BS: Architecture

Subject: BS: Architecture
From: Slag
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 07:35 PM

This is a subject which has not been thoroughly masticated by the Mudcat. I thought I'd give it a try.   It is said that "Form Follows Function" and I believe that to be true and self-evident. But I also believe there is a point where the desired functional objectives have been achieved and secondary and tertiary goals are added to the structure(s) and an evolution of form continues to progress, telling us something about ourselves and our beliefs.

The need for shelter can be met with an easy simplicity. A lean-to, a snow hut, a grass shack will suffice, depending on the environment. Urban apartments, middle class suburban domicile or a cell in C-Block at the State Pen: each says something about our society, it's values, dreams and aspirations.

Consider the small New England town: what is the largest building? Why? Consider downtown Manhattan: what is the largest building? what WAS the largest building? Why? Why was it the target of the Islamic terrorists? THEY noted what the architecture represented.

Consider the Ancient World, the design and the size of the temples or the halls of government. Why did the elders sit in the Gates of the City?

Lest I bloviate, I'll throw it up to you all and see what you think, if your interested. Have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 08:24 PM

The largest building seems to be the one that generates the most fear? Form following the functional mandate to intimidate?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM

Alright, as a first contribution re "small New England towns" -

When I first arrived in Boston for my initial moderately long stay there, the exisiting "modern" building code made it ILLEGAL to erect any building more than four stories in height. There were a few "historic" buildings that slightly exceeded the detail specification, but the taller ones were largely very light-weight wood framed construction.

The explanation was that the soil "bearing capacity" was incredibly poor.

Shortly after arrival, I found the historical marker (very nice bronze) purportedly marking the end of the pier where the events of the "Boston Tea Party" occured. It was about 5 city blocks (approx 1 km or 1/2 mile) from the actual shoreline ca. 1958. The "soil" between the original pier and the current waterline had been filled in by the dumping of the city's garbage into the bay for a couple of centuries.

The first really significant "waiver" for a "tall building" was granted for the Prudential Tower, which is - as I recall - 33 or 37 stories tall. To support this tower, reports were that it was necessary to drill through about 80 feet of mud (a.k.a. garbage) to reach bedrock, and then to drive piles an additional 80 feet or so into the rock. Some claim that it still remains "a little wobbly" but additional variances have been granted so there now are several "taller than four stories" buildings in the area.

In contrast, the university on the north side of the Charles river in Cambridge was built ca. 1860 or so with NO FOUNDATION. It's simply "floated on the mud." Although it has a fairly large "footprint" it's mostly only three stories above ground (with the central dome at approximately 7-stories at the peak(?)). A Master's Thesis by a student ca. 1950(?) determined by accurate(?) survey that this building has "tilted" so that the difference in elevation from one end to the other had changed, since construction, by 3 to 6 feet, and the entire building had "slid sideways" by a small amount, on the order of a few feet. It could be, according to those measures, expected to slide into the ocean in approximately 800-1200 years, however the odds on it catching up to the extensions of the "shoreline" due to the continued trash/garbage deposition (and natural silting from the Charles river) are practically nonexistent.

Although the design includes some "concessions to the soil" according to normal architectural standards, this building does apparently have reasonably good load bearing capacity. (see details at hacks.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 09:11 PM

In small towns the court house is usually the largest building, followed by the "old hotel"... I live outside such a small town (Luray, Va.) and for reasons unknown to me I bouhgt and am renovating the "old hotel" into a "work, live, play" project...

Oh, it is Federalist style but I have a few tricks to doll up the facade...

As for big cities??? I understand that there is only but so much that one can do in terms of beauty but folks who design these 70 plus story buildings oughhta hire some artists to make these things make sense...

Okay, true confessions.... When I entered college (VPI) back then I was an architecture major... I lasted one year... I didn't understand calculus at all and back then if you didn't understand calculus then you weren't gonna be an architect... Oh well???

Maybe I was born a 100 or so years too late???

I would have been at home designing stuff in the 1890's???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 09:21 PM

The Washington Monument = man's greatest erection

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bee
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 09:40 PM

(Swats the back of Carol C.'s head, then goes back to laughing hysterically..)

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: CarolC
Date: 01 May 08 - 12:50 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bobert
Date: 01 May 08 - 07:35 AM

And before the days of Viagra... That's one heck of a feat...

(Cuation: If you experience an erection that lasts over 5 hours call your doctor.)

Nevermind...

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:03 AM

if you didn't understand calculus then you weren't gonna be an architect

It never slowed down Frank_{never made a roof that didn't leak} Lloyd Wright.

Some really beautiful stuff, but not really an architects' architect.

Not really much worse than the famous "Dymaxion"(?) structures though. The roof didn't leak but it rained inside.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bobert
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:09 AM

Yeah, John, even the hillbillies in thie holler know not to build houses wuith flat roofs...

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 May 08 - 08:16 AM

The biggest building in most English small towns would have been the castle, the monastery, the manor, the church, the pub, in that order. Of course, the manor only existed if the ones bigger didn't.

Later, the town hall fitted in either above or below the church, depending on how big the church was and how much money the ratepayers were prepared to spend, and in larger towns the jail often took the place of the castle. Form follows conviction. The workhouse was often bigger than the town hall.

T'mill varied in size between town hall and jail, though its function was usually closer to the latter.

The theatre (later cinema) would have been rather bigger than the pub, and that and the town hall are usually nightclubs now, if they haven't been demolished to make way for much- needed Barratt homes.

