|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
    |
|
"That good olde box. Has the box not served us well? How many boxes still inspire people while providing an excellence in function? How many people travel the world to see these boxes that fight the test of time and continue to win? "
And maybe the good old box is exactly what keep us from realising the true wonders that will come, when centuries of "this is how you build a house" ,is replaced with new skills, new visions and Delivery. Remember how today's architecture programs in fact work ; the old box put on computer code -- would you say that is something basicly "new". The old box realy are a greater barrier a greater backstriver than you think --- even new methods must produce the same old box, everything new is up against "the good old box" that been refined for centuries ; now what is the new methods had the same chance , but it havn't as the demands are so, that a bright new idea must not come from any bright guy, the demands are so that a bright guy must spend a few millions to "prove" the new idea, --- and if a poor artist can not spend a few millions doing that, then it is the method that is blamed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If anything has lasted centuries, it is has been the continuous development of how a residential dwelling manifests itself, not merely a repetative stamp of what it means to build a house. If that were true, then you'd be saying that the Villa Rotunda, the Gamble House, La Miniatura and Biltmore are all the same thing--(I'd hope that was not the claim.) Each explore different problems and solutions to site, space, the environment, circulation, proportion, materials, social class... the list is endless. Historically, the box isn't just a static box, it's an ever-evolving box that is comprised of valuable knowledge and innovation required by the present to replace precedent. I'm not arguing the box can't change--change it has and as it must. I'm arguing against it's complete dismissal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you want square rooms , horisontal floors and vertical walls ,furniture that can add to this as allway's and don't wan't silli problems with silli corners rounded walls where no picture can hang ,tradisional doors that make the rooms flexible and --- ofcaurse don't we all or most of us.
But that do not requier a box --- I show round houses with square rooms ,even nice floors at various levels , I offer a solution to the fact that reson for the box are the way's we used to put things together, technikes that will and allmost must bring a box. Yoy think of a house as the walls put vertical to support eachother when they are that , and the roof as the locker for that box, the house build this way for milliniums are maybe with the brick, the only way we can emagine the house -- formed by the dimensions of the brick, the bricks stacked ontop eachother not to tumble, the desing dedided by what the brick allow , a box with square rooms , the floors constructed with the only technic solution that offer a vertical beam attached to the vertical walls , the stairs ,the interiour walls everything added by the few craftsman tricks used for milliums.
Now for me that is perfectly allright, as long you realise what acturly basicly decide the design and -- as long as you realise that I offer a house any form , and with as square rooms as you demand, ----- but with methods that ask no bricks or no millinium old perception of the building structure and it's parts, so do not blame just any new building method what you did not like about the ones before it ; architecture and engineering acturly can progress even expertations such as that the new technikes will bring Hippie houses with curved waals and impossible angled floors no it is not like that, and don't blame the new for the old hippie foults, as I will bring you square rooms in round houses and they will be cheaper and stronger and a new architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the contrary, PC, I don't blame new architecture for old faults, I blame new architecture if it has the arrogance to dismiss the past for all of its accomplishments on the presumption that new is somehow equivalent to enlightened and that innovative is unquestionably progress. The only reason to fully discard something is if it has outlived its usefulness, if it can no longer meet the needs of the present. If it can in anyway, then there is an opportunity for its reuse, it's evolution, it's alteration into a new existence that brings a life with new attributes reminiscent of the old.
Do I give honor to craft and "tricks used for milleniums"... absolutely. Of course, the level of said "tricks" (which I would replace with talent, skill, gifts, unarguable proficiency) is so far beyond what most people outside of architecture and building would understand. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that there are few people who can replicate it today. In fact, they're more tricks than we have today. Your buildings aren't craftsman tricks, they're computer tricks, beginning to question the connection between art, form, construction and craft that has provided a depth to architecture since its inception.
I could go into a number of round, great buildings... Manchester Library, or... perhaps, the Pantheon? But I doubt that's really the issue at hand. It's not the innovation and fresh thought that sparks worry, it's the bold belief that it's the place of this generation to surmount and cast down those builders and designers that came before rather than take their place as students of design that, in some ways, will never compare to the achievements of their forefathers. Very Bauhaus... Does it really take a distance from the past to distinguish one's self today? Historically, architects of the present did not seem to believe it to be so.
