Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I think it has.
so long as you take "amazing" out
Thus re-affirming my point.
so it's ok
We are a deomcracy though, so that's cool.
or are they just more honest about how things are actually run?
but I, for one, welcome our new lizard overlords.
you know about loads of things i consider bobbins
you should try loosening up a bit.
i've got kittens all over my DiS now. chilled as they come, man. chilled as.
the public won't stand for it!
(*no idea what you're on about)
Is architecture less inventive than centuries ago? Well I'd say so yes. Is democracy also now more prevalent? Certainly yes.
But the causality between the two is a bit tenuous.
you're flip-floppin' all over the place here.
critics accuse the design/construction industry of being super conservative
they'd argue that the end consumers are equally conservative about what they want
certainly planning procedures, which are a facet of democracy, allow for people to object to things they wouldn't have done so before, but in the case of "great" buildings they usually fail - find me a skyscraper project in London that's been watered down or scrapped because of local opposition.
There have been lots of skyscrapers that haven't been built because of opposition from the local authority/council/government.
I know of ones that have failed because the finances fell through, but I'm struggling to think of ones that have died because they've not had gov't support at some level.
Off the top of my head, that tower in Ealing that Boris nixed. Plus the myriad tower schemes along the Thames that were revised to suit planners' requirements, or the schemes that didn't even get off the drawing board because they don't meet the Local Plan. Whether those are examples of watering down, or actually making them better, is up for debate.
No, it's not.
neo liberal capitalism has done
The answer is all of them.
*hitches up trousers*
were certain attractive fountains worth enduring totalitarianism for?
And that's really the point.
Wow. That comment in the other thread about intergalactic processions is hard to get away from. Might have to try and visit sometime.
can't even finish the bloody Sagrada Familia!
Triforce ahoy: http://the_mark.s3.amazonaws.com/manual_images/lr/palace-of-peace.jpg
he sent me maps. he told me that his team are trying to persaude the government NOT to build a trillion dollar tunnel under the city of Doha ahhaha
in ancient greece they all lived in huts
Buildings that don't have to take into account planning regulations, environmental concerns, social concerns, and their site, are better buildings than those that do.
What lifts the design of a building into Architecture is the way in which responds to and informs its context. In the age of democracy, that context is now wider and deeper than before. A building that can successfully work with its context these days is obviously better architecture than one thy didn't, or doesn't have to.
the initial developments in Canary Wharf are the architectural high point of the last thirty years
in which case, :')
Isn’t there an opposite argument to this in the sense that the removal of a central town planning/architectural system has allowed a raft of cheaply produced/expensively sold/ugly and incongruous new builds. And that they in turn, have had a detrimental effect on the harmony of many cities and are likely to become the urban ghost- towns of the future? --- ergo , it was the MARKET what did it, not the state?
Not sure any of that is true, don’t know a lot about Architecture other than that it is the art which works most slowly but most surely upon the soul!!!!
the opposing argument is that housing is one of the most regulated of industries, and the combination of planning application costs and the supply of land being heavily controlled eats into potential profits, causing them to fall back on tried-and-tested models and not innovating very much.
personally i think that w/r/t housing it's pretty much down to the speculative and debt-based financing model and the inherent conservatism of both the industry and most consumers (particularly with such strong concerns about resale value) means that everywhere looks largely the same, based on a modern-ish update on the "victorian villa" idea, rather than the planning system.
(worth pointing out that very few places have any policies on architecture enshrined as part of planning policy. Scotland does, although you wouldn't really think about it.)
(also worth pointing out that final decisions on big applications are made by elected officials, who are completely free to ignore planning policy if they want.)
(I've got an exam on roughly this topic on Thursday, wooo)
Birmingham is already suffering in this regard, so many of the late 90's city centre living projects are horrible and tired, they look dated and in need of tearing down already... the bars and restaurants that were supposed to service them are closing down and whole areas are becoming pretty run-down and undesirable.
It is kind of like the way a picture of someone from the year five years ago seems dated, but someone in a suit from the 1920s retains some contemporary aesthetic relevance, idk ...
And everything to do with the control of land/wealth and politicians' delusional belief that the market can provide adequate housing, in terms of numbers and tenure.
So profit levels and construction levels are the same thing.
It's all held by the developer who has little long-term interest in a development - once it's sold on, that's it, or by politicians who can only see the value of a project or a design in monetary terms.
No one's asking for a developer to lose money on a site, but when maximizing profit is prioritised over creating places and spaces that are economically, socially, culturally, demographically and environmentally sustainable, you end up with shoddily designed and built buildings.
However, there is one thing I will say, the current Building Regs and standards are far in excess of anything that's come before. With the exception of space standards (abolished by the Thatcher government), the quality of construction and detailing is now much higher and much more appropraite than ever.
Totally invalidates all the good stuff in that post. Shame.
I am a creative, you know.
the rest is vintage false-binary trolling
I feel like any build in a city should be able to cut out almost all noise from the flat next door, given how loud TVs and such are these days.
is much better at insulating individual dwellings from sound than, say, traditional brick-built terraced housing.
if only everyone could use step ladders on site, then architecture would be better
As wonderfully described by The Top Aussie Guide:
*The Big Donger is a top Aussie. It is an observation tower in
Newcastle that was constructed when the city planners saw the
need for a massive penis-like structure in the middle of town.
The Big Donger is called many names by locals, most of which play
on the fact that it looks like a huge dick. If you feel energetic,
you can climb up the inner staircase to the top, where the views of
the city will provide a momentary distraction which allows you to
forget that you are standing inside an enormous stiffy. The Big
Donger is built onto the side of a brewery, but that is small
consolation considering that it is a 30 metre steel tubed hard-on.
Although most Novocastrians regard the immense pork-sword as an
eyesore, the Big Donger is still a top Aussie.*
And my overriding thought was fuck, no one would ever build anything like this today. Overall I think that is sort of a good thing. It's a tribute to vanity corruption and greed. But a bloody beautiful one.
I think it was, like, none?
How many people died last week in Bangladesh in a rather straight-forward building collapse? Something like 700+?
Now if we would just loosen up a bit and allow the outer appearance match the care put into safety regs on new buildings...
Another big part of this is the sheer amount of stuff being built at the moment. It's easier to put some thought into the one large building in the middle of your town every 5 or 6 years. A bit harder to add some variety to a house in the suburbs of London when you're throwing 100 of them together over the weekend.