AAI Scribblings
- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
i agree with what.i cant understand a lot of the stuff in building material either but the stuff i do persevere with i find very rewarding and helps to bring a new level of thinking into my architecture. if you dont like it dont read it but dont knock it.
When I was in school studying Poetry for my exams, I was terrible for finding these ‘companion publications’ that told the student how best to understand the poetry. So one fine day, my Dad who has been involved with literature, poetry and all kinds of writing for decades now questioned me on this: Saying that perhaps I might be losing out on some of the real experience of the work of Art, the original poem. And in truth, I had to admit, that I had got to a stage, where I wouldn’t read the poem at all – merely reading what the experts had to say about the poem and ‘parrot’ that off in answering an exam paper.
10 years later, I am in architecture and my Dad, who as I have mentioned enjoys reading and literature an awful lot… loves handing me a whole stack of newspaper clipping of Frank McDonald and all of these critics of Architecture and the built environment. So last Friday, we all went into town for the day – sort of a family day out. I noticed a new development on the Quays I hadn’t seen before and suggested we might spend 10 minutes just walking around it – to experience it. Since I was well aware, my Dad would hand me an article from the Irish Times environment section soon, and now I had the chance to see it for real – to observe his reaction, to see how a layman would respond to what he experienced for real. Instead of getting into a lot of idle rhetoric, courtesy of Frank McDonald (who is a very charismatic individual, and who stands head and shoulders above many as a speaker/writer about the environment).
Guess what? My Dad said to me, a no, we have to rush home. I have some paper work to do, and some reading etc. I want to enjoy my day off to you know. So it occurs to me now – the exact same criticism my father had of me and poetry years ago – is exactly the same criticism i would have of him and Architecture today!
Brian O’ Hanlon.
P.S. I think some folks are perhaps naturally inquisitive about these things. While I have struggled hard to cultivate an awareness of what is around me – to take a casual hour here and there. Most people educated themselves through books, discovered the world around them through books,… and that is a big problem.
When I was in school studying Poetry for my exams, I was terrible for finding these ‘companion publications’ that told the student how best to understand the poetry. So one fine day, my Dad who has been involved with literature, poetry and all kinds of writing for decades now questioned me on this: Saying that perhaps I might be losing out on some of the real experience of the work of Art, the original poem. And in truth, I had to admit, that I had got to a stage, where I wouldn’t read the poem at all – merely reading what the experts had to say about the poem and ‘parrot’ that off in answering an exam paper.
10 years later, I am in architecture and my Dad, who as I have mentioned enjoys reading and literature an awful lot… loves handing me a whole stack of newspaper clipping of Frank McDonald and all of these critics of Architecture and the built environment. So last Friday, we all went into town for the day – sort of a family day out. I noticed a new development on the Quays I hadn’t seen before and suggested we might spend 10 minutes just walking around it – to experience it. Since I was well aware, my Dad would hand me an article from the Irish Times environment section soon, and now I had the chance to see it for real – to observe his reaction, to see how a layman would respond to what he experienced for real. Instead of getting into a lot of idle rhetoric, courtesy of Frank McDonald (who is a very charismatic individual, and who stands head and shoulders above many as a speaker/writer about the environment).
Guess what? My Dad said to me, a no, we have to rush home. I have some paper work to do, and some reading etc. I want to enjoy my day off to you know. So it occurs to me now – the exact same criticism my father had of me and poetry years ago – is exactly the same criticism i would have of him and Architecture today!
Brian O’ Hanlon.
P.S. I think some folks are perhaps naturally inquisitive about these things. While I have struggled hard to cultivate an awareness of what is around me – to take a casual hour here and there. Most people educated themselves through books, discovered the world around them through books,… and that is a big problem.
My account of an experience of Grove Island in Limerick
Grove Island, is the first project I ever had experience of on paper, prior to actually walking around it in reality. I must say, the gap between designs on paper and the reality, is still very large for me – it looked nothing like what I had envisioned from the drawings! Furthermore, I haven’t seen the drawings for three years now, and only walked around the thing last Friday. I guess this is what James, SW101 and plenty of other genuine posters around here are trying to say. I have always treated my designs just as paper designs – figments of the imagination – manifestations of my own creativity. But seeing the couple of hundred people using the actual built reality last Friday, for a brief moment, expanded my horizons to some much higher purpose – that is the real purpose of an Architect.
