Starward Bound fanzine
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <33FD0A...@dnaco.net>, Scott Stalnaker <neuro...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>I'm the editor/publisher of the Starward Bound fan magazine.
Starward Bound. I've long been an admirer of Starward Bound. Why, I've been
reading his excellent, eclectic magazine CO-EVOLUTION QUARTERLY since 1975.
Then there were his books THE MEDIA LAB and HOW BUILDINGS LEARN, and of course
he also co-founded the Well. Yes, I remember Sta... <clonk>
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Ulrika
In article <5tmk2c$5...@news1.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
writes:
>Starward Bound. I've long been an admirer of Starward
>Bound. Why, I've been reading his excellent, eclectic
>magazine CO-EVOLUTION QUARTERLY since 1975.
>Then there were his books THE MEDIA LAB and HOW
>BUILDINGS LEARN, and of course
>he also co-founded the Well. Yes, I remember Sta... <clonk>
I harkened to -How Buildings Learn- a while back, while
rooming opposite the learning disabled UW architecture
building, during Westercon. It's just ironic that one of
the worst buildings on an otherwise beautiful campus
should be the *architecture* building, but it is typical.
Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio
***ulr...@aol.com***
John Richards
David G. Bell wrote:
>
> In article <3400c589...@news.karoo.co.uk>
> m...@mcgoff.karoo.co.uk "Mike Ford" writes:
>
> > On 23 Aug 1997 14:30:12 GMT, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
> >
> > > It's just ironic that one of
> > >the worst buildings on an otherwise beautiful campus
> > >should be the *architecture* building, but it is typical.
> >
> > University's city-centre buildings are terribly wonderful, but the one
> > housing the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment (or
> > whatever they're calling it this week) really takes the biscuit. It
> > is, for starters, a strange-shaped building that only got half built.
> > The unfinished end is a total mess of steel reinforcing rod ends. The
> > interior is totally unsuitable for its intended purpose. It's sinking
> > at one end at a significantly measurable rate. It is damp and has
> > always leaked.
> >
> > When new, it won an architectural award.
>
> The only structure I can recall seeing that _deserved_ the architectural
> award it had was a bridge. It's the footbridge across the river at
> Durham, beside the horribly ugly Students' Union building. Of course,
> bridge-building is really _engineering_. There is too much highly
> publicised architectural design which amounts to the back-of-an-envelope
> neat idea.
>
> Real Engineers use the back of a tablecloth.
My father's old maths professor used to get problems from the Astonomer
Royal which he used to work out over lunch and send back scribbled on
the menu.
--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't
our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
---Oxford University Press, Edpress News
Ulrika
In article <5u00kt$5...@news1.panix.com>, T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com>
writes:
>We'd have been less grumpy about it if we'd thought our
>bare unfinished walls were just a matter of the university
>being cheap. Knowing that it had been done on purpose, as
>an expression of some theory, made it so much worse.
Yes, Modernism Is Evil. Form follows fiasco, and all
that. Possibly the best thing that can be said about
Post-Modernism in architecture is that, with the injection
of humor in the lexicon of acceptable tropes, it isn't
as Serious About Theory as Modernism was, and therefore
a bit less likely to come up with unlivable buildings in the
name of some dumb, pretentious pseudo-philosophy.
Is this a good point at which to plug Christopher Alexander,
and, in particular, _A Pattern Language_? If so, plug, plug!
--Ulrika
Julian Warner
Ulrika wrote:
> Yes, Modernism Is Evil. Form follows fiasco, and all
> that. Possibly the best thing that can be said about
> Post-Modernism in architecture is that, with the injection
> of humor in the lexicon of acceptable tropes, it isn't
> as Serious About Theory as Modernism was, and therefore
> a bit less likely to come up with unlivable buildings in the
> name of some dumb, pretentious pseudo-philosophy.
Hear, Hear! Personally I think that it was a BIG mistake to
let architects believe that what they do is ART (always ART
with big letters for them). Some of the most pretentious
magazines I have ever seen have been written by architects
who fervently believe that all ART is driven by and originates
from architecture.
Maybe I'm prepared to believe that all BAD ART originates
from architecture...
julian.
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <34092B...@ncc1701.apana.org.au>,
Well, my theory (which is mine), is that the fundamental problem is
architects, and other artists, taking the wrong damn medium for what they
want to do. In general, The Great Failure of Modernism was that it tried
to argue theory in the medium that the theory was about, and the theory
turned out to be wrong. The masses really don't care about art that is
purely itself, supposedly free of theory. Huge monochrome canvases are,
when you get right down to it, just boring. Modernism was mostly a bunch
of philosopher wannabes (talk about the living definition of *sad*)
without the logic chops to generate rigorous proof trying to explicate a
theory in the medium of paint, sculpture, entire buildings, and so forth.
Trouble is, it's really hard to print a retraction of an opera house if
you find it was a bad argument. You can even build a new opera house,
but odds are the old one is still there, leaking rain because of its
theoretically annointed flat roof, and an acoustic nightmare thanks to
its doctrinally pure ceiling line. Architects, as it has been so
famously observed, are hard pressed to bury their mistakes.
In general, the best medium for explication, defense, and exploration
of theory is the written or spoken word. Let those whose souls flame
with the passion of True Vision write long, tedious tractati and leave
it at that. Or perhaps re-examine them every ten years. But as for
buildings, let them be built by someone with an eye not to theory, but
to the needs and wants of the people who will actually use them.
If this method produces fewer Great Works of Art, I will comfort
myself that it will also produce far, far fewer Great Blights On Humanity,
which rather outnumber the actual Works of Art under the current
regime anyway.
Now then, anybody want to buy a slightly used but well-loved
soapbox?
--Ulrika
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David E Romm
> Well, my theory (which is mine), is that the fundamental problem is
> architects, and other artists, taking the wrong damn medium for what they
> want to do. In general, The Great Failure of Modernism was that it tried
> to argue theory in the medium that the theory was about, and the theory
> turned out to be wrong.
[snip]
> But as for
> buildings, let them be built by someone with an eye not to theory, but
> to the needs and wants of the people who will actually use them.
[snip]
> Now then, anybody want to buy a slightly used but well-loved
> soapbox?
If so, you're not alone. See underquote.
I agree with some of what you say, but not others. Architecture should
build what people need. However, people need beauty. I'm not going to
defend or castigate modernism, but I don't mind Noble Failures Of Art if
the restrooms are cool. A building serves many purposes; to be in, and to
look at, and to come in under budget. A gorgeous building may be a
failure if it doesn't have enough closet space, and an ugly building may
be a success if the cook loves the kitchen.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Ulrika
>David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>>In article <873220...@dejanews.com>, uaob...@uci.edu wrote:
>>I agree with some of what you say, but not others. Architecture should
>>build what people need. However, people need beauty.
