Architecture

[Paul]

Cheers mate.

 

My favourtite book on architecture is 'A Pattern Language' By Christopher Alexander. It's part of a set that studies how disparate, unconnected civilizations throughout history arrived at similar architectural conclusions. It looks beyond mere styles to uncover an universal language of humanist architecture that is consistent throughout the world. It's a beautiful set of books that really gets to the 'truth' of design and it's potential to truly liberate people and society as a whole - A message too often lost in a society which values style over substance.

 

That's really interesting. I suppose the implication is that we are predisposed to prefer certain shapes. Some of that will be due to our anatomy and the functional aspects of architecture, but some of it must be down to the way we perceive the world.

[cochyn]

Aye, that's exactly it. Essentially it advocates a vision where architectural design is kind to humanity rather than someting to be demystified and sold as an 'add-on' by a cabal of people who are 'in the know'.

 

That author's intention is that anyone, having read the book could get together and confidently 'design' anything from a city to a child's swing and always get it right.

[Karl_b]

Is this the book?

 

It sounds very interesting and I will try and get hold of a copy.

[Karl_b]

That's really interesting. I suppose the implication is that we are predisposed to prefer certain shapes. Some of that will be due to our anatomy and the functional aspects of architecture, but some of it must be down to the way we perceive the world.

 

There's a book by Marc-Antonie Laugier called 'An Essay on Architecture', which is well known for it's depiction of 'The Primitive Hut', which discusses the faults of common architectural ideas, and how we should strive to use architectural forms properly.

 

Other great texts which explore these ideas are Le Corubiser's 'Towards a New Architecture' and Adolf Loos' 'Ornament and Crime'.

 

If you ever do get round to building your own house Paul then take a look at Kevin McClouds 'Grand Designs Handbook: The Blueprint for Building Your Dream Home'.

[cochyn]

Is this the book?

 

It sounds very interesting and I will try and get hold of a copy.

 

That's the fella. Get it's companion book; 'The Timeless Way of Building' as well. You won't regret it. Ever.

[Karl_b]

Bump for Noos.

 

I'll add more, specific to your question on the other thread, later.

[Elmyn Noos]

Cheers Karl.

 

Interesting stuff running along a desperately familiar theme of bright creative thinkers being stifled by narrow-minded playsafes. Unfortunately you get it in all walks mate. I would honestly rather take ugly as fuck buildings over boring ones. Who are these planning types and why do they wield power thus?

[RJ Fan club]

Cheers Karl.

 

Interesting stuff running along a desperately familiar theme of bright creative thinkers being stifled by narrow-minded playsafes. Unfortunately you get it in all walks mate. I would honestly rather take ugly as fuck buildings over boring ones. Who are these planning types and why do they power thus?

 

I'm a Planning type and what of it?

[Elmyn Noos]

I'm a Planning type and what of it?

 

Why do you wield power thus? Stifling the creativity of people like Karl?

[RJ Fan club]

Some good design does get stifled. However design is not the only criteria in making a planning decision.

 

Architects for too long have not understood the Planning System, and assume under some ego trip its all about design (not accusing you of this Karl). Its not, we are required to look at landscape protection, the local economy, employment and housing land supply, listed buildings, water standards, pollution, health conditions.... the list is endless.

 

I won't defend the Planning System totally, more can be done to understand design and the proffession has a bad image due to the 60 & 70's planners who were not Planners in todays sense (no planning training), They were mostly engineers, who seek function over form. I really think planning and design training has improved hugely in recent years and as a young planner, i consider myself to be more relaxed with allowing inventive design. Where I work we have a good record of allowing exciting, modern contemoporary design.

 

Also you have to look at who are the decision makers here, not always the Planners, many of the larger schemes go before Councillors without RTPI qualifications or training.

[Elmyn Noos]

Some good design does get stifled. However design is not the only criteria in making a planning decision.

 

Architects for too long have not understood the Planning System, and assume under some ego trip its all about design (not accusing you of this Karl). Its not, we are required to look at landscape protection, the local economy, employment and housing land supply, listed buildings, water standards, pollution, health conditions.... the list is endless.

 

I won't defend the Planning System totally, more can be done to understand design and the proffession has a bad image due to the 60 & 70's planners who were not Planners in todays sense (no planning training), They were mostly engineers, who seek function over form. I really think planning and design training has improved hugely in recent years and as a young planner, i consider myself to be more relaxed with allowing inventive design. Where I work we have a good record of allowing exciting, modern contemoporary design.

 

Also you have to look at who are the decision makers here, not always the Planners, many of the larger schemes go before Councillors without RTPI qualifications or training.

 

Excuse my ignorance but I am genuinely interested. What have landscape protection, the local economy, employment and housing land supply, water standards,etc got to do with the shape and appearance of a building? I would have thought assuming you were allowing a building to be built, the shape/design etc would not need to be affected by any of those factors?

[RJ Fan club]

Excuse my ignorance but I am genuinely interested. What have landscape protection, the local economy, employment and housing land supply, water standards,etc got to do with the shape and appearance of a building? I would have thought assuming you were allowing a building to be built, the shape/design etc would not need to be affected by any of those factors?

 

My point there was that design is not the always the central issue in making a decision.

 

Any scheme and indeed design should be decided upon its own merits of course. There can be all kinds of reasons for why shape or appearance of buildings maybe unacceptable. it depends upon the site and its constraints.

