Posted by Will Hayes on May 13, 2002 at 10:19:14:In Reply to: Re: Would you put a Blob in Williamsburg? posted by Richard Haut on May 13, 2002 at 09:39:26:
But automotive design really has much more to do with pure "stylings". A (non-Dodge!) example that comes to mind is the new VW Bug, which is a fine car by all accounts, and well designed, but when it comes down to it is really just a shiny new shell bolted to the chassis and engine of a pre-existing model (the VW golf). There really wasn't much of a conceptual exercise present in its design, beyond the superficial. I really think that architecture is more complex than that.
Another thing is that, as you've pointed out, with the exception of your eccentricity/poverty example, cars are ALWAYS meant to look new, modern and technologically saavy, even with 'retro stylings'. Cars LOSE their value as they get older - they depreciate "as soon as you drive them from the dealer's lot", as the saying goes.
With buildings, this is not always the case, and is often the opposite.(Now, If buildings were factory constructed and as meticulously branded & marketed as automobiles...)
In any case, what I think is really the problem is not that architects 'don't think enough', but more that they are often being asked to solve an impossible problem:
The qualities that are (sometimes)so desirable about old neighborhoods and old buildings are often wrapped up in their ACTUAL "timelessness" not just their "timeless style" (ie: a ford thunderbird, or whatever). And it is impossible to design and build a neighborhood in one fell swoop that has the same tangible and intangible qualities of one that evolved and developed over hundreds of years. You can't simply inject time into a process.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|