Um, Dave, if you imagine Art Theory is about beauty, I'm afraid you're
a couple of millenia behind the cutting theoretical edge. Being built
as an expression of theory does not discernibly enhance a building's
chances of being beautiful, indeed if the theory is Brutalism, the
chances are instead reduced to a functional zero. When I say that
buildings should be built to suit the needs of the people who use them,
this says nothing whatever about denying the need for beauty. But
the idea that the needs of the building inhabitants should be paramount
in making a building is virtually anathema to the majority of theorists in
architecture. Certainly beauty and utility are not what high theory in
architecture schools is usually aimed at. These are the sorts of things
I object to most especially about Modernism.
>>look at, and to come in under budget. A gorgeous building may be a
>>failure if it doesn't have enough closet space, and an ugly building may
>>be a success if the cook loves the kitchen.
How exactly does any of this disagree with what I said?
David E Romm
In article <19970904014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com
(Ulrika) wrote:
> >David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>In article <873220...@dejanews.com>, uaob...@uci.edu wrote:
>
> >>I agree with some of what you say, but not others. Architecture should
> >>build what people need. However, people need beauty.
>
> Um, Dave, if you imagine Art Theory is about beauty, I'm afraid you're
> a couple of millenia behind the cutting theoretical edge.
Oh piffle. Double piffle. You were talking about
capital-A-Architecture. My mother was an interior designer, and I grew up
with blueprints on the dining room table. You may decry what you percieve
as Failed High Art, but real people live in real buildings, and they want
functionality and beauty. I think you've read too many books on the wrong
subject, and haven't checked out the bathrooms in the neat buildings.
> Certainly beauty and utility are not what high theory in
> architecture schools is usually aimed at.
From experience, I have to say that you are simply wrong. Or, to put it
another way, few buildings use 'high theory', and prefer to cater to the
demands of the client, which are usually utilitarian in nature.
> >>look at, and to come in under budget. A gorgeous building may be a
> >>failure if it doesn't have enough closet space, and an ugly building may
> >>be a success if the cook loves the kitchen.
>
> How exactly does any of this disagree with what I said?
You pretty much insisted that there were no 'gorgeous buildings', if they
used Modernism/high theory.
Recap: Every now and then, you get on a High Horse about architecture,
and I always get the impression that you've been corrupted by Ayn Rand
more than you've actually looked to see if it's easy to clean the
windows. I haven't read as many books on the subject as you, and I think
I'm the better for it.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"Seek the wisdom of the ages, but look at the world through the eyes of a child." -- Ron Wild
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <romm-03099...@13-123.dynamic.visi.com>,
ro...@visi.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
> In article <19970904014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com
> (Ulrika) wrote:
>
> > >David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >>In article <873220...@dejanews.com>, uaob...@uci.edu wrote:
> >
> > >>I agree with some of what you say, but not others. Architecture should
> > >>build what people need. However, people need beauty.
> >
> > Um, Dave, if you imagine Art Theory is about beauty, I'm afraid you're
> > a couple of millenia behind the cutting theoretical edge.
>
> Oh piffle. Double piffle. You were talking about
> capital-A-Architecture. My mother was an interior designer, and I grew up
> with blueprints on the dining room table. You may decry what you percieve
> as Failed High Art, but real people live in real buildings, and they want
> functionality and beauty. I think you've read too many books on the wrong
> subject, and haven't checked out the bathrooms in the neat buildings.
There's a reason I hardly ever trouble to read your posts any more,
Dave. A: "Buildings should not be to argue theory." B:"Have you
ever looked at the bathroom in a neat building?" Can somebody
explain to me how B is not a complete non-sequitur to A, and how
what Dave is on about relates, except by being about architecture,
to what I said?
> > Certainly beauty and utility are not what high theory in
> > architecture schools is usually aimed at.
>
> From experience, I have to say that you are simply wrong. Or, to put it
> another way, few buildings use 'high theory', and prefer to cater to the
> demands of the client, which are usually utilitarian in nature.
This is not "putting it another way" this is saying two different things,
for the first, and for the second, in the instance of Modernism, there
was an actual, sharp decline in the Architect taking any direction
from the client whatever. Another problem with modernism.
> > >>look at, and to come in under budget. A gorgeous building may be a
> > >>failure if it doesn't have enough closet space, and an ugly building may
> > >>be a success if the cook loves the kitchen.
> >
> > How exactly does any of this disagree with what I said?
>
> You pretty much insisted that there were no 'gorgeous buildings', if they
> used Modernism/high theory.
I did no such thing. You are on another planet.
> Recap: Every now and then, you get on a High Horse about architecture,
> and I always get the impression that you've been corrupted by Ayn Rand
> more than you've actually looked to see if it's easy to clean the
> windows. I haven't read as many books on the subject as you, and I think
> I'm the better for it.
My, this is typical Romm cluelessness at its finest. No wonder you
aren't actually in the same conversation I am. You're having speech
with your impressions and assumptions. If you want an idea of
what I've read, try Tom Wolf and Christopher Alexander for a
start instead. It is precisely things like beauty and whether its
easy to clean the windows that I am talking about, and their importance
to the merit of buildings, and the fact that you think I think the
opposite and are disagreeing with me shows a good deal more
about your ability to read into than about what I said.
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <19970904014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
>>David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>In article <873220...@dejanews.com>, uaob...@uci.edu wrote:
>
>>>I agree with some of what you say, but not others. Architecture should
>>>build what people need. However, people need beauty.
>
>Um, Dave, if you imagine Art Theory is about beauty, I'm afraid you're
>as an expression of theory does not discernibly enhance a building's
>chances of being beautiful, indeed if the theory is Brutalism, the
>chances are instead reduced to a functional zero. When I say that
>buildings should be built to suit the needs of the people who use them,
>this says nothing whatever about denying the need for beauty. But
>the idea that the needs of the building inhabitants should be paramount
>in making a building is virtually anathema to the majority of theorists in
>architecture. Certainly beauty and utility are not what high theory in
>architecture schools is usually aimed at. These are the sorts of things
>I object to most especially about Modernism.
Well, Modernism is not exactly the cutting theoretical edge in architecture,
either. I agree with your general views, but there's an extent to which the
above sounds rather like someone complaining about these modern whippersnapper
writers like that Gertrude Stein and F. Scott Whatshisname.
David G. Bell
> Well, Modernism is not exactly the cutting theoretical edge in architecture,
> either. I agree with your general views, but there's an extent to which the
> above sounds rather like someone complaining about these modern whippersnapper
> writers like that Gertrude Stein and F. Scott Whatshisname.
F.Scott Fitzcarraldo, I think you mean....
And architecture should be a combination of art and engineering. All
the good looks in the world (however one defines 'good looks') are worth
sweet fanny adams if the building can't keep the weather out, or meet
the functional requirements.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <8733875...@dejanews.com>, uaob...@uci.edu wrote:
>There's a reason I hardly ever trouble to read your posts any more,
>Dave. A: "Buildings should not be to argue theory." B:"Have you
>ever looked at the bathroom in a neat building?" Can somebody
>explain to me how B is not a complete non-sequitur to A, and how
>what Dave is on about relates, except by being about architecture,
>to what I said?
For what it's worth, this is frequently my experience of Dave's posts.
