One characteristic of the old historic boxy buildings is that had great texture. Stone, hand made brick, lime plaster, and wood clapboards are all very rich materials. Modern materials, in contrast, like vinyl siding, acrylic stucco, cement based clapboards, are all pretty dull and lifeless. This obviously presents a big challenge for the designer who is striving to build a lovable modern boxy building.
While a box can be all of the things you treasure, Lloyd, like energy efficiency and low carbon, it seems that those are the ONLY things you want us to perceive as "having value".
Sorry, even being an engineer that is oft concerning with software efficiency with sparse UX (user experience) and wanting to be "elegant" (the fewer lines of code that actually the job done is best as opposed to bloatware), I disagree.
Sometimes, one's soul needs to be fed with "interestingly outward" (if such a phrase exists in your world) architecture that captures the eye and stimulates the sensory part of our brain.
Its a fair challenge to Heatherwick but it also seems to purposely misunderstand him as well as Bjarke. The key to understanding these architects is to understand the meaning of ‚yes is more‘ or ‚hedonistic sustainability‘. Hedonistic means selfish. Only for our benefit now. And sustainablity means the opposite. So how do we achieve both? The built environment should be fun but it should function well. Sometimes the two architects go overboard on the fun but the idea of sustainability is always considered. What proponents of passive houses get wrong is that the climate crisis is already here. As much as I would like to believe it we cannot modify the global temperature. That would be a truly incredible feat. Why should we live in drab stinking houses then?
Whoever said houses with simple geometries were drab? Compare the average McMansion with origami roofs, a bajillion bumpouts, and pastel colored paint (because vinyl siding apparently still can't take real colors without deforming) with an 18th century box-with-gable house or 19th century row house--which one is more fun? By all means go wild with ornamentation, but keep it outside the thermal envelope and keep the basic geometry simple.
Thank you for writing about my pet peeve! I would add that if one really wants more geegaws then build an efficient thermal box and add the geegaws OUTSIDE the thermal envelope.
I became a carpenter by building a house for my family when I was 26. I had no experience so I had to keep it simple. I built a large two-story box with a smaller third story box on top of it. That enabled me to make an interesting roof line that had large overhangs on the sides and then a wrap around balcony. It worked very well. Simple to build. Energy efficient. A little more interesting than a plain box to look at.
well, Heatherwick is like a fashion designer, when what we really need is a good tailor.
One characteristic of the old historic boxy buildings is that had great texture. Stone, hand made brick, lime plaster, and wood clapboards are all very rich materials. Modern materials, in contrast, like vinyl siding, acrylic stucco, cement based clapboards, are all pretty dull and lifeless. This obviously presents a big challenge for the designer who is striving to build a lovable modern boxy building.
I'm a fan of Opal, based here in Maine. But are three simple boxes making up one dwelling really an improvement over one more complicated box?
Good point. I should have picked a different example with one box.
Given the carbon costs of "fancy" buildings, I am going to be satisfied with having the art inside.
While a box can be all of the things you treasure, Lloyd, like energy efficiency and low carbon, it seems that those are the ONLY things you want us to perceive as "having value".
Sorry, even being an engineer that is oft concerning with software efficiency with sparse UX (user experience) and wanting to be "elegant" (the fewer lines of code that actually the job done is best as opposed to bloatware), I disagree.
Sometimes, one's soul needs to be fed with "interestingly outward" (if such a phrase exists in your world) architecture that captures the eye and stimulates the sensory part of our brain.
Its a fair challenge to Heatherwick but it also seems to purposely misunderstand him as well as Bjarke. The key to understanding these architects is to understand the meaning of ‚yes is more‘ or ‚hedonistic sustainability‘. Hedonistic means selfish. Only for our benefit now. And sustainablity means the opposite. So how do we achieve both? The built environment should be fun but it should function well. Sometimes the two architects go overboard on the fun but the idea of sustainability is always considered. What proponents of passive houses get wrong is that the climate crisis is already here. As much as I would like to believe it we cannot modify the global temperature. That would be a truly incredible feat. Why should we live in drab stinking houses then?
Whoever said houses with simple geometries were drab? Compare the average McMansion with origami roofs, a bajillion bumpouts, and pastel colored paint (because vinyl siding apparently still can't take real colors without deforming) with an 18th century box-with-gable house or 19th century row house--which one is more fun? By all means go wild with ornamentation, but keep it outside the thermal envelope and keep the basic geometry simple.
Thank you for writing about my pet peeve! I would add that if one really wants more geegaws then build an efficient thermal box and add the geegaws OUTSIDE the thermal envelope.
I became a carpenter by building a house for my family when I was 26. I had no experience so I had to keep it simple. I built a large two-story box with a smaller third story box on top of it. That enabled me to make an interesting roof line that had large overhangs on the sides and then a wrap around balcony. It worked very well. Simple to build. Energy efficient. A little more interesting than a plain box to look at.