At 09:44 PM 12/8/97 -0600, Jon wrote:
>Micheal Benedikt's book is one of importance in my view. I too have read
>this book for Professor Barry Newton at KU. Basically in my mind everything
>that Micheal has to say is basically true. No longer are buildings what
>they seem to be. One can not tell whether a building is a school or an
>office.
I didn't read this book, but off the top of my head, I think there can be
made some argument that buildings have had this lack of character since the
appropriation of the Greek and Roman by Palladio and on. Especially in
mid-late 19th C America, when a bank, or a courthouse, or a church, or a
school, all were based on temple forms. The only clues were steeples and
size, and such.
It may be only vernacular architecture that is true to its situation, use,
etc. I contend that when you get away from stylistic approaches to design,
and let the client's wishes and desires, site, context, budget, environment,
etc. drive the design, it will approach this singularly unique quality. It
may not look like something else, but it will look like what it is.
> Each one of these buildings have their own characteristics and they
>should not be changed for it will be confusing in the future when you and I
>start to design buildings for clients.
Building types have CERTAIN chariacteristics, but not all buildings of a
given type will have all of them, nor in the same proportion. Roark WAS
right when he said every site is unique. So is every owner, every user
group, every context.
As for being confused, that only happens when you try to shoehorn something
into a style, or perhaps don't understand the problem well enough.
> We will not know the characteristics
>offices are, so our design will be faulty and untrue to the past.
Spec office space is quite different from that for a specific client. And
designing by cookbook norms, as are most spec offices, lead to soulless boxes.
>I disagree with Benedikt on the point that architects should not use
>materials such as plastic and try to pass it off as concrete. According to
>him that use of material is "fake".
Well, it IS fake isn't it?
> For example what if our client wants an
>all concrete building just for the look that it has but they can not afford
>it.
Chances are if the client wants concrete bad enough, she'll find a way to
pay for it. Your job is to either find a way to deliver it, or show her why
she can't have it. Chances are also good that a substitute would be more
expensive anyway. It doesn't get much cheaper than concrete!
Mark
>Micheal Benedikt's book is one of importance in my view. I too have read
>this book for Professor Barry Newton at KU. Basically in my mind everything
>that Micheal has to say is basically true. No longer are buildings what
>they seem to be. One can not tell whether a building is a school or an
>office.
I didn't read this book, but off the top of my head, I think there can be
made some argument that buildings have had this lack of character since the
appropriation of the Greek and Roman by Palladio and on. Especially in
mid-late 19th C America, when a bank, or a courthouse, or a church, or a
school, all were based on temple forms. The only clues were steeples and
size, and such.
It may be only vernacular architecture that is true to its situation, use,
etc. I contend that when you get away from stylistic approaches to design,
and let the client's wishes and desires, site, context, budget, environment,
etc. drive the design, it will approach this singularly unique quality. It
may not look like something else, but it will look like what it is.
> Each one of these buildings have their own characteristics and they
>should not be changed for it will be confusing in the future when you and I
>start to design buildings for clients.
Building types have CERTAIN chariacteristics, but not all buildings of a
given type will have all of them, nor in the same proportion. Roark WAS
right when he said every site is unique. So is every owner, every user
group, every context.
As for being confused, that only happens when you try to shoehorn something
into a style, or perhaps don't understand the problem well enough.
> We will not know the characteristics
>offices are, so our design will be faulty and untrue to the past.
Spec office space is quite different from that for a specific client. And
designing by cookbook norms, as are most spec offices, lead to soulless boxes.
>I disagree with Benedikt on the point that architects should not use
>materials such as plastic and try to pass it off as concrete. According to
>him that use of material is "fake".
Well, it IS fake isn't it?
> For example what if our client wants an
>all concrete building just for the look that it has but they can not afford
>it.
Chances are if the client wants concrete bad enough, she'll find a way to
pay for it. Your job is to either find a way to deliver it, or show her why
she can't have it. Chances are also good that a substitute would be more
expensive anyway. It doesn't get much cheaper than concrete!
Mark