garethace

Doing driving test today, and just noticed that we still talk in 30 mph, but that is 48km/h! and so on – that is a hard one to change. Yet, from a planning point of view, it would be easier to relate distances/speeds/experience of envirnoments from car point of view – to looking at the maps afterwards back in the office, after the site visit from a km/h point of view. I.e. How long it took you to drive around at area, at average 48km/h and so on.

There is a lot more out there, in our country, some seriously crazy ones too. Keep ’em coming though, we all do enjoy a good giggle.

This is from a book written by a Finish author, Helmer Stenros, a generation or two ago now:

The Functionalism and Rationalism, which dominated architecture from the thirties to the sixties, were rather uni-dimensional in their ideals, not to mention their practical applications. Construction was characterised by an abstract faith in the future and an exaggeration of the rationality and efficiency of technology.

Naturally there were exceptions (such as the Finnish architects Aalto, Blomstedt, Ervi, Revell, Ruusuvuori, and Siren) who created a profile of their own in the architecture of the fifties and sixties, giving Functionalism a more psychological and geographical direction. Though noticeable, even their finest achievements were but a fraction of total construction. Due to element and residential area building, the general trend was towards an extremely one-sided living environment.
According to Kirmo Mikkola, the architecture of the fifties and sixties is typified by a shaky self-confidence. This is seen in rapidly changing styles and the weakened role of architects. All that remains of modem architecture after a half-century of development is the rationale of efficiency.

With the technicians, businessmen and politicians are building an environment, which is at the same time destroying its own psychological and biological conditions.

Have the finest achievements in constuction of the built environment over the last while, been but a fraction of total construction? All that remains after a half-century of development is the rationale of efficiency.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

I am a good enough writer, with years of architectural training under my belt. But I still find it difficult to write convincingly about Architecture, since verbalising many aspects is pretty much impossible, except for the very best writers. Some of SW101s responses have knocked me for 6 I will admit. I feel privileged enough though, to have met that person online, and talked frankly about views of Architecture. Just to know a student of 21 years of age, with such a high degree of sophistication and clarity of thinking is something that amazes me. Doozer was a very eloquent speaker too, and a very shrewd one, who carefully chose the debates he/she wanted to get into. But I would have loved some more time bouncing off of that poster. But what it does prove conclusively is that at least some Architects are capable of speaking about their work and their profession.

I hear what you are saying, about posters here being from a much broader cross-section that what you would get at the AAI. I am inclined to think, that everyone here, is from the AAI, but that is far from being the case. So I do accept the challenge you have laid out for yourself Paul. I came to Architecture first from an entirely artistic background and talked extremely freely with professional artists for years prior to meeting even one Architect. I suppose I did expect the same from Architects, and yeah, me experience was about the same as yours with the AAI.

Ralph Bingham is a guy I used to know in the AAI, and I had Ralph as a tutor in Bolton Street for a short while too. The only person who I could ever say to, Ralph, I don’t want to draw today, so why don’t we just talk about Architecture instead. So there we would sit for half an hour maybe, he sketching away as I listened to what he was saying, and I observed the way he drew constantly as he spoke ad lib, about whatever subject/topic I asked him about. Normally the tutor would sit there and LISTEN to a student talk at length about something called his concept, or developed scheme.

I feel that system rewards individualism very much, because as long as you want to talk and talk and talk, about yourself and your opinions of a design – you seem to do well. Most of the very successful graduates I know are perhaps strong individuals – this was most apparent when trying to do 1 week designs in groups – one guy, who normally did well generally in studio, would take over the entire group. The reason Architects are unwilling to talk, because the best of them have this strong individualistic character. Which doesn’t sell very well in public or in the media etc.

I did cover this subject here before but do not underestimate the contribution you have already made to the profession Paul. It really does need more people like you, whether it is willing to admit it or not. I see the Architects using 3DS VIZ-ualists, who are completely unaware of what Architecture is – many are just people who ‘know how to use a computer software’. That is just typical of the exclusive attitude of the profession to many people who may help it a great, great deal indeed. Perhaps in future I might manage narrow that gap between Architect and VIZualist, as Duane talks about:

It is essential that the techniques of graphic depiction not determine the design of the buildings. Computer-aided design must remain an instrument for the liberation of labor and not become a determinant of form. Because a shape can be easily depicted does not necessarily mean that it should be constructed.

What I mean is, to develop a meaningful relationship between the Architect and Visualisation/Information Technology. Which at the moment falls far short of that between an Architect and the clutch pencil and paper.

