The Architecture thread

Ask and you shall receive.

 

Rogers Arena in Toronto. The roof is cool but the overall aesthetics is nothing to write home about.

 

B.C. Place Stadium in Vancouver. The centre section opens & closes.

 

Wow, very impressive to engineer something which spans that much and still be able to move.

 

What's the second one? Very interesting roof structure, what's the material they used, do you know?

Did you read my points? I was just addressing the arguments you made. One point I made on your saying contemporary architecture is too expensive for residential purposes is that why is this the case? Isn't that an indictment of the contemporary architecture profession?

 

I read your points but they are flat out wrong and unfortunately you are too blind to see why and no mater how many people tell you that you are wrong and explain to you why you are wrong you don't see it, by your own admission you don't think anyone who posted here refuted your arguments, if you aren't capable to see that what chance do I or anyone else for that matter have to convince you otherwise?

 

Look at this this way, you are wrong because I say so, you think I and everyone else here is wrong because you say so, let's agree to disagree and move on, you stick with your bricks and we stick with whatever else we like to use to build with. You go out there engage an architect you like, buy one or more blocks of dirt and build whatever God damn building you like, put your money where your mouth is rather than talking out of your ass.

I've put so many developments and buildings up that I forgot their count and they were all sold and or leased at a premium, do you think that YOU know more than I do about this subject just because you have the gift of reading and a stable internet connection?

 

I spend yearly six to seven figures on all sort of consultants, architects included, do you really think I would write a six figure cheque to an architect if he didn't have a positive impact a crucial part on a project which then I go ahead and spend eight figures on getting out of the ground? Do you really think I and many who do what I do day in and out are that God damn incompetent??

 

Please! Consider yourself privileged that we even entertain your ridiculousness and take time out of our day to reply to your nonsense, we do it because most care about you and want to show you a different aspect of the whole process which you are clearly missing but you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

 

Listen to this and believe it just because I know what I am talking about, architects are very important, they don't just doodle on paper, they consult with the structural engineers, get involved with material selections and techniques, answer local planing authorities questions and concerns, sometimes supervise the construction process making sure elements are build according to their designs, alter designed to achieve similar aesthetics but resolving engineering concerns.

 

Modern architecture isn't easy to design, clean lines and minimalism is extremely difficult to achieve because you can not cover it with ornaments, if you think those wavy buildings are easy to design you have rocks in your head, if you think traditional architecture is easier to engineer and build you have to check for those rocks again.

 

Your whole argument is based on your assumption that traditional architecture/design is easier and cheaper to engineer and build and that's where and why you are wrong!

 

They can be equally as easy or as difficult, it's a case by case scenario, try finding craftsmen or skilled labour to help you pull off an intricate traditional design, when you find them come back and tell me how much they cost!

 

That's why you are wrong, because of all your assumptions which have no basis in reality because YOU have zero real world experience on the matter, you basing your whole argument on the fact that "many" don't like those modern buildings, how many? Who are they? Do you have an accurate number which can legitimately be verified? Are those against more than those pro?

You see? That's why you are wrong, everything is based on assumptions and no experience, that's why everyone here isn't taking you seriously.

 

Now you have the right to have an opinion but that can be purely based on aesthetics, if you hate the look of the designs it's perfectly understandable and normal, everyone is absolutely entitled to that, I see many modern buildings which I think are complete piles of crap and I see traditional buildings which I absolutely love but that's always based on looks and that's perfectly normal.

 

What you are trying to do is discredit a profession which you know nothing about other than what you read on the net or in books, many involved in or with the profession are trying to tell you that you are misinformed and it isn't really the way you are perceiving it but you are refuting their explanation like a mental patient is refusing to take his meds when that happens after a while many are losing their patience with you.

 

I am done with this and with you on this subject, I am doing this on my iPad and I think my typing finger is now few mm shorter

 

Please do not reply to this, I am begging you

Wheels I know I said I was done but I just had an idea of how to explain it to you better.

