4 ms·

I’m confused about the train shed example. What are you trying to say there? Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over the

by jiofih 6y ago

I’m confused about the train shed example. What are you trying to say there? Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over the world. It’s a matter of good design principles, materials science and factoring the human experience in architecture, which all good architects care for. Maybe the problem comes from people trying to make it on the cheap and cutting corners?

PaulHoule 6y ago
Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it, but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. In the case of that train shed, the innovative design is not going to improve the business results, and almost any desire to have a unique image can be pursued at low cost by putting a sign on or around the shed. If you want to keep that image fresh you can replace the sign at 0.01% the cost of replacing the building. The motivation of making a building that impresses other people is dangerous -- the Ancien Regime in France was motivated a lot by that but they found that that "track" leads to losing your head. Ironically, the shed was commissioned by people involved with the notorious Mellon family which did an astonishing amount of damage to the U.S. Economy and Political system circa 1975-2000. For one thing they refused to upgrade US steel production to use the basic oxygen furnace as Germany and Japan were doing -- and they used protectionism to keep their expensive low-quality steal going into U.S. products such as automobiles. Thus they harmed the competitiveness of US industry. After protectionism was discredented, the Mellons then went on to pay this guy https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/1400047285 https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-B... to promote fake scandals around Bill Clinton and ultimately maneuver him to get impeached. If somebody got them to listen for once and abandon one vainglorious scheme that would have been remarkable -- because it is just so hard to get people like that to listen! Heck, had somebody showed Louis 14 or 16 some tough love we might be watching "Keeping up with the Louises" on reality TV!
- watwut 6y ago
  > Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it That is quite unnecessary attack. The comment you are responding to was literally about those buildings NOT being flawed. The suggestion was that usage of design principles and materials and following the regulations lead to non-flawed innovative buildings. Also, Germany actually has pretty good legal system, there is no reason to imply they can be innovative only because law system does not work. > The motivation of making a building that impresses other people is dangerous -- the Ancien Regime in France was motivated a lot by that but they found that that "track" leads to losing your head. The French revolution did not happened because of architecture nor because of trying to impress other people. Really, there were way more important causes.
- rkangel 6y ago
  > Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it, but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. The article that we are commenting on here is about a property in the US where they had absolutely no legal recourse, either to the seller or the builder/architect. The timescales are too long with houses for there to be any guarantee of there being a business to be held liable.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    Not only that, in most of western Europe you get 5, 10 or more years builder guarantee, regulations are very strict, insurance is extremely cheap, full coverage and no-questions-asked. The majority of houses are concrete or masonry and not oversized wooden crates. I don’t even know how Germany came into the picture, but that attitude explains a lot of the boring “box with a sign on it” architecture.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. The courts are only a good remedy for the wealthy or if there's a lot of money at stake -- they said they bought the house for $105,000. Successfully suing the builder and/or seller could cost tens of thousands of dollars. Not many people can pay $30,000 in legal fees for a "possible" payout that might only be a portion of the price paid.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  The architect will blame the contractor.
- twobuy 6y ago
  Keeping up with the Quatorzes has a better ring to it. Keeping up with the Bourbons would make more sense. But, why shoe-horn your politics into this?
scott_s 6y ago
> Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over the world. I believe PaulHoule's point was not that innovative architecture will always be problematic. But, rather, that all buildings will encounter some problems, and those problems will require regular maintenance and solutions. If you have a "normal" house, then those maintenance and solutions are common and there are plenty of people out the in the world that you can hire to fix it. If you have a unique (or rare) kind of building, less people know how to help you. I am also confused about the train shed example, though. I'm curious to hear a clarification on that point.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  True about maintenance. Read this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_from_Las_Vegas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_from_Las_Vegas for the story about the Train shed; that book reveals the inner logic of contemporary vernacular architecture just as Jane Jacobs did for the prewar period. Also there is a "local knowledge" that rules supreme over indigenous people and other people -- in the US South people have awful problems with insects so you cannot necessarily translate experience in Pennsylvania there. Finally there is a "safety in numbers" in that a standardized house is a easily traded commodity. There is a system of finance, insurance, law, construction and other practices that make it likely if not certain that you can sell a conventional house for at least what you paid for it in a timely fashion.
branweb 6y ago
I think maybe the quoted response should be ""If we wanted this, we WOULDN'T have hired an architect." That clarifies the meaning at least.
- rspeele 6y ago
  Thank you. That makes it make sense.

