4 ms·
> Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over the world. I believe PaulHoule's point was not that innovative architecture wil
by 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 agoTrue 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.