Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: Please give your critique of this W.T.C. proposal

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

Posted by  Per Corell on February 02, 2003 at 10:56:46:

In Reply to:  Re: Please give your critique of this W.T.C. proposal posted by Manuel Oliveros on February 02, 2003 at 10:02:51:

Hi
Nice words and true to the extents, that then the design is not fittet for weather or pointing to the wrong technology, for me this issue get personal as I am ignorant to whatever fasion this might represent.
When describing art, you look for cirtain values like uniquenes and obvious different aproaches or a better expression. Mine these day's is anything doing sheet works, ------ then I agrea I am reasoable towerds styles and fasion, as long structure and detail is the matter, as then there will be a place for the one living there. You need a way to build your flat here or there, at the lowest cost as nice as possible. This is what grow a city when best, is progress ,new jobs and new technology. What is acturly wrong, being able to buy a small corner, of a WTC build around, with rights when somone build ontop providing a third your investment back at your face ?
Maby in 20 years, the WTC still standing, would have to be dismantled and somthing pointing to the bright future build, somthing alloving you to buy a corner at the edges of the structure , Isn't this what it is about, providing the means for a bright future, then why deal with Architecture, when even Arts driven to a social skill.
"99" pct. of the proposals I seen ,still I have not been hounting the proposals ,---- but 99 pct. or more, been very focused on actural buildings. Some build arounds that I se as seperate design idears, provide lot more arear, much lower down ,then what's wrong about safety ,when the structure can help your means providing ports between different arears of this 3D structure providing a town .
Now I couldn't find a standard Pyramide, to place ups. down carved within the building structure ( assembly frame structure ).
Even the framework for the one in the graphics is not even generated and with this structure what you se at the graphics will make more sense , -------- if this was about buisness, then why spend the money with new pyramides, when investment is not what it is about, why buy a "new" pyramide, when the trouble is, that pyramides don't work particular good except as pyramides ; a useless structure in architecture, but I could not find a standard pyramide solid w. 4 faces, only a corner from a box doing only 3 sides to a pyramide, so The upside down pyramide is not there, this you must emagine.

But it would be in a cheap ,flexible and easy building method, forming somthing 4 times as strong. Then you Romans get the Pyramide you asked ;))



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

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

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


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 BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/25240.html