I think Dave kind of locked in some years ago on what he thinks the great
basic dichotomies are, and he has a hard time adjusting when someone makes
assertions which are orthogonal to them.
P Nielsen Hayden
I quite agree. Weren't we discussing Stewart Brand's -- oops, I mean
"Starward Bound's" -- excellent book HOW BUILDINGS LEARN around here just a
little ways back? If we weren't, well, I recommend it. In fact, as critics
of modern (and Modern) architecture go, Brand leaves Tom Wolfe looking windy
and choleric.
Marlin May
David G. Bell wrote:
> F.Scott Fitzcarraldo, I think you mean....
>
> And architecture should be a combination of art and engineering. All
> the good looks in the world (however one defines 'good looks') are worth
> sweet fanny adams if the building can't keep the weather out, or meet
> the functional requirements.
>
> --
> David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Exactly. The original Tacoma-Narrows bridge was a beautiful design. It
posessed a sveltness (is that a word?) the belied the fact that it
consisted of megatons of material. Unfortunately it had this one problem
with the wind...
--
Marlin May -md...@psu.edu
The Pennsylvania State University
814-353-1231
http://www.doublefeature.com
T Nielsen Hayden
But...but there are some really cool Modernist buildings! Take
Rockefeller Center: grand, weird, and more functional than you'd ever
guess. (The underground concourses do a lot for the convenience
factor.) It's not my absolute favorite piece of large 20th C. urban design
in NYC, but that's only because I think Battery Park City (Pure PoMo For
Now People) is a marvel.
There's also a fair amount of Modernist literature and art I'm very fond
of. And then there's my Granny, who's unquestionably a Modernist, and I
wouldn't swap her for the world.
(Hmmm. Does Rockefeller Center count as Modernist? I think it does. Lever
House & Progeny aren't the whole of Modernist architecture.)
I don't like bad art -- who does? -- but God forbid I should ignore what's
good.
(...)
For the record, I didn't think Dave Romm was being a complete fool.
:: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::
:: t...@panix.com ::: fwa ::
David E Romm
> For the record, I didn't think Dave Romm was being a complete fool.
EIAA...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
Saturday 9/6 6pm: The 1996 Minicon Opening Ceremonies
Clifford R. Wind
On 5 Sep 1997 00:40:13 GMT, T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>(Hmmm. Does Rockefeller Center count as Modernist? I think it does. Lever
>House & Progeny aren't the whole of Modernist architecture.)
Umm, modernist, maybe. "Modern Architecture", no. The Rockefeller
Center is Art Deco and predates "Modern".
>I don't like bad art -- who does? -- but God forbid I should ignore what's
>good.
A good point lies within that statement. Much if not most of what is
pointed at when "Modern" architecture is decried is not the best of
that style (the examples that presumably best illustrate the theory of
that style) but the worst, the cheap knockoffs, the unskilled
imitations. This is of course true of much besides Modern
Architecture.
Clifford R. Wind
The Cult of the Three Little Lines
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <5unkdd$7...@news1.panix.com>,
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> But...but there are some really cool Modernist buildings! Take
> Rockefeller Center: grand, weird, and more functional than you'd ever
> guess. (The underground concourses do a lot for the convenience
> factor.) It's not my absolute favorite piece of large 20th C. urban design
> in NYC, but that's only because I think Battery Park City (Pure PoMo For
> Now People) is a marvel.
>
> There's also a fair amount of Modernist literature and art I'm very fond
> of. And then there's my Granny, who's unquestionably a Modernist, and I
> wouldn't swap her for the world.
>
> (Hmmm. Does Rockefeller Center count as Modernist? I think it does. Lever
> House & Progeny aren't the whole of Modernist architecture.)
I'm not sure about Rockefeller Center. There were, apparently, a
number of American architects developing a native school of Industrial
style without quite the encumbering theoretical baggage of the
true Modernists. Those largely fell out of favor once the gospel,
liturgy, and catechism were imported from Europe. I don't actually
know which tradition the Rockefeller Center was built out of.
Which is not to say that I am unprepared to concede that there are some
cool modernist buildings, but just not sure if that's an instance of one.
My sense, though, is that when a good building was built by a Modernist
it happened despite, rather than because of, the theoretical baggage.
> I don't like bad art -- who does? -- but God forbid I should ignore what's
> good.
Not saying you should. Not saying all modern art is bad, but that
the theory is a failure and a bad way to work out theories.
> (...)
>
> For the record, I didn't think Dave Romm was being a complete fool.
All of my answers to that seem to be coming out in the voice of
Peter Sellers, so I think I'll pass.
--Ulrika
David G. Bell
In article <340F7A...@psu.edu>
md...@psu.edu.remove_to_reply "Marlin May" writes:
>
> David G. Bell wrote:
> > F.Scott Fitzcarraldo, I think you mean....
> >
> > And architecture should be a combination of art and engineering. All
> > the good looks in the world (however one defines 'good looks') are worth
> > sweet fanny adams if the building can't keep the weather out, or meet
> > the functional requirements.
> >
> > --
> > David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
>
> Exactly. The original Tacoma-Narrows bridge was a beautiful design. It
> posessed a sveltness (is that a word?) the belied the fact that it
> consisted of megatons of material. Unfortunately it had this one problem
> with the wind...
Yet that bridge, and the longer Verrazano Narrows bridge which was
heavily reinforced after it was built, on account of the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge falling down, were both built according to the best engineering
knowledge of the time.
The trouble is that architects often present the appearance of being
only concerned with the looks of a building, and of caring little for
the engineering practicalities.
But perhaps I am biased. One of the companions of my schooldays went
for being an architect, and got onto the degree course, with no
qualifications past O-level covering the 'sciences'. Not even that
foundation of engineering and sciece which is mathematics.
Gary J. Ehrlich
David G. Bell wrote:
> The trouble is that architects often present the appearance of being
> only concerned with the looks of a building, and of caring little for
> the engineering practicalities.
>
> But perhaps I am biased.
No, you're right on the money. I'm a structural engineer working at an
full-service architecture/engineering firm (we do the whole bldg, looks,
structure, wiring, mechanical, etc.). You should see what the architects
try and leave me to work with--in what should otherwise be simple one- or
two-story buildings.
In particular, they like leaving me four intersecting beams to connect in
mid-air (they've forgotten to provide a column at the intersection). Now,
mind you, I **can** tie those four beams to each other, but the cost of
doing such (in bolts, welds, and construction time) makes it **much**
simpler and cheaper to just give me a column...of course, I usually get one
as soon as I point this out...
-- Gary
--
"Gorgeous" Gary Ehrlich
Visit Electro's Hideaway!!
http://www.access.digex.net/~electro/electro.html
"Life is a bowl of Oreo cookies" -- Urban Tapestry
Ulrika
In article <romm-04099...@13-123.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) writes:
>Well, at least I'm operating at peak efficiency. I tend to see buildings
>as half full and you see them as half vacant. You go read some books,
>I'll take the elevator.