 

Your whole argument is based on the fact that modern architecture it's very easy to design but difficult to engineer and costly to build and it's an eyesore ( leave the aesthetics out because it's a matter of taste and you can't prove how many dislike or like a certain design/building) on the other hand traditional architecture is quite the opposite, you know our counter argument we are pretty much saying that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about, both styles can be equally as difficult or as simple, so I came up with this simple exercise which might help us get our point across, can you answer the following questions?

 

Please keep the answers very short preferably A or B.

Thank you.

 

Looking at the photos below which style, in your opinion, is the the most difficult to design, engineer, build and the most expensive in terms of cost?

 

A. = modern

 

B. = traditional

 

1.A.

 

 

B.

 

 

2.A.

 

 

B.

 

 

3.A.

 

( showing the window work)

 

 

B.

 

 

4.A.

 

(Showing staircase)

 

 

B.

 

 

5.A.

 

 

B.

 

 

6.A.

 

 

B.

 

 

7.A.

 

 

B.

 

 

 

I read your points but they are flat out wrong and unfortunately you are too blind to see why and no mater how many people tell you that you are wrong and explain to you why you are wrong you don't see it, by your own admission you don't think anyone who posted here refuted your arguments, if you aren't capable to see that what chance do I or anyone else for that matter have to convince you otherwise?

 

Look at this this way, you are wrong because I say so, you think I and everyone else here is wrong because you say so, let's agree to disagree and move on, you stick with your bricks and we stick with whatever else we like to use to build with. You go out there engage an architect you like, buy one or more blocks of dirt and build whatever God damn building you like, put your money where your mouth is rather than talking out of your ass.

I've put so many developments and buildings up that I forgot their count and they were all sold and or leased at a premium, do you think that YOU know more than I do about this subject just because you have the gift of reading and a stable internet connection?

 

I spend yearly six to seven figures on all sort of consultants, architects included, do you really think I would write a six figure cheque to an architect if he didn't have a positive impact a crucial part on a project which then I go ahead and spend eight figures on getting out of the ground? Do you really think I and many who do what I do day in and out are that God damn incompetent??

 

Please! Consider yourself privileged that we even entertain your ridiculousness and take time out of our day to reply to your nonsense, we do it because most care about you and want to show you a different aspect of the whole process which you are clearly missing but you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

 

Listen to this and believe it just because I know what I am talking about, architects are very important, they don't just doodle on paper, they consult with the structural engineers, get involved with material selections and techniques, answer local planing authorities questions and concerns, sometimes supervise the construction process making sure elements are build according to their designs, alter designed to achieve similar aesthetics but resolving engineering concerns.

 

Modern architecture isn't easy to design, clean lines and minimalism is extremely difficult to achieve because you can not cover it with ornaments, if you think those wavy buildings are easy to design you have rocks in your head, if you think traditional architecture is easier to engineer and build you have to check for those rocks again.

 

Your whole argument is based on your assumption that traditional architecture/design is easier and cheaper to engineer and build and that's where and why you are wrong!

 

They can be equally as easy or as difficult, it's a case by case scenario, try finding craftsmen or skilled labour to help you pull off an intricate traditional design, when you find them come back and tell me how much they cost!

 

That's why you are wrong, because of all your assumptions which have no basis in reality because YOU have zero real world experience on the matter, you basing your whole argument on the fact that "many" don't like those modern buildings, how many? Who are they? Do you have an accurate number which can legitimately be verified? Are those against more than those pro?

You see? That's why you are wrong, everything is based on assumptions and no experience, that's why everyone here isn't taking you seriously.

 

Now you have the right to have an opinion but that can be purely based on aesthetics, if you hate the look of the designs it's perfectly understandable and normal, everyone is absolutely entitled to that, I see many modern buildings which I think are complete piles of crap and I see traditional buildings which I absolutely love but that's always based on looks and that's perfectly normal.

