http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture.html
I would be interested in a similar link for American Architecture vs. this Euro Trash stuff. And I use the term 'Euro Trash' with the utmost affection

Moderator: Soñadora
JoeP wrote:Good Topic Rick.
I have to say, I think that architecture in the US is pretty lackluster (and I say that with the utmost affection). If you look at architecture elsewhere in the world there are some very exciting buildings, bridges, etc being built. I think it comes from the American penchant for bottom line economics and austerity without allowing for creativity and art. Of course not everyone agrees on what is beautiful but I think we should at least try to build some magnificent buildings.
A favorite bridge of mine is the El Alamillo bridge in Seville Spain:
Jeff_H wrote:I am a practitioner of the black art of terrestrial architecture. (http://www.halpernarchitects.com) Why architecture looks the way it does is far more complex than simply saying that American's have a problem letting the 'heritage' part go or cost. There certainly is a American cultural component to this in much the same way that Catalinas are always bland and a little more behind the time than something like a Beneteau. There is what I call 'in-breeding', which is the idea that people only know what they have seen. If people see only Island Packets and are told these are good cruising boats, that is what they believe to be good cruising boats. If they are raised with Hallberg Rasseys, Najads, and Oysters they have other ideas.
There is an element of truth to the 'cost' part in much the same way that low tech-low cost boats are the bulk of what is seen out sailing, and the exceptional quality designs- well executed are the rarity. But in architecture there is also an assumption amoungst lay people that modern architecture must be cheap since it is stripped down. Good quality modern architure is expensive to do in a durable way.
Companies like Ikea offer visually interesting products that moderately expensive for their mediocre quality and their price is brought down by very lasge mass production numbers selling world wide. Those economies of scale rarely exist in buildings.
On the heritage comment, I am also a strong proponent of historic preservation in architecture for a broad range of reasons. To me historically significant buildings are like sequoias, once they are gone it takes a very long time to replace them. But am also opposed to the disposable building mindset. ( I always have been. My thesis was on designing buildings for longevity.) But I also am not a fan of the idea of the psuedo traditional architecture that seems to be the norm here in the eastern US.
Jeff
bob perry wrote:Boy Eric, that 1860's house is beautiful. Nice looking lot too.
Hope you didn't have to mow the lawn.
bob perry wrote:That's too bad Eric. I imagine it was an expensive home to maintain.
When we built the shack the architect I hired drew plans that were not very detailed at all. I'm not sure how any builder woukld have built the kitchen he drew. It was unworkable. Si is realized that if I wanted the details to be right I would have to draw them myself. Wheh the shack was done and the architect called to arrange to come up for a visit I told him to bugger off. I p[aid him a lot of dough and I got BS plans and I was still pissed. In hindsight I now realize that no architect could have drawn what I wanted. I knew what I wanted down to the inch.
bob perry wrote:You know Eric, I had never built a house before and if I ever do another one(and I won't) I would know a hell of a lot more about the process and exactly what to ask for and what to watch out for. Kind of like everything else in life.
My architect immediartely got into a fight with my contractor, both were nice guys, and from there on out they refused to speak to each other except through me. I told them both they were big babies and I would never conduct one of my own projects like this. My architect was a bit of a whimp and the contractor eventually pushed him out of the picture. I was lucky to have an honest contractor. It was quite the experience.
When the house was "done" I was told, " Just walk through the house with this blue tape and put a pice of tape on everything you want addressed". Those scraps of blue tape would still be there today if I had not taken them down.
But we asked for a house that would look at home on the beach and I think we got a house that looks like a barn on the beach. We wanted a "cabin" feel and we got that. It's fine. It's my golden cage.
Jeff_H wrote:I am a practitioner of the black art of terrestrial architecture. (http://www.halpernarchitects.com) Why architecture looks the way it does is far more complex than simply saying that American's have a problem letting the 'heritage' part go or cost. There certainly is a American cultural component to this in much the same way that Catalinas are always bland and a little more behind the time than something like a Beneteau. There is what I call 'in-breeding', which is the idea that people only know what they have seen. If people see only Island Packets and are told these are good cruising boats, that is what they believe to be good cruising boats. If they are raised with Hallberg Rasseys, Najads, and Oysters they have other ideas.
There is an element of truth to the 'cost' part in much the same way that low tech-low cost boats are the bulk of what is seen out sailing, and the exceptional quality designs- well executed are the rarity. But in architecture there is also an assumption amoungst lay people that modern architecture must be cheap since it is stripped down. Good quality modern architure is expensive to do in a durable way.
Companies like Ikea offer visually interesting products that moderately expensive for their mediocre quality and their price is brought down by very lasge mass production numbers selling world wide. Those economies of scale rarely exist in buildings.
On the heritage comment, I am also a strong proponent of historic preservation in architecture for a broad range of reasons. To me historically significant buildings are like sequoias, once they are gone it takes a very long time to replace them. But am also opposed to the disposable building mindset. ( I always have been. My thesis was on designing buildings for longevity.) But I also am not a fan of the idea of the psuedo traditional architecture that seems to be the norm here in the eastern US.
Jeff
Orestes Munn wrote:bob perry wrote:You know Eric, I had never built a house before and if I ever do another one(and I won't) I would know a hell of a lot more about the process and exactly what to ask for and what to watch out for. Kind of like everything else in life.
My architect immediartely got into a fight with my contractor, both were nice guys, and from there on out they refused to speak to each other except through me. I told them both they were big babies and I would never conduct one of my own projects like this. My architect was a bit of a whimp and the contractor eventually pushed him out of the picture. I was lucky to have an honest contractor. It was quite the experience.
When the house was "done" I was told, " Just walk through the house with this blue tape and put a pice of tape on everything you want addressed". Those scraps of blue tape would still be there today if I had not taken them down.
But we asked for a house that would look at home on the beach and I think we got a house that looks like a barn on the beach. We wanted a "cabin" feel and we got that. It's fine. It's my golden cage.
That resembles a cross between a chalet and what I believe is called a gambrel colonial. I like it, especially the balcony, and who can resist the flowers?
kdh wrote:To my eye the Zakim bridge in Boston is a screaming success for a recent design.
JoeP wrote:I would love to drive this cable stayed bridge in southern France, the Millau Viaduct.