You know, it is entirely in character for you to object to a discussion
of the problems in a theory with a non-sequitur about how the topic
of practice isn't being addressed, and then act smug as if you had
said something germane and clever, instead of utterly beside the point,
as usual. The trouble with your habit of saying things that are, really,
apropos of nothing that went before them other than some of the same
words being used, without so flagging them, is that it's cute for about
three seconds and then it's annoying for aeons.
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <romm-03099...@13-123.dynamic.vis
i.com>, David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> writes
>From experience, I have to say that you are simply wrong. Or, to put it
>another way, few buildings use 'high theory', and prefer to cater to the
>demands of the client, which are usually utilitarian in nature.
This is true. But in some situations the utilitarian approach might
result in an unusable building. The first use that the design is put to
is to raise funds to get it built. An awful design by a famous architect
stands more chance of being built than a beautiful design by someone
with no track-record.
Cynical, moi?
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Ulrika
In article <5umcfu$q...@news1.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
writes:
>Well, Modernism is not exactly the cutting theoretical edge in architecture,
>either. I agree with your general views, but there's an extent to which the
>above sounds rather like someone complaining about these modern
>whippersnapper
>writers like that Gertrude Stein and F. Scott Whatshisname.
Yeah, yeah, granted, of course, Modernism is decades out, never
claimed otherwise. But some of the dumb theoretical tropes of
Modernism have not been shook loose of their hold in schools of
architecture, so the damn stuff is still ramifying in that way, and of
course, even with shoddy crap like Pereira built at UCI, it's still decades
from when anybody will decide the stuff is unsalvagably rotten in the
concrete and submit it to the benediction of a wrecking ball.
Really, it just took me utterly by surprise, Dave talking like the
need for beauty was an objection to objecting to Modernism. Beauty
theories of aesthetics went out with the pre-Socratic Greeks, so we're
talking orders of magnitude farther out of date.
Ulrika
In article <5unelh$5...@news1.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
writes:
>I quite agree. Weren't we discussing Stewart Brand's -- oops, I mean
>"Starward Bound's" -- excellent book HOW BUILDINGS LEARN around here just a
>little ways back? If we weren't, well, I recommend it. In fact, as critics
>of modern (and Modern) architecture go, Brand leaves Tom Wolfe looking windy
>and choleric.
Wolfe is somewhat windy and choleric, but that doesn't make him wrong.
Ulrika
In article <340FA2...@nospamdm.net>, Mark Kreighbaum
<ma...@nospamdm.net> writes:
>I was going to natter about Eichler houses, but now I am afraid.
Ah, Eichlers. D'you know how fast they burn down? Hint: If you didn't
set the fire yourself, you won't get out alive. And more of the dopey
flat roof trope "because peaked roofs are a symbolic approval of monarchy
and classism" (I kid you not) which means leaky flat roofs. And rotten
insulation. And that central interior court that means you have to step out
into the weather to answer the front damn door. Brilliant, that.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
David E Romm
In article <19970906051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com
(Ulrika) wrote:
This is a non-sequitur on your part. Your whole reaction is puzzling (and
VERY offensive). Let's see if we can at least agree with what the heck
we're talking about.
From your post to Patrick:
> Really, it just took me utterly by surprise, Dave talking like the
> need for beauty was an objection to objecting to Modernism. Beauty
> theories of aesthetics went out with the pre-Socratic Greeks, so we're
> talking orders of magnitude farther out of date.
You were decrying Modernism because architects were making High Art
instead of buildings, and I was disagreeing, saying that in my experience
that wasn't true. I even very much disagree that 'the theory of
aesthetics went out with the pre-Socratic Greeks'. Greek architecture is
quite beautiful, for the most part, and aesthetics were a big part of it.
The columns in the Parthenon flare out so they LOOK straight.
Getting back to more recent buildings (ie built in this century), you seem
to be insisting that said buildings are ugly and don't work. This is a
value judgment on your part, and you're entitled to your opinion. But my
experience has been very different. There are, to be sure, buildings I
find ugly, and buildings I think are very poorly designed. Sometimes I
find fault with the architect, and sometimes the interior designer,
sometimes the contractor and sometimes the owner.
There are many aspects to a building, from how it looks on the outside to
how it looks on the inside to how it works for the people in the building
to how it fits in with the surroundings. Part of my disagreement with you
is that even buildings which are ugly, by my judgment, may work pretty
well once you get inside. And buildings that are beautiful on the outside
might not work inside. The architect is important, but won't necessarily
make the final decision on whether you need a key to get into the
bathrooms. Your railing against Modernism is all well and good, but not
the whole story of a structure. I'm trying to point this out to you, and
you don't seem to be able to accept this.
Perhaps you could give examples of buildings you think are bad Modernism,
and buildings you think are good. Perhaps you can define 'Modernism' in
such a way that I could figure out what you're against.
To return the ad hominem: It's entirely in character for you to a) extend
a definition of 'Modernism' over 3000 years of architecture, b) change
definitions in the middle of an argument, c) retreat farther and farther
into esoteric theory while ignoring what people actually use, and d)
refuse to understand when I make an on-topic point from a different
direction than yours. Once again, your version of 'formal logical
argument' fails.
I try not to be nasty in print (and am only in slow burn here), and either
eschew the comment entirely or take it to e-mail, but you insist on
posting and right now I've very pissed at you. I killfile Gary in threads
where he's completely lost it, and you're about to be relegated to the
same fate. Maybe that would be better for both of us.
PS: Peter Sellers did so many voices and characters even he was lost.
"There used to be a me, but I had him surgically removed." That you think
you sound like Sellers speaks to point b) above.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"We don't paint floors because they're beneath us." -- Animaniacs
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <romm-06099...@13-64.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) wrote:
>Perhaps you could give examples of buildings you think are bad Modernism,
>and buildings you think are good. Perhaps you can define 'Modernism' in
>such a way that I could figure out what you're against.
This is a demonstration of why discussing this stuff with you is a
non-starter. Ulrika and Teresa and Clifford and some others at least know
some actual modern architecture history, so they can discuss whether (say)
Rockefeller Center is or is not a Modernist building.
After a great lot of verbiage, it transpires that you don't actually know
anything. It is just beginning to dawn on you that "Modernism", in the
context of architecture, means something more specific than "buildings put up
recently."
Obviously, individuals may disagree on where the precise boundaries of
Modernism as a historical movement lie, and which buildings do and do not
express its values. But you're like the fellow who walked into the Mondrian
room at MOMA one day several years ago, while Teresa and Tom Weber and I were
looking at the paintings. "Ah," he said portentously to his girlfriend.
"Cubism." Tom and I rushed to catch Teresa as she fell.
Alison Scott
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>Obviously, individuals may disagree on where the precise boundaries of
>Modernism as a historical movement lie, and which buildings do and do not
>express its values. But you're like the fellow who walked into the Mondrian
>room at MOMA one day several years ago, while Teresa and Tom Weber and I were
>looking at the paintings. "Ah," he said portentously to his girlfriend.