 

What you are trying to do is discredit a profession which you know nothing about other than what you read on the net or in books, many involved in or with the profession are trying to tell you that you are misinformed and it isn't really the way you are perceiving it but you are refuting their explanation like a mental patient is refusing to take his meds when that happens after a while many are losing their patience with you.

 

I am done with this and with you on this subject, I am doing this on my iPad and I think my typing finger is now few mm shorter

 

Please do not reply to this, I am begging you

 

Well, this Architect would like to thank you for hammering this out on your ipad, Fortis. Architecture is a very complex business and I trust we help to advance society. The ancient master builders were doing the same in their day. Their day has come and gone. Glorious architecture, but needs to remain in the history books. This discussion centers around one man's stubbornness and not so much about architecture per se. My simple take on the past several pages of text.

 

Well, this Architect would like to thank you for hammering this out on your ipad, Fortis. Architecture is a very complex business and I trust we help to advance society. The ancient master builders were doing the same in their day. Their day has come and gone. Glorious architecture, but needs to remain in the history books. This discussion centers around one man's stubbornness and not so much about architecture per se. My simple take on the past several pages of text.

 

No problems. I'd like to clarify something, I am not an architect, I wouldn't have the skills required to be one, not a good one any way , it really frustrates me when misinformed people speak ill of the modern architecture profession, they look at modern designs thinking "I could do that, there is nothing to it!"

 

One of my daughters is very interested in becoming an architect, she's only 11 now and she might change her mind later but now she's really interested in architecture, I am not interested in interfering with their decisions, I will nurture their interests but I will not interfere, having said that, I am not going to lie, I'd would love to see her become one.

 

 

No problems. I'd like to clarify something, I am not an architect, I wouldn't have the skills required to be one, not a good one any way , it really frustrates me when misinformed people speak ill of the modern architecture profession, they look at modern designs thinking "I could do that, there is nothing to it!"

 

One of my daughters is very interested in becoming an architect, she's only 11 now and she might change her mind later but now she's really interested in architecture, I am not interested in interfering with their decisions, I will nurture their interests but I will not interfere, having said that, I am not going to lie, I'd would love to see her become one.

 

If she continues to be passionate about it as she matures, then let her have at it. It can be very rewarding as a profession and fulfills ones desire to create. I know she has got that trait from you!! My father was an architect and I was fascinated with the profession at a young age. It is not the most lucrative business, but architects go into the profession with open eyes regarding that. My children never showed an interest in architecture, which is fine. I wish her all of the best and to you as the proud father. The greatest thing in life is to see the passion in your own children's eyes as they grow into adult hood.

Fortis, thought in a completely different style, one of the few places I've seen that comes close to your level of detail. But think of the money you could have saved going this direction from your wasteful, over engineered modern design.

 

http://www.houzz.com/projects/10488/malinard-manor

 

 

That looks interesting, I would appreciated it more if they used a real tree buy the timber is veneered, I don't like shortcuts

 

 

 

its just scary how much we think alike,

 

i looked at the end of that counter and saw the veneer work-game over-fire wood.

 

 

 

this thread makes me want a new house, problem is where & what. good thread

I read your points but they are flat out wrong and unfortunately you are too blind to see why and no mater how many people tell you that you are wrong and explain to you why you are wrong you don't see it, by your own admission you don't think anyone who posted here refuted your arguments, if you aren't capable to see that what chance do I or anyone else for that matter have to convince you otherwise?

 

Look at this this way, you are wrong because I say so, you think I and everyone else here is wrong because you say so, let's agree to disagree and move on, you stick with your bricks and we stick with whatever else we like to use to build with. You go out there engage an architect you like, buy one or more blocks of dirt and build whatever God damn building you like, put your money where your mouth is rather than talking out of your ass.

I've put so many developments and buildings up that I forgot their count and they were all sold and or leased at a premium, do you think that YOU know more than I do about this subject just because you have the gift of reading and a stable internet connection?

