The Architecture Thread - Page 104
You're dumb. I can assure you it's well designed. There are a couple details that could be more refined, but there is considerable skill to be seen in the overall strategies. What "problems" may exist might be related to the construction site and the material circumstances. The house itself is as livable as anything you'll find in the entire thread.
You're an architecture wizard but I agree with unnamedplayer. Seems like you'd have a total privacy, looks ridiculously busy, lots of ugly concrete slab, some of the wood panelling just looks odd to me. I get the indoors meets outdoors idea and it looks like it works in most of the rooms, kitchen looks ridiculously open though. Also, whats with the tiny gangplank style walkway to the pool...
This seems gimmicky to me, but I wonder if StephenHero could help articulate my sense of it (assuming he feels the same)...
Sorry. I meant to harass this building earlier but forgot. For starters, it's ugly as shit. But that's compounded by the fact that it's difficult to read because it doesn't disclose its interior function onto the facade very well. Ideally, the language of architecture is reflexive between exterior and interior which allows for the use to be ascribed in a number of ways that are legible upon first seeing the building from the exterior. The pretty glaring thing about this building is that it's explicitly a product of both computer design and commercial "kit-of-parts" construction, which don't compliment each other. By that, I mean the form of the building was fairly clearly designed first as a very plastic, in-articulated form with all of its self-promoting curves and contrived complexities, and then the articulated details of its construction were [poorly] hatched out afterwards by assembling components (windows, facade panels, etc.) from manufacturer catalogs. Look at corner of the lower windows on the left and notice how the lines of the cement facade panels extend below the window line. That sort of cluttered geometry is a result of not allowing the components of the building's construction to take precedent in the schematic design stage. What the architect most likely did was choose the actual panel product AFTER the initial schematic design stage when the rough sketch of the building is offered to the clients, which they then went shopping for later when creating construction documents. That construction type should have been integrated earlier.The staggered arrangement of those just doesn't correspond to curves or irregularities of form and they should have understood that. The form of the building is probably contrived relative to its function, but if it's not, what they should have done in this case is simply render the building in white exterior plaster, which is a construction type that accommodates curves based on its "plasticity" of shape (it's essentially as versatile as concrete, eliminating the need to coordinate the geometry of component joinery with the overall area to be covered). The fact that they used panels probably indicates that the building was built quite cheaply due to labor costs (South Korea= costly), hence why they used pre-fab pieces (probably assembled overseas) to fit this entire building out in about two weeks. I also hate cement panels in general because they are generally heavy but not structurally utilized by carrying weight, so they just put unnecessary weight on the existing structural system that has to be taken into account. That's not efficient. Their use in most cases contradicts the nature of what cladding should be (lightweight, weatherizing "skin" that covered assembled frame constructions), hence the reason I only think buildings are really suitable to be clad non-structurally in wood or metals for the most part. The stock aluminum windows in generic dimensions are cheap-as-shit and the mullions between them don't align with the cement panels (another indication there wasn't much thought or sacrifice put into it). But notice how the window on the far right is "round" (it's actually square, because it's generic) which they foolishly felt obliged to cover with a rounded cement panel to make the building look streamlined. Just fucking awful and obnoxious. Moving on, the plinth or (brick?) facing on the lower left extends up quite high and then sinks low to the ground, which isn't necessitated by any particular structural condition or ground slope that might warrant different levels of the foundation, so ultimately their structure is wandering into a no-man's-land of superfluous formalism. Is the other side of the building the same material? Who knows. Then those chunky-as-shit door frames which contradict the intention for the entire building to look fluid and "organic".....and then those two windows don't jut out from the side of the building like pimples (why not? the others do) and that fucking stupid pattern of "dissolving" voids at the top right that corresponds to absolutely nothing but the desire for the building to suspend itself in a state of psychedelic, digital liquidity...............yeah it's a fucking nightmare. Blow it up.
Edited by StephenHero - 3/4/13 at 12:37am