>"Cubism." Tom and I rushed to catch Teresa as she fell.
Ah. As Steven & I grow older, and hence more familiar, and therefore
have nothing to say to each other any more, eavesdropping in
restaurants, museums, pubs, shops, 11 hour queues to sign books of
condolence (imagine the last part struckthrough), and so forth, has
become one of our favourite games. I commend it. This anecdote is
quite mild compaired to the claptrap that people will talk about in
restaurants when they're trying to get off with their dinner
companion.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Now with added cobwebs: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Ulrika
In article <romm-06099...@13-64.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) writes:
No, I did not say this. You misunderstood.
>and I was disagreeing, saying that in my experience
>that wasn't true.
Yes, you were disagreeing with something I did not say, this
is what I am objecting to.
> I even very much disagree that 'the theory of
>aesthetics went out with the pre-Socratic Greeks'.
See, even here you cannot quote properly, and distort what I say.
I did not say that the theory of aesthetics went out with the
pre-socratics, I said *beauty* theories went out then. A beauty
theory of aesthetics is one that limits the purpose and extent
of art to the creation of beauty. Long discretited. Honest.
>Greek architecture is
>quite beautiful, for the most part, and aesthetics were a big part of it.
>The columns in the Parthenon flare out so they LOOK straight.
Much of Greek architecture is also...wait for it...pre-Socratic. The
Parthenon was built when Socrates was 22, and in the Doric order,
and primarily influenced, if anything, by the theories of Pythagoras,
thus effectively pre-Socratic. But at any rate just because a building
happens to be beautiful, and is built influenced by an aesthetic theory
does not demonstrate that it was built according to a beauty theory
of architecture. That's a bad inference.
>Getting back to more recent buildings (ie built in this century), you seem
>to be insisting that said buildings are ugly and don't work.
Patrick is right. You seem to think that "Modernism" is buildings built
in this century, and draw false conclusions from this. Presumably
this is why again, here, you claim something which is much more sweeping
than, and skew to, what I have said. I never said that all buildings of
the 20th century were failed buildings. This is nonsense. As I say, you're
arguing in a different conversation than the one I am in. The Craftsman
bungalos of the brothers Green, for instance, were all built in the 20th
century, are not Modern, and are exquisite. Wonderful. I am quite fond
of some of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, and I think some want to argue
that he's a Modern, though in fact he was ignored and sidelined after the
rise of the Bauhaus and their crowd.
> This is a
>value judgment on your part, and you're entitled to your opinion.
Thank you, but this isn't my opinion. You're arguing with a straw man
of your own creation.
>But my
>experience has been very different. There are, to be sure, buildings I
>find ugly, and buildings I think are very poorly designed. Sometimes I
>find fault with the architect, and sometimes the interior designer,
>sometimes the contractor and sometimes the owner.
This is my experience too, but is, in fact, entirely beside any point
I have made thus far, as I have said.
>There are many aspects to a building, from how it looks on the outside to
>how it looks on the inside to how it works for the people in the building
>to how it fits in with the surroundings. Part of my disagreement with you
>is that even buildings which are ugly, by my judgment, may work pretty
>well once you get inside. And buildings that are beautiful on the outside
>might not work inside. The architect is important, but won't necessarily
>make the final decision on whether you need a key to get into the
>bathrooms. Your railing against Modernism is all well and good, but not
>the whole story of a structure. I'm trying to point this out to you, and
>you don't seem to be able to accept this.
I'm happy to accept it Dave, I just think it's a non-sequitur to what I
said. Off the point. Since I never said that architecture theory, good
or bad, determines every feature of a building it's a nice enough point,
but doesn't disagree with, or address, what I have said.
>Perhaps you could give examples of buildings you think are bad Modernism,
>and buildings you think are good. Perhaps you can define 'Modernism' in
>such a way that I could figure out what you're against.
Perhaps you should read some of those books on architecture
you claim to have read for content this time, and I bet one of them
will tell you what Modern is, with respect to architecture. It really isn't
my job to educate you so you can carry on your half of an argument.
>To return the ad hominem: It's entirely in character for you to a) extend
>a definition of 'Modernism' over 3000 years of architecture,
Interesting. And where did I do this?
>b) change definitions in the middle of an argument,
Again, specific citation, please.
>c) retreat farther and farther into esoteric theory while ignoring what
>people actually use,
Dave, I *started* *out* talking theory and you, irrelevantly to anything I
actually said, introduced pragmatics as you see them. How is this a
case of me retreating into esoteric theory? How does it come to be my
fault that you launched yourself into an argument about Modern architecture
(not, mind you, contemporary architecture) without knowing what Modern
architecture is?
>and d)
>refuse to understand when I make an on-topic point from a different
>direction than yours.
Yes, you're right that this is in character for me, from your perspective.
This is not how I see the transaction, but I'm sure you do.
>Once again, your version of 'formal logical
>argument' fails.
Dave, this is a claim you make, falsely, on a regular basis. You
honestly, and I say this with no malice, do not have the experience
nor the rhetorical and logical tools to recognize a failed argument
when you see one. A failed argument is a very technical sort of thing,
a matter of fact, and of limited application when what is really at issue
is a failure to communicate.
Seth Breidbart
In article <873461...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The trouble is that architects often present the appearance of being
>only concerned with the looks of a building, and of caring little for
>the engineering practicalities.
Or the user practicalities. I've warned people about building
suffering from what I call "famous architect syndrome". Those are
buildings designed to look good in photographs in architectural
magazines, while being less than idea to live and/or work in.
Which is better: a large marble lobby, or a restaurant, drugstore, and
newsstand accessible from the lobby? (I know my answer, as a person
working in that building.)
Seth
Kevin J. Maroney
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:43:30 -0400, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
wrote:
>"Cubism." Tom and I rushed to catch Teresa as she fell.
Literally, I assume. Oy.
Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
XNimshubur
In article <5uut91$d...@panix3.panix.com>, se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart)
writes:
Amen!
I work in a building that won an architectural award. The 40-foot tall
curved-glass windows are very pretty, but they cause no end of trouble in
an area which needs to be semi-dark most of the time. And the utility
bills are outrageous.
We could have had a much larger building, far better suited to its use,
for much less money.
Doug Wickstrom
E-mail: remove the "X" from the addy. If you forget,
your mail won't bounce, but may never be read.
"Farming looks easy when your plow is a pencil and you're
a thousand miles from a cornfield." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
T Nielsen Hayden
Mark Kreighbaum <ma...@nospamdm.net> wrote:
> T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >
> > But...but there are some really cool Modernist buildings! Take...
<natter natter natter>
> I was going to natter about Eichler houses, but now I am afraid.
Why? I've heard you talk about art. You were real good at it.
-tnh
Loren MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sat, 06 Sep 1997 15:43:30 GMT, p...@panix.com
(P Nielsen Hayden) said:
>
>In article <romm-06099...@13-64.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
>(David E Romm) wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you could give examples of buildings you think are bad Modernism,
>>and buildings you think are good. Perhaps you can define 'Modernism' in
>>such a way that I could figure out what you're against.