 

None of this answers any of my central questions, such as why is contemporary architecture unable to design residential buildings for the ordinary citizen and why do so many such building designs look like normal buildings that were hit with a sledgehammer. Why does the contemporary architectural profession adhere to a view that ornament is completely wrong when many of their own buildings cost an arm-and-a-leg? Why is that contemporary architecture believes that using any kind of historical styles if wrong and that we must design buildings for "the spirit of the age?" I say no one refuted my arguments because, quite literally, no one has.

 

Also, I am not indicting people like yourself, I am criticizing the architectural profession itself.

 

I spend yearly six to seven figures on all sort of consultants, architects included, do you really think I would write a six figure cheque to an architect if he didn't have a positive impact a crucial part on a project which then I go ahead and spend eight figures on getting out of the ground? Do you really think I and many who do what I do day in and out are that God damn incompetent??

 

What kind of structures do you put up? Structures that are clean and modern or the anarchistic types of structures that look like the Gehry buildings? If the Gehry buildings, I'd say the architect is costing you because they're designing buildings that are unnecessarily difficult to put up.

 

Please! Consider yourself privileged that we even entertain your ridiculousness and take time out of our day to reply to your nonsense, we do it because most care about you and want to show you a different aspect of the whole process which you are clearly missing but you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

 

Listen to this and believe it just because I know what I am talking about, architects are very important, they don't just doodle on paper, they consult with the structural engineers, get involved with material selections and techniques, answer local planing authorities questions and concerns, sometimes supervise the construction process making sure elements are build according to their designs, alter designed to achieve similar aesthetics but resolving engineering concerns.

 

And with all that, the profession is unable to design buildings that show any real creativity, that structurally make much sense, and that even look very good. So what if they consult with structural engineers and planning authorities? Of course they have to. That doesn't mean that the basic design makes any sense from an exterior standpoint.

 

Modern architecture isn't easy to design, clean lines and minimalism is extremely difficult to achieve because you can not cover it with ornaments, if you think those wavy buildings are easy to design you have rocks in your head, if you think traditional architecture is easier to engineer and build you have to check for those rocks again.

 

Your whole argument is based on your assumption that traditional architecture/design is easier and cheaper to engineer and build and that's where and why you are wrong!

 

They can be equally as easy or as difficult, it's a case by case scenario, try finding craftsmen or skilled labour to help you pull off an intricate traditional design, when you find them come back and tell me how much they cost!

 

I would say it is you yourself that lacks understanding of classical architecture if you think that as that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong. And my argument isn't that the wavy parts of easy to design from an engineering standpoint, but from an aesthetic standpoint. Your argument here makes two big misconceptions:

 

1) That all classical architecture requires being covered with ornaments

 

2) That the ornament is expensive when one wants it. That all depends. If you're talking about having it all hand-crafted as you mention, then yes that can jack up the cost. But you can also have it done by machines, which greatly reduces the cost. And that is if the design requires a lot of ornament in the first place.

 

That's why you are wrong, because of all your assumptions which have no basis in reality because YOU have zero real world experience on the matter, you basing your whole argument on the fact that "many" don't like those modern buildings, how many? Who are they? Do you have an accurate number which can legitimately be verified? Are those against more than those pro?

 

Why then can't the profession design any aesthetically-pleasing homes for the residential field? Not all contemporary architecture is difficult to engineer and construct. Why can't the profession make anything that ordinary people want to live in? Why is it only a profession for the rich right now?

 

You see? That's why you are wrong, everything is based on assumptions and no experience, that's why everyone here isn't taking you seriously.

 

Now you have the right to have an opinion but that can be purely based on aesthetics, if you hate the look of the designs it's perfectly understandable and normal, everyone is absolutely entitled to that, I see many modern buildings which I think are complete piles of crap and I see traditional buildings which I absolutely love but that's always based on looks and that's perfectly normal.

