Discussion
Damn those pesky clients with all that money and no imagination, dictating their mediore vision to those poor archtects.. 
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
loughran said:
Damn those pesky clients with all that money and no imagination, dictating their mediore vision to those poor archtects..
Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
Thanks! - The OakHeath course was very, very good - I really liked their pragmatic approach to it and would not hesitate to recommend it.Seriously, points well made. Perhaps as the series progresses we'll {I'll) be be inspired and my lack of faith in modern domestic architecture will be confounded.
Bye the bye, I was inspired by your adventures, timber framing in Shropshire. I would love to spend time cutting large section green oak. I might just do that.
loughran said:
Well we certainly have a rich heritage of houses that are both beautiful and have stood the test of time in this country. I make furniture and have always felt part of a tradition, there are times when I'm accutely aware of how skills that took 500 years to perfect have been forgotten and I can only imagine Louis the 14th's cabinet makers looking down from on high, rolling their eyes and shrugging their shoulders at what passes for good design today.
Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
The flip side of drawing on heritage is the sea of mock-historic buildings that look like a cheap pastiche on what's gone before. Houses should reflect the period in which they are built and draw on the expertise and technology available at the time. I certainly don't see the need for a moat and drawbridge at the front of my house....Do architects these days draw on their own heritage, the thousand years of design and good practice that have gone before ? It appears not... they like to make boxes, in glass and metal. Mies Van der Rohe did that in 1929 and nobody seems to have improved on it in 86 years, other than to perhaps make it airtight.
Here's another box...
Frank Lloyd Wright built Falling Water in 1935 and architect have struggling to catch up ever since.
Here's the RIBA long list showing some of the houses that have yet to be presented in the competion on the telly. There seems to be a common (boxy) theme going on.
https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2...
Edited by loughran on Friday 6th November 18:34
stanwan said:
The flip side of drawing on heritage is the sea of mock-historic buildings that look like a cheap pastiche on what's gone before. Houses should reflect the period in which they are built and draw on the expertise and technology available at the time. I certainly don't see the need for a moat and drawbridge at the front of my house....
Does your house reflect the period in which is was built ?loughran said:
Does your house reflect the period in which is was built ?
Nope it's a mock tudor box. The local planning authority love them round here.......The whole ethos of having homes that are "in-keeping" with their surroundings is responsible for the row upon row of identikit housing that is beloved of volume developers. A scheme has just completed around the corner - a whole bunch of new hi spec homes complete with authentic (painted on) tudor beams and painted brick fake render with period sash windows. It's design at its most cynical.....
bah!!
Edited by stanwan on Wednesday 11th November 23:27
marksx said:
Only really liked the first house. The others had nothing going for them to me. My first thought was oh yay a rusty box, but after a couple of minutes I had completely swung.
Oh and the judge amazed that the each skylight was placed over a specific area. Really?
First one was good. The cut outs in the Corten were a really nice trick and it was interesting to see how they created the random patterns of them.Oh and the judge amazed that the each skylight was placed over a specific area. Really?
The judge was not doing a good job of articulating what was impressive; it wasn't the glass elements alone but the fact that the entire roof structure consisted of "odd" geometric elements, capped with glass - each element's external geometry matched the geometry of the zone underneath. If you were to look directly down from above at the roof you'd see the floor plan of the floor immediately below defined by the various geometric elements.
ajprice said:
My votes would be the Courtyard 1st, then the first one shown if it wasn't rusty. I don't get why you would want to make your house look rusty.
It sounded as if the decision to use Corten was a both an aesthetic one and a way of meeting planning requirements; it gave them a way to create a modern home with modern external surfaces by sort of matching the colour and texture of homes around it - they did actually mention it was more textured than normal.Bonefish Blues said:
A bunker that you can't see out of?
Can't call the winner, not enamoured of any tbh
Looked like a fancy prison I don't care how fancy the roof was it wasn't a nice house oh look from this angle you can see a tree! I guess in London that's a big deal personally I like Windows you can see out of without a stepladder. Can't call the winner, not enamoured of any tbh
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Wednesday 11th November 21:56
Courtyard one for me as well I thought that was a better use of the space.
