Jump to content
superdupersang

Architecture

Recommended Posts

I've been dreaming of buying some lot in Brooklyn and stickign this on there just to fuck with people's minds. They're only like $30K.

LVL_A.jpg

http://www.rocioromero.com/

that's misleading. it may be $30k to purchase, but you still have to pay for it to installed and shipped. what most people don't understand about prefab is that while you are buying the house, it still needs to sit on something imbedded in the ground (likely a foundation, perhaps sono-tubes), these will cost you at least another 20 grand for a building that size(in brooklyn, for instance). shipping will be a lot as well. looking at the specs of that particular one, it's not good quality product. it may look good from the outside, but if you add up the cost for all those materials, and shipping, and money for placing it on site in some way (including some type of foundation), you could likely build the same amount of space for a similar cost with a contractor and architect, plus it would be what YOU want, not something from a kit. prefab is not quite there, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i actually looked into the rocio romero homes, and it was going to be just around 85k complete, and that was after doing some of the work myself....saving an estimated 12-15k or so...just to give you a general idea. my layout had a basement as well btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i actually looked into the rocio romero homes, and it was going to be just around 85k complete, and that was after doing some of the work myself....saving an estimated 12-15k or so...just to give you a general idea. my layout had a basement as well btw.

ok, so let's say 100k for 1200 square feet based on the regular LV model. that comes out to aprox. $85 per square foot. While this is a good price for construction, i would say it's only a fair price at best once you consider what you are getting. except in very expensive construction areas, you could build a project for $125 a sq. ft., and it would be totally custom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much do you think it costs in live in one of these houses? tokyo has some of the most expensive feet per square costs in the world. I think its around 170 per sq ft.

$170 per sq. ft is pretty cheap man, you're talking $170K for 1000 sq. ft, $340K for 2000, so on. For Tokyo I'd imagine a custom house project would be considerably more, those fall in the realm of 'designer homes' that get marked up a lot.

I think in Japan, as in most of Asia, the run of mill homes themselves are considered to be pretty worthless, and it's land that houses sit on that encompasses most of the property's value. Houses get razed and replaced by new structures that are equally unexciting. I think for Tokyo, a 1000sq. ft parcel of residentially zoned land in a nice location (Setagaya-ku, for ex) might run .75-1 million dollars. Getting a property of that same size with an existing used house on it is not much more, which leads me to believe that houses themselves don't hold much value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but fuck though, how about all that wood, glass and exposed concrete and shit, i love the minimalist look of that first house i posted. some of that stuff is too outlandish, its like if a bbc shirt were translated to a house. to all those keeping track, me:1 you guys: 0

but i did like that wonder wall link as well as swislocs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading up a little on Frank Lloyd Wright and his philosophy on homes. He's built and designed some crazy amazing pieces (Falling Water, and that one that's been resurrected to be built on that Island in New York). It's crazy how much his thoughts and ideas about the design of living spaces transcended his age.

Consider that he was active during the '30s and '40s and '50s. It's 2007 right now, and only the best and most modern homes today embrace his philosophy on light and space and human traffic within a home.

Suggested Read: Wright-SizedHouses: Frank Lloyd Wright's Solutions for Making Small Houses Feel Big

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but fuck though, how about all that wood, glass and exposed concrete and shit, i love the minimalist look of that first house i posted. some of that stuff is too outlandish, its like if a bbc shirt were translated to a house. to all those keeping track, me:1 you guys: 0

but i did like that wonder wall link as well as swislocs.

what are you talking about?? are you trying to start a competition of who can look up the most modern houses that YOU like?? that makes no sense whatsoever. everyone is bound to have different tastes, if we can't agree on fashion on this board, how do you expect us to agree on a topic that most of the people posting know nothing about? I'm telling you, AS A PRACTICING ARCHITECT, that houses like the ones posted are a dime a dozen these days (minimalist houses)...they are the AA v-neck tee shirts of the architecture world. seriously. You want to seeing some mind blowing japanese architecture, look at Tado Ando or Sejima. and if you want to see true minimal done right, check out early Herzog & deMeuron (Swiss) or David Adjaye (British). and of course the masters are Le Corbusier and Rem Koolhaas/OMA (check out Villa Savoye, Villa Dall'Ava)

Frank Lloyd Wright is kind of considered the like the John Mayer of the architecture world, loved by the mainstream, technically talented, but WAAAAY overated. and now his work is copied by MID LEVEL architects in the midwest who want to play it safe.