 

What you are trying to do is discredit a profession which you know nothing about other than what you read on the net or in books, many involved in or with the profession are trying to tell you that you are misinformed and it isn't really the way you are perceiving it but you are refuting their explanation like a mental patient is refusing to take his meds when that happens after a while many are losing their patience with you.

 

I am done with this and with you on this subject, I am doing this on my iPad and I think my typing finger is now few mm shorter

 

Please do not reply to this, I am begging you

 

I am being told I am misinformed and that seems to pretty much be the gist of it, I have not been told exactly HOW I am wrong, just that I am. And again, architecture is not a subject that is only open to criticism from those "in the know," the "experts," it is a profession that is fully open to criticism from the public as they have to look at, live, and work in many of the buildings. I mean would you build or buy a house that you think is crap because an architect told you the design is brilliant and that you just don't understand the design and thus don't know what you're talking about in calling it crap?

 

I would say it is you yourself that lacks understanding of classical architecture if you think that as that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong.

 

 

You're saying this to Fortis? I'm done.

Wheels I know I said I was done but I just had an idea of how to explain it to you better.

 

Your whole argument is based on the fact that modern architecture it's very easy to design but difficult to engineer and costly to build and it's an eyesore ( leave the aesthetics out because it's a matter of taste and you can't prove how many dislike or like a certain design/building) on the other hand traditional architecture is quite the opposite, you know our counter argument we are pretty much saying that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about, both styles can be equally as difficult or as simple, so I came up with this simple exercise which might help us get our point across, can you answer the following questions?

 

Please keep the answers very short preferably A or B.

Thank you.

 

Looking at the photos below which style, in your opinion, is the the most difficult to design, engineer, build and the most expensive in terms of cost?

 

A. = modern

 

B. = traditional

 

I see what you are getting at here, but these aren't fair comparisons IMO. For one, you are using very ornate classical designs, and as I said, classical need not be super-ornate. In addition, it need not be hand-crafted. For the first building, you use a relatively clean-looking contemporary design that doesn't look that difficult structurally and then compare it with a ornate traditional building. For the second building, you take the wacky-looking Gehry building and then compare it with a very ornate classical building. In addition, my criticism with regards to cost and difficulty is not regarding the interiors, it is with regards to the exterior and shape of the structure overall. Of course a very ornate, hand-carved wooden staircase will cost more than a simple-designed contemporary staircase. Of course plain windows will be cheaper and much easier than some hand-painted, intricately-designed painted window.

 

And even the ornate classical buildings, as said, won't necessarily cost what you think they do, because they don't need to be all hand-carved. The painted windows today are oftentimes designed on computers. It depends on how far one wants to take the hand-crafted bit. Some classical designs call for hand-crafted bricks for example. That's how all bricks used to be made, but today they're all made with machinery. Classical designs can also make use of new materials, as there is no law that classical design has to use the same materials that were used in the past. The Greeks did not make use of concrete, but the Romans made extensive use of it. The Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. has a steel frame.

 

Remember, classical design is for everyone, from the most lowly-poor person to the most extreme rich patron. It has simple designs, it has incredibly ornate designs, it has designs for all forms of residential design, from poor to rich, and designs for commercial and governmental interests, and with more innovation, can be extended to other buildings as well.

You're saying this to Fortis? I'm done.

 

Here is an article by a very prominent classical architect, Robert Adam, that addresses just this point:

 

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/aj-buil...5217216.article

 

The third fallacy is that it’s no longer possible to build ‘proper’ classical buildings, due to a lack of skills or the expense of decoration. In the first place, the skills are available and modern technology helps to deliver what was once complicated and labour-intensive. Classical buildings need be no more or less expensive than any building. In the second place, and most significantly, a lack of design practice has led to the idea that classicism is only the application of decoration, and the more of it the better. In fact, classical design is as much about what’s omitted as what’s included. Due to its complete familiarity, when decoration is stripped away there’s still the lingering impression that it could be put back. This gives classical design great flexibility, but it can also lead people to believe that buildings such as Foster + Partners’ Carré d’Art (1993) in Nîmes, France, are classical when they’re not.

