Why is this allowed?

We should all be living in shipping containers . This us a step in the wrong direction.

I like it desu.

Shipping container buildings that aren't supposed to be temporary and moveable are almost as shit-tier as this one. There is literally no reason to use a shipping container for a building unless you are planning to relocate and re-use it somewhere else.

t. Another Arch. student

Why not? I think its gorgeous and technically challenging

This is what you get when an unimaginative architect tries to implement post-structuralism in built-form a little too literally.

When architects draw this stuff up are they responsible for thinking up how to make this not collapse or is it up to the engineers to fix that mess

-You could bring natural light into the building more efficiently and with more aesthetically imaginative ways than those windows
-You could create an equally if not more interesting exterior shape, whilst creating interior spaces that aren't useless squinty edges and other "leftover" spaces that are a result of a shape someone drew on a napkin.
-You could make an environmentally "smarter" facade
-Those bits on the left are pure waste. You don't get to walk under them unless you've actually got your back against that white wall on the ground level.
-The inside is actually quite boring and doesn't seem to have been planned at all, it's what is called "incidental".
-Has nothing to do with local architecture on either a practical or an aesthetic level, but then it doesn't make an truly progressive statement about what architecture could be. This really isn't a hard building to make in terms of engineering or design.

I would say that he was going for the concept "It's a centre for Brain Health, but who are we to judge what makes brain healthy, so I'll make this wonky building that shows buildings can be wonky yet great in the same way that brains can be." But he's built the exact same thing for umpteen different purposes and locations, so it's just a meme.

In terms of legal liability that depends on the type of contract. But it's in their best interest to make it as build-able and realistic as possible for many reasons. Chief of which being that if they design something too unrealistic, the engineer is going to make so many changes to it in order for it to work that it will look nothing like what they initially wanted.

You're either meant to have a good grasp of engineering fundamentals or failing that, work closely with the engineers from an early stage in the product.

*in the process

The Holocaust

BECAUSE NO ONE LISTENS TO ENGINEERS WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHITECTURE.

REMOVE GEHRY
REMOVE STARCHITECTS
REMOVE GUGGENHEIM
REMOVE EVERYTHING THIS BREED OF ARCHITECHTS HAVE DONE

I'D RATHER LIVE IN FUCKING COMMIEBLOCKS THAN THEIR "CREATIONS".

Only Gehry and Zaha Hadid are guilty of this sort of meme architecture. What's wrong with Rogers, Fosters and Piano (the other starchitects)? They all very much listen to their engineers.

P.S. Engineers are there to make it stand up, that's it. If the architect is a dick, then don't work with them, you don't get to say what the building looks like or how it will work. The engineers who build Gehry shit usually enjoy the challenge or the fat paycheck.

I'm going to need pictures of their work to see.

And when people think "starchitect", they usually think "Gehry" and his style, not the sensible ones.

Just google them m8.

Richard Rogers
Norman Foster
Renzo Piano
Rem Koolhaas
They're all better than Gehry

People in the U.S. only know Gehry because he's the only American "starchitect".

That's why my homosexuality is only functional, I mean I suck cocks and stuff for the social benefits, but in reality I'm heterosexual.
These silly fagotts really think I'm gay when they fuck my boypussy, dumb bastards.

Isn't that the Alzheimer's center in Las Vegas? I figured the design was an analogy.

Overall it looks better in person than this cropped shot. Anyway if it were traditional design you'd have nothing to post about.

it is supposed to represent the effects of dementia actually. It is pretty creepy and accurate when you look at it with that in mind. I don't think it should have been built. It is demotivating in my opinion.

Aren't they easier to build ?

My only problem with architechture like this is that is makes it impossible to make clean and uniform looking areas/neighbourhoods/cities. When you have 20 as unique and "crazy" buildings as this, the overall look of the area becomes messy and unclear. Where as more traditional styles mix well with each other and create a one solid area.

I hate this building for many reasons but that's bollocks, only unimaginative assburgers like uniformity in style. When you do that the result is Celebration, FL.

