Jump to content
superdupersang

Architecture

Recommended Posts

Well it's still a lot better than cheap, uninspired blocks, but.. you can't take a building off and sell it on ebay when you're over it. It's in the street, people have to look at it. That's why I don't like buildings that impress by their extravagance rather than by their balancedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UES104-01.jpg

I'm also a great fan of 1970s-era Brutalism;

HER02_web.jpg

East German architecture:

palast_ddr_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving back to the unusual with some gravity defying oddities:

The so-called 'Floating Castle' in Ukraine:

ukraine-floating.jpg

More Dutch apartment craziness:

www.globosapiens.net--netherlands--zuid-holland--rotterdam--id=6306.jpg

A Canadian apartment block that appears to have been designed by a tetris addict:

gravity_defying_12_habitat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love some metabolism. Did Nagakin Capsule already come down? I think they were gonna demo it the first half of this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schinkel's Neoclassicism is also quite elegant:

columned%20building.jpg

I also love the starkness of post-Stalinist Soviet architecture:

rossiyamoscow.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Waro Kishi:

62_large.jpg

2_large.jpg

51_large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm admittedly not very well versed in architecture, but my appreciation for the Arts and Crafts era, especially when executed to the degree that Greene and Greene did it, is intense. Ostensibly a huge change of pace for this thread, but the level of Japanese influence at play provides a bit of a common thread.

pasadena-gamble-house-los-angeles-ca625.jpg

porter-LRsconce.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I knew about the Arts & Crafts movement was William Morris' wallpaper - which I will def buy now that I found repro's online... Thanks for making me google it :-)

Wikipedia writes that Frank Lloyd Wright is part of this movement as well?

btw I cant see your first pic. Do you have more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here is one design issue I have been grappling with for a while, don't really have a good answer yet:

what is intersection of ego and service in terms of designer-client relations? When does the designer really know best and when does the designer need to set aside personal leanings and serve the client?

I think what's even more at the core of this question is who exactly is 'the client' for architecture? Obviously the one paying for the site but on top of that it should be the people who are imposed upon most by structure which is the community.

There are a couple of structures in my neighborhood that so radically ignore the history and aesthetic of the area that they just grate on the eyes and senses. They're no better than vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Excercises in ego masturbation that are more akin to "architectural tagging" (I was here) than anything else.

While the architects ego is certainly important it's also important not to let the client's run wild, either. Just because a client says 'go nuts' doesn't mean that one needs to turn it into a monument to your own excesses.

"The Row" house you posted is incredible, Habia.

While this certainly doesn't apply to many and much I'm just particularly peeved about this at the moment from seeing a few of these houses being built / again when I was back in San Diego just recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of structures in my neighborhood that so radically ignore the history and aesthetic of the area that they just grate on the eyes and senses.

ugh, Definitely true.

i.e. that building that fg0d posted looks interesting, but completely out of place in its surroundings.

On the other hand, the buildings that habia and diamonds, for example, posted, are brilliant, and somehow, despite not looking at all like the houses they're built right next to, fit in perfectly.

Not to be an 'enemy of progress' or a blind reactionary, but the newer condominiums built in the East Village, where I grew up, or even places like Williamsburg, completely contrast with the entire neighborhood. I understand that there's definitely this [kinda funny] problem of 'authenticity' competing with 'progress', but architecture, unlike any of the other arts [that i can think of at the moment], has this problem of being physically placed in this not only historical/cultural, but spatial context.

I guess you can also expand on the whole idea of 'architectural tagging' into something more subtly sinister than a simple eyesore: a concrete manifestation of, uh, "classist oppression," the take over of a neighborhood through redefinition. Kinda like the opposite of squatters.