>
>This is a demonstration of why discussing this stuff with you is a
>non-starter. Ulrika and Teresa and Clifford and some others at least know
>some actual modern architecture history, so they can discuss whether (say)
>Rockefeller Center is or is not a Modernist building.
>
>After a great lot of verbiage, it transpires that you don't actually know
>anything. It is just beginning to dawn on you that "Modernism", in the
>context of architecture, means something more specific than "buildings put up
>recently."
>
>Obviously, individuals may disagree on where the precise boundaries of
>Modernism as a historical movement lie, and which buildings do and do not
>express its values. But you're like the fellow who walked into the Mondrian
>room at MOMA one day several years ago, while Teresa and Tom Weber and I were
>looking at the paintings. "Ah," he said portentously to his girlfriend.
>"Cubism." Tom and I rushed to catch Teresa as she fell.
Or, as Tom Stoppard once remarked, "Cretinous pig-faced git."
-- LJM
Loren MacGregor
lmac...@efn.org
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk (Rob Hansen) writes:
>Richard Rogers had the bright idea of putting all the services on the
>outside of the building, something people don't do very often. There's
>a reason for this. He doubtless thought he was being radical and
>innovative, but what he ended up with was services that didn't
>actually work and a lot of expensive retrofitting of more conventional
>services. Any engineer could've told him this would happen, and it's a
Were similar changes needed in the Centre Georges Pompidou, the modern
art museum in Paris with all the services on the outside?
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Cally Soukup
Ulrika (ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
: arguing in a different conversation than the one I am in. The Craftsman
: bungalos of the brothers Green, for instance, were all built in the 20th
: century, are not Modern, and are exquisite. Wonderful. I am quite fond
: of some of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, and I think some want to argue
: that he's a Modern, though in fact he was ignored and sidelined after the
: rise of the Bauhaus and their crowd.
I'm not familiar with the Craftsman bungalows -- can you give me a brief
description? Oh, and I thought Frank Lloyd Wright was of the Prairie
school, but I'm quite prepared to be wrong.
B. Vermo
In article <5v9sfv$a...@panix2.panix.com>,
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
|
|Were similar changes needed in the Centre Georges Pompidou, the modern
|art museum in Paris with all the services on the outside?
The Centre Pompidou is rather more than just an art museum. I seem to
recall that they did some major maintenance a few years ago, but the way
it is built the ductwork on the outside looks fairly well protected and Paris
has a quite clement climate.
Norwegian proponents of brutalism and similar trends have opted to expose
their tubes and ducts on the inside of the concrete shell for quite
obvious reasons. I have nothing aginst modern architecture, be it
Bauhaus, le Corbusier or Holl, in principle or generally speaking. What
I dislike, and what I think many people with no particular interest or
knowledge instinctively react to, is the placement of many modern
buildings. Old building traditions demanded that the building fit into
the surroundings, while most modern buildings have been designed
to stand out as much as possible. And, obviously, we have the same
80/20 rule in architecture as with other artistic works. When the 80%
which apply undigested elements of le Corbusier by rote and are
three leagues below Alvar Aalto make buildings meant to stand out,
few will be very enthusiastic. The eclectic style of the 1880s was
much more forgiving to medocrity or worse.
Ulrika
In article <CoQH0gRD...@bigblue.no>, b...@bigblue.no (B. Vermo) writes:
> When the 80%
>which apply undigested elements of le Corbusier by rote and are
>three leagues below Alvar Aalto make buildings meant to stand out,
>few will be very enthusiastic.
Given that one of the most thoroughly nasty features of
the already nasty JFK is the Alvar Aalto TWA terminal, you
may well be more right than you realize.
Though, for whatever reasons, Scandinavian Modernists seem
to have put up fewer genuinely horrible buildings than their more
southern compatriots.
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <19970916112...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
>In article <CoQH0gRD...@bigblue.no>, b...@bigblue.no (B. Vermo) writes:
>
>> When the 80%
>>which apply undigested elements of le Corbusier by rote and are
>>three leagues below Alvar Aalto make buildings meant to stand out,
>>few will be very enthusiastic.
>
>Given that one of the most thoroughly nasty features of
>the already nasty JFK is the Alvar Aalto TWA terminal, you
>may well be more right than you realize.
You can say that again. We rarely use JFK, but we had occasion to pick up our
nephew at the TWA terminal there a few months ago. It's apalling--high
Kubrick covered with ancient grease and chewing gum. To save energy, the
great sweepingly-curved windows have had blinds installed, and the blinds have
become streaked with shit from all the birds that get into the terminal.
All the futuristic fine points have been worn off over the years; every corner
of the building is dented and decayed. It is a profoundly depressing space.
FitchDonS
On 14 Sept. '97, in Message-ID: <5vhnlu$1...@root.two14.lan>
(References: <romm-06099...@13-64.dynamic.visi.com>
<19970907153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>), Cally Soukup
(ma...@mcs.com) Posted:
<quote from Ulrika snipped>
>I'm not familiar with the Craftsman bungalows -- can you give me
>a brief description? Oh, and I thought Frank Lloyd Wright was of
>the Prairie school, but I'm quite prepared to be wrong.
For architecture, you really need good pictures, or much better, a
personal visit. For all practical purposes, the Craftsman
bungalows are the Southern California version of Prairie school
ones (or vice-versa). Wright, Greene, and Stickley furniture
would be about equally at home in either of them. The Greene
brothers (one of them concentrating mostly on designing and making
the furniture, some of which was specified for certain precise
locations in the house) blended the Wm. Morris and Japanese
aesthetic traditions much better than FLW did, IMHO, and created
houses that could be lived in, comfortably, by human beings,
unlike Wright's stage sets.
Gamble House (built for a scion of the Procter & G family) may be
the best surviving example of this style, and photos abound in
books. (The USC (?) school of Architecture, which owns/maintains
it, might have a Web Page, but I haven't quite figured out how to
use Search Engines yet.) It has some marvelous details -- a
built-in seat from which one can watch the sun rise behind the
Tiffany stained-glass oak-tree-and-landscape entrance doors and
flanking windows, little rounded pieces of ebony inlaid along the
bannister of the teak-log staircase (it's not strictly a bungalow,
I guess) to give one's fingers something to notice, and the
kitchen work-table has a little inlaid abalone-shell flower that's
(by intent) best seen by the person scrubbing the floor.
Don Fitch
Gary Farber
In <5vlsns$e...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: You can say that again. We rarely use JFK, but we had occasion to pick up our
: nephew at the TWA terminal there a few months ago. It's apalling--high
: Kubrick covered with ancient grease and chewing gum. To save energy, the
: great sweepingly-curved windows have had blinds installed, and the blinds have
: become streaked with shit from all the birds that get into the terminal.
: All the futuristic fine points have been worn off over the years; every corner
: of the building is dented and decayed. It is a profoundly depressing space.
