Home
Info
Members
IRC
Photos
Forum
|
|
To2600 Web Board
Powered by AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
|
Not logged in
|
|
oh-ten
Location: San Francisco CA Gender: Male Total Likes: 6 likes
| | | Re: Architects, Designers, Visionaries < Reply # 5 on 1/8/2006 9:09 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | |
| |
| Arch-Image
Location: DFW Gender: Male Total Likes: 53 likes
"This gene pool could use a little chlorine."
| | | | Re: Architects, Designers, Visionaries < Reply # 9 on 6/24/2006 5:42 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I know I wil be in the minority probably but I think to many of our big time architect place way to much emphasis on "form" over function. Their way to concerned with creating another monument unto themselves that function becomes an after thoughy. Do the buildings work for the intended purpose?,. probably yes, could something have been designed that would have functioned at way less cost, use of way less resources, perhaps even been better for the environment, MANY times most definitely. I'm not professing everything has to be a plain box, but look at many of the older buildings, they had little wasted spaces, were constructable at a reasonable cost and the beauty was created in the details, not wierd odd shapes and soaring wasted spaces of open atriums etc...Just my two cents!
| "Your kid may be an honor student but YOU'RE still an IDIOT!" |
| Duct Tape
Location: Toronto Gender: Male Total Likes: 0 likes
"The Handyman's Secret Weapon"
| | | | Re: Architects, Designers, Visionaries < Reply # 10 on 6/27/2006 8:09 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Arch-Image I know I wil be in the minority probably but I think to many of our big time architect place way to much emphasis on "form" over function. Their way to concerned with creating another monument unto themselves that function becomes an after thoughy. Do the buildings work for the intended purpose?,. probably yes, could something have been designed that would have functioned at way less cost, use of way less resources, perhaps even been better for the environment, MANY times most definitely. I'm not professing everything has to be a plain box, but look at many of the older buildings, they had little wasted spaces, were constructable at a reasonable cost and the beauty was created in the details, not wierd odd shapes and soaring wasted spaces of open atriums etc...Just my two cents!
| I believe you can do both, a building need not be a box to be interesting and functional. While i am a big fan of form (what can i say, more photogenic), Function is key to a buildings long term success. Places like the Guggenheims in New York and Bilbao (two generations of architectural extravagance) didn't work inside, the forms that were/are radical for their time would be irrelevant. While there is a place for Libinskind or Gehry frilly designs, there is also a need and a demand for more normal buildings, that are not unattractive, but that remember function is their first purpose. Two examples of this that i can think of in buildings that will never win awards for design, but are solid in both form and function are located at the same corner no less are the new Canada Life Tower at 180 Queen St W in Toronto (Far Left in the rendering, i can't find a picture picture, but the actual complete building is virtually identical to the rendering) and, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts Opera House kitty corner across Queen and University (again all i could find was a rendering) Its definitely not the most stunning exterior architecture, but it is meant to function for opera and Ballet, and hopefully it does that (not likely to be there anytime soon to find out).
| "the ghosts of old buildings are haunting parking lots in the city of good neighbors that history forgot" - 'subdivision', Ani DiFranco ** Urbania - http://urbania.ohlphotos.com |
|
|
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
|