Opinion of a US Tax payer on NASA Space program
Reply here by a very experienced IBM mainframe administrator on Governments and funding
I think there is in fact, a glitch with the old vBulletin there Paul!
Looks like I was automatically logged in as Aoife – through some strange quirk in the message board!
You must have used the same machine as AoifeC? Are you posting from a machine that no-one else uses?
No I am not, but I mean, archiseek wasn’t even in the history of this computer! I can still post as Aoife c, even though I logged out of her account to make the previous post as garethace. You tell me Paul?
Edit: Okay that worked as garethace, but Aoife C was still up on the logged in user part.
This is a college machine yeah, so maybe she is here! But this is more of an IT establishment.
no james, of course i wouldnt be suggesting that…..
what i would suggest though is that you read (or remember) what was written in earlier parts of this discussion before you reply in such a typically immature manner, in a veign attempt to flesh out your foundless arguments.we have already said that theory is merely an appendage to building and tangible design.
we have already said that because of the nature of our profession this is the only way some of our more youthful and intelligent minds on architecture can find an outlet for their ideas.
we have already said that building material and the like are not everyones cup of tea and if you dont find it worthwhile simply dont read it.
it is not publications like building material that are being exclusive it is people like you. people who try to discredit the name of a magazine siply because they dont understand it. do you see a big sign on the cover of building material saying dont read the daily sport (or whatever you read) because it is too low brow?
in reference to garethace and aoife c’s posts(very similar!) i would agree that there is a definite danger in experiencing solely through reading. but the point is again inclusivity. designing, with thinking, with reading, with theory, with building(when possible), with learning.
Well, the problem with me, was building a building, of any sort, not to mention working on a project the size of a Grove Island, seem the equivalent of going to Mars for me. I me, I was the resident ‘IT geek’ or CAD software trainer for some of that project. I was pretty much as disgusted as some of the people who work for NASA, with the general daily misuse of technology and so forth. But at the end of the day, when you land a man on the moon, or build a building, for a brief moment you are reminded of a higher purpose. Other than the daily struggle with IT, information, data coordination, personnel training and staffing etc, etc, etc. Which is 90% of what people in Architects offices do, most of the time.
James wants us all to remember than 10% of the Architects job, which is by far the best 10% of all – that of changing peoples’ lives, of realising things on the ground. And how a scheme that existed as a computer file on a hard drive somewhere for 10 years perhaps, finally becomes a reality. And futhermore, as SW101 has pointed out, a reality that will be around long after you and I have kicked the bucket. We are just on borrowed time.
Brian O’ Hanlon.
This kind of nice representation is all well and good and communicates to the client your intentions etc, etc, etc. But somehow, when you finally experience the real thing with lots of people living there. . . you feel less in the driving seat, less like God almighty and just a another part of the whole game that is life, Architecture, the environment, poetry or whatever.
I tend to criticise Architectural technicians a lot, since they generally hate Architects, especially young Architects. Architectural technicians can be very dominant over young Architects too, in practice, causing a lot of internal HR problems. But I mean, Architectural Technicians do usually consider the idea that what they might draw, will actually be built. That is a crucial idea, that Mies van der Rohe tried to instill in his students. Mies was an Uber-Technician himself – a brick layer by craft, and his buildings displayed craft aswell. Even his imatators in Baggot Street here in Dublin. But perhaps, Architects tend to forget that what they imagine, is going to be built. Perhaps that is what James wants to point out.
Then you have the whole thing with Property Economists and Architects. . . Discussed here where Architects love building stuff, but refuse to do preliminary investigation into the value ROI aspects of a proposed idea that a client may have to extend their premises or house or whatever[/url]
I mean, when put to it, would you tell a client to feck off, and stop bothering me with silly ways to spend all of your millions? (Celtic Tiger, Bertie Bowls, Large government jobs… Luas?)
Brian O’ Hanlon.
perhaps that was what james was trying to say, perhaps not.
but the point he did make in order to start this thread was basically that building material is rubish because he cannot understand it.the point i am trying to make is that intellectual discussion in architecture is of great importance. if built works were the only reference for study by architecture students the world would be a very different (and less developed) place.
of course architecture is primarily about a real physicality, but the quality of that physicality is also of importance. architecture of quality can only come from understanding and a body of knowlege about our trade/art (however you look at it). if the architecture students of dublin were to only refer to the buildings of this city in thier quest to understand the built environment we would all be in a sorry state.
journals and books allow students and those trying to learn to expand their horizons past what is arround them. the fact that all books arent “architecture for dummies” is not a negative thing.
