Scantlings

then you probably dig architecture:

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

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:

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:

El Alamillo Bridge.jpg

That is an AMAZING bridge - is it a swing bridge?? Looks like it could be.

Two of my favorites:





This last one is a particularly UGLY bridge, but it hung over my Father's first boat in her slip at Terminal Island Marina in LA and I'd listen to it open and close all night long as the ships moved about. It has a pugnacious tough-as-nails look to it that I actually enjoy, the way one enjoys the look of a D8 Bulldozer.

BV

I think American architecture is lackluster not so much due to costs as it is due to Americans generally being more conservative than the rest of the world. The U.S. has a very rich Architectural heritage. The problem is that it's difficult to let the 'heritage' part go. As corny as it sounds, clever design doesn't need to be expensive. Look at IKEA

I'm in the industry as it were, and a lot of it does come down to costs. I've seen some pretty neat concepts get continually trimmed back due to materials and constructability costs.

That said, I'm in an area that doesn't really lend itself to interesting modern architecture and in that case you are right Rick, a lot is very tied to the heritage of the area, or what the local politicians will let you get away with.

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

When we were building the new shack I was a bit overwhelmed by the project. I escaped by imagining how little I would need if I were to live on my own. So I drew this house. There is an upstairs office. I always pictured it on a grassy, sloping field with a view of the mountains. One of my prime requirements was that I wanted to be able to lay in bed and see the fireplace.

Bob, I'm a BIG Michael Pollen fan and his book: "A Place of My Own" is one that you'd probably enjoy, I know I did.

Beau

http://www.amazon.com/Place-My-Own-Architecture-Daydreams/dp/0143114743/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373659858&sr=8-1&keywords=a+place+of+my+own+pollan

Beau:
I'll check that book out.
Thanks.

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

I agree with you on the 'in breeding' idea. I also agree on historic preservation of the best of our architecture. It seems that since '70s or so buildings have gotten quite boring. People don't seem to be able to take the leap both artistically and financially to build great structures any more.

I grew up in a Manhattan apartment and a 20 room 1860s house upstate.



Last summer, we moved from a 1980s proto-McMansion



to this 2200 sq ft 1939 house in town.



This little place shows the hand of a master architect who enlarged the original tiny shitbox in the 1970s. it's cozy, yet full of light and it makes me feel good in a way that no other house I've ever lived in has. I think I like small.

Boy Eric, that 1860's house is beautiful. Nice looking lot too.
Hope you didn't have to mow the lawn.

bob perry wrote:Boy Eric, that 1860's house is beautiful. Nice looking lot too.
Hope you didn't have to mow the lawn.

I used to volunteer to ride the mower. Sadly, the place just went on the market for next to nothing. It has been in the family for five generations.

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: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, I wish I had the skill to envision the building from the plans. Knowing your tastes and work, however, it must be very nice.

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.

Bob - your minimum house is very reminiscent of a boat interior. (Or at least a float home).

An old friend of mine once dated a girl whose father was a successful architect in Marin. He did lots of very neat things like the family ski cabin at Tahoe that was shaped like a huge piece of octagonal clay drain tile. He was designing a shopping mall when Brian commented "You must have to be really good to get a job like that". Her dad replied "No - you have to be really bad."

The vast majority of people want what everyone else has. That's why West Coast or Mid Century Modern architecture was never the success it deserved to be and was supplanted by all these depressing pseudo Craftsman style houses.

West Van was a hotbed of West Coast design - there were any number of great houses by great architects. They are slowly being torn down and replaced by huge, ugly Me-too's. It's like recycling a Deusenberg into a Honda Civic.

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?

Bob, as a high school kid I worked framing houses. The plans were silly - you couldn't actually build a house from them. Instead, I had to go get the Forman who would "lay out" where things were supposed to go. From his chalk marks I could frame the house. I'm no dummy, and I don't think anyone could have built from the architects plans. The Forman would say things like: "The plans just tell you the size of the rooms and which way the joist run. The other stuff you just have to know." So, I guess the Forman/Contractor end up actually "designing" and "building" the house - someone has to. BV

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

Thanks for the reply Jeff.

