Message - How much Decor and how much geometric framework

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

Posted by  Per Corell on November 13, 2002 at 01:26:48:

Now the Sydney Opera proberly are not the best example , as this have an idear to it , ------ but as a start point for what I like to ask it work well.
What I wonder deal with Decor versus tradisional brickwork ; if you se the Sydney opera ,you find that the basic structure are a quite tradisional square building . When you check Bilbao, you find that the ground structure are tradisional brickwork, when you check a lot of futuristic buildings, you se the fancy geometrics as added Decor ; maby not emty buckets but "structures" added to give an impression.
Now I don't attack nice or exiting shapes, ---- as I point to with the Sydney Opera where the beauty have a function. But I do critic when fancy geometrics are added as Decor. If a geometric shaped Volume are only a surface model or the architect have no feel about structures and don't make these structures carry anything but themself or being noisy emty bucketwork tincan aditions.
Why is so many modern buildings a base of tradisional structures with the fancy sheetmetal forms as added Decor, instead of forming the intire structure as a whole. Why is so many of these building volumes fighting themself structuraly seen ; can a fancy assembly of geometrics be nothing but a metal hat, ------ a metal hat that can't even hold foundations for a few floors, just somthing added to hide the tradisional brick building underneath, bringing nothing but Decor.
Now those of you who know my obsession proberly understand my worry about architects giving up about the lousy mesh entities that will bring an emty shell with no floors, ------ but is this the direction technology will be allowed ; huge emty volumes that requier an army of skilled craftmen , as the technology only was develobed halve way, so it only bring the faacy shapes on the screen being a hell to make in real ?
Shuld it realy be high tech to bend steel rods and patch with as small as possible patches, as othervise you can't cover the surfaces to bring the shape seen on the screen, shuldn't technology make these possible at a lower, not a higher cost ?
-------- Why are so few fancy modern building styles copied ; shuld it be that architects becaurse of lacking knowleage , don't know that a few of the fancy free-style technikes suck ,in terms of bringing what you draw from screen into reality , ----- how many architects acturly know this ?
Why then , do architects keep the direction of this dead end row ; is architects even more ignorant than I ,and stick to the backstep idear that it's not the architects problem to go from drawing to real.

Sorry if I make my point dull, but this is how I se many of the Icons discussed in this group ; in vorse case the fancy buckleworks are huge emty shells placed ontop of _very_ tradisional brick buildings ; why is this, don't architects know that there are a major difference and that lookalike will never change anything. Don't architects know that you must respect the technology and give it a chance instead of just using it as Decor doing nothing not even being able to carry more than the weight of the thin surface covering ; isn't it just a noisy hell with all that buckled patches of sheet materials rivited on bended steel rods.
Is this realy fair ; to judge the possibilities in decor ,when things shuld deal making new technologies do the core building structures, not just what you place as roof or place just as it make a futuristic impression to place a big tank structure looking like it is a part of the structure ,when the right description are fake.

If architects realy mean new technology, then why isn't the tool and the materials in this creative process, treaded with the respect they requier ; why use an outdated zero-thickness mesh to make a lookalike that _don't_ carry the foundations for floors ,carry itself beside supporting the intire structures by being truely intergrated structuraly.
Is the problem , that architects don't know what their tools acturly produce and why some technikes are a dead-end where others carry the core idear. No idear to copy an Icon that was extreamly expensive to produce ; then how "visionary" is this.
------- Anyway the frame structure at the graphic is no steel hat, but a structured framework forming frames for the surface walls. It don't show how easy frames will intergrate to form foundations for floors, but oposed many steel-hat surface structures, this structures show no dead end.

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/23377.html