Doesn’t that speak a lot though, for the cultivation of investigative curiosity? Of expanding of awareness of other cultures, cuisine, art…? Of planning your holidays around perhaps a day or two spent walking the streets of a foreign city, or building? I have spoken to many people from China, America and other larger countries than Ireland. They are used to thinking in terms of 2 hour plane flights, and so forth. Of greater distances. Here we are on this little Island of ours and imagine ourselves, a small population of 5 million, which is only a spike on a graph in an American/Chinesse political survey pole – to be oh! so important. I mean, you can see how many chat shows, radio shows etc, and newspapers on Sunday morning devote so much attention to exploring this bs called ‘Irish-ness’, or identity or lack of it.
How much of our own creative energy is expended upon serving this constant hunger, for another book or newspaper article about Ireland, Irish-ness or Dublin-ness? Keeping this thing alive, is quite a growth industry these days. Our image of ourselves is based largely around TV chat shows etc, etc. I mean, the recent competition from TV3, did expose a lot of the one-side-ed-ness of Irish media. That book called ‘Fatherland’ was written by a man working in the BBC, imagining what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. How many BBC people would put on the NAZI stuff, and become good little NAZIs? Are we just good little ‘Irish-ness’, a la RTE?
End of rant.
Have you seen this thread? Scroll right down to the end, where someone is talking about Shane O’ Toole’s article for the English times. I think it deals with a similar issue to what we are talking about.
Brian O’ Hanlon.
Now Then Young What!!
You may need to do a little back reading on this thread yourself laddie, my original proposition was that the writing referred to made obscure and complicated something which could have been made shorter, easier to undertand and generally more comprehensible.
I added to that the suggestion that such writing really is of very little worth relative to thepractise of architecture and would stand pretty much over that. Most of what’s to be found written not just in BM but in the majority of pseudish ‘conceptual’ writing on architecture is utterly forgetable and a bad waste of trees!.
Garet / Aoife is quite right – you want to be a good architect – then go and do it ,you can mess around with writing concept and theory al you want – it is’nt real until its built. Does that sound harsh??. Yes it is, such is life.
I don’t buy the argument for a second that not having a project dropped into your lap either by the boss or some benevolent entity is an excuse for not doign ‘real’ architecture irrespective of what your design predilictions are.
As a graduate I found it hard to get decent jobs built so despite the 10 hour day did every competition that I could – that gave me a pretty good edge and a level of design ability and experience that no amount of architectural writing (and I exclude AR, RIBAJ, many decent well written books from this – they’re essentially clear and ‘factual’ as opposed to the ‘Tracings’ / ‘Building Materials’ nonsense), could provide. I never won a compo -still hav’nt – but I’ve come pretty close, have developed my own somewhat crankey set of architectural values and am not afraid of work as a consequence.
I’ve a load of unbuilt work much of which I adored doing but its enabled me to develop as an architect in a fairly rational way.
Writing about architecture is probably great for the writer – we all love the sounds of our own voices (look at the length of my post), but its of little help or worth when it comes to designing your own work. You can’t ‘be’ Rem, or Wim, or Mies, or even emulate (dodgey concept that ) them by just reading or writing about them – Its all about work.
I love to read – and actually one of my pet projects right now is designing my own library – Architectural books are great so long as they are well illustrated, and the theorising is kept down to a minimum. But the kind of nonsense I was referring to in ‘BM is’nt just of little worth -its atrociously bad writing – complexity for the sake of complexity isa waste of your time and effort and mine.
Toodleoo
Once more, I cannot find much fault with what James has said – except that I would reinforce my theory that BM writing is trying to force Architecture into a region beyond that of merely building buildings, into a zone that is covered well by many different experts on planning, urban design and geography. As useful and interesting those areas are to the Architect, I hark back once more to the humble Architectural technician, who seems very strongly tied to the notion, that what (s)he draws is to be built.
I compare the early experiences of young Architects with grandiose visionary 5th year thesis projects in college etc, to the maiden voyages of those great nineteenth century ocean liners, crossing the Atlantic ocean. The captain of that ship, has to know all sorts of skills, everything from how the liner’s engines work, to how the seas currents, winds and temperatures behave. Yet, the captains sometimes decide to ‘turn the engines on full blast’ on the maiden voyage, as oposed to gradually wearing them in. They may choose to ignore warnings of ice bergs, in order to cross the Atlantic in record time, and make headlines in the NYTs.