None of them, in most English small towns, were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bee
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:13 AM

Hmm... around here, in rural communities, the protestant churches would be among the smallest buildings. RC churches would tend to be larger, and sometimes the largest building in the community. In communities which had them, sometimes the local Lodge (Masons, IOOF, etc.) would rival the largest church in size. Presently, again in small rural communities, the local Volunteer Fire Department and the Legion are size rivals for largest building.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:24 AM

In my New England home, the largest town building was the Congregational god-box, or possibly the Episcopalian one. The grade school was a close second. With the expansion of the 50's and 60's, the Town Hall grew larger, and the high school as well, so they were both probably larger in square footage, but much lower-built, than the churches.

We had a few top-of-the-hill mansions that were bigger than the churches, though, sort of temples to Mammon I suppose... ;>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:27 AM

Interesting. Civilizations build structures to please what they worshiped. The bigger the building the more they worshiped what the building stood for. Used to be pyramids, then it was churches. Now, it's financial buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Bill D
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:02 AM

Note...the tallest and most ornate buildings in the world the last few years seem to have been started in Muslim countries.

I'm not sure what that implies, except that's where the biggest piles of disposable income are.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 08 - 02:10 PM

Bobert... "... if you didn't understand calculus then you weren't gonna be an architect.."

They don't need to understand it. Engineers do. That is why enigineers HATE them and their fancy ideas. That, and the fact that they never pay invoices on time.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:10 PM

Librarians aren't real fond of architects either. The architects tend to build monuments to themselves and put skylights that leak over book stacks. Left to themselves, architects build VERY poor libraries, at least these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Slag
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:05 PM

In Muslim cities no building can be higher than the minarets from which the Muezzin calls the faithful to prayer. Message? There is nothing higher than the call to prayer. That's pretty straight forward.

I have often reflected on our temples to the Almighty Dollar. I'm talking about the big marble bank buildings with columns and broad marble floors. A real hike to the teller's window. Don't they pretty much serve the same function as the temples of old?   The first goal, post elementary function, is to make you feel small. The BANK is mighty. You are not. The High Priests of Finance, who inhabit the hall of grandeur are wiser than you. They have secret knowledge. They understand money: you do not! Trust them with your souls, er I mean, finances! Of course no where is this written out. It operates on a subliminal level. The unspoken language, much like those temples of old.

Have you ever looked at a gigantic bridge and thought, "Man, I couldn't even afford to buy one cable in a thing like this. Where'd the money come from?" Or how about just one of those monstrosities in Las Vegas? You know, the ones they spend a few years building and then blow it up a few years late to make room for the next one? I think "I only donated $40 to that outfit. That's not even what I paid for the dinner and tip! How do they do this? Some folks are losing an awful lot of money here." I imagine that maybe what Pharaohs' contemporaries thought when they saw the pyramids. That is definitely "design for effect" as opposed to "design for function". Or maybe not! Maybe that was the whole point.

How about ornamentation? How about music as a reflection of architecture? Rococo? Baroque? Both words describe musical periods and architectural style. Where does folk fit in or does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 May 08 - 08:59 AM

Folk music is the foundation, roof, walls, and floor. Essential, functional, possibly decorative, and without which the rest of the structure could not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 02 May 08 - 09:28 AM

Architecture- " The organisation of light and space" That's about all I can remember from my four years at Architecture School.... I'll get my coat!

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Slag
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:59 AM

I think of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Man is small. God is great and high above. The language of the middle ages and even the Renaissance, for the common man was that of symbols. Icons were big in the East and the symbol or rather the icon was said to participate in the reality to which the symbol pointed. The same can be said for the Church building. In the European churches the floor plan was invariably in the form of a cross with the light from on high splashing down on the nave, the crux. Then there were the Stations of the Cross. Bible reading (reading in general) was strongly discouraged as the "uninitiated" was certain to fall into error. Better leave that to the priests.

Then consider the floor plan of the Temple(s) at Jerusalem. It was a box-like affair. The biggest court was the first known as the Court of the Gentiles. This is where any and all could come and fellowship or worship, present sacrifices and make your petitions known to the priests or other minions. The next court was only for Jewish males and the third room was the Holy of Holies which sheltered the Ark of the Covenant and could only be entered once a year by the High Priest to make atonement for all of Israel. It has been noted that the Temple was a reflection of Man. There is the social face which is analogous to the Court of the Gentiles. It's where we meet our fellow man. Next is the sanctum of hearth and home where we meet and deal with our family and intimate friends. The Holy of Holies is the Soul of Man Where we meet our God, Whoever or Whatever that may be. All a study in architecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Slag
Date: 03 May 08 - 10:14 PM

I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity and ability to design your own home but if you have, what does your home say about you? Or you can design on paper a "dream home" and ask yourself the same question. If you live somewhere because of necessity, this too says something about you. And if you are unhappy in your digs, why? Does it have to do with the architecture? Location? Conditions of employment? It is something to think about.

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:34 AM

IF I were to design my own house, I would definitely want to include some of the elements HERE. I love the domed ceilings, arched windows and doors and the deep window seats, as well as the whimsical shapes etc.

Interesting thread.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Architecture
From: Slag
Date: 04 May 08 - 01:34 AM

Oh, cool, Kat! That one looks like old fashion Christmas ribbon candy! Nice organic feel to the architecture.