|
richardtraylor (August 22, 2008 at 11:12 pm)
Read "Choosing a Skyline:How intelligently are we recognizing urban context as a feature of environmental responsibility?" by Nicholas J. Slabbert -- it's available online on the "Virtual Adjacency" website. (You can also look it up in the British Library's list of online articles by N.J. Slabbert.)
georgewu5 (August 22, 2008 at 5:59 am)
JackRussellTerrier2: "help preserve open space?" Three drawings in my web-site "dancewu(dot)net" of three different ways to preserve open space. 1/ GREAT WALL VILLAGE: Triangular housing over highways and railroads to Tibet in China. 2/single loaded corridor housing flanked highways in China. 3/World Trade Center II on Hudson river outside the WTC former site with 8 sky-bridges connecting 4 towers in case of another 9/11.
I hope each scheme would help to preserve open space.---dancewu(dot)net
georgewu5 (August 16, 2008 at 6:35 pm)
e:What is the purpose to twist the ass of the functional supports?! In and out of a surface just cost more time, material,and labor to build!It did not add a bit to the function of that structural support! Then why did it? Wrinkled the architectural surfaces here and there just to pretend as the decoration of the past simply does not make sense to me! Without twisting the ass here and there, the building can still stand up.Adding all those "decoration"just did not make it to function any better!
georgewu5 (August 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm)
l: First of all,the architects should do our homework, working closely with the intelligent structural engineers,utilizing the long neglected air space over the highways and between tall buildings,etc. Secondly, the public has to be educated of the danger of the existing fire codes are not sufficient, like a time bomb to go off and demands more fire safety protection! Yes! WTC would have to come down by the thousands of gallons of fuel anyway; but not necessary the 2,700 people!--dancewu(dot)net
learnrv (August 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm)
that is right; we cannot anymore waste the space above roads between skyscrapers...
georgewu5 (August 14, 2008 at 9:30 am)
l: You put it more beautifully than any one there in the panel! You are courageous! You should have been in that panel!--- to speak your mind! Others have different motif to go all the way out there! To suuport a "friend" or whatever. If professionals did not speak out, and the public did not know better, therefore, we have such a mediocre world for so long since Corbusier and Wright! Pei said it once that"No controversy; no architecture", but he has been so quiet recently!---dancewu(dot)net
learnrv (August 14, 2008 at 3:00 am)
that was what i meant =) this building is not a series of profound questions (or whatever) leveled towards architectural axioms... it is the result of an average man terrified of 'blending in'...
CosmoHunter24 (August 7, 2008 at 12:46 pm)
He looks a bit like John McCain, lol.
georgewu5 (August 4, 2008 at 4:18 pm)
If SWASTIKA is a cliche to the great architects Le corbusier, Wright, Mies, Pei, Rudolph, Yamasaki,and Holl, then Eisenman has been trying all his not to do the SWASTIKA. But I called SWASTIKA a CHINESE SQUARE or a Buddhist symbol, not a Nazi sign, therefore I, and all the great architects have no trouble using it! SWASTIKA was a great design tool, I found that out since I was in college in 1958. Avoiding it because people thought it was related to Nazi missed the boat entirely!--dancewu(dot)net
BuckYooper (August 3, 2008 at 10:53 pm)
I'm not trying to be dumb and may be dumb, but do u mean that peter eisman is cliche by avoiding the cliche or do you mean something else? |
