|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Yes a nice park can be maybe more than art , still srts are what make it "work". Other classes ,design of nice family to will easily create individual apriciated places ; stil projecting of spaces are different than that of places , And architecture , the designs of houses places , architecture ofcaurse can deliver as beautifull also as nice today, as your favourite architect.
The quality deliveed with the ones you mention, for houses designed today must be better than this mornings , but this make me ask ; what style architecture do you prefere JWmHarmon , what made Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings was method ,and wouldn't there be a mountain of money out there , for today's Frank Lloyd Wright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: One time, One shot, One deal... |
|
|
@JW - you seem to me - to be nothing more than a compilation of cliff notes. I'm a grad of the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture, and was raised in my father's studio who is/was (died of friggin cancer) a modern master painter.
So JW - one time, one shot, one deal - I ask you - how did FLlW and his understanding of 'architecture' (lower case a), go from his piece of shit crap Blossom residence of 1892 - to his - forum abuse - understanding of architecture (almost upper case A) of the Lykes residence influenced by(lots of stuff)... of 1959?
[And even that understanding was/is superficial, ie the Lykes res.]
I'll give you some time to do the research. But don't fret JW - I already have the answers just a wait'n for you.
Take care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: What ever happened |
|
|
Dude.....you're way harsh. This is just a forum, not a scene from "High Noon"........  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh your so suave architect,
Don't keep us on the edge of our seats, go ahead and enlighten us this great knowledge of yours.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Landy
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes it seems that something is not going the "Wright" way, my believe is that the people with design community decided to give some of their talents to other low key architecture web sites. Only for a while.
Why? because wherever I go either a Gehry site or Wright building I always have designcommunity.com in my mind. I think it's fare for other websites to have a few visitors a day... 2 or 3 but nothing compares to the debate that takes place in this electronic forum.
always loyal to designcommunity.com
Landy
a couple of ideas that I have in mind for threads are...Chicago / Wright House and Studio and Pamphlet Architecture "Augmented Landscapes" (Princeton Architectural Press) I believe those are potential hot topics. Almost forgot contemporary military architecture "pragmatism vs design". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice to see you back, Chris and Landy 
A couple of years ago, I was designing a munitions store for the British navy... sorta bomb-proof hut with expensive doors. Whilst doing so, I cast my mind back to Architectural History at Uni, which featured a Venetian bloke called Sanmichelli who, in the 16th Century, actually managed to make interesting architecture out of such buildings. I wonder what's changed about today's world that artistic expression in such a context would be considered laughable?
There's a picture of one of his military buildings here:
http://www.italia.strabon.org/mps/pm_fortifications/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice to see the clan back...a bit suprised it's not P.C. or Chris leading the charge this time (I jest).
As for The Embicile, last time we exchanged words I do remember leaving you with your own foot up your ass. As usual you banter loudly and aggressively with minimal bits of fodder you think is creative genius but once the surface is scratched, we all get to see how small and pitiful the Wizard of Oz truly is...
But I must admit, The Alleged-architect is not the worse kind I've met around here.
Solidred, thanks for the kudos...I don't deserve it but I appreciate the nod regardless. In all, life is always a quest and it's the people you meet along the journey that makes it all worthwhile. If my contributions had any value it was only in response to each and all those who I respond to.
Cheers.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Landy
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
cool Solidred!
My experience with the Navy so far is not in it's literal sense of defense "Paul Virilio" meaning bunker architecture but rather a totaly different view. Living quarters, spaces for drills, buildings that simulate battle scenarios etc. A lot of military instalations have developed interior architecture to serve the masses for drills and other military exercises. And also very important every branch have their similarities and differences the US Navy to Marines to the Army to Air Force they all have almost transparent differences in their spaces but they are there.
