Architecture

[octo]

^^ they put the window which was in the middle of the wall there after they built an addition (the part of house on the left). Its an old farm house from the 1800s. true about vernacular

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

interesting project in london... insane details. more here.

[SAY CAR RAMROD.]

I know its been discussed before...but any portfolio advice for a mArch (with a non design Bachelor's degree) and also... macbook pro or pc for use in said march program?

[Nacho Vegas]

Some conceptual images i did for the project of an architectural faculty in Mexico (too bad never saw the light of day due to some economical problems, how rare ISN'T IT ?)

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

hm, how is that huge freestanding canopy supported?

[echoepidemic]

sheer will and determination

[Servo2000]

mindheads.

edit:since this makes no sense on a new page to be slightly more relevant i'm getting coffee with a girl in architecture this weekend. so...

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

sheer will and determination

pun INTENDED i hope...

(oof.)

[echoepidemic]

[semper]

walking through Rotterdam harbour yesterday

either 1930s or -50s?? Need to find information on this silo.

I like the glass & concrete cube on top; couldn't get a better view of it unfortunately.

[sybaritical]

I remember seeing that when I was in Rotterdam a while back.

Read about another grain silo house in the Czech republic in the NY times this week.

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

I remember seeing that when I was in Rotterdam a while back.

Read about another grain silo house in the Czech republic in the NY times this week.

neat idea. the interior is pretty meh to me though, (and they sure could've used a a decent lighting designer.)

[hapsical]

==========

Edited July 24, 2014 by hapsical

[hapsical]

==========

Edited July 24, 2014 by hapsical

[FranklinCosgrove]

I don't care if none of Piranesi's work actually existed. It's still amazing.

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

this is a neat idea, aesthetically, as a screening/shading device. And it's intriguing at night. But a closer look at the architect's website (residential>"urban townhouse") shows that the interior and the rear facade really don't live up to the street facing portion. which is a shame. the concept of the layout is strong too, with the open stairway/bookshelf combo lining the entire front wall, but the details ruin it imo. (e.g: that glass railing... ugh)

[bill]

couldn't find the home/interior design

[R.B.]

I don't care if none of Piranesi's work actually existed. It's still amazing.

im a big fan of piranesi. My favourite in the prison series is number 3, the round tower; that stair case around the outside of the tower would be amazing in real life.

i think though my favourite piranesi is the etching of the tomb of costanza, easily better looking in the etching than any photos ive seen but i love the proportions, shapes of that place.

[FranklinCosgrove]

^^ Good shit. I'm glad someone posted in this thread. It makes me sad that no one really does.

I've run across a Piranesi work that was actually built. He only ever did one project. And it wasn't even a building. It was a keyhole at the Knights of Malta. He designed it so you had to walk up and look through the hole and you would see a perfect framed view of St. Peter's Dome. Rather amazing.

[R.B.]

FranklinCosgrove, didn’t know about the keyhole, defiantly cool stuff. I remember reading in one of my books that he did a fair bit of restyling/remodelling but ive always wondered why, considering his training, he didn’t get to bash out a building or at least a tomb or something.

Anyway, for anyone interested, this website ( http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-santa-costanza) has a few nice photos of the tomb of costanza from the image a few posts up. Maybe it’s the lens but I think the proportions are a little bit nicer in piranesi’s representation.

[rvoe30]

2StkQ_CtTz0

[FranklinCosgrove]

^ To be honest, I find that quite terrible. It looks like a disgusting fusion of Philip Johnson's Glass House and Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion. Both of which are brilliant pieces. This just looks like an opulent display of wealth with no interest in new form. When was this built? 2010? This style has been down to death and much better. This guy is at least 60 years behind. It's worse that he thinks this is new. This is part of the description on the youtube video:

"This is a world home with possibly no equal. The combination of architectural groundbreaking style and extreme detail in finish quality make it a home without compare. It is the pinnacle of architecture for this generation and will define the era in which it was built."

