|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kevin Matthews
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 679
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fzstevenson
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Location: Dundee University, Scotland
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
    |
|
This is a very good example of the current gap in architectural education between design and feedback.
We do not teach architecture students about the need for getting feedback on designs as they actually perform in real life. We teach them how to design images, not processes.
And then we wonder why so many famous architects produce buildings that fail?
There is some really good literature out there now both in the UK and USA on post occupancy evaluation: check out the Usablebuildings website in UK, for lots of excellent articles (you will need to register first) and look up PoE books edited by Professor Sue Roaf ("Closing the Loop") and Walter Pichler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nikolaou
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: Architecture and feedback |
|
|
I strongly agree with both the views expressed in the article and the posting by fzstevenson. Whether form follows function or form follows feeling, I would submit that form does not follow frivolous fancy.
The Closing the Loop initiative is excellent, and it would be even better if some sort of pre-building evaluation by focus groups could instill some sanity to large-scale projects. I recognize the enormous risks for the architect that this would entail; e.g., many hated the Eiffel Tower when it was first built. But then again, "doctors can burry their mistakes; architects can only cover them with ivy" (F. L. Wright ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nikolaou
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: "...just looks way too huge...": A possible expla |
|
|
| A possible explanation of why "[The building] just looks way too huge" is the following: Humans constantly process visual images. When looking at Simmons Hall, one subcontiously interprets each square opening as a window (because that's what the human brain expects to see when encountering such an opening). Given the lack of any other reference point, the resulting impression one gets is of a building with more than 30 stories. Hence the perceived high volume. In fairness to the architect, I should also mention that the (large) chunks of volume that appear to have been removed from an otherwise monolithic cell do create (to me) a feeling of lightness of the existing structure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wingckwok
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The age-old debate between art and function, and it seems fitting that the article was written by a student. Every student should investigate and understand the difference, but there is no right or wrong on this issue, and ton one should decide where they stand too early on, before he fully realizes the implications of the question. Here is a problem even many experienced professionals ask themselves, because the issue concerns redefinitions of conventions.
My opinion is I don’t think there should be a standard answer to this problem. On one hand, the occupant’s comfort and experience in a work should be respected and considered, and the architect’s responsibility is to his/her client. But on the other hand, architects need to be open-minded and brave about venturing into unknown territories. Boundaries are not pushed by those whom are too timid to question the conventions of society. Conventions we take for granted, and forget that were set by people whom were willing to question the limits of boundaries.
While I agree with the article on the architect’s responsibility, I disagree on how the author reacts to the interviewees responses. He takes the responses for their face value, but does not question the reasons behind the answers, nor why conventions are accepted and not challenged. There is more than a ‘single’ solution to how a building is entered, or how a home can be ‘homey’. A singular assumption on how function fits form impedes on our creativity and expressions.
It is debatable whether all new prototype buildings can be effective, but one shouldn’t look at precedents like they are a standard formulas. The more productive attitude should be to investigate the phenomenon behind the Simmons story without drawing quick conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bellotti
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 3
Location: SF Bay Area California
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: "Modern" Architecture |
|
|
Why do so many of the modern buildings, from the 1950's to the present, look like the same re-hash of angles and planes? How many of the facades of the buildings can we honestly say are remarkable, unique in most aspects. Of course, our designs build on the past. Therefore, some elements repeat themselves. But what is this obsession with a planes of flat slabs, the right angle, and minimalistic detailing, save a few undulations of metal? Does "modern" or "contemporary" = obedience to the straight line, austere materials and accents, and bare textures? Is it fear of something more elaborate? Surely we are sophisticated enough in theory and technique to combine the best of design and details from the earliest architecture of the medieval innovations to the latest styles and solutions? I would love to have someone address these questions. Thank you for your consideration of my ideas and questions.
Sincerely,
Bellotti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