some images:

dallava.jpg

Rem Koolhass/OMA - Villa Dall'Ava (corrugated metal and concrete, with lap pool & lawn on roof)

dirty house.jpg

David Adjaye - Dirty House (painted brick and concrete)

rudin.jpg

Herzog & de Meuron - Rudin House (cast in place concrete)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's another really good house: MVRDV (Dutch) - Double House (Skin is plywood panels stained greyish-purple)

double.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck residential starchitects. They don't respond to anything but their client's egos, their own egos, and a cryptic design ideology that many of their peers would likely have difficulty understanding (that's a little exagerated for effect).

On the one hand, you've got high design for the elite and on the other you have 'real estate' (ie. lowest common denominator, for the most part suburban, crap). Where's the middle ground? Is it Rocio Romero or Michelle Kaufmann-like prefab? Where's the 'affordable' well-designed, aesthetically appealing, sustainable housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuck residential starchitects. They don't respond to anything but their client's egos, their own egos, and a cryptic design ideology that many of their peers would likely have difficulty understanding (that's a little exagerated for effect).

On the one hand, you've got high design for the elite and on the other you have 'real estate' (ie. lowest common denominator, for the most part suburban, crap). Where's the middle ground? Is it Rocio Romero or Michelle Kaufmann-like prefab? Where's the 'affordable' well-designed, aesthetically appealing, sustainable housing?

this is a bit off base, since it is the architects responsibility to design to what you caloussly call "client's egos". there are very few architects that do EXCLUSIVELY what you are describing as "residential architects", and i'm sure we would all love to only design low cost environmentally sustainable projects (residential or not). Quite simply, you have to pay the bills. architects typically make around 10-15% of construction costs on a residential project, so having wealthy clients for at least some of your projects is essential for staying in business. the other thing to keep in mind is that while it's completely possible to design lower cost projects with affordable materials, sustainable materials are expensive, so often cheap does not equal sustainable (think about how organic food costs more than conventional, its the same with building materials). i.e. you get what you pay for.

plus there aren't just "two hands" (developer crap vs. super-high end). There are all levels of possiblities, of which pre-fab is one. for instance, i recently finished a house in the catskills that falls between these two polls. it's not AS high design as some of the stuff posted above, but it is contemporary and fairly sustainable at $150/square ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^i assume this is the beginings of your portfolio?

i think it's on the right track (especially the charcoal figural work, which architecture programs will like). i would try putting the two together, i.e. figural sketching of architectural spaces, if you choose to go into the field, you will do A LOT of this in school and may even have to do it in front of a client someday, so not only will it help ground your portfolio in architecture specifically, but is a useful skill. It may work well in a portfolio to have a great photo you took of a siginificant architectural space with your interpretive sketch on the facing page. you live in an area that offers the oportunity to see some classically relavent architecture as well as plenty of new modern stuff. If you want me to list some i can.

EDIT: and thanks for the rep. i'd plus rep you back, but i've repped you too recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I think you need to discard this question : "what is architecture?"

You will only overwhelm yourself by focussing on such a broad question, and open your work up to cliché and naive preconceptions.

Your portfolio will be stronger if you show active examples -- problem solving, making/building things, positing ideas about space, culture, movement, meaning; taking a position and testing it...

Photography, sketching, painting etc. these are great if you have an aptitude for working in those mediums, but it's easy to fall into a passive/observational rut. Not to mention, every applicant will have examples of these in their portfolio, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your portfolio will be stronger if you show active examples -- problem solving, making/building things, positing ideas about space, culture, movement, meaning; taking a position and testing it...

Photography, sketching, painting etc. these are great if you have an aptitude for working in those mediums, but it's easy to fall into a passive/observational rut. Not to mention, every applicant will have examples of these in their portfolio, for better or worse.

i disagree. he's only trying to get into the schools. you can get into the best architecture programs WITHOUT showing any "architectural" work. I know, because i did exactly that, and was accepted into every program which i applied. Many, many architectural students have a more traditional art background, and i would argue that this actually prepares you better for the types of problem solving that occur in architecture school than the, frankly, rather vague examples of work you listed above. i really don't feel your entry portfolio is the place for "posting ideas about space," not to mention that the OP's "ideas" about space are not fully formed, this is why he wants to go to architecture school. My fear is that trying to make a big statment would come across as quite naive at this point. the entry portfolio is really to show where you are at right now, and in the interview they will get a sense of how where he is at (portfolio) relates to his specific direction towards/within archtiecture. Of course, this is my opinion.

also: did anyone see the new Neutelings Riedijk Television studios in Hilversum? the exterior facade is relief glass to represent blurry tv screens...

