Thread: Architect Question

Ahh now you have grasped the concept.

But after the inital concept the Engineer come along and moves the house away from the edge, replaces the iron with stainless steel, changes the birdcage shape into a dome and completely redesigns the rest of the structure.

Then the architect bills his clients to change his plans and then owner gets a quotes from builders and end up scrapping the architects ideas and get a draftsman to draw up some plans that are a bit more realistic and feasible money wise.

And the client insists on remodelling the facade to recreate a villa that she once spent a week in in Tuscany, and rethinks the colour scheme that took two weeks of negotiation to settle on.

By this time Nigel has thrown a Hissy fit and left it up to the builder to work out whats going on!

I was reminded of this thread as I drove through Bendigo this afternoon.

We have recently had 2 examples of the architects' skills put up in Bendigo. One is the new police station, never seen a bigger a***tion of a building in my life, the other is the new Bendigo Bank HQ, already named Rubic's Cube, need I say more?

In the case of the police station, some offices are unable to be used because of light/heat/sun problems, when I see the building I can believe it.

Apart from both buildings being an eyesore in their own right (a value judgement, I know) they are totally out of character with their surroundings.

Some architects are good but when they don't even know what it says in the BCA about ventilation of a sub floor, you have to be worried.

they don't even know what it says in the BCA about ventilation of a sub floor

That question is beneath them

Originally Posted by pharmaboy2

Pawnheads list of piccies above with work designed by architects should be an exciting series of piccies, but it could easily be out of country monthly, or "Conservative Housing".

Yeh, there's nothing 'off the wall' there, but just some examples of well designed projects that I've worked on myself.
This one was a good interpretation of art deco, and I liked it:



And this one was my favourite. Certainly not the most opulent, but it's how I'd design my house if I had the dollars. With exposed poles and trusses inside and out, it's a good example of an engineer and architect working together on design. It had a nice wet edge pool and views of Whale Beach:




I built the trusses in place. I would have just oiled them or something. The painters didn't read the spec properly and painted over the bolts, so they had to paint all the bolt heads galv with an artists brush.
There's a pond under the front steps, and I installed a 200 year old Balinese front door.
The place was gorgeous IMO.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

Yeh, there's nothing 'off the wall' there, but just some examples of well designed projects that I've worked on myself.
This one was a good interpretation of art deco, and I liked it:



And this one was my favourite. Certainly not the most opulent, but it's how I'd design my house if I had the dollars. With exposed poles and trusses inside and out, it's a good example of an engineer and architect working together on design. It had a nice wet edge pool and views of Whale Beach:




I built the trusses in place. I would have just oiled them or something. The painters didn't read the spec properly and painted over the bolts, so they had to paint all the bolt heads galv with an artists brush.
There's a pond under the front steps, and I installed a 200 year old Balinese front door.
The place was gorgeous IMO.

If you get the right architect that understands structures they can do some good things. My issue are the ones that don't think the design through in terms of how it can work structurally.

Originally Posted by silentC

That question is beneath them

I had a guy that said I couldn't use hardwood timber to cantilever out on a deck. I said OK and changed the design to use concrete footings cantilevering so that the timber was supported both sides. I then enquired and he said that the timber needed to be treated pine for termite protection. So I had to point out that the hardwood was better for protection and you can actually treat hardwood as well. Then I found out that the reason that termites were a problem was that he was planning to put the timber on the ground directly.

Originally Posted by silentC

Like I said, arty farty tossers! This is where we diverge from reality and head into la la land. A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements!

Yes, all very well in affluent Sydney, but down here in the country mate, we don't care about philosophy of art or whatever, we just want a nice looking house, that looks like a house, and has a roof and room for a beer fridge. Some of the monstrosities that the baby boomers are building here are hideous - but because they're architect designed, we must all have our heads up our rears if we can't see them for the esoteric manifestations of the owner's personality that they are. In fact, that's exactly what they are. That's why I hate them, because I have no time for the people who live in them!

"looks like a house" - usually this means it looks like a house to other people - ie a socially acceptable house. Acceptance is up there in human requirements.

Architecture as art requires clients with open wallets and absolute trust for design in the architect.

So silentC, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head as far as Alain De Botton's concerned. You care what others think of you by virtue of the house you live in - you want acceptance. The person building the 'monstrosity" in others eyes, doesnt need nor want acceptance from the locals - their self esteem isnt built on others opinions - they like it, and thats enough. Further chances are they dont give a crapola if it will sell in the real estate market in time.

The last point is probably the most important. In most suburbs and towns building something avant garde with only 2 bedrooms and not with brick and tile has higher risk come selling time - so must of us avoid such risks.

So all in all, they dont expect you to be able to see their house in the same way - they simply dont expect anything of you at all - havent even given it a second thought (once through council that is ! )

Architecture as art requires clients with open wallets and absolute trust for design in the architect.

This totally misses the point.

Good design is a combination of aesthetics and economy. Good design - art - is doing the best with the available finances.

To assume that art is only for the wealthy is a bigotted perspective.

Just because some may have large pockets (and can employ who they want and build what they want), this is no promise that the result will be either art or even inhabitable.

Equally, small pockets determine nothing either.

It is not the size of the pocket that determines an artistic design - it is the vision of the designer to work with the materials at hand. No different from woodworking really!

Regards from Perth

Derek

You care what others think of you by virtue of the house you live in - you want acceptance.

I suppose there is an element of concern for what other's might think, although I don't think it's as central as you believe. I wouldn't want people to see my house and make judgements about my personality based on it. I want them to see a conservative house that doesn't try to be anything more than a house - but only when they come inside and see my CDs, DVDs and books would they be able to tell anything about me or my family. The house is just a comfortable place to live, not an extension of our collective personality.

Actually the shape of my house is determined more by the rooms we wanted, the shape of the block, the direction of the view relative to north, the rural setting and the building method we chose to use than anything else. There were a few things we wanted: tin not tiles; verandahs - but these were practical decisions. I also like gables, so we had to have some of those. The triangle on top of a box fits my pre-school interpretation of a house. You could probably say that we were being safe by choosing a conventional design. It's interesting to think about and analyse the reasons behind it.

I agree that some people probably don't really care what anyone else thinks - and let's face it in some cases that is the only polite way to explain some of the monstrosities. I don't think that explains all of them though. A house is a very visual thing and if there isn't at least a healthy serve of "look at me" involved, I'll eat my beret.

derek, it doesnt miss the point because what I'm defining is not what you are. Good design may well be a combination of aesthetics and economy (economy of purpose ?). BUT good design doesnt necessarily equate to art.

While its difficult to define, art usually requires some human creativity and communicates something to others. Good design can encompass a cog wheel inside a tool - but i dont think anyone would consider it art. different terms with different meanings.

The rest I agree with. However to build a radical house requires either extreme levels of confidence or enough dough to not care. trying to sell a one off house in a conservative market where the majority of the population think its a monstrosity, is a gamble - most people dont gamble with their biggest asset. thats the point about money, and we havent even delved into how the average AD house is $2500 a m versus $500 for a project home - but i grant you, you dont necessarily need $2500/m to get art - its just mightily difficult on $500pm