I'm sure you could design a house with any form, but the broad expanse of "any form" certainly isn't cheaper. Stronger is to be proven by example. A solid wooden beam will withstand fire longer than a metal cold-rolled section of the same dimensions. A brick will outlast a glass wall. Each time the caulking joints between your glass joints fails or the cables that are supporting them stretch beyond usefulness and you have to replace the entire wall--that was only guaranteed for 40 years--the cost will continue to rise. Every rounded surface and acute angle that can't actually accomodate use other than visual recognition will pull at the minds of the client, wondering why it had to be constructed and if there were an endless number of other ways that could produce accent, visual hierarchy or strength in form. This is if they were not too scared of what they couldn't even begin to understand when they stopped at the street.
At the end of the day, what also separates us from "art", what seals us in our own corner of the fine arts in general is the additional requirement of function. We are a service business, we provide for clients to meet their expectations and requirements as much, if not moreso than our own. Are the masses ready to cast aside all that came before for a clean slate wiped of traces that tie it back to the history that built our profession? Though I couldn't prove it now, I'd say no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
"On the contrary, PC, I don't blame new architecture for old faults, I blame new architecture if it has the arrogance to dismiss the past for all of its accomplishments on the presumption that new is somehow equivalent to enlightened and that innovative is unquestionably progress. The only reason to fully discard something is if it has outlived its usefulness, if it can no longer meet the needs of the present. If it can in anyway, then there is an opportunity for its reuse, it's evolution, it's alteration into a new existence that brings a life with new attributes reminiscent of the old."
This is not my experience , old houses must be restored once every 40 to 50 years and then you see the foults in century old convensions , being a craftsminded person this fact force you to try doing it better --- but remember how many before have tried the same and every time, if innovation and new fresh idears was not involved, then was these then the progress it asked ?
Beside there are many more resons to jettison old technikes and old thinking, just the fact that you can build a house four times as strong at a third the cost shuldn't that be reson enough , beside the new jobs that any new technique allway's ment -- wouldnøt that mean more money and more and more pleasant new houses.
"Do I give honor to craft and "tricks used for milleniums"... absolutely. Of course, the level of said "tricks" (which I would replace with talent, skill, gifts, unarguable proficiency) is so far beyond what most people outside of architecture and building would understand. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that there are few people who can replicate it today. In fact, they're more tricks than we have today. Your buildings aren't craftsman tricks, they're computer tricks, beginning to question the connection between art, form, construction and craft that has provided a depth to architecture since its inception."
That's wrong --- my buildings requier just as much craftsmanship and ontop more productivity, tomorrows design tools are as genuine as yestoday's chalk-line and compasses and the same thought and skills must go into the creativity with these new tools ; Listen I can sharpen my adges and planes so they will split atoms, but do you think that mean I will not use a bandsaw or a router --- are you saying that becaurse the old hand plane are a more proud piece of tool, then the boards planed with the thickness plane are modern junk ? Remember how bandsaws , automated mills, steam hammers allready a few hundred years ago outmanuvered many old crafts , and please realise that even water driven saws at those times now ment cheap houses and cheap ships , then these houses and ships was still build with the same tricks as before with the hand pover . Now ; when we now can project on computer then why must houses look like a hundred years ago ?
See I am not a student looking for clues --- when I defend the new I ask you to remember that those "tricks" , learning these skills and my own good sense, been tha basics in all the works I done incluting house building and repairs of the old Timbers crafts, Boatsbuilding of the old trade , knowing skills such as frensh polishing , setting up a cabinet scraper, Caulking a ship the right way not just forcing oucum by force but by feel into the seams. ----- But still I spended years rewriting lofting rutines into computer programs for the perfection of it ; in that way I develobed software to unfold the panels that mean, that I develobed ontop the hand drawn lofting and made it into something that smarter and more accurate can be done with my programs , that also had to inclute 3D morphing something quite different than the 2D morphing you proberly think about as, the end goal was to have tools to draw with 3D, a reson to do that the unfolded panels that will build the exact form and Design tools to make the boat designs better --- Then I builded the boats some 12 individual designs to Prove the software. Now shuld I just have stayed with old tradisions , with planks and timbers troubleson to handle but so easy to do , now the computer offered me valuable tools ? --- No I shuld not ; you see there are no bread in tradisional boats building, the clients order and newer pay and no one today realy fasion the proud old crafts I learned no one want real genuine beauty I can tell you that , as I been there I tried that.
"I could go into a number of round, great buildings... Manchester Library, or... perhaps, the Pantheon? But I doubt that's really the issue at hand. It's not the innovation and fresh thought that sparks worry, it's the bold belief that it's the place of this generation to surmount and cast down those builders and designers that came before rather than take their place as students of design that, in some ways, will never compare to the achievements of their forefathers. Very Bauhaus... Does it really take a distance from the past to distinguish one's self today? Historically, architects of the present did not seem to believe it to be so.
