The initial question:
Is it right for an architect to design furniture, lighting,
etc., and make strict rules about placement? (I realize that
this is nothing new.) Does anyone have info on the architect,
the building, or comments?
Sucher's response asked whether it was even possible to enforce such 'strict
rules?' It may not be illegal or immoral but certainly it might be a
little ego-tripping, no?
'RMA' responded:
> Even hard-core conservatives must realize that its extremely rare for an
> Ambassador to serve 30 years and raise a family in the state residence.
> Given your admisssion that its neither illegal nor immoral for the
> architect to exert his/her limited control over a project, the rhetorical
> retreat to whether the kids will appreciate it seems rather silly...Why
> confuse Cheryl with this kind of innuendo?
Sucher:
My statement was filled nether with inunedo nor was my question
rhetorical. I was wondering how exasctly the architect would try to run
people's live and I was questioning any architect's ABILITY to influence
human actions as such a micro level.
I think I may have spoken too concretely. What I meant is that it is not
realistic---thank god---to try to control the actions of others in the
placement of furniture. All we ask is that the architect provide at least
one good way to furnish a room; more would be nice and in spaces
'ambassadorial' I imagine that there would be a great deal of flexibility
in how to furnish the spaces. Why in the world would anyone want to even
attempt to insist that people 30 years from now would face their couch in
a particular way? Good grief!!
Time will wither our memory of the architect's intention---should we even
observe those intentions for more than 6 months at the outset. And
teenagers are notorious for wishing to impress their own personalities on
spaces.
Is it right for an architect to design furniture, lighting,
etc., and make strict rules about placement? (I realize that
this is nothing new.) Does anyone have info on the architect,
the building, or comments?
Sucher's response asked whether it was even possible to enforce such 'strict
rules?' It may not be illegal or immoral but certainly it might be a
little ego-tripping, no?
'RMA' responded:
> Even hard-core conservatives must realize that its extremely rare for an
> Ambassador to serve 30 years and raise a family in the state residence.
> Given your admisssion that its neither illegal nor immoral for the
> architect to exert his/her limited control over a project, the rhetorical
> retreat to whether the kids will appreciate it seems rather silly...Why
> confuse Cheryl with this kind of innuendo?
Sucher:
My statement was filled nether with inunedo nor was my question
rhetorical. I was wondering how exasctly the architect would try to run
people's live and I was questioning any architect's ABILITY to influence
human actions as such a micro level.
I think I may have spoken too concretely. What I meant is that it is not
realistic---thank god---to try to control the actions of others in the
placement of furniture. All we ask is that the architect provide at least
one good way to furnish a room; more would be nice and in spaces
'ambassadorial' I imagine that there would be a great deal of flexibility
in how to furnish the spaces. Why in the world would anyone want to even
attempt to insist that people 30 years from now would face their couch in
a particular way? Good grief!!
Time will wither our memory of the architect's intention---should we even
observe those intentions for more than 6 months at the outset. And
teenagers are notorious for wishing to impress their own personalities on
spaces.