 

This ambiguity is evidence of the underlying persistence of the classical ideal, which should be exploited rather than ignored. The architectural establishment often freezes out the few practising classicists or locks them safely in a box marked ‘reproduction’. For their part, too many classicists see modernity as the enemy. Neither attitude is healthy. A public desire for both the benefits of modernity and the depth of tradition is commonplace. A liberal profession should accept and even combine the energy of invention and the wisdom of classicism. The creative potential is enormous.

 

You're saying this to Fortis? I'm done.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Hahaha! "Breatheeeeeee..... fcuk this shit. Breathe out."

 

I still want to see the stuff you've been working on!

Wheels there is something absolutely wrong with you, I bet you are always wondering why you are being misunderstood by everyone around you, if you aren't already I'd seek help with it.

 

I gave you few examples of the opposing styles but you don't have the capacity to analyze the differences because you have no idea what you are talking about, now you are telling me I am unjustifiably placing complicated intricate traditional design against the easy simple modern design, they are almost like for like in terms of complexity and cost, do you get what you are saying??

 

Let me explain it to you with cars, you are virtually asking me to compare an Aventador with a 1985 3 series BMW, that in your thick skull would make a fair comparison

 

You keep on saying why aren't modern designs for the current masses? You are wrong again, the current market mostly builds modern homes but with toned down designs because of budget constrains, not having the balls to do whatever they like, resale, fear, etc. etc. , similar with what's happened back in the day, the rich built very ornate intricate buildings and the rest built more affordable ones in a similar technique.

 

Do you get it now?

 

You are comparing the pinnacle of modernism by avant-garde architects with God knows what traditional design (Aventador V 85 BMW) ignoring the almost like for like in terms of cost and intricacy examples I gave you above.

 

Mass produced modern isn't necessarily more expensive or complicated than mass produced traditional. This here is why you are wrong.

 

 

Now tell me about the kitchens in my last post, which one do you think costs more?

If wheels had his way we would still be painting on cave walls and starting cars with a crank handle.

I see what you are getting at here, but these aren't fair comparisons IMO. . Of course a very ornate, hand-carved wooden staircase will cost more than a simple-designed contemporary staircase. Of course plain windows will be cheaper and much easier than some hand-painted, intricately-designed painted window.

 

You think that modern staircase is "simple-designed" and cost less than the timber one ??

 

You think those clear span windows cost less than the stain glass ?? What if they cost the same? What if the clear glass is twice the price what if the stain ones are twice the price? Can you answer those questions accurately so you can show me you aren't talking out of your ass??

 

You comment about the fact that you aren't interested of what happens inside, what a childish argument, exteriors are conducive of what has to happen on the inside

 

You like a 5th grader, you pissed off that Frank Ghery designs buildings which look like they were squashed by a giant and in your head you are telling yourself, that's so God damn easy I could do it myself, NOBODY must like that unless they are insane, let me look for articles on the net which support my insanity and post them as an argument in my defense

If wheels had his way we would still be painting on cave walls and starting cars with a crank handle.

 

capt_chaos, yours statement implies that the contemporary architectural designs are progress. My argument is that to a great extent, many of them are regressive, not progressive. They are a step backwards. Progress depends on building on what came before and advancing it. Contemporary architecture doesn't do that. For example, how is a trailer broken in two progress for a home for hurricane victims?

If wheels had his way we would still be painting on cave walls and starting cars with a crank handle.

 

You know what concerns me the most?? People like him end up working for the city planning offices

 

You know, those morons who don't allow you to change your door handle because it looks old and rusty so it must have some historical significance.

Wheels there is something absolutely wrong with you, I bet you are always wondering why you are being misunderstood by everyone around you, if you aren't already I'd seek help with it.