At some point with the New Disney Concert Hall, the metal workers had to curve particular places. Hhe ironworks there consisted of "H" beams with a weight of a tonn pr 2 meter and the strength you would emagine by those profiles. And if you understood the new methods such as 3D-H , you would understand the total sillidumbness hammering HUGE "H" steel profiles into a sharp curve, you would realise how silli it is to force the material fight the material , you would know how little craftmanship a war against a rigid profile mean --- Gee with just plain 3D-H at a fraction the cost and much much more nice, such a task dould be done with your left hand --- instead a fortume was spend bending and hammering "H" profiles that silli enough offer their strength not tortured, into a silli shape , and then covered with thin sheet so no one can ever see it (hopefully).
But you can not use this as an argument against vain organic starkitect Icons no, --- this example tell in fact how stupid it is, to stay with old conventions and old fasion way's to build, sch are the troubles when it is not a vision that shape and form the house.
"I'm sure you could design a house with any form, but the broad expanse of "any form" certainly isn't cheaper. "
Well it just is, you see I do not build with girders hangers and rigid profiles, that's the whole point.
"Stronger is to be proven by example. "
And then Experience and skills of crafts suddenly do not count ?
"A solid wooden beam will withstand fire longer than a metal cold-rolled section of the same dimensions."
And a water filled kettle can stand on firce fire untill the weak water are vapored.
"A brick will outlast a glass wall. "
Yes but one brick are different to repair at the bottom of a house. That's why care and knowleage plus new technikes provide a house that last a thousand years.
"Each time the caulking joints between your glass joints fails or the cables that are supporting them stretch beyond usefulness and you have to replace the entire wall--that was only guaranteed for 40 years--the cost will continue to rise."
I live in a brick building with an age of near 100 years --- it will be cheaper to build new than pay all the renovations waiting to come, allready making the house to a rat shed.
"Every rounded surface and acute angle that can't actually accomodate use other than visual recognition will pull at the minds of the client, wondering why it had to be constructed and if there were an endless number of other ways that could produce accent, visual hierarchy or strength in form. This is if they were not too scared of what they couldn't even begin to understand when they stopped at the street."
Strange then , just looking at what is possible with 3D-H, that even this is a natural continuation based on the very same crafts, that you will not reconise these. --- Remember this method are the first one that offer exactly what we expected from the computer, a brand new world.
"At the end of the day, what also separates us from "art", what seals us in our own corner of the fine arts in general is the additional requirement of function. We are a service business, we provide for clients to meet their expectations and requirements as much, if not moreso than our own. Are the masses ready to cast aside all that came before for a clean slate wiped of traces that tie it back to the history that built our profession? Though I couldn't prove it now, I'd say no.
I can't say, Im'e just a boatsbuilder and a skilled craftsman, and still I been able to realise more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Listen I can sharpen my adges and planes so they will split atoms, but do you think that mean I will not use a bandsaw or a router --- are you saying that becaurse the old hand plane are a more proud piece of tool, then the boards planed with the thickness plane are modern junk ? |
Not at all. When I build furniture I use powered tools. I'll use a jointer instead of hand plane and a square. I'll use a tablesaw instead of a hand saw and I'll use a DeWalt instead of a hand-crank drill. What I won't do is make the entire piece out of plastic wood or put the components into a 3D laser cutter and replicate a form I created on the computer. Such requires no craft. Skill? Certainly... using a computer alone is a skill, but there is no hand craft in watching lasers or blades cut the wood for you. The same is true for curved titanium panels or rolling surfaces of glass. I'm not saying that's what you do, just making a point.
| Quote: | | Now ; when we now can project on computer then why must houses look like a hundred years ago ? |
Okay, so? We can make structures look like giant inverted pyramids, or immense stalks of broccolli, or 6-pack of Coke bottles. It doesn't mean we do or that we should. Capability does not justify change. All that is, is another bag of tricks. Should those methods be explored? tested? tried? Of course. We'd be stupid not to. But those are tools, not necessarily processes and methods that should determine the form and nature of our designs.
