Message - Re: intelligent buildings

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    

Posted by  Per Corell on November 06, 2002 at 01:47:44:

In Reply to:  Re: intelligent buildings posted by d on November 05, 2002 at 12:36:34:


As far as inteligent buildings are refered to mechanics it will be the engineers that progress this concept, -- intelligent buildings mainly been overcrowded with electronics in a hunt of an idear to place as much mechanics in the inviroments , "intelligent buildings" are that much stuck in this direction ,that when asked for a form with an idear that make the building ´fit for the future demands , the architect will not focus on the "mechanic" issues of the building framework to make it possible to expand the building to fit the demands.
How can we even expect the architect to solve a task about making a building fit how we "expext" a building being an archive or ensure that the Opera will be able to expand the direction of the arts, if Lego are the only mechanic choice.
Now I know this is a heavy bombardment, but where did the wish for a new form language go. Didn't we se how Jugend style lost it's fans when much more topic idears brought the ansver to the needs of reasoable housing , ---- but isn't the ghost of Jugend returning with the possibilities in modern building technikes ; those different from the Lego idear.
Sorry this is the best way I can describe this, but the lack of quality and the cold and neutral impack of modernism will challance visual artists ; how can this be different, but how will this even be possible when architects don't want to play ,don't have the possibility of experementing and must fight frozen borders of what the engineer do and what the architect are alowed ; anyone still wondering why houses are square ;))
Guess this is the backside of specialising, that visions that cover wider arears and way's of minds ,will meet specialised oppoments where if you look at the arguments , the true visionary _must_ show a wider perspective _must_ be blind for the specialised resistance about changing the agenda , _must_ argue with more profit, better possible progress and worse of all ; have to fight the fact ,that it is easy to se what is here allready but very difficult to promote that nothing are free. and pyramide buisness are acturly a better buisness than the possible progress of the day after tomorow , even both are emty, even both consist of what you put into it. Architecture stiffened in the idear that while we reached a period where innovation seem to point to the future, and architects are left with no "true" knowleage of even what happen when they draw a standard wall from a standard Lib, how is progress even possible in this social game ; please check the link and ask yourself, if these architects wouldn't have been beter off, acturly reading and understanding basic fysics.
Please consider ,that inspiration in these periode come from the ingeneers and the technology, and if you don't even know that the programs you use promote one and only _one_ direction ; the Lego way, then how even understand the demands of intelligent buildings if you think your creativity just need to work within known levels and frozen universes that even leave no possible lead for wider perspectives.
But maby the social aspect are much more important than you think . Maby it shuld be seen this way that it is architects that decide what is supported when contests are said to be a forum not just for anyone that want to be a famous architect ,but also the window you have as a visionary autodidakt, to _show_ your works to make the influence that would inspire with new visions , ----- still even these are changed and fact show, that if you contribuate with a 3D model where each arear in the nature of a 3D model are fully documented , then you will experience, that if you didn't fill out an arear sceme as done 1932, the architects themself, will scrap all possible visions with "intelligent" building structures.
This is why and this is also why nothing realy changed in the world of arts ; nine out of ten who realy made a difference was autodidakts, ---- this is plain truth, ----- the architects deal with what other architects progress as much as sticking to the fact that noone realy want anything to change, then the social game come in handy. New trends are first judged by architects who allow only architects and academics , please don't ask me why, but spending 4 years as unregistrated student and 3 periods at the states workshops, brought me mainly a one to ten positive will, to act unprotective towerds new visions from outside the academic circles.
And as in 1905, you don't look at the quality of the visions ,but rather at the relaitionship to the academic world ,when a project are scrapped in a contest even the project are the only one not dealing with the idear of being a huge architect, even a project show what they use this as fake decor ; that while architecture is an art, competisions are there to show visions , then visions are turned into cartoons. Visions that make a fool out of visions get the support snd then everyone even start to complain , ------- why ,you get what you pay ,don't you.

ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search


Post a Response -



This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.


Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/23177.html