by jiofih 6y ago

PaulHoule 6y ago

Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it, but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. In the case of that train shed, the innovative design is not going to improve the business results, and almost any desire to have a unique image can be pursued at low cost by putting a sign on or around the shed. If you want to keep that image fresh you can replace the sign at 0.01% the cost of replacing the building. The motivation of making a building that impresses other people is dangerous -- the Ancien Regime in France was motivated a lot by that but they found that that "track" leads to losing your head. Ironically, the shed was commissioned by people involved with the notorious Mellon family which did an astonishing amount of damage to the U.S. Economy and Political system circa 1975-2000. For one thing they refused to upgrade US steel production to use the basic oxygen furnace as Germany and Japan were doing -- and they used protectionism to keep their expensive low-quality steal going into U.S. products such as automobiles. Thus they harmed the competitiveness of US industry. After protectionism was discredented, the Mellons then went on to pay this guy https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/1400047285 https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-B... to promote fake scandals around Bill Clinton and ultimately maneuver him to get impeached. If somebody got them to listen for once and abandon one vainglorious scheme that would have been remarkable -- because it is just so hard to get people like that to listen! Heck, had somebody showed Louis 14 or 16 some tough love we might be watching "Keeping up with the Louises" on reality TV!

watwut 6y ago
> Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it That is quite unnecessary attack. The comment you are responding to was literally about those buildings NOT being flawed. The suggestion was that usage of design principles and materials and following the regulations lead to non-flawed innovative buildings. Also, Germany actually has pretty good legal system, there is no reason to imply they can be innovative only because law system does not work. > The motivation of making a building that impresses other people is dangerous -- the Ancien Regime in France was motivated a lot by that but they found that that "track" leads to losing your head. The French revolution did not happened because of architecture nor because of trying to impress other people. Really, there were way more important causes.
rkangel 6y ago
> Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it, but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. The article that we are commenting on here is about a property in the US where they had absolutely no legal recourse, either to the seller or the builder/architect. The timescales are too long with houses for there to be any guarantee of there being a business to be held liable.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Not only that, in most of western Europe you get 5, 10 or more years builder guarantee, regulations are very strict, insurance is extremely cheap, full coverage and no-questions-asked. The majority of houses are concrete or masonry and not oversized wooden crates. I don’t even know how Germany came into the picture, but that attitude explains a lot of the boring “box with a sign on it” architecture.
Johnny555 6y ago
in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will take advantage to the maximum possible. The courts are only a good remedy for the wealthy or if there's a lot of money at stake -- they said they bought the house for $105,000. Successfully suing the builder and/or seller could cost tens of thousands of dollars. Not many people can pay $30,000 in legal fees for a "possible" payout that might only be a portion of the price paid.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
The architect will blame the contractor.
twobuy 6y ago
Keeping up with the Quatorzes has a better ring to it. Keeping up with the Bourbons would make more sense. But, why shoe-horn your politics into this?

scott_s 6y ago

> Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over the world. I believe PaulHoule's point was not that innovative architecture will always be problematic. But, rather, that all buildings will encounter some problems, and those problems will require regular maintenance and solutions. If you have a "normal" house, then those maintenance and solutions are common and there are plenty of people out the in the world that you can hire to fix it. If you have a unique (or rare) kind of building, less people know how to help you. I am also confused about the train shed example, though. I'm curious to hear a clarification on that point.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PaulHoule 6y ago
True about maintenance. Read this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_from_Las_Vegas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_from_Las_Vegas for the story about the Train shed; that book reveals the inner logic of contemporary vernacular architecture just as Jane Jacobs did for the prewar period. Also there is a "local knowledge" that rules supreme over indigenous people and other people -- in the US South people have awful problems with insects so you cannot necessarily translate experience in Pennsylvania there. Finally there is a "safety in numbers" in that a standardized house is a easily traded commodity. There is a system of finance, insurance, law, construction and other practices that make it likely if not certain that you can sell a conventional house for at least what you paid for it in a timely fashion.

branweb 6y ago

I think maybe the quoted response should be ""If we wanted this, we WOULDN'T have hired an architect." That clarifies the meaning at least.

rspeele 6y ago
Thank you. That makes it make sense.