They may have forsaken a lot of the normal safety nets, in the conviction that their vessel is clearly an engineering wonder, and un-sinkable. But sometimes, these majestic pieces of ocean going machinery do end up in bits, as a result of the captain’s arrogance and over-confidence on that maiden voyage. That is my biggest problem with the BM writers, as a lot of them do manage to preach that stuff to young students in our Architectural schools. In an effort to prove themselves as skillful captains of sophisticated mental machinery, tearing across the Atlantic ocean of Architectural understanding on the vessel’s maiden voyage. A lot of those same captains have gone down with their vessels.
Gurgle. . . deep murky cold depth of the big seas. . .
Brian O’ Hanlon.
good day what? what?
that the writing referred to made obscure and complicated something which could have been made shorter, easier to undertand and generally more comprehensible.
you cannot use crayolas to draw on pinhead.
somethings cannot be explained with everday speech this is why we have language in the first place, because humans felt the need to comunicate in a more complex and exact manner than grunting at each other. some ideas take complex language and long explanations to make themseles clear (as paradoxical as that may sound).to generalise is to lose clarity , despite what you may think this is true.no one ever said that BR and the like were easy to understand. this is because they are dealing with comlex issues at the periphery of architectural discourse. YES THE PERIPHERY, not the mainstream shock horror.
once again i re-iterate my my opinion that theory is of great importance to architecture. possibly not to every single architect directly, but like it or not even the most self proclaimed run of the mill architect would not design the way he does if it had not been for the theorists and discussions that had gone before him.
james you may be of the opinion that writing is of little or no importance to architects, i would strongly disagree. you may call me a poncey “pseudo-architect” i may be of the opinion that you are a philistine. i cannot see either of us budging from these stances and we must agree to disagree. but i will continue to stand up for architectural theory and thought when it is being bashed. simply for the reason that if anybody influenceable should be reading this thread they might be steered down the path of mediocrity and apathy. knowledge is power and ignorance is dangerous.
i would rather this country produce more O’Donnell Tuomeys than Anthony Reddys.
A lot of the AAI and BM stuff is just badly written. There is no excuse or getting around that fact. But Architects haven’t got the time to compose really beautifully crafted sentences with equal clarity and weigh. They haven’t time to carefully balance points raised in various paragraphs. Like Mies looking at a drawing for hours, to realise the clearest expression of what he wanted to build. A good writer will agonsise and work hard for years to finally wrench out of his/her very being what they wish to say. It is not very easy, and Ireland happens to be one of the few places in this country where writers and artists are actually tolerated. Ireland isn’t a bad country for these people.
But to be true to that, one has to become a writer and accept that in ten years time, you will not have built everything you would have liked to. You will have instead, created a useful body of thoughts in the form of ones writing. That is a serious decision, which some young Architects should make perhaps. Instead of trying to pretend to be writers and Architects in equal measure.
That is why the BM writers should aspire to a high quality of writing. Then it is up to us, as the readers to try to interpret what has been written. I think that a lot of the BM writing is written by people who imagine writing is easy – and doesn’t demand much time or effort. Similar to the way some people imagine that designing a piece of Architecture is easy – you just lash something out on your sheet of paper, and hey Presto! I believe James has tried to emphasise that as Architects our primary purpose is to perfect the craft of drawings and visualising – not that of writing. Unfortunately, you do see Architects trying in vain to master so many different arts – it is crazy!
I know a lot of web designers who are architects, a lot of photographers and artists who are architects. So I guess, one should expect to find a lot of writers who are architects too! Be very careful about this what? You are in danger of becoming like a crazy person, who encourages young Architects to be as good at the craft of writing as they are at the craft of building. So in ten or twenty years time, young Architects simply look back upon all the excellent essays they wrote, as oposed to all the really good Architecture they built, or nearly built.
It is lovely to talk about Architecture, because you never have to actually build anything to confirm your theories – they are end-products in themselves. And does to a large degree act as an immoveable obstacle, to actually achieveing one’s primary goal – that of building good Architecture. I also believe that some branches of the profession of Architecture – the opposite end of the spectrum to the BM writers – are over zealous in their attempts to build bad or even indifferent Architecture. And perhaps that is because, the BM writer types are too busy reading/writing and not helping as much to go and design/build.