[Elmyn Noos]

My point there was that design is not the always the central issue in making a decision.

 

Any scheme and indeed design should be decided upon its own merits of course. There can be all kinds of reasons for why shape or appearance of buildings maybe unacceptable. it depends upon the site and its constraints.

 

If design is not always the issue, how come it's only the boring buildings that seem to meet the other criteria?

[RJ Fan club]

If design is not always the issue, how come it's only the boring buildings that seem to meet the other criteria?

 

I think you have to look at each individual case. The potential reasons are endless. I have never sat in front of an architect and said please make it blander.

 

There is a temptation to make it more inkeeping to get an easier ride from the Local Planning Authoirty, but ultimatley there is a right to appeal if you wish to go another path.

 

I'm sure Karl will tell you the client has a huge input, as does cost. I have seen many exciting schemes i've approved amended afterwards to become drab and uninspiring as a result of cost.

 

In many respects we are a conservative country in terms of taste, i wish it would change, but if you look about there are some excellent buildings and I hope the problem is being addressed through better design training in my proffession and public awareness.

 

Also the people get want they want quite often. If councillors are besieged by objectors and they depend upon their votes for re-election what do you think will happen. i'm independent from that.

[Karl_b]

RJ speaks a lot of sense here, it very much needs to be a collaboration between architect and planner. I feel there is often not enough of this and whilst it can feel like planners are stifling creativity, they are often doing what they perceive as best for the site.

 

RJ is also right in his opinion of clients. It is they that are (mostly) at fault for poor design. They cut costs without any regard for the design and wishes of the architect.

 

Great design will always filter through, regardless, and it needs architects and planners to be more brave at times. We only need to look at the Dutch to see how great design has entered the mainstream and made a significant impact on the appearance of their country.

 

I could write more, but I'm off home now and if the internet decides to work at home, I will.

[RJ Fan club]

RJ speaks a lot of sense here, it very much needs to be a collaboration between architect and planner. I feel there is often not enough of this and whilst it can feel like planners are stifling creativity, they are often doing what they perceive as best for the site.

 

RJ is also right in his opinion of clients. It is they that are (mostly) at fault for poor design. They cut costs without any regard for the design and wishes of the architect.

 

Great design will always filter through, regardless, and it needs architects and planners to be more brave at times. We only need to look at the Dutch to see how great design has entered the mainstream and made a significant impact on the appearance of their country.

 

I could write more, but I'm off home now and if the internet decides to work at home, I will.

 

I studied the dutch system at length at uni and we have a great deal to learn from design awareness and as well as housing supply and land use. My aim is not to stifle Karl and his like but to fit a site brief which can be highly restricted by site briefs, planning policy and constriants.

 

 

Its not my choice 99% of the time we are bound by policy. Karl if you ever work down in Brighton I think you will find were pretty open minded to new design ideas. good luck, if ya have problems with the old brigade of planner give me a bell, we might just find a way of persuding them:thumbup:

[Malarkey]

Did you see some of the mad shit they were touting as the 'fourth grace' at the Pier Head though? I think there's still an apetite out there for, ahem, bold designs!

 

Would have fit right in!

 

 

 

 

 

Isnt that thing on the Pier head the spaceship Igor Biscan came in?

 

And another thing, Karl, i see your point about change. It is time we marked change with our own landmarks. The tudors with tudor housing. The romans with hadrians wall. We need to start building for our era not eras before is that what your saying? As Section_31 said his knowledge isnt good involving Architecture, mine isnt either, but it is common sense that we need to start building for our time and century.

 

Am i right or rambling?

[cochyn]

Isnt that thing on the Pier head the spaceship Igor Biscan came in?

 

And another thing, Karl, i see your point about change. It is time we marked change with our own landmarks. The tudors with tudor housing. The romans with hadrians wall. We need to start building for our era not eras before is that what your saying? As Section_31 said his knowledge isnt good involving Architecture, mine isnt either, but it is common sense that we need to start building for our time and century.

 

Am i right or rambling?

 

You are right, and we are building landmarks for our century just as the Tudor's did. Thing is, there was a lot of bland shite built in Tudor times as well (or any other for that matter). History judges buildings and generally the crap gets swept away, whilst the great and the good ones prevail to sit alongside future greats. That's our built heritage.

 

Poor design often isn't down to the designer's pen (or mouse), or the planner's beardy head*. It often stems from the boardroom in the form of a 'design by committee' or 'design to a budget'. If there's no notion of civic pride at the start of a building project, then there's no architecture. The commitment to build something valuable, vital and lasting has to be there from the start.

 

*only kidding, RJ fan club. ;)

[Karl_b]

Architecture - Sexiest profession in the world.

 

Cochyn and myself rule.

[Stouffer]

Karl just sent me a pm saying that he loves being an Architect.

[Karl_b]

Karl just sent me a pm saying that he loves being an Architect.

 

And having lots of excess cash.

[Stouffer]

So you're saying you are Karl B.Sc B(Arch) RIBA chartered?

[Karl_b]

So you're saying you are Karl B.Sc B(Arch) RIBA chartered?

 

Nope, I'm just Karl BA(Hons) so far.

 

Damn you Stouff, destroying my dreams and claiming back the sexiness for yourself.

[Stouffer]

Karl really is the man with the plan.

[Karl_b]

Karl really is the man with the plan.

 

And elevations too.