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?
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.
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?
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?
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.