There is a similar debate going on in Ireland at the moment, about the amount of talent now ending up in professions like journalism and TV/Radio, instead of going into Politics. Listening to the interview of Dunphy and the Irish Times editor (gave up politics) last Friday evening. Architecture needs the talent, there obviously is, out there in the world of Building Material, to actually design and build.
i would rather this country produce more O’Donnell Tuomeys than Anthony Reddys.
Well this sounds interesting, because what you are actually dealing with here, is not theoretical or conceptual ways of forming an Architectural practice. But as much at looking at different viable economical role models for making a practice work. That could be quite an intriguing debate. Since it appears that both can work, both can actually build a lot of stuff, it is a question of which one should be allowed to work, and therefore to build with greatest frequency.
Brian O’ Hanlon.
i would fully agree that our role is primarily visual and not literary. i think that my stance is being misunderstood as one that venerates so called “paper architects” over those who build fine architecture. but some of the architects who worked primarily in theory, writing and unbuilt designs are now at the forefront of contemporary architecture. taste aside, people like zaha hadid, stephen holl, daniel libeskind or un studio are the Mies’ and Corbs of our time. these architects had the courage and belief in their ideas not to dilute them just so they could be built quickly. now they are recognised as valid and insightful architects and people are banging down their doors.
again this not a discussion on whether libeskind is a good architect or not.now im not suggesting that we should all hold back from building just because no client will build exactly as we think is right. i am just arguing that theory and new ideas (not just in built form) are the cornerstone (yes i see the irony) of development in any field. to be dismissive of new and possibly complex thoughts completely in favour of pure pragmatism is extremely short-sighted.
whether the architect is a particularily good writer or not is of secondary importance. what is primary is the dissemination of new ideas in order for our profession to develop and grow.
in reference to the o’donnell tuomey/anthony reddy comment, what i meant was i would rather see practices becoming interested in theoretical (which are often pragmatic) concerns than churning out mindlessly bland profitable buildings. to say this is not a theoretical way to look at an office is very wrong, and i firmly believe that these two offices differ because one is interested in more than obvious pedestrian aspects of architecture, and the other is not.(take a guess which is which)
i implore people (who feel that way inclined) to embrace theory and the hidden richness of our profession. it is rewarding and worthwhile both to architects and most importantly those who will experience the results.
but some of the architects who worked primarily in theory, writing and unbuilt designs are now at the forefront of contemporary architecture.
Quite the case I agree with you on that.
people like zaha hadid, stephen holl, daniel libeskind or un studio are the Mies’ and Corbs of our time.
But who is the Louis Kahn or James Stirling of today? Where have all the cowboys gone?
again this not a discussion on whether libeskind is a good architect or not.
I am starting to warm a bit more now to his Ground Zero entry, although I haven’t seen any other entries, and the graphics I have on his entry are quiet sketchy at best. But I think I have some idea what he is doing – the bit I do like is the circular pathways linking the scheme to the rest of the city blocks, over a busy motorway etc, etc. I would love to see that one built. But again, how long does in take, in timescale terms to realize a Daniel Libeskind project? I mean, isn’t Architecture one of the few cases where guys can go on improving well past their thirties and forties?
I mean, on James point there about producing lots and lots of unbuilt designs – I am reminded about Frank Llyod Wright designing thousands of ‘children of the imagination’ as he called them. While only struggling with fights with many of his clients, the Morris’s I think, and a fellow called Jonson, to actually build the 120 or so masterly houses he did build, right up until he was 91 years of age in the 1950s! I mean, it is very interesting to notice how he started building in the 1890s for a totally different world and client, than he built for in the 1920s in LA, or later on for Usonia in the 1940s and so forth.
There was someone who was impossible to work with, because his own son and RM Schindler got next to no thanks. He was a brilliant draughtsman and interested in the actual building technology for his houses. One of his favourite materials ended up being concrete, or ‘the gutter rat’, ‘an architectural outcast’ as he called it! Yet despite having great talent working for him, and having all the goods necessary to be a good Architect himself – he still had to work exceptionally hard to leave us with that great repetitoire of buildings which find their way into hundreds of coffee table books even today.
But when I read this:
now im not suggesting that we should all hold back from building just because no client will build exactly as we think is right. i am just arguing that theory and new ideas (not just in built form) are the cornerstone (yes i see the irony) of development in any field. to be dismissive of new and possibly complex thoughts completely in favour of pure pragmatism is extremely short-sighted.
