3 ms·

Ultimately what the author is asking for isn't architectural diversity but longer lasting buildings: "It is hard to imagine that fifty years onward folks would

Ultimately what the author is asking for isn't architectural diversity but longer lasting buildings: "It is hard to imagine that fifty years onward folks would get excited about the one-plus-five buildings or contemplate an adaptive re-use. Too flimsy to last even that long, these buildings will probably have to be demolished once they become obsolete, unable to stand as the testimony of our times." He talks about strong or weak "bones" and contends that this sort of stick-built construction doesn't have good strong "bones."

pixl97 8y ago
Eh, with any maintenance those buildings will last at least 50 years. In the US the bigger issue is, in 50 years will it make any sense for the building owner to pay to maintain the building? Putting up a long lasting building in certain places in Detroit 50 years ago may have made sense... but now it could be in a completely worthless ghetto, everybody has moved from the area. Or, as the saying goes "In the US, 100 years is a long time"
- com2kid 8y ago
  It is good for the city! Those long lasting buildings are where affordable housing is found, it is where artists studios thrive, where community spaces are built. Cities need buildings that are durable, long lasting, and that have depreciated in value!
rsync 8y ago
"He talks about strong or weak "bones" and contends that this sort of stick-built construction doesn't have good strong "bones."" I used to have this bias and, to some degree still do - at least aesthetically. However, after building two homes I have come to really appreciate the strength and earthquake resiliency of stud walls clad with plywood sheathing. This kind of shear-wall structure is very strong and quite inexpensive. A "good building" made of brick or stone - like you see in Europe and the East Coast (and that I find very aesthetically pleasing) are very, very fragile to earth shaking. I don't think the "bones" are the problem - the problem is the dressing. Double thick insulation in the walls, noise isolated (or simply double-thick) sheetrock and a 1/4 layer of rubber between the subfloor and the flooring surface (and perhaps some other ingredients) are all you need to make a studwall/stickbuilt structure very, very "solid" and noise isolated, etc.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
He's also asking for architectural diversity, though. He spends a long paragraph complaining that the buildings are "trite," "predictable," "without true historic reference," and all the other stuff that I associate with smug architects who design pretty, unusable public buildings. His other arguments make sense to an extent, but frankly I tend not to trust any architectural commentary from people who judge a building by its cover, and I think the criticisms in these comments bear that out.

pixl97 8y ago

Eh, with any maintenance those buildings will last at least 50 years. In the US the bigger issue is, in 50 years will it make any sense for the building owner to pay to maintain the building? Putting up a long lasting building in certain places in Detroit 50 years ago may have made sense... but now it could be in a completely worthless ghetto, everybody has moved from the area. Or, as the saying goes "In the US, 100 years is a long time"

com2kid 8y ago
It is good for the city! Those long lasting buildings are where affordable housing is found, it is where artists studios thrive, where community spaces are built. Cities need buildings that are durable, long lasting, and that have depreciated in value!

rsync 8y ago

"He talks about strong or weak "bones" and contends that this sort of stick-built construction doesn't have good strong "bones."" I used to have this bias and, to some degree still do - at least aesthetically. However, after building two homes I have come to really appreciate the strength and earthquake resiliency of stud walls clad with plywood sheathing. This kind of shear-wall structure is very strong and quite inexpensive. A "good building" made of brick or stone - like you see in Europe and the East Coast (and that I find very aesthetically pleasing) are very, very fragile to earth shaking. I don't think the "bones" are the problem - the problem is the dressing. Double thick insulation in the walls, noise isolated (or simply double-thick) sheetrock and a 1/4 layer of rubber between the subfloor and the flooring surface (and perhaps some other ingredients) are all you need to make a studwall/stickbuilt structure very, very "solid" and noise isolated, etc.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

He's also asking for architectural diversity, though. He spends a long paragraph complaining that the buildings are "trite," "predictable," "without true historic reference," and all the other stuff that I associate with smug architects who design pretty, unusable public buildings. His other arguments make sense to an extent, but frankly I tend not to trust any architectural commentary from people who judge a building by its cover, and I think the criticisms in these comments bear that out.