| Quote: | | At some point with the New Disney Concert Hall, the metal workers had to curve particular places. Hhe ironworks there consisted of "H" beams with a weight of a tonn pr 2 meter and the strength you would emagine by those profiles. And if you understood the new methods such as 3D-H , you would understand the total sillidumbness hammering HUGE "H" steel profiles into a sharp curve, you would realise how silli it is to force the material fight the material , you would know how little craftmanship a war against a rigid profile mean --- Gee with just plain 3D-H at a fraction the cost and much much more nice, such a task dould be done with your left hand --- instead a fortume was spend bending and hammering "H" profiles that silli enough offer their strength not tortured, into a silli shape , and then covered with thin sheet so no one can ever see it (hopefully). |
The bottom line is that not matter what nature of construction you use to bend and erect your metal, it doesn't have to determine the form of your building. You can build a box both ways--the old way or your shorter way. It just so happens that you can only build a biomorphic, supposedly "organic", undulating form the new way, so for some reason that should gain credence and value? I'm not sure I see how.
"I'm sure you could design a house with any form, but the broad expanse of "any form" certainly isn't cheaper. "
Well it just is, you see I do not build with girders hangers and rigid profiles, that's the whole point.
Well, it just isnt'. Guggenhiem Bilbao may accomplish a lot of what you claim is within our capability, but it certainly isn't cheap. Irrelgular forms aren't cheaper to build. One Bryant Park... new skyscraper with a crystalline form wrapped in continuous curtain wall. Yes, with our technology now we can do that. But do you think that form is cheaper than it's square counterpart? Probably not.
| Quote: | | I live in a brick building with an age of near 100 years --- it will be cheaper to build new than pay all the renovations waiting to come, allready making the house to a rat shed. |
And I live in a wooden-frame building, clapboard siding built c.1905, and I can attest to that the revonations and maintenance needed to upkeep it don't come close to reconstructing that house from scratch today.
| Quote: | | --- Remember this method are the first one that offer exactly what we expected from the computer, a brand new world. |
No, the computing age brought us to a new evolution of the world. The computer did not make us start from scratch. It did not make our businesses, governments and lifestyles erase all precedent in deference to a new world order. The same should be true for architecture. An evolution... a combination of old and new that produces tomorrow's realities.
| Quote: | | Im'e just a boatsbuilder and a skilled craftsman, and still I been able to realise more. |
As one would hope. Technology is there to offer us new realms of possibility to be integrated into our lives. Mind you, integrated, not replacing all that exists. Computers allow all of us to more deeply explore out buildings (or boats) and I would simply say that the opportunities to run from precedent on a surge of Revolutionism is a dangerous one. How can anyone know who or where they are if they dont' know what it was before? Without history what are we? We're nothing, just a collection of instants in the immediate present surrounded on either side by void. The past has as much to offer as the future for those patient enough to look. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
"The bottom line is that not matter what nature of construction you use to bend and erect your metal, it doesn't have to determine the form of your building. You can build a box both ways--the old way or your shorter way. It just so happens that you can only build a biomorphic, supposedly "organic", undulating form the new way, so for some reason that should gain credence and value? I'm not sure I see how."
Gee -- sorry but this must be forced, please read my claims ,let me say it Loud :
You seem not to have realised the most relevant issues ,that you here have a tool the structures it produce are cheap, digital to the boundaries, Absotlut New . Then you claim that becairse this is not capable of a Box shape ; again you havn't read ; this make Any shape, inside and out, both floor foundations and the intire building core, and this is what it is about.
While you can perform any strait edge sharpedge box assembly and have it doing increadible structural strenghtening, I do not care for biomorphic structrures at all I want beauty and gadgeds gadgeds with profits and all that is possible, with this new structural method --- Im'e not ondulating any social thing being "the project and proberly went wrong, thinking this actural discussion was for fun or realy was a post at an architecture fora.
You are not to force and twist inpossible curves into beaten strong perfect made proud "H" steel beams, that what to learn and it shuld be obvious that forming a house, can bring a Log Cabin or a high-tech perl , thing is though , that this is acturly what new methods bring the old methods on the contray shuld be far jettisoned just by the wish for new beautifull architecture, a mountain of money and a crowd of progressive new crafts jobs by Digital.
Now instead a complain my vision are not pale, then let's go on .any more bidders In other words do anyone share a better Vision ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJCaine
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 53
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you read what you quoted me as saying, you'll see we're saying the same thing. I said you can build a box both ways.... the traditional way, and with new construction. Just as you said. Yes? Same?
Then I said, you can only build curved, undulating forms with newer means, which seems to give them value in eyes of some and justifies new methods of construction in order to create these scupltural forms. Which I take issue with. Only half of the discussion is constructability and methods.. the other half is the form that you ultimately derive that comprises the building's vision.
