Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: theories in architecture

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

Posted by  aaron on September 18, 2003 at 00:47:13:

In Reply to:  Re: theories in architecture posted by Harry Pasternak on September 16, 2003 at 19:47:45:

Hi Harry,

I can think of a couple of reasons why park benches are made for 3 instead of 2. But i'll just state one that strikes me as the best. Like you said research shows that most of the time 2 unrelated people sits on the bench. Which then a 3 seater bench would strike me as ideal as it creates sort of a buffer between the two strangers. If it were to be a couple... the extra seat would then show them to be a couple, whereas a 2 seater would not so much to show the beauty of that.

Again i agree that scientific research IS important, BUT it is not dictatorial, else we'd be reverting back to another form of functionalism. I really want to point out to you that theres a more poetic, more intangible aspect of architecture that supercedes such aridness, such research that would dictate how to design. There should not be a how to manual in architecture. Yes we should be aware of all matters of human measurements(the word i wanna use is eluding me at the moment, but it concerns aspects of human measurements/ ergonomics....) but just because the code or study says that the corridor should always be this wide for 2 person doesnt mean that we have to adhere to the minimum or anything wider....

in regards to theories, there are alot of pompus dry intelluctualism going on, there are also plenty of good ones out there which discusses of our humanism, our environment, culture, etc. Some even reeks of great poetry, expanding our awareness, the way we look at things, the way we design. we should not discard those simply for one based on scientific research.

once again we know the rules, and it is up to us to break it if we deem fit.

Beautiful things does not work well all the time.
Fucnctional things, without regards to beauty, is uninspirational, neglected, prosaic.

But beauty and function..... are we not closer to the truth then?

 
ArchitectureWeek     Buildings     Architects     Types & Styles     Search
Library     Places     Building Photos     Free 3D Models     Archiplanet

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



Post a Response -

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.


Architecture Forum | Students Forum | Scrapbook | Home Design | 3D Gallery | E-Design
 

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. http://www.DesignCommunity.com/discussion/29367.html