It was impressive when first built, though; I was a child then, and I
recall it well. The trouble with such buildings is that they're
"funny-once": they only impress for a very limited time, and then you've
used that one up, and it's done. What we need is to have such buildings
be built to dramatically shift configuration every year to a stunning new
design. :-)
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <5vmgq0$e...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>In <5vlsns$e...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: You can say that again. We rarely use JFK, but we had occasion to pick up
>: our nephew at the TWA terminal there a few months ago. It's apalling--high
>: Kubrick covered with ancient grease and chewing gum. To save energy, the
>: great sweepingly-curved windows have had blinds installed, and the blinds
>: have become streaked with shit from all the birds that get into the
>: terminal.
>
>: All the futuristic fine points have been worn off over the years; every
>: corner of the building is dented and decayed. It is a profoundly depressing
>: space.
>
>It was impressive when first built, though; I was a child then, and I
>recall it well. The trouble with such buildings is that they're
>"funny-once": they only impress for a very limited time, and then you've
>used that one up, and it's done.
No, the problem goes well beyond that. Arizona State University's Grady
Gammage Auditorium, for instance -- the last major Wright building, originally
intended to be built in Tehran -- suffers from the "funny-once" problem; to
modern eyes, it looks pretty silly. But it's not a degrading experience to
enter Grady Gammage; it isn't falling apart before one's eyes. Aalto's TWA
terminal at JFK _is_ falling apart; its problems go beyond the merely
aesthetic.
Many of the conventions of architecture so bravely rejected by buildings like
the Aalto terminal are there because they work, because they resist wear and
tear, and because they serve a building's basic purposes -- keeping people
comfortable, safe, and dry, while providing useful space. What's stunning
about the TWA terminal is how badly _worn_ it's become. The swoops and
curvilinear forms are dented with visible damage at every resolution. The
great concrete curves are cracked and water-stained. Not having been
designed with routine tasks like cleaning in mind, unsurprisingly, the
terminal's interior is visibly unclean. It's as if no one asked themselves
the most basic questions, or thought for a second about the way actual humans
use buildings.
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <5vlsns$e...@news1.panix.com>, P Nielsen
Hayden <p...@panix.com> writes
>All the futuristic fine points have been worn off over the years; every corner
>of the building is dented and decayed. It is a profoundly depressing space.
Over here there are a lot of buildings put up in the 60s. It seems that
few of them made any allowance for the passage of time, and the effects
of the weather. Quite a few buildings have large areas of grey concrete
studded with various forms of ornamentation or just protruding steel
drainpipes. All of these have now grown long orange beards where
rainwater has left iron stains on the concrete. Perhaps it's planned
obsolescence?
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
T Nielsen Hayden
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <5vlsns$e...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> : You can say that again. We rarely use JFK, but we had occasion to pick up our
> : nephew at the TWA terminal there a few months ago. It's apalling--high
> : Kubrick covered with ancient grease and chewing gum. To save energy, the
> : great sweepingly-curved windows have had blinds installed, and the blinds have
> : become streaked with shit from all the birds that get into the terminal.
> : All the futuristic fine points have been worn off over the years; every corner
> : of the building is dented and decayed. It is a profoundly depressing space.
> It was impressive when first built, though; I was a child then, and I
> recall it well. The trouble with such buildings is that they're
> "funny-once": they only impress for a very limited time, and then you've
> used that one up, and it's done. What we need is to have such buildings
> be built to dramatically shift configuration every year to a stunning new
> design. :-)
Like strip malls, you mean? I've seen them shift -- Brave New Moderne; funky
brass and ferns; the gray-and-carmine Serious Money look; yuppie-green
awnings with screen-printed logos in Palatino or University Roman; pink and
turquoise PoMo with little geometric bits stuck all over everything; Santa Fe
sprayed-on stucco with tasteful Southwestern color schemes and rounded-off
corners; PoPoMo wrapped-texture screamers that look like the hangover you
get from drinking too much Myst... In short: Solemn High Art.
Just as well they swap the facades so often; after a few years they look
like chocolate-covered frozen hell on a stick.
::tnh::
::fwa::
Loren MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom on 16 Sep 1997 15:59:15 GMT, fitc...@aol.com
(FitchDonS) said:
>Gamble House (built for a scion of the Procter & G family) may be
>the best surviving example of this style, and photos abound in
>books. (The USC (?) school of Architecture, which owns/maintains
>it, might have a Web Page, but I haven't quite figured out how to
>use Search Engines yet.) It has some marvelous details -- a
>built-in seat from which one can watch the sun rise behind the
>Tiffany stained-glass oak-tree-and-landscape entrance doors and
>flanking windows, little rounded pieces of ebony inlaid along the
>bannister of the teak-log staircase (it's not strictly a bungalow,
>I guess) to give one's fingers something to notice, and the
>kitchen work-table has a little inlaid abalone-shell flower that's
>(by intent) best seen by the person scrubbing the floor.
Don's comments got me curious so I entered "Gamble House" (with the
quotes) in the Alta Vista search engine
(http://www.altavista.digital.com). I found quite a few hits, and the
first had some nice (if somewhat blurry) pictures of the Gamble House.
Very interesting material! For the curious:
http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/archi/jonesmd/la/foot/gamble.html
Ray Radlein
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> It was impressive when first built, though; I was a child then, and
> I recall it well. The trouble with such buildings is that they're
> "funny-once": they only impress for a very limited time, and then
> you've used that one up, and it's done. What we need is to have such
> buildings be built to dramatically shift configuration every year to
> a stunning new design. :-)
Or you could just do what we do around here: Constantly demolish
perfectly good buildings just because we want to put up *new* perfectly
good buildings in their place. It's as though we have decided to
demonstrate that we can raze our city far more effectively than General
Sherman ever did.
- Ray R.
PS - Actually, it is quite likely that Atlanta was burned by The Home
Team, not The Visitors. Oh well. Guess we showed *him*, huh?
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
From: lmac...@efn.org (Loren MacGregor)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:48:54 GMT
http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/archi/jonesmd/la/foot/gamble.html
This house was used in "Back to The Future" as the professor's house.
73, doug
Alison Scott
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Over here there are a lot of buildings put up in the 60s. It seems that
>few of them made any allowance for the passage of time, and the effects
>of the weather. Quite a few buildings have large areas of grey concrete
>studded with various forms of ornamentation or just protruding steel
>drainpipes. All of these have now grown long orange beards where
>rainwater has left iron stains on the concrete. Perhaps it's planned
>obsolescence?
This is all part of the theory of the cycle of buildings, which goes
like this:
A lot of buildings are built in a particular period of frenetic
building activity.
(time passes)
Some of them fall down, or otherwise demonstrate their complete
unsuitability for their purpose.
(time passes)
A great many of them look horrible.
(time passes)
Most of the horrible ones are knocked down and replaced.
(quite a lot of time passes)
There are a lot of buildings left which are servicable but seem
old-fashioned and un-beautiful. Most of these get knocked down over a
long period to make way for new building.
(quite a lot of time passes)
There are now only a few buildings left that are important and
representative of the era. People look at them and are outraged at the
willful destruction of so many fine buildings.
