4 ms·

As an actual architect, this article is pretty hilarious. There are a couple of egregious things, such as the entry portal panel misalignment - that should hav

As an actual architect, this article is pretty hilarious. There are a couple of egregious things, such as the entry portal panel misalignment - that should have been (or will be?) fixed. Too important of an area to let that slide. The other items like small panel gaps, overextended saw cuts in pavers, etc... come on. I challenge anyone to go to any building ever and not find imperfections. Maybe surprisingly, building buildings is complex, and i'd rather goofballs complain about non-walkable rock areas then a building collapsing on itself. or its facade falling off. also: per code, railings can be gapped by 4" - its pretty much one of the only things installers need to make sure of so i'd be pretty surprised if that rail gap is > 4" last, one of the images has a piece of blue tape indicating a "fix this" marker. Looks like they (arch? owner? contractor?) said "nah".

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I don't know if you've been to the UK, but you should look at some Victorian building projects - town halls, libraries, theatres - for comparison. It's easy to ignore imperfections with a modern sensibility, but those older buildings were crafted in a way that modern buildings don't seem to be. The driving ethic was typically local pride, and the buildings were designed and built as public statements to showcase that. Modern mall projects seem to be the opposite. There's no pride among either designers or builders. Everyone is there to do a job, including the building - which is primarily a cash extraction machine optimised for ROI, ineptly dabbed with superficial signifiers of status so it can appear appealing to people with money they can be parted from. At a guess, that's what this article is really objecting to.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  Those buildings survived, lots of haphazard buildings were not crafted, but bungled together overtime, most didn't survive; so there is a selection bias at work. I actually like the imperfections. I would prefer that we build and tear down so that our cities are dynamic as opposed to creating things that can never be changed and never adapt. Sometimes that's ok, but if that is the only way we build, large areas will end up stuck in time and useless.
- esoterica 7y ago
  Is it a better use of public money to have one grand, expensive, and meticulously crafted library for tourists to gawk at, or 10 cheap and uninspiring ones that regular people can use on a daily basis? Old buildings were fancy because they were built by peacocking aristocrats with no accountability to and zero concern for the unwashed masses.
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    Can we have a little bit of both? I’d like to be able to study in a university-grade library (it doesn’t need to be a starchitect tourist trap). I understand that people need local libraries too. I don’t know why so many things have to be either or. Could we have 5 neighborhood libraries and 1 university grade library?
- antonvs 7y ago
  If that's the real objection, it seems pointless to pick on a specific project like this. The author should be writing pieces railing against mass-market capitalism's prioritization of profit over craftsmanship instead.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

I don't know if you've been to the UK, but you should look at some Victorian building projects - town halls, libraries, theatres - for comparison. It's easy to ignore imperfections with a modern sensibility, but those older buildings were crafted in a way that modern buildings don't seem to be. The driving ethic was typically local pride, and the buildings were designed and built as public statements to showcase that. Modern mall projects seem to be the opposite. There's no pride among either designers or builders. Everyone is there to do a job, including the building - which is primarily a cash extraction machine optimised for ROI, ineptly dabbed with superficial signifiers of status so it can appear appealing to people with money they can be parted from. At a guess, that's what this article is really objecting to.

digitaltrees 7y ago
Those buildings survived, lots of haphazard buildings were not crafted, but bungled together overtime, most didn't survive; so there is a selection bias at work. I actually like the imperfections. I would prefer that we build and tear down so that our cities are dynamic as opposed to creating things that can never be changed and never adapt. Sometimes that's ok, but if that is the only way we build, large areas will end up stuck in time and useless.
esoterica 7y ago
Is it a better use of public money to have one grand, expensive, and meticulously crafted library for tourists to gawk at, or 10 cheap and uninspiring ones that regular people can use on a daily basis? Old buildings were fancy because they were built by peacocking aristocrats with no accountability to and zero concern for the unwashed masses.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  Can we have a little bit of both? I’d like to be able to study in a university-grade library (it doesn’t need to be a starchitect tourist trap). I understand that people need local libraries too. I don’t know why so many things have to be either or. Could we have 5 neighborhood libraries and 1 university grade library?
antonvs 7y ago
If that's the real objection, it seems pointless to pick on a specific project like this. The author should be writing pieces railing against mass-market capitalism's prioritization of profit over craftsmanship instead.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]