It is NOT the pinnacle of architecture for this generation and will NOT define the era in which it was built. There is nothing groundbreaking about this. They have to be joking about that. After looking up the bio for the architect though it only makes sense. He designs for A-list celebs in LA. He doesn't build for himself he builds for the rich like a spineless slave. I guess real life Peter Keatings do exist. End rant.

Barcelona Pavilion:

Glass House:

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

agreed. If I'm looking for opulent, modern residential architecture I'd take Marcio Kogan or Rick Joy over that rehash, any day.

[Appleseed]

^ To be honest, I find that quite terrible.

What I hate most about this house, is how many times I've seen it published, re-blogged, tumbld, etc.

But yeah, all kinds of awful in there.

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

at least when you google "bookmatched marble pavilion" mies still comes up first... (though that fugly garage is #2)

[FranklinCosgrove]

If I was filthy rich and knew nothing about Architecture, I would probably ask around, find someone on the cutting edge of the field and tell them to build me a house however they wanted. It would thousands of times better than that glass pavilion shit. Guaranteed.

[MrBurns]

You should read what Mies had to say about Johnson's Glass House, and then think again about that Glass Pavillion.

Cheers

[FranklinCosgrove]

You should read what Mies had to say about Johnson's Glass House, and then think again about that Glass Pavillion.

Cheers

I understand that Mies and Johnson are very opposed to each other. Johnson basically copied a lot of Mies' work and style after meeting him early in career while Mies was building the Barcelona Pavilion. This doesn't make Johnson's work any less relevant that Mies. Johnson built the Glass House pretty much at the same time (only a few years after) Mies built the Farnsworth House. A house that is amazingly similar to the Glass House.

Johnson was just exploring a different Architectural discourse and way of practice. Where Mies was all about the Opus and the genius of the architect, Johnson was exploring a post-opus work in the shadow of Mies, an architect who Johnson takes much from. Johnson himself says he is a "Mies Schuler" which of course needs no justification. He is a student of Mies' style. Schuler being the stylistic sense, like the school of Rembrant. It is the Opus, the genius, in this case Mies, or Rembrant, who defines the school of thought that becomes the norm.

Johnson being part of this, needs to essentially kill his creator. He needs to separate himself from his architectural dad in the Oedipal sense. A perfect example of this is a comparison between Mies' School of Architecture at MIT and Johnson's Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute, Museum of Art. Where Mies' work was transparent and elegant, Johnson's work is tomblike, frosted over in granite, as if to spite Mies. He essentially does the same building but defiantly rids the form of Mies' elegance. Look at the Farnsworth and Glass House too. Where Mies' is white and floats just slightly off the ground, colored white, Johnson's is sitting firmly on the ground, colored black. They are essentially mirror images of each other. One being light, the other dark.

Johnson essentially worshiped Mies. He envied his genius, his Opus. Johnson worked in a post-opus attitude. He essentially gave up on creating new from, from doing Opus work. He chose to take all the work out of the Opus and make architecture "fun" and easy. He has been asked before why he chose to make a design a certain way and has responded, "Why not?" Mies would never respond like this. Johnson's work had to be "not architecture" but look just like it. Where there was Opus, there was also Arbiet or work. The Opus is genius while the Arbiet is mercenary. Both of these things are obviously not fun. Johnson renounces both of these things. He instead creates a "false being" rather than Mies' "being".

This is definitely not negative either. He shows that architecture can exists only as a reflection of what it thinks it is. It quotes history, while at the same time not showing us really what that history is. It isn't really alive but it isn't exactly dead either. It doesn't measure up, which is why Mies would disagree with it, but it also doesn't want to measure up. It is outside of the profession while being inside at the same time.

Does this answer your snide remark?

tl;dr: Come in this thread for discussion, not stupid backhanded comments like that.

Farnsworth House:

MIT School of Architecture:

Munson-Williams Proctor Arts Institute, Museum of Art:

[Appleseed]

Feeling like I'm back in Art History 466 : American Arch. III

[RandR]

tl;dr: Come in this thread for discussion, not stupid backhanded comments like that.

brilliantly put, and fitting in that you burned the hell out of Mr. Burns. 10/10, would buy from seller again, A+++