On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, Randy Albert Gragg wrote:
> MY point is that innovative materials necessitate innovative forms, else
> we may have a dog and tail wagging problem. I worry about the tacit
> nostalgia in terms like traditional, with or without the neo-.
As I drive the largely ugly suburbs I wonder what happened. I look around
Seattle and ordinary little neighborhood commercial buildings from the
early part of this century are charming, composed (in the sense of calm)
and generally pleasant.
I see post WW2 buildings in the suburbs built by no less intelligent and
profit-oriented developers and they nearly all make me depressed.
Why?
One of the common-denominators of the uglies is (it seems) the use of
'innovative' materials from after WW2: concrete-block, aluminum siding,
aluminum sliders, plastics of all kind, etc. etc.
My THEORY is this: The majority of buildings in almost every culture are
not designed by architects. With the older materials--not even remotely
'innovative'--the culture of building had learned how to use them over
generations and so the mistakes are fewer. But we have had not had the
time with these new materials. Of course gifted architects---I work with
one myself and admire his sensibility with harsh, industrial
materials--can use these innovations with aplomb. But the rank and file
architect---much less the untutored builder--hasn't the foggiest idea how
to use their innate properties.
So one of the dangers---I like a little melodrama---of innovative
materials is that the 'how to use them' has not been developed.
Certainly, substitute fiberglass shingles for asphalt or plywood (yes it
was a great innovation at one time) for boards, but don't do it to be the
first one on the block to do so. Do it because it works better.
Didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't try new things. :-)
David Sucher
> MY point is that innovative materials necessitate innovative forms, else
> we may have a dog and tail wagging problem. I worry about the tacit
> nostalgia in terms like traditional, with or without the neo-.
As I drive the largely ugly suburbs I wonder what happened. I look around
Seattle and ordinary little neighborhood commercial buildings from the
early part of this century are charming, composed (in the sense of calm)
and generally pleasant.
I see post WW2 buildings in the suburbs built by no less intelligent and
profit-oriented developers and they nearly all make me depressed.
Why?
One of the common-denominators of the uglies is (it seems) the use of
'innovative' materials from after WW2: concrete-block, aluminum siding,
aluminum sliders, plastics of all kind, etc. etc.
My THEORY is this: The majority of buildings in almost every culture are
not designed by architects. With the older materials--not even remotely
'innovative'--the culture of building had learned how to use them over
generations and so the mistakes are fewer. But we have had not had the
time with these new materials. Of course gifted architects---I work with
one myself and admire his sensibility with harsh, industrial
materials--can use these innovations with aplomb. But the rank and file
architect---much less the untutored builder--hasn't the foggiest idea how
to use their innate properties.
So one of the dangers---I like a little melodrama---of innovative
materials is that the 'how to use them' has not been developed.
Certainly, substitute fiberglass shingles for asphalt or plywood (yes it
was a great innovation at one time) for boards, but don't do it to be the
first one on the block to do so. Do it because it works better.
Didn't mean to suggest we shouldn't try new things. :-)
David Sucher