We're just between the third and fourth stage with a lot of sixties
building at the moment; we've identified it as nasty, but the will
hasn't been there to knock it down. This entire cycle appears to take
about 90 years. Not a coincidence, that.
This does not, of course, prevent some buildings being much-loved from
when they were quite new. These ones are pretty uncommon.
James Nicoll
In article <5vmogl$n...@news1.panix.com>,
>>
>
>No, the problem goes well beyond that. Arizona State University's Grady
>Gammage Auditorium, for instance -- the last major Wright building, originally
>intended to be built in Tehran -- suffers from the "funny-once" problem; to
>modern eyes, it looks pretty silly. But it's not a degrading experience to
>enter Grady Gammage; it isn't falling apart before one's eyes. Aalto's TWA
>terminal at JFK _is_ falling apart; its problems go beyond the merely
>aesthetic.
>
Out of curiousity, is it as bad as, um, Terminal Two at Toronto?
Knowing I'd have to run through the rat-maze on the way to customs (Where
you disembark from the plane and customs are maybe 5 meters apart, through
a wall. The connecting route covers half the floor or did in February)
made me want to stay in San Fracisco.
James Nicoll
--
About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late hour and
the silence. I decided some music would cheer me up.
Boy, that Billie Holliday can sing.
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
Loren MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom on Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:10:19 GMT,
fa...@netcom21.netcom.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604) said:
> From: lmac...@efn.org (Loren MacGregor)
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:48:54 GMT
>
> Don's comments got me curious so I entered "Gamble House" (with the
> quotes) in the Alta Vista search engine
> (http://www.altavista.digital.com). I found quite a few hits, and the
> first had some nice (if somewhat blurry) pictures of the Gamble House.
> Very interesting material! For the curious:
>
> http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/archi/jonesmd/la/foot/gamble.html
>
>This house was used in "Back to The Future" as the professor's house.
I wasn't aware of that; interesting. (I rather like the bits and
pieces of the "Back to the Future" films I've seen, but I've never
seen a whole one. Rather, like episodes of Star Trek, I seem to
wander into the same segment of the same film each time I see one.
I've seen Marty McFly escape from the garage a dozen times, and never
seen the rest of the film. I don't even know which movie this segment
is from.)
P Nielsen Hayden
Incidentally, a correspondent points out that the TWA terminal at JFK was
designed by Eero Saarinen, not Alvar Aalto, as Ulrika originally said and I
picked up on. It's those double A's that confused us, I'm sure. :)
Cally Soukup
P Nielsen Hayden (p...@panix.com) wrote:
: Incidentally, a correspondent points out that the TWA terminal at JFK was
: designed by Eero Saarinen, not Alvar Aalto, as Ulrika originally said and I
: picked up on. It's those double A's that confused us, I'm sure. :)
What I want to know is who designed the United terminal at O'Hare. Its main
effect on me is to make me start to feel motion sick; not, I would think, a
good choice for an airline terminal.
Mike Ford
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:58:59 GMT, ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk (Alison
Scott) wrote:
<snip explication of the theory of the cycle of buildings, except for
stages 3 and 4>
>A great many of them look horrible.
>
>(time passes)
>
>Most of the horrible ones are knocked down and replaced.
<so that this isn't totally out of context...>
>We're just between the third and fourth stage with a lot of sixties
>building at the moment; we've identified it as nasty, but the will
>hasn't been there to knock it down. This entire cycle appears to take
>about 90 years. Not a coincidence, that.
I think Leeds is actually progressing pretty quickly into stage 4: the
building described a few years back by a notably public dignitary as
"the ugliest building in Leeds" is just in the final throes of being
demolished-and-replaced with something much nicer looking (well, to
today's eyes, anyway). Another building just across the road from it
has also had the same treatment -- apparently, this one was tricky to
knock down because it had been designed for NatWest Bank as a
bomb-proof strong-building with a projected life of at least 100
years, and they literally had to un-build it slab by slab from the top
down!
There's also a helluva lot of refurbishment going on -- the building I
work in completely changed its external appearance about three years
ago from typical 60s concrete slab to typical 90s all-glass look. The
inside got spiffed up a bit, too, although not as drastically.
----
Mike Ford m...@mcgoff.karoo.co.uk
Leeds, UK
Ray Radlein
Mike Ford wrote:
>
> Another building just across the road from it has also had the same
> treatment -- apparently, this one was tricky to knock down because it
> had been designed for NatWest Bank as a bomb-proof strong-building
> with a projected life of at least 100 years, and they literally had
> to un-build it slab by slab from the top down!
Here in Atlanta, we recently tore down the Omni Arena (site of the
Olympic Volleyball competition, among other things). The demolition
process was made somewhat challenging because the Omni was still
relatively young (20 or 30 years old), in perfect shape, and only a few
yards away from the CNN Center. The arena also had a large series of
high-tension steel cables strung hither and yon inside it, all pulling
and tugging and anchoring in a very complex pattern; break the wrong
cables in the wrong order, and you could have accidentally flung entire
walls into the CNN Center, or across the street to the Georgia World
Congress Center. It all came off without a hitch, fortunately.
Since the Omni was, obviously, a building with a substantial open space
in the interior, some enterprising soul thought to put a videocamera on
the floor of the Omni, to shoot footage of the demolition from *inside*
the building.
One of my favorite media faux pas ever happened during the live
coverage, when, after the dust had begun to settle, the news guy from
one of the local stations gravely intoned, "And now, let's go to the
remote camera on the Omni floor, for a view of what it looked like
inside the Omni when the explosion took place...."
Unfortunately, the folks at the TV station punched the wrong button, and
instead of solling the tape they had just gotten from the camera, they
rolled some stock "History of the Omni" footage of an Atlanta Hawks vs.
Chicago Bulls basketball game. Shot, of course, from a courtside,
floor-level camera.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Steve Brewster
Mike Ford (m...@mcgoff.karoo.co.uk) wrote:
:
: I think Leeds is actually progressing pretty quickly into stage 4: the
: building described a few years back by a notably public dignitary as
: "the ugliest building in Leeds" is just in the final throes of being
: demolished-and-replaced with something much nicer looking (well, to
[...]
So which one was "the ugliest building in Leeds"? When I lived
there, the big insurance building on the north side of City Square
usually got the vote...
--
http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb 641 divides 2^2^5 + 1.
Jim Trash
In article <EGwps...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, Steve Brewster
>So which one was "the ugliest building in Leeds"? When I lived
>there, the big insurance building on the north side of City Square
>usually got the vote...
>
That's the one, absolutely revolting it was and it's been well and truly
expunged now.
It was always a real shame with the Queen's hotel on one side of the
square looking quite fine and grand, the central post office, a fairly
classy building in itself, interesting looking church type thing on
other side, the angels and the Black Prince on his horse in the centre
of the square and they all faced out toward this blot over the road. It
struck me as the building equivalent of a loud and obnoxious party
gatecrasher which has now been ruthlessly ejected.
Hoorah!
http://www.scream.demon.co.uk Jim Trash