My Learning to see post is all to do with the VIZualist and Architects relationship The Architect learns to see the world through drawings primarily though, so VIZ-ualists need to do the same.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Not many people who had to try and cobble together a degree in Architecture while going through our schooling system have felt on top of the world either.

What is still important though, is by the time one hits senior years in an Architectural degree course, one tries to iron out the difficult things – clients, being one of them, Structure being another….

SW101 is probably looking at the prospect of doing a thesis shortly. And I certainly am intrigued in his grasp of these particular issues. Indeed, I would feel very proud and confident of myself, had i got his excellent understanding.

Not what exactly is your relationship to the understanding, design and realisation of the built environment, if indeed you do have any? Having explained mine, would you prehaps care to elaborate a little thing or two about your world?

Respectfully Sir, I am your audience. And btw, wouldn’t it be a better sign of society in general, if you were to treat those who are finding things difficult, to offer some other assistance than – You are not well. That just speaks volumes about who you actually are.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S. This was to be my last long lecture here. No I was never in the habit of posting long posts here at all – you can look at my history of posts if you like. But at the moment, I would like to ask some of the bigger questions – I don’t like it – I would rather be in front of my AutoCAD designing now, but there you are. . . .

What is the client is a very basic question, and the trouble is really, some of these questions are rarely asked enough in practice or in college. Even though I have listened to this Site, Client and Structure tri-partite of Architectural Design for some time now.

society: the population as a whole who will interact with the structure, who will be exposed to its aesthetics and ecological impact, who will survive the client, have to adapt to the buildings changing uses and character, and who will ultimately judge the building.

When you read this, Architecture sounds like some outbreak of a disease! ALTHOUGH HAVING READ IT FIVE OR SIX TIMES NOW, AND THINKING ABOUT IT, I AM ACTUALLY BEGININNG TO LIKE IT STRANGELY ENOUGH. It must be like an REM song! 🙂 It is a very useful definition, since Architecture is often only looked at in Magazines that are a month old – I am guilty of this myself, and ignoring NeoClassical, NeoGothic, Vernacular….

But on the whole, I think you have left out some of the really simple things an Architect can choose to take upon him/her self. I mean, when I wake up in the morning time, that window that allows light into my bedroom, is something which i pay the Architect to design, and over many, many years the return on the original investment is huge in spiritual/mental value primarily. This is really what Louis Kahn did try to argue, and most of the good Architects alive today, have learned that lesson directly from good old Lou himself. I mean, if you want to talk about return on investment, there are some things the Architect alone can bring to the table of this business transaction. Those are the parts I am very interested in studying basically, but that is just how I personally look at Architecture.

I have a great deal of respect too, for the Master Builder concept taught to students in Bolton Street. Where you develop a really meaningful relationship to the actual process of assembling a building. That is a great managerial/organisational talent that Architects have pretty much exclusive rights upon also. But one I feel personally very strongly, has been allowed to take over, or at least dominate the Bolton Street curriculum for far too long The building construction awareness is something no amount of lessons in Kahn’s use of natural light can surpass in many ways. But I like Kahn definition of the client as spiritual beings, who everyday lives are enhanced and fulfilled by dignified spaces. I mean a fifth year lecturer in Bolton Street has said for years now, that elevations/skin are not terribly interesting in the fifth year thesis projects anymore. And that using Design Technology in fourth year, we can combat this problem What is your favourite interior/exterior space? I mean isn’t that a larger part of what Architects do? Surely the drawing of a skin or elevation, should come directly from an idea about space and its very spiritual value or essence. Looking for answers to that question in Design Technology, seems like drawing blood from a turnip to me anyhow You may have perhaps a sequence of spaces, or a particular walk through an urban area you experienced in Ireland or abroad. Please do share with us!

As to this:

And stop quoting tracings!! Have you nothing coherent and independent to say?!!

I feel I have to reconcile how I feel about ‘this strand or vein’ running through Irish Architectural practice at the moment. I seem to run into it all the time in Bolton Street, and have never managed to deal with it in a very civilised fashion. I haven’t made up my mind absolutely yet on how I feel about defining the Architect/society relation – Edit: Yeah, your post above does help me a lot to understand the elongated life span of Architecture in relation to peoples’ average life span or how far down that road I would be willing to travel, before I start running into prime ministers etc, as obstacles to design.

However, the useful thing I did get from your post, which is unfamiliar to me personally as a concept, is the breath of ‘issues etc’ that the Architecture could deal with.

it is a moral stand to take up this challenge and adopt these priciples, not law or religion. it is a personal issue for each architect to exam themselves, and make their own decisions.

That is an area of understanding you seem to be quite adepth in.