|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
actually i believe it was mount rushmore that will be with the earth for the foreseeable future...
read the book "the world without us" it is basically what the history channel show was based on |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if anyone is taking bets on which monument will survive longest: the Great Wall, the Pyramids, Mount Rushmore. ..
The winner would be the descendents of the sucesssful bettors, I suppose. But what will be the definition of survival: Visible from a certain distance ? Recognizable as differing from the surrounding matter ? Radio-carbon dating ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
intriguing discussion - but aren't we slightly muddling the questions of whether a structure can last for several Millenia or something which looks tatty after a decade or two ?
architects do know about how materials weather.
if they choose to ignore it - and so demand heavy maintenance to preserve the 'look' - then that is a matter of choice.
maybe if something looks tatty after a very short time, then perhaps it is tatty.
perhaps the simplest example is weatherboarding. It can be most attractive, but neglect it for even a short period and it looks woeful.
there is a difference between surfaces and structures which by their nature require regular maintenance (such as a white painted wall) and those which are simply of poor quality and so degenerate rapidly (if the wall with the white paint on it crumbles - that is another matter).
_________________
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 |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately a lot of our built environment is driven by short term, commercial considerations - for example, shops and offices are image-driven and tend to rebrand/re-clad themselves every 8 years or so. Our throwaway culture dictates that that is the preferred method. In some senses that is not too bad a thing, if the underlying structure is solid then it allows the surface to be re-invented without mass demolition. Though in our rich wetsern societies it is quite common to demolish and rebuild a structure, regardless of its architectural merits!
Housing developers can be complete rogues, it is not uncommon to see houses built that look great for a short while. Once the property is off the developer's hands, sold to a proud owner, it can deteriorate at will. All those dreadful softwood windows with peeling varnish, ugh!
One of the architects in my office designed a beautiful, robust row of houses on the coast, with zinc roofs and expensive hardwood cladding. Unfortunately the owners decided, in several instances, to varnish the wood, sometimes paint it! So there is a continual need to educate the public/owners/developers in the care of their assets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Points well made. The problem does appear to hinge on the questions of budget and education/disclosure. How many dream projects have a champagne taste and a beer budget? Does it really benefit a client/homeowner who takes over the responsibility for maintaining a house/building and they either can't afford to do required maintenance or understand it's importance. Also, how many new
"low maintenance", "lower cost" materials actually perform as promoted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree when it comes to a proportion of UK housebuilding. Not a new problem, and the public should be made aware of the difference between good and poor quality.
However ...... I would not agree in other areas. For public sector, cultural or commercial buildings, even those which are looking for a new image or retail identity which may be comparatively short-term.
do the same problems apply to hospitals - schools - art galleries - offices - shopping centres ?
_________________
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 |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to twist the conversation to an extreme view to make a point; should I be focused solely on designing something to last beyond man-kind, there would some minimum criteria I would seek to incorporate into the design: 1) it should resist weather, 2) it should resist natural disasters, 3) it shall resist nature altogether...
...meaning perhaps I'd consider making this thing out of radiocative material therefore resisting the most destructive element to buildings out there...vegetation. There's a reason the large pyramids in the desert look so well preserved as opposed to those in the south american jungles...
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 |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good point |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 767
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you can's beat 'em join 'em? Nature that is. Plants help protect those tropical pyramids too.
I've noticed that plastic bags, bottles, and plates do not age gracefully, at least in my humble opinion. We have made a bunch of ugle stuff out of oil. If it starts out looking ugly, it gets even uglier. They sell lots of ugly stuff at Home Depot. I can't think of any ugly building materials they were using a couple hundred years or so ago. I don't think baby seal skins were used in constuction.
Plutonium as a building material? Might come in handy for something.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1073
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we need to create an inventory of materials that age delightfully. After all we are not seriously talking about materials that never age, are we?!
On the other hand, longevity of materials depends greatly on the climate, doesn't it. Temporate and humid climates play havoc with pristine architecture - concrete looks drab, wood rots. I'm a big fan of the humble brick (I can say that with impunity while Per is absent), terracotta and stone. They seems to take a bit of moss and lichen in their stride. Copper and Cor Ten cladding were in vogue a few years back, both intended to change in appearance over time.[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Concrete seems not to do as well as other masonry materials, in this regard. Le Corbusier's later work, in highly-textured board-formed poured-in-place concrete, may have been a response to the staining that he no doubt saw on his pristine early work. Paul Rudolph's innovation of "hammered corduroy" concrete (my term) was another response to the problem, perhaps.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
or should we be looking at the whole problem with a mind on the eventual 'death' of the building or at least its use or image...
should we be more honest about how long a building is really going to have a useful life and design toward that end...design with materials that match the expected life span of the structure... this way we don't waste long lasting materials on relatively short life buildings and we don't use short life materials on long term buildings...
i think intuitively this happens alot...usually you don't see marble on a building that is likely to be torn down in 10 years but sometimes we do see the use of eifs on something that is expected to last over 30 years... that match isn't always perfect and that is usually because of budgets... but that is where education comes in...
what about design for disassembly? separate parts of a building can probably have a longer useful life separated than they can put together... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
. . .aaand. . .we're back to Legos !
Good points, actually. There should be a difference in the way stuff is built, depending on intended life.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If a house is well maintained, built with a 12 inch concrete foundation, good siting, excellent drainage, better than average materials, a 50 plus year asphalt or metal roof, and (especially) 20 inch roof overhangs, there is no reason that it could not last for 3- 400 years or more. Our disposable, throw-away society is bad enough, (plastic, old people, pets) now we need buildings with planned obsolescence? Please, it's much cheaper in the long run to maintain something than toss it. Think of a building's cost per square foot in dollars and to the environment when it's amortized over several hundred years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
