Architectural History

[P.C.]

3dh is not just a way to build it is a new way to put things together, and that is what is needed if there must be something new to put into history.
Even the most primitive cotteage today has a TV, then what better way of interducing the digital will there be, --- unless we want to rebuild african villeages exactly as how they was , if what we want is a bit progress further than cellphones and TV , then instead of offering programs that do things exactly the same way as before, but just on a screen, then why not interduce a simple new way to put things together, --- if computers are also to be offered why stay forcing them into the historic architecture, so the only thing we can emagine with a computer, is detail drawings of existing steel beams with flexible length, houses that is not brick houses anyway but Solid entity houses with a graphic of bricks for the renderer , nothing new only what we know allready ---- how can staying with the old make any progress in africa or any other place, when what is needed, is a new way to produce, a new way to build stronger houses, cheaper houses, and what is needed is that we start profiting from the computer, instead of making everything double the efford , by forcing the computer doing things "as it allway's has been done" -
3dh is a real suggestion there , and is nothing but a new way to put things tgether, with a computer ---- and that is what is needed.

[P.C.]

And please let me add, that ther MIT did the world a bad faviour, as the new architecture is not hysteric forms and Tinhat houses that leak, --- that attitude will not rebuild one single villeage house newer.

[ahmeds]

And so you are telling us to leave history, discard it and we forget? But in reality that is impossible.
From acient greek architecture,Ottaman architecture, to Indian & Argentina etc, how can they be forgotten, I mean architectural work that helped to develop these places.
There are a lot to learn from architectural history, not only architecture but also that will give us the roots of people, as to where they came from.
In Kenya, there is a world heritage site town of Lamu. In this ancient town one family recently traced their roots and found that they actually came from China.

[P.C.]

Please realise that everything changed with the computer, remember who has been fighting the computer and how they won that battle.

It is very important that you understand that I been there tried that --- that when I say architecture has been fighting the computer then I can show you the code, but is it nessery ; look at today's architect programs and how they restrain the creativity in a particular very narrow lead. Why do you think 3dh have had such a difficult time ?

Becaurse it is so very very different, that it is allmost a pride to fight not just 3dh but also the guy who think he is so clever -- becaurse 3dh would instantly prove it's promises. Suddenly efficiency and newthinking is not paramount ,history and how to stack brick in various patterns, are so much more important than what a silli autodidact guy think. "Emagine anyone suddenly can become an architect" , anyone without the knowleage about aincient temples can suddenly just ask the computer draw a house --- and even this is as far from the truth as it can be, as these new tools are realy more challancing and develob into new crafts, new fantastic structures, then the limited openness in architecture, will not allow this --- "we know how a house are build" .

Please let me explain this in another way -- try read some of the treads about 3dh, forget it is 3dh as those nice historians has now thrown so much dirt that what you "see" when you see the word 3dh , is not what 3dh is about but the dirt and the silli arguments of the Evil Clowns ,who instantly pray on anyone who happily share a happy meseage --- but try read a few treads and remember that 3dh work and deliver, --- then why is it 3dh has been both robbed and made fool of, why has this extended into dirty private mails ; I tell you why, becaurse architectural history praise the foulty Tin Hats , and anyone who challance the old hero's , are asking for trouble ; they are not at all contributing and if they are what they contribuate are a source of pray ; it is "allowed" to rob their bread from their mouth ; --- That is architectural History , like history allway's been the history of the winners.

[ahmeds]

so you mean that architectural history is a hinderance to development? but what I explained to you sometimes back , is architecural history will be there, and with success of 3dh,newthinking, it (architectural history) will have something to explain to future too, or do you wish not to see this idea (of 3dh)being told in future as to how it started and proceeded to success.
If you want this 3dh to be an era to be talked about then let history proceed with it's work.

[P.C.]

Not --- maybe you don't see my point ;

Whenever I come to that, I allway's try explain, that 3dh had it's place , in replacing or even supporting the dead-end polymesh attitude , it is the core structure that will support the surface thinking that these mesh structures allway's pictured. But 3dh is not supposed to stay like frozen in time it is the idear that a structural framework can be calculated from simple rules.

You see this concept are so new, so different, that I wonder why so few reconise the newthinking ; sure there are a crowd that somehow realise the brand new attitude and realise that this was not possible without a computer , but architecture history stand in the way of this new develobment ,a develobment that othervise shuld be welcomed as now computers can be used for something so visionary, that 3dh is just the beginning.

But try conform 3dh with tradisional architectural history and things go bad. --- there are a crowd who is blind towerds what 3dh is and instead of realising it, they uses it on the web, in these fora's , to ,,,,, well if you try read a few of the treads you will reconise that all critics do not deal with 3dh at all, but deal with throwing dirt at it's inventor, asking kindergarden questions, or posting dirty private mails ---- now that is what I personaly conform with architectural history, when a new fresh idear, are met by settled academics among crowded Evil Clowns , and the information about a new visionary concept, become a stray dirt road becaurse, well becaurse this new mwthod threaden particular settled academics , their picture of the architecture history hero's , when all efford of the settled academics are bruted into harassing the clever guy and newer one word about what 3dh are.

That's why I omit architectural history, becaurse architectural history are a huge concrete block in the heads of those who appriciate the same newthinking , just 80 years ago, and becaurse the same academics akkow no chance for today's visionary --- and they uses architectural history to fight it, fight newthinking , that is as simple as it is.