The Twin Cities is loaded with historically significant buildings. Unfortunately, in the 60s Minneapolis went on an architectural witch hunt and lopped off 2/3 of it's heritage. St. Paul is much more careful. I love Midwest architecture, particularly their interpretation of craftsman and prairie school. There are significant quantities of art-deco features throughout and I would not hesitate, were I an architect (which I majored in prior to switching to Mechanical Engineering) to find a way to incorporate those features in modern architecture.

It's also a bit unfair to be too harsh on the architectural state of this country. In Minnesota, something like 3/4 of the architectural firms have gone out of business in the last 10 years. That's significant when you realize there weren't that many to begin with.

That said, there is a rare glimmer of hope here. Especially in residential architecture and smaller municipal projects.

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?

If you removed the clerestories, that would be a gambrel roof. But then Bob would have to do a lot of ducking.

To my eye the Zakim bridge in Boston is a screaming success for a recent design.

My best buddy Jeff was once married to the daughter of a designer names Propst. He was the guy who invented the modular office cubicle systems marketed by Herman Miller. Jeff is now watching over his "family compound he built in Redmond about 15 minutes from Microsoft.

He bought 30 acres right above Lake Sammamish and built four houses on it in a method he devised that uses movable exterior and interior walls. It's sort of a domestic application of this moldular office systems and a very radical way of building houses. The houses are all empty now and need some maintenance. But the property is fabulous with huge fir and cedar trees and a very woodsy feel , totally secluded from the rest of the world. I was overwhelmed.

But the dream did not work. The kids of Porpst were not too happy living in the compound and his dream slowly faded until he died, about ten years ago. Jeff lived in one of of the houses for 4 years. Today it is kind of sad to see. You can feel the dream when you are there. Not sure what I think of the houses. They look great on the outside, kind of Japanesy with long extended overhangs and eaves. I understand the interiors and the fun of being able to move walls around. But for me it was kind of like the inside of the hospital administation offices. The Herman Miller system of modular cabinetry was not too "homey".

Still it is today an architectural museum of sorts with scads of unique structrural details and fittings all designed by Propst. The city of Sammamish has declared a moretorium on new houses so it's not clear what will happen to this incredible piece of property. Right now it cant be subdivided. If I were a cajillionaire I would buy it rip down all the Propst houses and build my little house on a mountain meadow that Propst cleared. 30 secluded acres 10 minutes from Redmond. Five minutes from Whole Foods.

kdh wrote:To my eye the Zakim bridge in Boston is a screaming success for a recent design.

That resembles a new bridge that opened in my hometown area last year, the Port Mann Bridge. It caused some troubles in the first winter when chunks of ice and slush fell off the cables, and damaged some cars beneath. (this is the south west coast, and we rarely get snow)
I like how they finished the towers of the bridge in Boston. More polished.

Must be a fad. The new Penobscot Narrows Bridge up in Maine. Has an observatory in the top of one of the towers.

Cable stayed bridges seem to be the way of the future. The last five big bridges built here are all cable stay designs. They make a very good looking bridge - very dramatic light and shadow patterns when you drive across them. Every sailor will appreciate the cable terminals on them - God's own Norseman fittings. Each one is about the size of a Harley.

The Cable style bridges, like the new Oakland/SF Bay Bridge, seem to have a lot less parasitic weight than other designs. There are a lot fewer bits that are just hanging around to hold up something else that's doing the real work. They are beautiful if done right and look a bit like a weird wire fence if done poorly.

Here's what the Bay Bridge is supposed to look like once the broken bolts etc... get sorted out:

I would love to drive this cable stayed bridge in southern France, the Millau Viaduct.

JoeP wrote:I would love to drive this cable stayed bridge in southern France, the Millau Viaduct.

bridge-millau_viaduct_2.jpg

The Golden Ears bridge here is designed like that one - multiple short towers. My daughters boyfriend at the time was the project engineer on it and he was French - wonder if he worked on that one?

The towers look short in that picture but the tallest one is over 340M tall. The roadway is over 1.5 miles long.

Edit: I see the Golden Ears bridge is pretty big as well.