I feel like we're still missing each other on an issue or two... but the crux seems there. I welcome the debate nonetheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kill The Tower Kill The Brick that you Romans don't see it is not my foult.
I bring the humble tool a lifelong obsession, -- and ofcaurse it work.
You crowd weep when you call for solutions new smart help aide just anything, anything better than the old junk. Then you Romans expect new creativity and best for mankind come from drunk celebration fiests , after 12 day's yet another 20 thousands lost their homes somewhere on this living planet . Then one raise his voiece, Provlaim an exiting new digital building method and internet show it's true charecter ,when the guy with the great idea fight his promotion as bound, a fine discussion about who'd dreams are finer than the work's of mind Gee --- the whole thing end in a dork of academic disculssions ; even the fact that 3D-H is an idea is used against it, it just must be fought and thivery thereby accepted to be an architectural standard , what architecture have become is not to deliver the cheap strong new home, - make the surrounded jobs, - no "what we do is good enough" innovation are there but to enforce old thinking striving new bold idears. Strange that I so rarely had a chance of a discussion with a real engineering xpert, allway's these wierd claims saying I am doing this or that , no I am not Im'e a designer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
"If you read what you quoted me as saying, you'll see we're saying the same thing. I said you can build a box both ways.... the traditional way, and with new construction. Just as you said. Yes? Same?"
Yes this is what I am trying to say all the time.
"Then I said, you can only build curved, undulating forms with newer means, which seems to give them value in eyes of some and justifies new methods of construction in order to create these scupltural forms. Which I take issue with. Only half of the discussion is constructability and methods.. the other half is the form that you ultimately derive that comprises the building's vision."
I will not know what pleasure ,the scales , perspective allmost anything, an architect is supposed to engage doing his lazy work. I wouldn't care anyway as what I would look for, is if such a technike realy can make me my dreams's wonder computer calculated structure ,a Funkis perl newbuild , with no maintainment the next 80 years --- that is what I so rude try force onto anyone who ask. A mountain of money, swell new fancy architecture in a sparkeling new method. Atleast that is no crime.
"I feel like we're still missing each other on an issue or two... but the crux seems there. I welcome the debate nonetheless."
Wouldn't know, I am a danish designer with a visionary new idea , Im'e not here for the fun of it , newer was but You Romans share a particular blindness , there with visionary new tools architects and designers can rule and experiment produce wonders wonders fully capable to challance old masters, but it requier that architecture change a lot, Architecture as Iconocy is a dead end ,the digital touch by detail is on it's way ,sad sad the suplement are so skinni , Think about it ; in a week m an hour somewhere on the earth someone looses everything , at cutting edge architecture stand methods ready to grab for the cost of a few credit words, and yet I will not know if this will be in a week or an hour but it will come, and a new method could have brought exactly what was asked.
Square or round, Hippie or straitedge what would I care ,Im'e a designer not an architect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david fonseca
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
this is off topic,
but you really have to do something about your English, because i don't get the sense of allot of your sentences.
no pum intended |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
No I do not think it is off-topic and you are quite right.
Now I do not use to read back on my own posts, but -- and this is a bit strange -- when I seldom did, I realy found my spelling much better , in these fora's , than what I remember it to be.
The rare occations I did read back my old posts, I was surprised , as surely I reconised but my english seem much better in these posts.
--- Now I am aware, but the trouble is that the more relevant a simple picture of a complicated issue become, my experience are that the fewer words I use ,the better an english it turn out. Also realising the nerve of a language in this case english , mean using the words quite different -- as not realy care their actural mening , is quite alian to me english being my secondary langiuage and being better speaking than writing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david fonseca
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P.C. wrote: | | as not realy care their actural mening , is quite alian to me english being my secondary langiuage and being better speaking than writing it. |
this is what i mean, don't you have a spell corrector?
firefox comes with a nice one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| See , it is not to make you doubt, it simply work this way for me ; with a spell controler intire blocks would be jettisoned when I read back, --- the possible logic flaud vorry me more than spell mistakes, comma and cot wrong's as you tead it, is not allway's foults but me forcing you to read the words different and shuld be taken as a compliment. Anything can be made better the olde Box are furious nice as an assembly of boxes all sizes firming a building structure and this is what I say ; 3D-H offer square rooms, in square box style houses byt, also square rooms, in round shaped houses, you can project an intirely outside rounded building, and have all rooms in say only tree scales size, interconnected, floors at various height without extra cost ; now ehat offer that feature xcept 3D-H , just like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
