3 ms·

>Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Like all things, Architecture is a rabbit hole. Every decision has a knock on effect. The floor plate depth is directly r

by cam_l 8y ago

>Sorry, you'll have to explain more. Like all things, Architecture is a rabbit hole. Every decision has a knock on effect. The floor plate depth is directly related to the amount of light and heat required. The ceiling heights need to be taller to allow ventilation (not feeling too stuffy). The windows need to be taller to let enough light and heat in, the taller the windows the more structure required between them to function (without steel of course). The unobstructed open area of the floor plate is limited to around 6m because you are using timber or stone arches to support the upper floor or roof. And sure, you can paste on a façade and use modern structure and servicing to get you halfway there, but then all of a sudden, the proportions of you Neoclassical, revivalist building are all out of whack. The inside of your building (arguably the part that matters to the inhabitants) still looks like a modern office, with a paper thin layer of stone stuck to the front obscuring your view. That, to be honest, is how we got McMansions.

deogeo 8y ago
Does this apply to all styles except the steel-and-glass Modern style? E.g. what about the Chrysler and Empire State buildings? And new residential buildings look very different from office buildings, but presumably don't cost an order of magnitude more per usable m^2 - is there something about office/commercial building requirements that tilts the preference towards Modern style?
- cam_l 8y ago
  I can see you are trying to find evidence to support your assumption. No problem, but respectfully, not really interested in playing that endless question and answer game. Yes, as I suggested before, lettable floor area is king. That is why commercial buildings are made from glass. There are other major differences, and also minor differences with large knock on effects. And no, not every traditional style building is an order of magnitude more expensive than every other style building. And yes, you can fake the stylistic appliqué. And yes, architects have thrashed that dead horse to death time and again over the last 600 years or so. The truth of it is that architecture is beholden to the same arcane and Byzantine cost structures that effect any other large scale, one off projects. Like those that make software engineering expensive (when programming is so cheap!). Or why don't they just make good movies these days?. The forces acting on architecture are strongly market driven, and if the forces pushed toward traditional methods, then those buildings would be built. They are not. And, I think architecture would be much easier to understand (and even be effected positively) if people, such as yourself could enumerate their actual requirements of buildings, internally, externally, publicly, privately, phenomenologically, metaphysically, and give some thought to the prioritisation of such requirements, and the deceptive complexity of satisfying them. If I could make this into a generalisation.. a product is its specification. If you just want a cheaper building (or car, website, or apple) you will get something that resembles that.

by cam_l 8y ago

deogeo 8y ago

Does this apply to all styles except the steel-and-glass Modern style? E.g. what about the Chrysler and Empire State buildings? And new residential buildings look very different from office buildings, but presumably don't cost an order of magnitude more per usable m^2 - is there something about office/commercial building requirements that tilts the preference towards Modern style?

cam_l 8y ago
I can see you are trying to find evidence to support your assumption. No problem, but respectfully, not really interested in playing that endless question and answer game. Yes, as I suggested before, lettable floor area is king. That is why commercial buildings are made from glass. There are other major differences, and also minor differences with large knock on effects. And no, not every traditional style building is an order of magnitude more expensive than every other style building. And yes, you can fake the stylistic appliqué. And yes, architects have thrashed that dead horse to death time and again over the last 600 years or so. The truth of it is that architecture is beholden to the same arcane and Byzantine cost structures that effect any other large scale, one off projects. Like those that make software engineering expensive (when programming is so cheap!). Or why don't they just make good movies these days?. The forces acting on architecture are strongly market driven, and if the forces pushed toward traditional methods, then those buildings would be built. They are not. And, I think architecture would be much easier to understand (and even be effected positively) if people, such as yourself could enumerate their actual requirements of buildings, internally, externally, publicly, privately, phenomenologically, metaphysically, and give some thought to the prioritisation of such requirements, and the deceptive complexity of satisfying them. If I could make this into a generalisation.. a product is its specification. If you just want a cheaper building (or car, website, or apple) you will get something that resembles that.