Why not?

That's such a stupid idea. Buildings for people with dementia in the UK are actually designed with sensitivity to the practical needs of, you know people with dementia, not some masturbatory concept about a melting building.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

because the ordinary working class folk who have to live there don't want some autist to impose their vision of theme parks and cartoons on them

Kek, no, we only politely pretend to get fooled so we can pump and dump you. You fell for the meme.

Why cant we bring art deco back

Because it's gaudy and meaningless and is basically an advertising campaign by a depraved Mammon-worshipping culture.

Well I like it

they dont have to live there

I disagree, and Art Deco's older cousins, Jugendstil and the Vienna Seccession are amazing.

God damn that is beautiful

Shhhh, only tears now.

Fugin gommies

It's nice inside too, it's an art gallery.

Any pics of inside?
That tree facade thing is really fucking cool

Commieblocks never replaced art-deco. Apples and oranges user.

No but here's another famous Vienna Sec cession building (one of the few). Palais Stoclet, which was their interpretation of what a manor house should look like. I'll post the outside next.

Exterior. If you like this sort of stuff check out these two movements as well:
Art Nouveau
Arts and Crafts

>gold lined marble
Muh dick

>all that tarnished copper

God damn it its gorgeous.
Thank you user.

You're welcome. I wonder what it would have looked like for the first few years when the copper still had its original colour. I too prefer it oxidized obviously. Here's the rear.

Wrong image

And here's some Charles Rennie Mackintosh (Arts and Crafts)

House for an Art Lover

Interior

The Arts and Crafts was a kind of reaction to the demonisation of ornament by the Modernists and the fetishisation of the mass-produced. They fetishised the handmade instead.

Dat detailing.

The way the tarnish makes the marble below the copper green as well is fantastic.

The fetishization of craftsman houses is somthing i can sierously get behind

Glasgow School of Art

The symmetry of certian elements here is really satisfying

All that ironwork..
Why dont we do that shit anymore?

I agree, I wonder if the designers had foreseen that.

Sadly, it would be too costly to make Arts and Crafts buildings nowadays, because the craftsmen who are capable of making such things are too few, to make it affordable.

r8 my civic center. Largest and last project Frank Lloyd Wright ever did.

The amazing thing about this guy is that he was as capable a painter and pattern designer as he was an architect. Kind of like Borromini and Bernini back in the Baroque period, who were great sculptors AND architects.

I suppose we have the means to make these things quite easily nowadays, with CNC, laser-cutting, 3D printing. But it would be cheating. And thus, the question is raised? What do you value more, the design or the effort it took to build it? Would you care if I told you all that ironwork was CNC?

Is a perfect canvas print reproduction of the Mona Lisa as valuable as the original? Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction deals with this topic.

wth? I had no idea this existed. Frank Lloyd Wright was another master.

Can you believe they DEMOLISHED this?

Unfortunately, Art Deco buildings are inescapably tied to fascism in the public consciousness.

The public consciousness is wrong on this, Art Deco has little do with Fascism. Italian Fascist Architecture was mainly Futurist and Eclecticist/Historicist/Revivalist.

>Is a perfect canvas print reproduction of the Mona Lisa as valuable as the original?
No, it's more valuable.

We should live in hobbit holes

The slabs were so specifically chosen. It makes me wet as a geologist. This is the shit I work for. Natural aesthetics.

Malachite EVERYWHERE

Talking of expertly chosen stone. Dat Tinos Verde marble and Onyx. It's almost like Mies's father was a stone-mason, oh wait..

archdaily.com/109135/ad-classics-barcelona-pavilion-mies-van-der-rohe

>It's a centre for Brain Health, but who are we to judge what makes brain healthy

Actually looking at it is making me feel dizzy as shit.

(I wrote that). Me too, it's shit. I imagine if I had dementia it would make me feel quite uneasy.

Oh wow that's so neat. Thanks, I love shit like this.

Looks fucking awesome.

One of the most depressing things to me is how limited physical shapes are. Outside of squares, circles, and triangles, what else really is there?