Nuetlings.jpg

Nuetlings03.jpg

Nuetlings02.jpg

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

I wasn't suggesting that the OP show examples of architectural work/projects. Rather, I was implying that showing photos of overpasses etc. will not set him apart. I think he needs to show some kind of intent/purpose behind his work - posit some kind of position or idea (doesn't need to be architecture-related) and see it through, regardless of the medium (sculpture, painting, sketching, photography, mixed, etc.).

As a former Arch. student you know as well as I do how many applicants will submit the usual photos of overpasses, light standards, european towns/cities, skylines etc.

i really don't feel your entry portfolio is the place for "posting ideas about space," not to mention that the OP's "ideas" about space are not fully formed, this is why he wants to go to architecture school.
I don't think a fully formed understanding is what's called for; I think the important thing is showing a thought process - "this is what I was trying to do...", "this is how I got from A to B"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough.

I wasn't suggesting that the OP show examples of architectural work/projects. Rather, I was implying that showing photos of overpasses etc. will not set him apart. I think he needs to show some kind of intent/purpose behind his work - posit some kind of position or idea (doesn't need to be architecture-related) and see it through, regardless of the medium (sculpture, painting, sketching, photography, mixed, etc.).

As a former Arch. student you know as well as I do how many applicants will submit the usual photos of overpasses, light standards, european towns/cities, skylines etc.

I don't think a fully formed understanding is what's called for; I think the important thing is showing a thought process - "this is what I was trying to do...", "this is how I got from A to B"

ahh, thanks for the clarification... i also feel he should push it to be more investigative of space, as i said above, i was only saying that i felt the mediums chosen were probably sufficient. we're agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What programs do you use and why?

I'm just at university, second year, but at the moment I am using:

Autocad 2007 for basic drafting

Microstation 2007 for 3D modeling

Sketchup Pro 6 for mass modeling / quick 3Ds

All on PC / Windows.

Am interested to see what others use.

Not a big fan of Microstation, and would love to see what other programs people are using for their modeling..

I'm thinking of looking into Autodesk Revit, not sure of its rendering capabilities though.

Also, are you guys using Mac or Windows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal ish is on teh Macintosh, but I stoop to using ACAD sometimes.

PowerCADD, VectorWorks, FormZ.

Nobody uses Revit for rendering. Just as no 'design' firms use Revit at all. It's a BIM program good for when you're changing your stair tread a 1/2".

The 'it' setup would be Rhino for modeling and Maxwell or some mental ray standalone renderer.

Where in the world do you go that they are teaching you Microstation???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i use autocad desktop which is the best to me because you get more extras with that than regular autocad. For my 3D stuff I use 3DS max and for the finishing touches I take it to photoshop/illustrator. That's basically all you need really I don't think those other cad programs compare to autocad at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a 3rd year ARC

i use

powerpoint

word

excel

photoshop <-- need to learn (if you dont already know)

illustrator <-- should learn

indesign

3rd Studiomax <-- learn if you want to impress your professors

Sketchup

Autocad (for basic line work) <-- need to learn (if you dont already know)

pen and a good scale

others are my trade secret ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you use a drafting table and paper?

at my school they teach us that before we're even allowed to use the computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop - to design portfolio

Google SketchUp - for 3d views and perspective

AutoCAD - to draw the building/structure

MS Powerpoint - to present work on CD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use

AutoCAD ~ plans, sections and structural stuff (and the desktop applications liek Viz Render for modelling)

Photoshop and illustrator ~ touch-ups to plans and stuff and presntations.

i have a mac, but i use autocad on pc, because it seems to be what everyone is using, that way if i have any problems it is easier to get help....that and the fact that they offer AutoCAD classes at my uni.

i am also a sucker for making physical models and traditional drafting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

traditional drafting will pull you away from being a cad monkey. haha so get your head out of the computer and learn to draw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
traditional drafting will pull you away from being a cad monkey. haha so get your head out of the computer and learn to draw

was that to me?

i said that i draw...traditional drafting=pen+paper+ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Luisa via Roma (US)
    Privilege Program