helloinsane
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
That is one of the most striking buildings I have seen in a very long time. Too often we architects are bound by rigid strictures of taste, appropriate response and ability.
Originally posted by BulldozerGirl
If you are a member here, go and stand there at that time and look at the people standing around you and see if they catch your eye 😉Failing that, you can accost random people and ask them if they’re from the internet.
Originally posted by BulldozerGirl
I’m glad other people have noticed that garethace talks nonsense sometimes. But to me, very detailed architecture discussions with strange terminology also sounds like nonsense, and Diaspora is also guilty of philosophizing in each post.I think if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck you can be pretty sure of what you have.
Yes – architectural criticism can, on occasion, be impenetrable. This is most emphatically *not* a good thing, yet it seems to be picked up on by a certain kind of mind, which then blithely assumes anything of similiar impenetrability must be of value. Sadly this is rarely the case, as has been amply demonstrated lately.
Golden rule: If it’s hard to read, nine times out of ten it’s not worth reading.
If the purpose of writing here is debate then comprehension is key. Otherwise it’s just persiflage masquerading as insight.
Originally posted by Diaspora
If stating that a thread attacking another contributor should have been posted as a suggestion is Bombastic, what is the attack itself?I read the tone as friendly, not attacking. Perhaps some modicum of criticism is justified?
Originally posted by garethace
Tatoo’s have actually enjoyed a huge revival amongst the young people in dublin these days – how are they received over there?With gay abandon. The most architectural one I’ve seen was a girl with the modulor man on her upper arm.
It was an evolutionary response to an ever-changing environment.
Bombast, good word.
I would like to reiterate that I’m generally in favour of architectural debate, especially here. Any comments should be taken as helpful, if satirical, criticism.
Originally posted by garethace
Deleted the tatoo to your arse bit, hardly suitable for general consumption.Fair enough. I was being quoted ridiculous prices to get it done, anyway.
There’s nowhere near enough semi-random bold type or tenuous cross-linking in this thread.
I demand answers!
Originally posted by garethace
So, in the beginning you had this Mies guy, who used this approach, and brought it so far.Mind if I get this put on a t-shirt?
Originally posted by Morlan
No your right! I get slightly frustrated with the above image because I know that I’ll never live to see a high rise Dublin 😮
I guess all I can do is dream – the above is a product of that. 🙂
There are plenty of other cities with high rise, and most of it is crappy. I can see one shinig example out the window right now.
While I would argue that Dublin could benefit from increased density of development, high rise for the sake of it is most emphatically not the answer. Following that route it may well end up looking exactly like your montage.
Originally posted by garethace
Yes, exactly, but not how Bolton Street defined that statement. Less is more, doesn’t have to necessairly mean cold, featureless, boring architecture like a STW building.It could have an event of two to redeem it from going totally down that road – that event would be what is most important – be it a nice window in a small structure or an open space in a large institution. Like a lot of small houses have a nice window, which separates it as a design from something really banal.
Or an institutional building could have a nice forecourt or interior space, like Kahn’s architecture too.
The problem with architectural education in my vast experience has been that students are encouraged to look for some really ‘radio-friendly’ jiggle or concept, whose only purpose is to grab staff’s attention and thereby gain more marks, credit over other competing students work.
I would like in my own student work, to just work within the boundaries of simple design device – strong architectural devices – I would also like the criticism of my student work to bear in mind that approach and respect it.
In order to distinguish it from the student submission right beside mine, which probably used many more colours and went for some ‘chart-topping’ jiggle simply to attract attention.
As I said, in almost every case the budget for design elements is very finite and it is more about the potential architect learning to use a very few simple devices well, rather than searching for a whole new ‘idea’ every time one goes to design something.
It is a great pity that STW etc, have been allowed to monopolise this ‘less is more’ thing, as there is a way more in ‘less is more’ than STW have ever managed to wringe out of it in 50 years.
I think over his life time, the architect James Stirling developed his notion of space and the pedestrian route very well, over a couple of nice realised works. These buildings being built, must have had finite budgets and clients who were willing to go only so far.
I don’t think that our current education really encourages the potential young architect to learn to manipulate and become a master in using a couple of very distinct, architectural devices – to cope with a huge variety of different circumstances.
Or even to appreciate and recognise that quality in other architects work – paper or built.
I am going to get accused here for making up a ‘formula’ or receipe for designing good architecture – but that is really not my attention – all of the good architects I know, bring that a stage further and develop a fond relationship with whatever few simple ideas they use and learn more about as they get older.
That process should in my humble opinion begin somehow at college level. I have never heard a thesis project, being criticised from this point of view, which says a lot in my opinion – i.e. what the given student managed to do within the confines of what design concepts he/she had grown to know, appreciate and develop a fond relationship with.
So less *used* to be more, but the more it was used, the less it became?
Originally posted by garethace
Well for a young architect starting out we can just say, I am going to wait for Getty to come along and give me a blank canvas to design on – which is basically what architects doing a lot of competitions are looking for.On the other hand, the sucessful interpretation of a small house project, or other small building, could just hinge around the careful manipulation of one or two colours used effectively – and still squeeze itself within a restrictive budget.
The Bolton Street approach on the other hand, was I think to use the cynical view – that most buildings in Ireland are very ordinary kinds of affairs – cheap buildings – but those cheap buildings don’t have to look cheap.
There is a certain deep pragmatism about the Bolton Street approach to ‘design’. Like the way Mies van der Rohe would reduce everything do in its statement until eventually, it couldn’t go far wrong. Of course, to follow the Mies van der Rohe route even takes a decent budget, just to get those details with clean lines and cool looking junctions/joints.
I am thinking here about Glenn Murcutt too, how did simple buildings, but spent the money well. Still I don’t think the young designer starting off can hope for even a Glenn Murcutt house budget – I think Louis Kahn is an architect who is much more adaptable in this situation – since he built many small buildings, which with a little bit of careful consideration and pig-headedness in the right places, arrives at a design which does gain its strength from some very straightforward and basic architectural devices.
Light, view, space. . . things which never tend to wear out and never go totally out of fashion. The ‘cringe’ factor in certain 1970s work here in Dublin now is quite tangible – promoting a lot of message boards like this one, where the style police can go to work.
But I would much rather spend my time noticing and pointing out design attempts which have aged quite gracefully and style are enjoyed by all those you use them. I mean what is a window or an opening to a space – it is really intangible, but so strong and powerful all the same. Like those big circular openings in Chinesse Temple architecture which are centuries old.
So you’re saying less is more?
Sadly that’s probably the kind of highrise we’d get in Dublin – overblown domestic scale detailing, massing and materials. Ew.
I still can’t believe the SOM scheme (pedestrian as it was) got ditched for those four little pointy-hat excrescences.
That image is really disturbing. Maybe it’s the thought of Apollo and Hawkins suddenly gaining twenty stories each…