I am also reminded of Frank Llyod Wright and all of his essays about the elimination of walls, of the roof becoming a canopy, of space flowing, or wall being flexible, the beauty of the horizontal and space as an object. I mean Frank Llyod Wright did a most awful amount of bullshitting too, in his time, and struggled to come out of very lean periods, where jobs where hard to find. Yet he managed to come out now and again and build really revolutionary pieces of Architecture, which could be seen indeed, as physical manisfestations of his own theories, R&D or whatever you wish to call it. He was into climatic Architecture and ecological design before the terms were ever even invented.
So I suppose in those terms, one can look back over the decades of Architectural design and realised works by O’Donnell and Tuomey, Bolles Wilson, or any other well known significant Architects, and in contrast to Anthony Reidy perhaps – there is that extra strand of thought about Architecture, continuing on through their repetitoire. That is to say, Anthony Reidy 1970, isn’t hugely dissimilar to Anthony Reidy 2003! 🙂 Poor ould Tony is taking quite a bashing here!
Brian O’ Hanlon.
ill take it from your words that you largely agree with my last post at least,garethace (am i right?).
but i must contest what i understand as a reference to
the elimination of walls, of the roof becoming a canopy, of space flowing, or wall being flexible, the beauty of the horizontal and space as an object
as being “bullshit”. if you have read any of these essays and can understand them in their time and context then you will realise they were as revolutionary as any BM article or deconstructivism or phenomenology concept today. in these essays he tried to explain, to those who were interested, the very essence of his vision. these were his commandments on which he based his many fine buildings.
if it was not your intention to call these ideas bullshit then i apologise and think we are in agreement on the fundamentals of this argument.
if it was not your intention to call these ideas bullshit then i apologise and think we are in agreement on the fundamentals of this argument.
I was actually aware of the ambiguity of my meaning in using the term bullshit. By bs, I actually mean, writing, complex involved writing, that needs to be read in context of his efforts to free space in his Architecture. It wasn’t bullshit at all to him, or to many others that read and were influenced by him and his buildings. I have never gotten my hands on a copy of that famous essay, but I have read several extracts in Helmer Stenros’s book Time, Motion and Architecture.
I have traced these concepts all the ways from my earliest reading of Francis D.K. Ching’s book, and the verbal interviews/lectures given by Steven Holl and Bernard Tschumi, back to the documentaries and books about Mies van der Rohe, or opinions about the Schroder house, and have only recently discovered through a couple of different useful sourses about Frank Llyod Wright, how he was indeed one of the very pioneers of this spatial perception.
Indeed Le Corbusier, spoke about finding the paintings in Cubism, 4-dimensional and redefining how we see space as an object. How Le Corbusier said himself, that he observed four dimensional phenomena in all three arts he expressed himself in – painting, sculpture and architecture.
This principal reason for my interest in his writing however, is because this definition of space as an object, as oposed to contained in a box, with holes punched in it – is crucial to my development of the use of computer 3D modelling as a tool to design architecture. I had to re-define my concept of actual space in reality, in order to use an artificial computer program to help me deal with space inside and space outside.
Of course my perception of space, was very weak, and it has been a difficult struggle to expand my awareness. I have used literature and real experiences of buildings by O’Donnell and Tuomey and others, to help expand my natural awareness.
My theories were just fine, on paper, until I attempted to use them in reality. I found that another important consideration in Architecture is that of the movement of the participant. That is the very last chapter in Ching’s book, and I found it the hardest of all to grasp, as you need to get off your bum (moreso than the others) to explore that chapter properly. I felt Wright talks about this too, in how the houses were flexible. I.e. When kids moved out etc. Like one family was still discovering new spaces in the house for years afterwards. Having changed the house many times, and putting their deck chairs at different places on the terraces etc, etc.
Building opportunites for young people. By Shane O’ Toole.
I had nearly forgotten about this one, but it is quite pertinent to this discussion, since Bucholtz is such a great builder of buildings, and we can all go and visit/enjoy his work here in Ireland. Also soon to be completed Kildare CoCo.
In the United States many younger qualified Architects are turning to things like Computer Visualisation to earn more money, since the hope of building that much for oneself is quite rare indeed. Doing CG Visualisation apparently brings the young Architects in the US, closer to clients, developers and ‘other guys in the trade’. I think the discussion is similar to what we are talking about here, except in Ireland we jumped towards words to VIZ-ualise stuff. While in the USA, they turned towards technology.
Personally, I would aspire to a combination of words and Technology – tempered with a mild blend of competition-doing, as James has rightly suggested. 🙂
Brian O’ Hanlon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