Great post Solidred! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I wonder what's changed about today's world that artistic expression in such a context would be considered laughable? |
Money...ie, economics. Same story behind all contemporary issues. It's a question of values.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Landy
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would like to clarify that I have not worked as architect to the military my involvement with the military is as on duty service personnel with the department of the navy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I always check in from time to time, there has not been an architecture forum debate that has caught my attention lately. I get bored when everyone starts to become to agreeable 
Was one of the requirements of the munitions store that it must have no decoration solidred?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm working on a historic military museum right now, and actually it's the headquarters building that has badly deteriorated and converted to new use as a museum. Anyway, one room was the munitions store and the single biggest issue was security...don't want munitions easily stolen, by either enemies or from within. So the issue of decor can be added but usually it interferes with security issues.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, a mini re-union!
The issue of decoration wasn't ever raised, Chris, except for painting the concrete block walls so that dust didn't collect in the pores; not so much a specific of munitions, just house-keeping.
According to Modernism (though I couldn't tell you who exactly suggested this in so many words) such basic, needs-driven-and-nothing-else huts ought to be beautiful, attending as nature does only to function. This raises the statement so often attached to beauty: it's in the eye of the beholder. In other words, something like that becomes beautiful once one understands why it's there and what each part is doing in relation to why it's there. On a similar tack, My boss and I were sketching out an access hatch in an acoustic ceiling (hidden above a suspended ceiling) this afternoon. He started drawing something wedge-shaped, so that the hatch would fit extra snugly in place and thus maximise its acoustic performance. But he agreed with me when I said that the wedge shape implied fine joinery; something 'well-jointed' and that this hatch was to be made by relatively unskilled workers in something of a hurry. Therefore, to address that aspect of its function, the hatch should be four-square and easy to make.
Sometimes refinement is in roughness, not smoothness...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Landy
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
best of luck!
on your new project with the military Mx2. So far I can only play the role of a by-stander to military architecture, lucky you to have a hands on approach on military design. Here are some of the issues that I believe keep military architecture as austere as it is, it is architecture of symbol and in most cases it celebrates patriotism or victory at certain battlefields. And anyone that criticises it some way or another critices a symbol of it's nation specially after 9/11.
The only space that I believe is impartial to perception has to be the vietnam memorial by Maya Lin because it is representative of the power behind the military, ordinary people (commanders, enlisted, captains,soldiers, sailors, etc.) that even though we may feel a sense of peace and silence by visiting such sites their names and iconography can sometimes be as rethoric as the context that surrounds them (awkward contradiction?).
pd:
here is a refresing image of battle station 21 a training facility for seamen recruits. As anyone that browses through the image will notice the suburban shell that houses an actual battle simulation on board a DDG or destroyer commonly used by the Navy as part of http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/train/battlesta21.htmtheir fleet.
Last edited by Landy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there is a difference between architecture for the military and defensive structures.
historically the power of defensive structures did represent a display of power, a representation of local strength - and it resulted in some wonderful structures. One of France's favourite architects was not an architect at all, but a military engineer: Vauban.
interesting to see the development down this way from the 10th. Century Merovingian defences (like the Keep at Roquebrune), the very pretty 16th. Century Fort on Mont Alban, through to Vauban's work (17th. Century) the late 19th. Century defensive curtain system of Serré de Rivière (hardly known today), through to the 20th. Century Maginot Line (http://monsite.orange.fr/richardhaut/page5.html).
All are defensive structures.
Buildings for the military on the other hand had a distinctive and standardized pattern, reflecting what MX says about cost considerations, and many are being re-used or demolished, such as the large area of the Diables Bleues which has been mostly knocked down to extend the university campus in east Nice.
My experience of British architecture for the military of the mid to late 20th. Century was that most of it was dreary as anything. The bean-can Nissan huts were still being used by the RAF years after WWII, and the only time that I saw a major munitions store (400 acres) it consisted primarily of earthworks with blast-doors. (It also had no munitions in it which I suspect is why it was so secret).
The only exceptions that I can think of are the Knightsbridge Barracks (designed by Sir Basil Spence) and the Royal Horse Artillery Barracks in St. Johns Wood.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
