At 12:33 AM 12/9/97 -0800, Randolph wrote:
>Sigh...maybe we need a FAQ for this. :) Sometimes, the creative use of
>substitutes leads to design that's interesting and worthwhile in its own
>right: tree-like Gothic ceilings, stone-like Beaux-Arts articulation in
>concrete façades, glue-laminate beams instead of heavy timber, and so on.
>Imitation of physical detail sometimes conveys human authenticity.
That's a good point, and it's really an issue to be decided on the street.
Is a column any less a column just because you put an Alucobond wrap around
the H section? If you make a collonade of them, is it less of a collonade
than if they were solid stone?
Let's face it: few users in most buildings are deeply affected by the honest
material thing (except as Randolph points out below). It's mostly just for
us. I know I prefer straight-up materials, but I have a variety of reasons
for doing so.
Was Schinkel a sham because he used faux stone in his designs? Am I more so
if I specify a tromp o'liel (I didn't do that right, did I?) as part of a
restoration?
>Conversly, I've seen honest-to-material precast concrete designs that fail
>to convey any sense of human authenticity: they make no concessions to
>their users or passers-by, who generally hate them.
Like, for instance, the ribbed tilt-up panels that so many big-box stores
use. Their only human relationship is in providing a place to scratch your
back against...
>This is not an easy question, nor one dealt with through platitudes.
>Stage-set design is a real problem, yet most materials "want" to be worked
>to a greater or lesser degree; they are not the less authentic for having
>been worked, even worked into forms that are more accessible for other
>materials.
Like stone. Is it authentic ONLY if used as it comes from the quarry? Is it
less so once you sculpt it?
> Very plastic, chemically modfiable materials, like plastic and
>concrete, are positively vampiric in their demands for form; it is
>difficult to find forms that make them both beautiful and useful.
Like that monstrosity apartment that appeared in Architecture a couple
months back---neither beautiful nor useful from what I can see. But I guess
if the owner likes it, who am I to say. The prblems with plastics and highly
processed materials like concrete is that they are not the best from an
environmental standpoint---especially the plastics. Concrete's biggest
advantage is its low cost, durability and plasticity, but it's also way up
there in embodied energy. It needs to be traded off against the other
qualities. But plastics are just bad---offgassing, toxic waste from
processing, high in embodied energy, you name it.
That's one reason I prefer my materials simple and as unadulterated as
possible. They also tend to be healthier.
Mark
>Sigh...maybe we need a FAQ for this. :) Sometimes, the creative use of
>substitutes leads to design that's interesting and worthwhile in its own
>right: tree-like Gothic ceilings, stone-like Beaux-Arts articulation in
>concrete façades, glue-laminate beams instead of heavy timber, and so on.
>Imitation of physical detail sometimes conveys human authenticity.
That's a good point, and it's really an issue to be decided on the street.
Is a column any less a column just because you put an Alucobond wrap around
the H section? If you make a collonade of them, is it less of a collonade
than if they were solid stone?
Let's face it: few users in most buildings are deeply affected by the honest
material thing (except as Randolph points out below). It's mostly just for
us. I know I prefer straight-up materials, but I have a variety of reasons
for doing so.
Was Schinkel a sham because he used faux stone in his designs? Am I more so
if I specify a tromp o'liel (I didn't do that right, did I?) as part of a
restoration?
>Conversly, I've seen honest-to-material precast concrete designs that fail
>to convey any sense of human authenticity: they make no concessions to
>their users or passers-by, who generally hate them.
Like, for instance, the ribbed tilt-up panels that so many big-box stores
use. Their only human relationship is in providing a place to scratch your
back against...
>This is not an easy question, nor one dealt with through platitudes.
>Stage-set design is a real problem, yet most materials "want" to be worked
>to a greater or lesser degree; they are not the less authentic for having
>been worked, even worked into forms that are more accessible for other
>materials.
Like stone. Is it authentic ONLY if used as it comes from the quarry? Is it
less so once you sculpt it?
> Very plastic, chemically modfiable materials, like plastic and
>concrete, are positively vampiric in their demands for form; it is
>difficult to find forms that make them both beautiful and useful.
Like that monstrosity apartment that appeared in Architecture a couple
months back---neither beautiful nor useful from what I can see. But I guess
if the owner likes it, who am I to say. The prblems with plastics and highly
processed materials like concrete is that they are not the best from an
environmental standpoint---especially the plastics. Concrete's biggest
advantage is its low cost, durability and plasticity, but it's also way up
there in embodied energy. It needs to be traded off against the other
qualities. But plastics are just bad---offgassing, toxic waste from
processing, high in embodied energy, you name it.
That's one reason I prefer my materials simple and as unadulterated as
possible. They also tend to be healthier.
Mark