 

I gave you few examples of the opposing styles but you don't have the capacity to analyze the differences because you have no idea what you are talking about, now you are telling me I am unjustifiably placing complicated intricate traditional design against the easy simple modern design, they are almost like for like in terms of complexity and cost, do you get what you are saying??

 

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

 

Let me explain it to you with cars, you are virtually asking me to compare an Aventador with a 1985 3 series BMW, that in your thick skull would make a fair comparison

 

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

 

You keep on saying why aren't modern designs for the current masses? You are wrong again, the current market mostly builds modern homes but with toned down designs because of budget constrains, not having the balls to do whatever they like, resale, fear, etc. etc. , similar with what's happened back in the day, the rich built very ornate intricate buildings and the rest built more affordable ones in a similar technique.

 

Do you get it now?

 

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

 

You are comparing the pinnacle of modernism by avant-garde architects with God knows what traditional design (Aventador V 85 BMW) ignoring the almost like for like in terms of cost and intricacy examples I gave you above.

 

Mass produced modern isn't necessarily more expensive or complicated than mass produced traditional. This here is why you are wrong.

 

 

Now tell me about the kitchens in my last post, which one do you think costs more?

 

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

 

You think that modern staircase is "simple-designed" and cost less than the timber one ??

 

You think those clear span windows cost less than the stain glass ?? What if they cost the same? What if the clear glass is twice the price what if the stain ones are twice the price? Can you answer those questions accurately so you can show me you aren't talking out of your ass??

 

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

 

You comment about the fact that you aren't interested of what happens inside, what a childish argument, exteriors are conducive of what has to happen on the inside

 

You like a 5th grader, you pissed off that Frank Ghery designs buildings which look like they were squashed by a giant and in your head you are telling yourself, that's so God damn easy I could do it myself, NOBODY must like that unless they are insane, let me look for articles on the net which support my insanity and post them as an argument in my defense

 

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

 

If she continues to be passionate about it as she matures, then let her have at it. It can be very rewarding as a profession and fulfills ones desire to create. I know she has got that trait from you!! My father was an architect and I was fascinated with the profession at a young age. It is not the most lucrative business, but architects go into the profession with open eyes regarding that. My children never showed an interest in architecture, which is fine. I wish her all of the best and to you as the proud father. The greatest thing in life is to see the passion in your own children's eyes as they grow into adult hood.

 

I am definitely supporting her as you rightly said:

 

"The greatest thing in life is to see the passion in your own children's eyes as they grow into adult hood."

 

Very well said

 

You know what concerns me the most?? People like him end up working for the city planning offices

 

You know, those morons who don't allow you to change your door handle because it looks old and rusty so it must have some historical significance.

 

It amazes me how you guys just totally ignore my points and my questions. Look at capt_chaos saying that if I had my way, we'd never advance technologically, when I spent the entire thread explaining that that is precisely NOT the case, that classical architecture is all about innovation and advancement, that my argument is that contemporary architecture goes against advancement.

 

Also Fortis, don't know if you saw it, but I provided a link to an article by a prominent classical architect, Robert Adam, where he on the third misconception explains the misconceptions about ornament in classical architecture:

 

LINK

Fortis, thought in a completely different style, one of the few places I've seen that comes close to your level of detail. But think of the money you could have saved going this direction from your wasteful, over engineered modern design.

 

http://www.houzz.com/projects/10488/malinard-manor

 

God damn that gave me an instant headache

capt_chaos, yours statement implies that the contemporary architectural designs are progress. My argument is that to a great extent, many of them are regressive, not progressive. They are a step backwards. Progress depends on building on what came before and advancing it. Contemporary architecture doesn't do that. For example, how is a trailer broken in two progress for a home for hurricane victims?

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Going forward they are easy to maintain.

 

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

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

It amazes me how you guys just totally ignore my points and my questions. Look at capt_chaos saying that if I had my way, we'd never advance technologically, when I spent the entire thread explaining that that is precisely NOT the case, that classical architecture is all about innovation and advancement, that my argument is that contemporary architecture goes against advancement.

 

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