap. I especially like the rectangle that has half the ground underneath it missing. What architectural skill is needed in designing that!?

 

What I would seek to design though would be buildings like the Katrina Cottages (which have proven highly successful and popular). Basically simple, affordable, elegant:

 

 

 

 

 

 

These were failures. They were excessive in cost, difficult and expensive to maintain, grew mold, etc...also, yes, just because something is not visually pleasing or violates what is considered the norm doesn't mean it doesn't work, but there is a difference between being truly creative versus just taking what is normal and messing it up. Basically they did the equivalent of trying to create economy cars for poor people that have square wheels.

 

 

:lol2: :lol2:

 

I take it back. This had proven to be extremely entertaining after all.

 

As afore-said, why am I in denial if I need not to proof anything to the majority here. Have you actually done any updates on your so-called serious examples including the Katrina Cottages?

 

So you are not trained enough to design buildings but you are qualified to criticize designs by "starchitects"! (I am not vouching for them) ROFLMAO!!! Sure, everyone is entitled to free speech in this part of the world. But what you wrote is just so laughable!

 

What failures? My last paragraph was not directed to the "serious" examples that you posted. It's a general comment which you obviously missed the point because you are so anal about your examples. Answer this, have any of your serious examples been actually built? Of course, you can counter with that is exactly the point which stands the reason. Those are concept drawings Wheels and conceptual render can be outright hilarious --- as proven by you. And are you even aware of the political fiasco related to the Katrina Cottages?

 

Honestly Wheels, quit while you can. You already said you aren't trained enough for this so pushing your argument will lead you to absolutely no where; you already painted yourself into a corner. I give you merits for putting on a brave face but there really isn't anything else beyond that. While you say no one had successfully refuted you, on the flip side, what else have you said other than "it's ugly, it violates the norm, it's anarchy and I hate it". Everything else are your mere rebuttals of what the majority had said towards you.

:lol2: :lol2:

 

I take it back. This had proven to be extremely entertaining after all.

 

As afore-said, why am I in denial if I need not to proof anything to the majority here. Have you actually done any updates on your so-called serious examples including the Katrina Cottages?

 

So you are not trained enough to design buildings but you are qualified to criticize designs by "starchitects"! (I am not vouching for them) ROFLMAO!!! Sure, everyone is entitled to free speech in this part of the world. But what you wrote is just so laughable!

 

What failures? My last paragraph was not directed to the "serious" examples that you posted. It's a general comment which you obviously missed the point because you are so anal about your examples. Answer this, have any of your serious examples been actually built? Of course, you can counter with that is exactly the point which stands the reason. Those are concept drawings Wheels and conceptual render can be outright hilarious --- as proven by you. And are you even aware of the political fiasco related to the Katrina Cottages?

 

Honestly Wheels, quit while you can. You already said you aren't trained enough for this so pushing your argument will lead you to absolutely no where; you already painted yourself into a corner. I give you merits for putting on a brave face but there really isn't anything else beyond that. While you say no one had successfully refuted you, on the flip side, what else have you said other than "it's ugly, it violates the norm, it's anarchy and I hate it". Everything else are your mere rebuttals of what the majority had said towards you.

 

 

 

I've been watching this unfold for the last two days.

 

Wheels, as a musician and someone who paints / draws, let me put this in the most simple way possible:

 

Art is Art. Music is art. Architecture is art. While some is more appealing than others, you have no idea what that person was feeling or how hard they worked, or even what life experiences they may have endured to feel the way they did to create what they did. While your opinions have been respected by others, I can't help but cringe when I read some of your comments about how some things have no style. Maybe not all of the examples you gave were the best works of architecture, but someone slaved away to design that, someone received inspiration to create that, someone stay up every night to make that, and I'm sure a few people put everything they had into some of these buildings. Whether it be appealing or not, there is a certain level of respect that should be given to someone who creates art, whether it is your thing or not. Artists understand this and a lot of artists are open minded people. I'm not saying you have to like it, but I'm saying that next time before judging something or someone, stop yourself and think about what may have inspired them or what they may have gone through to create such works. Once you do this, you may find yourself understanding art differently.

 

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

 

 

That's you biggest problem, those damn books

 

You have no real world experience, trying to learn bricklaying from a book is akin with learning how to have sex from one, nothing beats real life experiences.

 

You read those damn books, articles and god knows what else and you come on in here and argue about things which you have no real world experience with until you give yourself a nose bleed and the rest of us high blood pressure

I spend millions every year in this domain and I don't think I read 10% of what you probably did.

 

Ok, one thing I want to touch on because you keep on repeating the argument, why don't people design and build their houses in a similar fashion, the punched by an imaginary giant design, the answer is simple, COST!

 

Cladding alone on some of those buildings is many thousands on dollars per square meters, engineering, architectural drawings and the rest of consultancy work in most cases could exceed the cost of one or more average family homes.

 

PLEASE don't counter-argue by telling me that those designs are ridiculously expensive to conceive, engineer and build

Came here for cool/modernist examples of striking architecture.

/leaving disappointed

//except for the Monterey house, that was cool

I'd like to steer this entertaining convo to stadiums, since many of us are big sports fans and there have been a lot of new stadiums over the last few years.

 

Also, a stadium on some level is supposed to stand out and make an impression. The feeling you get driving by one on the highway or pulling up to it on game day is supposed to be special.

 

Even baseball vs. football/soccer is an interesting comparison given the sightline requirements of both.

 

I'll attach some pics later. In the meantime, google the new Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings stadiums for an idea of some of the spaceship stadiums arriving in a few years...

I'd like to steer this entertaining convo to stadiums, since many of us are big sports fans and there have been a lot of new stadiums over the last few years.

 

Also, a stadium on some level is supposed to stand out and make an impression. The feeling you get driving by one on the highway or pulling up to it on game day is supposed to be special.

 

Even baseball vs. football/soccer is an interesting comparison given the sightline requirements of both.

 

I'll attach some pics later. In the meantime, google the new Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings stadiums for an idea of some of the spaceship stadiums arriving in a few years...

 

Cowboy stadium is a damn masterpiece. MGM is building a small (20k seat) stadium/arena in Vegas right now as well, next to the park between NYNY/Monte Carlo. It certainly isn't a billion dollar NFL stadium, but the whole development is pretty awesome.

PNC Park is a simple, beautiful park with a fantastic view. Best park in baseball.

I'd like to steer this entertaining convo to stadiums, since many of us are big sports fans and there have been a lot of new stadiums over the last few years.

 

Agreed. Interesting to note that plenty of new stadiums are being built in China. Aesthetics-wise, they do look pretty cool. Although some did say the one in the first pic looks a bit like a toilet bowl.