[P.C.]

Allow me an example ---- so many times the same guy entered a tread and fiercly climed that a guy named Nervi , made 3dh many many many many years ago ---- not one word about the fantastic options , the visions or the fancy graphics ; only a personal attack against the person develobing a method not possible without computers. As "prove" again and again , he post a picture of a structure, that at distance has a slight lookalike with a particular scale and a particular direction of the 3dh framework ---- but every time he done so, I explained that Nervi did not have computers and that the graphic is not 3dh , and I state a number of plain resons ; that Nervi's hanger was concrete, that the framework you see in it newer could be 3dh as made like that the frames could not be assembled aso. aso.
But all arguments fall to the ground and newer is there an answer to my responses and explanations, these guy's "wanting to be right" stick so deep, that they are willing to fight newthinking with misunderstood architecture history --- Nervi newer used 3dh and the simularity are not in either method, material or tools , this guy uses an argument and his will to "be right" is so strong, that it don't matter what he destroy ; he is wrong in everything and yet, just becaurse architecture history can show a hanger build in cast concrete --- the opposite of an assembled framework, then not one word about how fantastic it is, that the Solid entities on a computer screen, can be so simple calsulated into the framework to build it.

Newer one word --- why, becaurse then Per Corell in this guy's mind challance the old architectural hero Nervi, and that you must not do ; then rather an architectural history frozen in praising the old hero's than supporting today's new thinking.

Those are also easy to fight. just read a few treads about 3dh.

[ahmeds]

Got your point/points... well then it seems whoever is opposing newthinking and 3dh does so as per his/her own wish and just uses architectural history as a scapegoat .
Actually, there is no any opposition 3dh and new thinking will get from history itself, may be conservationsits-( like me and paradoxically I work on modern buildings) but still as a conservationist, i will just work within my frame of what is to be conserved and for the purpose for history.
so it is vital that history should be respected and no one should use history (architectural) to oppose anything or anyone, development and conservation though they are two differnet things, with different principals, etc they can not come into conflict should each one follow what is supposed to be done.
If guys are planning a 3dh with new thinking, I will be focusing on revival of lost towns and conserve those which are existing.

[P.C.]

Exactly the profesionalism I am asking for !!!

[ahmeds]

truly it is important for people to understand the roles of their profession and of others. Fun is everywhere, in the 3dh, in conseravtion everyone should enjoy whatever he /she does (work-i mean).
While working under EU financed programme of restoration of old towns, our project office was only controlling development in the conservation area but could not oppose it totally.

[P.C.]

I grew up in what was then and later, described as the vorse slums in copenhagen ---- these was among the oldest town houses in copenhagen some from round 1650 and they shared huge architectural qualities. Yet I praise those hero's who reconised the smell, knew what the slum do to people, how nomatter what qualities houses get vorn out and how flats was for rent flats down 9 sq. meter was rented by families , as housing was about spending as little on the old houses and getting the most money out of it. 7 backyards did I count when I at the age of 7 played in the ruins just on the opposide side of the street, many of these houses was up untill 1950 -56 when the near last of them was torn down, without electricity some even withour water, toilets in the yard deep frozen in the winter, belive me --- the romantic issue of it, only came when opening the bottle and the contains was denaturised alchohol.
Still if this had been today ,then as I said , the architectural qualities would have been reconised and some of it saved --- when I was 12 the last 11 street houses and the behind 20 was torn down, and new healthy flats was build instead, but true, the scale and the measures of these old houses still color my emagination of the ideal volumes , --- but the smell, the stupidity, what that place did to people --- if you grew up in them, you would allway's hate the slums.

[ahmeds]

One of the reason for I to like old towns, is I was brought up in the same old structures too, the narrow streets, the old stone houses, with simple but exciting architecture, the looks of the past are still vividly in my mind.
And I still like to stay in old towns, and see things as they were in the past. ( though I design much more modern buildings). When I did that project I found that conservation was the best part of my architectural life, and wish to go back to Old Towns soon.
I can Imagine how your place looks like though I haven't been there, but I was in Helsinki-Finland (Alvaar Aalto Akademia) and saw what's there, I guess almost same. And so history is the steering of conservation. That's why you saw me defending History, it's purpose and usefulness.

[P.C.]

Yes --- I will look up some old pictures.

It is true that today I would love to walk thru those old streets, and O am sure I would find details , details you see, details so beautifull like the madonna statue that was placed on that wall in that backyard 200 or more years ago.

[The Architect]

This is a good a place as any...


@JonBailey - For sure, study our architectural history. Study it's plans. Study those that have manipulated Architecture to claim space. Study their doctrines, their manifestos. In particular, look to see how the loads of a building are distributed and the structures thereof which claim that space.

And while you're working your way thru that pile of shit, ask yourself... "How does all of this crap relate to the development of us, as a people, as a community, as nations of people - constantly at war." - ok?

Can the abuse of Architecture teach us anything?


Take care...

[ahmeds]

Can the abuse of Architecture teach us anything? -The Architect

Surely not , but lets look at brighter side of history more than critisizing whatever is there (history) and it seems that we are leaning more on future whilst we forget the past.
History has more advantages(it teaches more) than disadvantages. If we talk architectural history lets ask this how many cities today (globally) can at least know how they began and proceeded to their current status.