Yes. That last paragraph was completely out-there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the take over of a neighborhood through redefinition." Is basically how 99% of the world works tbh. Whether it's overtly architectural, the whole ebb and flow of gentrification/de-gentrification is basically seeking to redefine space. It can happen slowly through social/ethnic shifts, or it could be a matter of a few years with a major new development in the area. I think you'd be more hard pressed to actually argue that the fact that all neighborhoods are in constant flux, is something sinister. And if we learn anything from history we see that these unique 'tagged' buildings are either the ones that define the place decades later, or they're the first ones torn down.

Like you posted there's a number of ways to fit into the 'context' of place, so I got less beef with things aesthetically, than over whether they fundamentally work or not.

That said, the Maya tesseract that fg0d posted looks fucking retarded to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I realize that it's something inevitable and that all neighborhoods go through/have gone through this change constantly.

I'd disagree, however, that it should just be disregarded, c'est la vie and all, as simply what 'architecture' or 'societal/cultural movement' does though.

My knee-jerk response: Contemporary architects should have a world/historical/cultural vantage point that gives them the responsibility to make their pieces work within the definition of the space they're building in, thus architects ignoring the surrounding neighborhood (I guess in the most base definition: the preexisting visual aesthetics), is this 'whitewash' of history and culture (which I feel is inherently 'sinister' though, I guess you could argue that it's not? Haven't given this too much thought yet)

On a somewhat related note: I was talking about the 'danger' self-consciousness adds to an artists work the other day (sup habia), about how over-thinking a piece can oftentimes lead to it basically sucking. Putting that in an architectural context, I'd reverse the argument; architects should be more self-conscious about their work because it's most often a public display, not something that's seen/heard/read out of choice. Which I guess just goes back to my thing about context.

I wish I actually knew more about architecture and stuff to post up pics instead of random "related" musings. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutalism is one of the worst periods of architecture. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand (and not to make the argument cyclical) like most things the advantages of 'unfettered ego' are pretty clear - it's pretty rare that something really extraordinary happens when you temper your every decision but I think overall I still tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to architecture. Maybe the next step is figuring out how to expand the role and aesthetic of architecture within the context of environmental awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^that's what my dad and his firm are trying to do - bring a sorta of omnipotent sense of environmental awareness ("green-ness" for lack of a more specific terminology) to both the architecture and the purpose therein. Rectifying decades now of general architectural ambivalence towards the environment is a tricky issue, but as he's described it to me, it is the next wave of architecture and design as a whole, despite it being late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think all old people think green is new wave. no offense im just basing on my own experience.

jeep do you have the link that i sent you a while back with that invisible house? The house is completely white interior with rounded corners, so there looks like there is no end to the space, except where you can see your furniture. At night the walk ways of the floor would like up like down the isle of a movie theatre and an LED panel on the roof would follow you around from above. The LED panel would also shine over only your furniture at night, so you wouldnt smash into things. It was a concept, but really amazing. Let me know if you find it jeep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I remember you sending it to me Blan. cool stuff. But yeah, all old people think that's the new wave, but essentially, few big names in architecture right now have acted on it with any true intent to create a design that is timeless and entirely self-sustaining. I think there needs to be much more focus by all firms, big and small, now on municipal, public, private, social and all spaces on renewable usage. Regardless of whether it's old-hat or not, it needs to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brutalism is one of the worst periods of architecture. Period.

shut up shut UP SHUT

i disagree but i've got a serious thing for wood grain on concrete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shut up shut UP SHUT

i disagree but i've got a serious thing for wood grain on concrete

fuggggggggggggggggGly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brutalism is one of the worst periods of architecture. Period.

It is simply unappreciated due to the recentness of its time. Look at how far Paul Rudolph has fallen in the canon of architects.

The great architect, Edward Durell Stone once noted that there should be a dictator of taste for urban environments in regards to architecture. He proposed an idea of urbanism that did not wantonly demolish buildings in favor of "the new". Rather, it was all to be integrated into a cogent whole. Certainly, one of the things he condemned was the idea of something being new, then it must be somehow superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

it's just a visual eyesore

most architects who still practice from that time would agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone recommend me some good and informative books on Architecture?

kthnxbye.

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)
    Brand - 125 x 125