It's not about what the viewer likes or, in some instances, necessarily what the place looked like, it is how design and architecture solved a problem of restricted space.
I thought the roof light house was very clever and the interior space was really neat and surprisingly light.
Do I want to live there? no
Did I think it was visually pretty? no
However someone wanted to live in that space, and had extreme restrictions in terms of planning and how windrows could be used - and they solved that in a clever way.
I thought the roof light house was very clever and the interior space was really neat and surprisingly light.
Do I want to live there? no
Did I think it was visually pretty? no
However someone wanted to live in that space, and had extreme restrictions in terms of planning and how windrows could be used - and they solved that in a clever way.
Just coming back on some of the points on planners etc (I'm not a planner, just a powerfully built developer...).
The key to planners is to work with them They hate identikit Wimpy s
te as much as the next person, however as has been said above, it is easy to define and list things that are bad (like out of hours working), not so easy to enforce something that is subjective like what constitutes 'good design'.
The corten scheme shows that you can build interesting and good contemporary design in conservation areas let alone normal areas. The histrionics about planners and the planning system makes for good drama in Grand Designs etc and is easy to get away with because it's very complicated so laypeople don't understand it. Bloody planners right? Take that attitude into a planning department and see how far you get. Unless of course you are Wimpy and simply steamroll them through because you are richer than the council and can afford to appeal etc etc.
The real issue with planners is that there aren't enough of them at the moment. The economy is turning and whilst we are all getting more active, the planning departments (having had little work through the recession) have been cut to the bone so simply cannot resource their new workloads.
Re boxes, that's an easy answer. They are cheaper to build than 'fancy' shapes, freeing more budget for materials or FFE. Also chairs, tables and beds tend to fit better in a square than a circle... This point was made in last night's programme when they discussed the odd leftover shapes in that garage infill scheme.
And to complete the circle (pun intended) I'm working on a number of schemes with an architect who's already been on GD and is currently filming another build due to be shown next summer. He specialises in 'Paragraph 55' houses, which is a planning policy that was established to build the next generation of one off country houses in locations that would otherwise never receive consent. Having seen the model of it, it is everything but square!
The key to planners is to work with them They hate identikit Wimpy s
te as much as the next person, however as has been said above, it is easy to define and list things that are bad (like out of hours working), not so easy to enforce something that is subjective like what constitutes 'good design'. The corten scheme shows that you can build interesting and good contemporary design in conservation areas let alone normal areas. The histrionics about planners and the planning system makes for good drama in Grand Designs etc and is easy to get away with because it's very complicated so laypeople don't understand it. Bloody planners right? Take that attitude into a planning department and see how far you get. Unless of course you are Wimpy and simply steamroll them through because you are richer than the council and can afford to appeal etc etc.
The real issue with planners is that there aren't enough of them at the moment. The economy is turning and whilst we are all getting more active, the planning departments (having had little work through the recession) have been cut to the bone so simply cannot resource their new workloads.
Re boxes, that's an easy answer. They are cheaper to build than 'fancy' shapes, freeing more budget for materials or FFE. Also chairs, tables and beds tend to fit better in a square than a circle... This point was made in last night's programme when they discussed the odd leftover shapes in that garage infill scheme.
And to complete the circle (pun intended) I'm working on a number of schemes with an architect who's already been on GD and is currently filming another build due to be shown next summer. He specialises in 'Paragraph 55' houses, which is a planning policy that was established to build the next generation of one off country houses in locations that would otherwise never receive consent. Having seen the model of it, it is everything but square!
Oh and whilst I'm on a rant, it's actually Highways that define the character of our new housing estates. Our built environment is dictated by the turning circle of a street sweeper. I kid you not.
Image below shows that not even heir to the throne can defeat our engineers (streetview of the loathsomely twee Poundbury scheme. You have been warned!)
Image below shows that not even heir to the throne can defeat our engineers (streetview of the loathsomely twee Poundbury scheme. You have been warned!)
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff