post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 69
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 11
39.7k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| score_A
int64 -644
43.5k
| score_B
int64 -2,846
43.5k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
18k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
13.6k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
346M
| score_ratio
float64 -2,292
2.5M
| metadata_A
stringclasses 1
value | metadata_B
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
f062j6 | architecture_train | 0.94 | [ask] Contemporary mass-market Australian home architecture - why is it so terrible and unfit for purpose? A few examples of the kind of houses I'll be talking about: https://imgur.com/a/jcybAbj I've been contemplating this subject for a while: why is mass-market contemporary Australian housing so utterly appalling and lacking in thought? Specifically, why are houses not designed properly for the climate? Australia has an addiction to something other than meth, an addiction to air-conditioning. Modern houses are built seemingly with the expectation that they'll be almost entirely reliant on air-conditioning for cooling, resulting in houses that are almost unliveable during summer if you don't run the air conditioner. There seems to be an obsession with floor-to-ceiling windows, particularly on the front of houses or on parts of the house that face the sun. I don't understand where this comes from, is it a demand of the market or forced upon the market by developers? And more importantly, why? I very rarely if ever see people who leave these windows open and exposed to the world, they nearly always have either internal blinds that are permanently closed or external roller shutters that are permanently closed, due to a combination of a desire for privacy and an attempt to keep the heat out. It's best described as like living inside of a greenhouse sometimes. I suspect this need to keep blinds shut all day also has something of a depressing effect on people's moods due to the lack of natural light. On top of this, eaves are as small as legally possible and (from what I've heard) until recently weren't required at all, resulting in zero shade over these giant windows or the thin plasterboard external walls. There's a lot of other issues I could bring up with modern Australian housing, but these are the specific two that really bug me. These stupid designs result in houses that are lacking in privacy and lacking in temperature regulation, utterly dependent on air-conditioning. They aren't environmentally sustainable or sensible and are generally unpleasant for humans to live in. So I guess my question is why? Why do we build houses like this in Australia? I've seen some people argue that it's cheap and we can't afford alternative methods of building, but I'd imagine that over the timespan someone resides in a new house, the cost of electricity from running an air-conditioner would completely cancel out any savings made from cheaping out on the house design. If market supply is influenced by consumer demand, then why do so many Australians have an obsession with giant windows that they keep covered up all day anyway? Why are the eaves so bloody tiny? | fgs1qgu | fgs1jow | 1,581,067,079 | 1,581,066,802 | 9 | 3 | It's easier, any idiot can design it. Any idiot can build it. Any idiot can market and sell it. They likely meet all the expectations some people have about what a nice new home should look like with a large master suite, kitchen for entertaining, and more space than they actually need. You would very much like Glenn Murcutt's designs, if you don't already. | New builds in Australia (well, Sydney at least) seem to be designed to be as ugly as possible with as little natural light as they can get away with. I suppose I am thinking mainly of new units but the overall quality of new builds is so bloody depressing, especially if I can remember the building that was bulldozed for this 'progress'. | 1 | 277 | 3 | ||
n0iosr | architecture_train | 1 | Any architecture book recommendations for a 15 year old wannabe architect? :) I love architecture. I love urban planning and i love design and it has been that way for a long 5 years. I really wanna be one but I don't know where to start! So if anyone's an architect please recommend me a book coz I can't find one! Thank you in advance! | gw6vh24 | gw6ur2i | 1,619,628,376 | 1,619,628,076 | 12 | 3 | You can start with the classics: Marcu Vitruviu - Ten Books of Architecture Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead Junichiro Tanizaki - In Praise of Shadows Juhani Pallasmaa - The Thinking Hand Le Corbusier - Toward an Architecture Rem Koolhaas - Delirious New York Rem Koolhaas - Elemnts of Architecture Reinier De Graaf - Four Walls and a Roof If you have any questions you can DM me. Good luck! | Googling this would lead to a lot of options, def think an intro to architecture history is always a good start! | 1 | 300 | 4 | ||
n0iosr | architecture_train | 1 | Any architecture book recommendations for a 15 year old wannabe architect? :) I love architecture. I love urban planning and i love design and it has been that way for a long 5 years. I really wanna be one but I don't know where to start! So if anyone's an architect please recommend me a book coz I can't find one! Thank you in advance! | gw6ur2i | gw7j44r | 1,619,628,076 | 1,619,638,258 | 3 | 5 | Googling this would lead to a lot of options, def think an intro to architecture history is always a good start! | As an European architect, from my perspective I would say rather than just reading books, you could also research a bit of the great architects that contributed to contemporary architecture in the XX century, such as: Le Corbousier (especially the 5 points of modern architecture), Mies Van der Rohe, Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, Oscar Niemeyer. There’s honestly a lot of boring history of architecture that you might at least know of, but most of it are old castles and churches/temples. Architecture is a vast world, and you should right from the beginning understand that an architect should understand how things work in many scales from an urban planning perspective, right to the assembly of a screw. Welcome aboard, have fun and you will certainly find your niche. | 0 | 10,182 | 1.666667 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyreef4 | fyrnqoz | 1,595,335,980 | 1,595,341,574 | 2 | 6 | Im not from US so i dont have any details on how architects live and earn there. I think it depends on you as a person and we can go deep into it why i love it or why they dont but I would never advise somebody to NOT get more education especially if a person is motivated. I know allot of architects who hate their choice of profession but I know allot who are in love with this job. But then again there is the question of finances for your education vs actual financial “reward” when you start working in the field so an advice from a US architect (who loves his job) would come in handy... | I went to school for arch and then started designing homes right out of school. The academic side of architecture was completely different than what I do now in the real world - I saw a lot of people, myself included, become disillusioned in arch school with the profession. Glad I stuck through it, I love where I’m at now. | 0 | 5,594 | 3 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyrze25 | fyrxn8x | 1,595,347,570 | 1,595,346,704 | 6 | 4 | Am an architect. Don't LOVE it, but think it's an interesting and rewarding job and not sure I'd want to do anything else. But you've come across a common pessimism in architecture that I don't think is entirely warranted but stems from a few things: - Architecture as a 'creative' career: Some people go into architecture as 'artists', with the idea that it's all about ideas and concepts and creating these amazing sculptural buildings... And architecture school absolutely encourages this, it's often focusing on exploration of ideas in lieu of all else. However industry is exactly the opposite: especially as a junior you are often doing boring, repetitive work and do very little decision-making. Even a bit more senior in your career, your decisions are often more about practicality and problem-solving some issue on site rather than coming up with a beautiful concept. The reality of getting a building built is something like 2% concept, 98% practical stuff. - Long hours: Again architecture school encourages with great glee 'all-nighters'. If you're not working down to the very last minute you clearly didn't explore your concept enough. There is never a 'done' point. Some people internalise this and continue working silly hours into their career. Some offices are particularly bad about taking advantage of this. That being said, I have worked in offices ranging from 10 people up to 300 in two different countries and have managed to avoid this. Maybe I've been lucky but in my experience those working long hours are doing it to themselves, maybe because they're trying to impress, or they're inefficient workers, or maybe because they just don't know when to stop. But if you don't start out at a new job doing that, in my experience it very rarely becomes an expectation of you. - Poor pay: Architects love to complain about how poorly paid they are. But that's not quite true. Yes juniors are paid peanuts (and I believe in the USA unpaid internships are rampant) but you get pay rises pretty quickly over the first few years. Senior level pay can be very nice, especially if you're happy to go work for a big corporate firm. However when we look at the other industry professionals that we work directly with - engineers, project managers, site managers, etc - we are often paid less than them (and because our role sort of ties everyone together, often feel like we're doing more work) so that can lead to a bit of salary grumbles. If you're willing to go sideways into technician/BIM manager, that often pays better too. So sometimes it feels like everyone earns more than us. Compounded on that is how much education we require (two degrees plus professional registration) which is often more than the other related industries I've just mentioned. BUT if you look at how much Architects are paid compared to overall averages, we're not doing so poorly. So it helps to keep some perspective there. Again, an anecdote: I earn more than my partner who has 5 years more experience than me but is in a different professional (science-based) field. Hope that sheds some light. Sounds like with your background you might avoid the starry-eyed idealism a lot of architecture grads fall into which will help! | It's a dynamic and intriguing profession. There is always more to learn and there is a ton of satisfaction from seeing someone spend hundreds of thousands millions to erect your vision into reality. Architects also tend to be somewhat revered in society, which is a neat bonus. With that said, it's an underpaid and time consuming profession. You're looking at 8 years minimum to get a license, plus the cost of school, and even then your still considered young and mostly inexperienced in your career. hours tend to be longer than 40 hours a week and working your way up to an 80k salary often takes at least a few years at best. A lot of people get stuck at 60k range if they don't push themselves. Also, a large portion of architects are more like construction technicians, rather than designers. Design is inherently part of the job, but there is also a lot of work, that has little to do with design. On the upside, in California, you can design homes without a license. You can also intern for 8 years in California, in lieu of school, as a cost efficient route to licensure too. It's not an easy profession, it's not the best paid, but it can be tremendously rewarding, especially if your passionate for the industry. | 1 | 866 | 1.5 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyrvlod | fyrze25 | 1,595,345,682 | 1,595,347,570 | 3 | 6 | You can look at my post history for more info, but the general state of the industry is: unstable, oversaturated, low pay, expensive/long education. It’s up to you to figure out if all this is worth it. | Am an architect. Don't LOVE it, but think it's an interesting and rewarding job and not sure I'd want to do anything else. But you've come across a common pessimism in architecture that I don't think is entirely warranted but stems from a few things: - Architecture as a 'creative' career: Some people go into architecture as 'artists', with the idea that it's all about ideas and concepts and creating these amazing sculptural buildings... And architecture school absolutely encourages this, it's often focusing on exploration of ideas in lieu of all else. However industry is exactly the opposite: especially as a junior you are often doing boring, repetitive work and do very little decision-making. Even a bit more senior in your career, your decisions are often more about practicality and problem-solving some issue on site rather than coming up with a beautiful concept. The reality of getting a building built is something like 2% concept, 98% practical stuff. - Long hours: Again architecture school encourages with great glee 'all-nighters'. If you're not working down to the very last minute you clearly didn't explore your concept enough. There is never a 'done' point. Some people internalise this and continue working silly hours into their career. Some offices are particularly bad about taking advantage of this. That being said, I have worked in offices ranging from 10 people up to 300 in two different countries and have managed to avoid this. Maybe I've been lucky but in my experience those working long hours are doing it to themselves, maybe because they're trying to impress, or they're inefficient workers, or maybe because they just don't know when to stop. But if you don't start out at a new job doing that, in my experience it very rarely becomes an expectation of you. - Poor pay: Architects love to complain about how poorly paid they are. But that's not quite true. Yes juniors are paid peanuts (and I believe in the USA unpaid internships are rampant) but you get pay rises pretty quickly over the first few years. Senior level pay can be very nice, especially if you're happy to go work for a big corporate firm. However when we look at the other industry professionals that we work directly with - engineers, project managers, site managers, etc - we are often paid less than them (and because our role sort of ties everyone together, often feel like we're doing more work) so that can lead to a bit of salary grumbles. If you're willing to go sideways into technician/BIM manager, that often pays better too. So sometimes it feels like everyone earns more than us. Compounded on that is how much education we require (two degrees plus professional registration) which is often more than the other related industries I've just mentioned. BUT if you look at how much Architects are paid compared to overall averages, we're not doing so poorly. So it helps to keep some perspective there. Again, an anecdote: I earn more than my partner who has 5 years more experience than me but is in a different professional (science-based) field. Hope that sheds some light. Sounds like with your background you might avoid the starry-eyed idealism a lot of architecture grads fall into which will help! | 0 | 1,888 | 2 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyreef4 | fyrze25 | 1,595,335,980 | 1,595,347,570 | 2 | 6 | Im not from US so i dont have any details on how architects live and earn there. I think it depends on you as a person and we can go deep into it why i love it or why they dont but I would never advise somebody to NOT get more education especially if a person is motivated. I know allot of architects who hate their choice of profession but I know allot who are in love with this job. But then again there is the question of finances for your education vs actual financial “reward” when you start working in the field so an advice from a US architect (who loves his job) would come in handy... | Am an architect. Don't LOVE it, but think it's an interesting and rewarding job and not sure I'd want to do anything else. But you've come across a common pessimism in architecture that I don't think is entirely warranted but stems from a few things: - Architecture as a 'creative' career: Some people go into architecture as 'artists', with the idea that it's all about ideas and concepts and creating these amazing sculptural buildings... And architecture school absolutely encourages this, it's often focusing on exploration of ideas in lieu of all else. However industry is exactly the opposite: especially as a junior you are often doing boring, repetitive work and do very little decision-making. Even a bit more senior in your career, your decisions are often more about practicality and problem-solving some issue on site rather than coming up with a beautiful concept. The reality of getting a building built is something like 2% concept, 98% practical stuff. - Long hours: Again architecture school encourages with great glee 'all-nighters'. If you're not working down to the very last minute you clearly didn't explore your concept enough. There is never a 'done' point. Some people internalise this and continue working silly hours into their career. Some offices are particularly bad about taking advantage of this. That being said, I have worked in offices ranging from 10 people up to 300 in two different countries and have managed to avoid this. Maybe I've been lucky but in my experience those working long hours are doing it to themselves, maybe because they're trying to impress, or they're inefficient workers, or maybe because they just don't know when to stop. But if you don't start out at a new job doing that, in my experience it very rarely becomes an expectation of you. - Poor pay: Architects love to complain about how poorly paid they are. But that's not quite true. Yes juniors are paid peanuts (and I believe in the USA unpaid internships are rampant) but you get pay rises pretty quickly over the first few years. Senior level pay can be very nice, especially if you're happy to go work for a big corporate firm. However when we look at the other industry professionals that we work directly with - engineers, project managers, site managers, etc - we are often paid less than them (and because our role sort of ties everyone together, often feel like we're doing more work) so that can lead to a bit of salary grumbles. If you're willing to go sideways into technician/BIM manager, that often pays better too. So sometimes it feels like everyone earns more than us. Compounded on that is how much education we require (two degrees plus professional registration) which is often more than the other related industries I've just mentioned. BUT if you look at how much Architects are paid compared to overall averages, we're not doing so poorly. So it helps to keep some perspective there. Again, an anecdote: I earn more than my partner who has 5 years more experience than me but is in a different professional (science-based) field. Hope that sheds some light. Sounds like with your background you might avoid the starry-eyed idealism a lot of architecture grads fall into which will help! | 0 | 11,590 | 3 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyrvlod | fyrxn8x | 1,595,345,682 | 1,595,346,704 | 3 | 4 | You can look at my post history for more info, but the general state of the industry is: unstable, oversaturated, low pay, expensive/long education. It’s up to you to figure out if all this is worth it. | It's a dynamic and intriguing profession. There is always more to learn and there is a ton of satisfaction from seeing someone spend hundreds of thousands millions to erect your vision into reality. Architects also tend to be somewhat revered in society, which is a neat bonus. With that said, it's an underpaid and time consuming profession. You're looking at 8 years minimum to get a license, plus the cost of school, and even then your still considered young and mostly inexperienced in your career. hours tend to be longer than 40 hours a week and working your way up to an 80k salary often takes at least a few years at best. A lot of people get stuck at 60k range if they don't push themselves. Also, a large portion of architects are more like construction technicians, rather than designers. Design is inherently part of the job, but there is also a lot of work, that has little to do with design. On the upside, in California, you can design homes without a license. You can also intern for 8 years in California, in lieu of school, as a cost efficient route to licensure too. It's not an easy profession, it's not the best paid, but it can be tremendously rewarding, especially if your passionate for the industry. | 0 | 1,022 | 1.333333 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyreef4 | fyrxn8x | 1,595,335,980 | 1,595,346,704 | 2 | 4 | Im not from US so i dont have any details on how architects live and earn there. I think it depends on you as a person and we can go deep into it why i love it or why they dont but I would never advise somebody to NOT get more education especially if a person is motivated. I know allot of architects who hate their choice of profession but I know allot who are in love with this job. But then again there is the question of finances for your education vs actual financial “reward” when you start working in the field so an advice from a US architect (who loves his job) would come in handy... | It's a dynamic and intriguing profession. There is always more to learn and there is a ton of satisfaction from seeing someone spend hundreds of thousands millions to erect your vision into reality. Architects also tend to be somewhat revered in society, which is a neat bonus. With that said, it's an underpaid and time consuming profession. You're looking at 8 years minimum to get a license, plus the cost of school, and even then your still considered young and mostly inexperienced in your career. hours tend to be longer than 40 hours a week and working your way up to an 80k salary often takes at least a few years at best. A lot of people get stuck at 60k range if they don't push themselves. Also, a large portion of architects are more like construction technicians, rather than designers. Design is inherently part of the job, but there is also a lot of work, that has little to do with design. On the upside, in California, you can design homes without a license. You can also intern for 8 years in California, in lieu of school, as a cost efficient route to licensure too. It's not an easy profession, it's not the best paid, but it can be tremendously rewarding, especially if your passionate for the industry. | 0 | 10,724 | 2 | ||
hv6klg | architecture_train | 0.93 | Do you love being an architect? I am a 30-year-old living in the southern US. I have a B.S. in Sustainable Development and I have been contemplating going back to school for architecture for quite some time. I currently work for a non-profit organization that promotes sustainability in the built environment through education, workshops, and a green homes program. There are lots of architects that are members of our non-profit and I’ve had the opportunity to ask them about their profession. Almost all of them said DON’T DO IT. It’s very confusing and discouraging for me. I obviously don’t know what the day-to-day of an architect looks like, but it is really that bad? Side question: how difficult is getting your degree in architecture? | fyrvlod | fyreef4 | 1,595,345,682 | 1,595,335,980 | 3 | 2 | You can look at my post history for more info, but the general state of the industry is: unstable, oversaturated, low pay, expensive/long education. It’s up to you to figure out if all this is worth it. | Im not from US so i dont have any details on how architects live and earn there. I think it depends on you as a person and we can go deep into it why i love it or why they dont but I would never advise somebody to NOT get more education especially if a person is motivated. I know allot of architects who hate their choice of profession but I know allot who are in love with this job. But then again there is the question of finances for your education vs actual financial “reward” when you start working in the field so an advice from a US architect (who loves his job) would come in handy... | 1 | 9,702 | 1.5 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2xupqg | h2xvlty | 1,624,580,192 | 1,624,580,676 | 13 | 25 | Too much work for the pay | I just graduated so I have some angst. I love architecture, I love designing, I love the artistic side mixed with the logical, analytical side, I really do love everything I've learned. That being said. School was fucking hell. And I don't mean the typical college is hard b.s. I mean, I took 18-22 credits EVERY semester until my last year, and that was with 32 pre req credits I graduated high school with. Deadlines, quizzes, and at least 5 hrs of homework pretty much every day. Sleep schedule? FUCKED. I used to joke that if I had a newborn right out of architecture id be fine because it's almost always running on <5 hrs of sleep a night and slamming the most caffeinated coffee you can find. I had class with the rest of the people in my year, 8-5 with a one hour break in between Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (for 4 years.) and 9-5 on the other days. Grades are mostly based on opinions so studying really just means constantly working and creating. My only social life was when other architecture people threw parties at the end of big deadlines (best parties ever btw) other than that I did intramurals so I'd have an excuse to get exercise. It's a grueling workload and its not for the weak. But if you absolutely love architecture, you'll do what you have to to get it done :) | 0 | 484 | 1.923077 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2xvlty | h2xq9at | 1,624,580,676 | 1,624,577,763 | 25 | 13 | I just graduated so I have some angst. I love architecture, I love designing, I love the artistic side mixed with the logical, analytical side, I really do love everything I've learned. That being said. School was fucking hell. And I don't mean the typical college is hard b.s. I mean, I took 18-22 credits EVERY semester until my last year, and that was with 32 pre req credits I graduated high school with. Deadlines, quizzes, and at least 5 hrs of homework pretty much every day. Sleep schedule? FUCKED. I used to joke that if I had a newborn right out of architecture id be fine because it's almost always running on <5 hrs of sleep a night and slamming the most caffeinated coffee you can find. I had class with the rest of the people in my year, 8-5 with a one hour break in between Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (for 4 years.) and 9-5 on the other days. Grades are mostly based on opinions so studying really just means constantly working and creating. My only social life was when other architecture people threw parties at the end of big deadlines (best parties ever btw) other than that I did intramurals so I'd have an excuse to get exercise. It's a grueling workload and its not for the weak. But if you absolutely love architecture, you'll do what you have to to get it done :) | Honestly most architects will tell you not to… if you’re super passionate and/or can’t fathom another career- go for it, and work hard. Otherwise choose something more fruitful that meets your goals. | 1 | 2,913 | 1.923077 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2xqwck | h2xvlty | 1,624,578,112 | 1,624,580,676 | 12 | 25 | I agree with retso. After 4 years of school and three years working in the industry, I changed my career back to what I was doing before. The pay is typically not commensurate with the skill set required, IMO. | I just graduated so I have some angst. I love architecture, I love designing, I love the artistic side mixed with the logical, analytical side, I really do love everything I've learned. That being said. School was fucking hell. And I don't mean the typical college is hard b.s. I mean, I took 18-22 credits EVERY semester until my last year, and that was with 32 pre req credits I graduated high school with. Deadlines, quizzes, and at least 5 hrs of homework pretty much every day. Sleep schedule? FUCKED. I used to joke that if I had a newborn right out of architecture id be fine because it's almost always running on <5 hrs of sleep a night and slamming the most caffeinated coffee you can find. I had class with the rest of the people in my year, 8-5 with a one hour break in between Monday, Wednesday, and Friday (for 4 years.) and 9-5 on the other days. Grades are mostly based on opinions so studying really just means constantly working and creating. My only social life was when other architecture people threw parties at the end of big deadlines (best parties ever btw) other than that I did intramurals so I'd have an excuse to get exercise. It's a grueling workload and its not for the weak. But if you absolutely love architecture, you'll do what you have to to get it done :) | 0 | 2,564 | 2.083333 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2xupqg | h2xqwck | 1,624,580,192 | 1,624,578,112 | 13 | 12 | Too much work for the pay | I agree with retso. After 4 years of school and three years working in the industry, I changed my career back to what I was doing before. The pay is typically not commensurate with the skill set required, IMO. | 1 | 2,080 | 1.083333 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2y487o | h2yesqn | 1,624,585,377 | 1,624,591,036 | 3 | 6 | Do it you have real design talent & a thick skin, sincerely. Worth it if you have that, not if you don’t | I agree that school is super long and exhausting but worth it if you are into the academic, intellectual and design elements and if you have a real passion for trying to make a difference in people’s lives through design. Not something to get into for the money or the status. But I would never go back to what I was doing before and don’t regret going to grad school. (Just don’t do it if you have to pay all in loans, you’ll never pay them off!) | 0 | 5,659 | 2 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yesqn | h2ybodo | 1,624,591,036 | 1,624,589,382 | 6 | 1 | I agree that school is super long and exhausting but worth it if you are into the academic, intellectual and design elements and if you have a real passion for trying to make a difference in people’s lives through design. Not something to get into for the money or the status. But I would never go back to what I was doing before and don’t regret going to grad school. (Just don’t do it if you have to pay all in loans, you’ll never pay them off!) | What draws you to architecture? What type of buildings do you want to design? | 1 | 1,654 | 6 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yesqn | h2y3r3w | 1,624,591,036 | 1,624,585,122 | 6 | -2 | I agree that school is super long and exhausting but worth it if you are into the academic, intellectual and design elements and if you have a real passion for trying to make a difference in people’s lives through design. Not something to get into for the money or the status. But I would never go back to what I was doing before and don’t regret going to grad school. (Just don’t do it if you have to pay all in loans, you’ll never pay them off!) | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | 1 | 5,914 | -3 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2y3r3w | h2y487o | 1,624,585,122 | 1,624,585,377 | -2 | 3 | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | Do it you have real design talent & a thick skin, sincerely. Worth it if you have that, not if you don’t | 0 | 255 | -1.5 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yxh4x | h2z2vr8 | 1,624,603,864 | 1,624,608,704 | 2 | 3 | I have become independent architect working on smaller scale projects. I love it, it has a lot of freedom, responsibility and if you are brave enough to ask for it even the money is ok. | There are actually a lot of different types of architects and roles within architecture. Most people just think of the one man band designing houses for rich people. Think about the bigger firms and how they work. Many have design architects and delivery architects. Documentation specialists, sector specialists, researchers, technology innovators etc. And no, the pay is not shit if you choose a career pathway that has this as a factor. You want to design houses and be paid by mums and dads' post-tax dollars? Then you'll probably have a modest salary. Doesn't have to be like that. | 0 | 4,840 | 1.5 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2z2vr8 | h2ybodo | 1,624,608,704 | 1,624,589,382 | 3 | 1 | There are actually a lot of different types of architects and roles within architecture. Most people just think of the one man band designing houses for rich people. Think about the bigger firms and how they work. Many have design architects and delivery architects. Documentation specialists, sector specialists, researchers, technology innovators etc. And no, the pay is not shit if you choose a career pathway that has this as a factor. You want to design houses and be paid by mums and dads' post-tax dollars? Then you'll probably have a modest salary. Doesn't have to be like that. | What draws you to architecture? What type of buildings do you want to design? | 1 | 19,322 | 3 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yixa7 | h2z2vr8 | 1,624,593,555 | 1,624,608,704 | 1 | 3 | There are also a great number of related positions that you'll qualify for as a architect. If you don't happen to like being an architect you can easily work in an adjacent field that might suit you better. | There are actually a lot of different types of architects and roles within architecture. Most people just think of the one man band designing houses for rich people. Think about the bigger firms and how they work. Many have design architects and delivery architects. Documentation specialists, sector specialists, researchers, technology innovators etc. And no, the pay is not shit if you choose a career pathway that has this as a factor. You want to design houses and be paid by mums and dads' post-tax dollars? Then you'll probably have a modest salary. Doesn't have to be like that. | 0 | 15,149 | 3 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2z2vr8 | h2y3r3w | 1,624,608,704 | 1,624,585,122 | 3 | -2 | There are actually a lot of different types of architects and roles within architecture. Most people just think of the one man band designing houses for rich people. Think about the bigger firms and how they work. Many have design architects and delivery architects. Documentation specialists, sector specialists, researchers, technology innovators etc. And no, the pay is not shit if you choose a career pathway that has this as a factor. You want to design houses and be paid by mums and dads' post-tax dollars? Then you'll probably have a modest salary. Doesn't have to be like that. | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | 1 | 23,582 | -1.5 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2ybodo | h2yxh4x | 1,624,589,382 | 1,624,603,864 | 1 | 2 | What draws you to architecture? What type of buildings do you want to design? | I have become independent architect working on smaller scale projects. I love it, it has a lot of freedom, responsibility and if you are brave enough to ask for it even the money is ok. | 0 | 14,482 | 2 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yxh4x | h2yixa7 | 1,624,603,864 | 1,624,593,555 | 2 | 1 | I have become independent architect working on smaller scale projects. I love it, it has a lot of freedom, responsibility and if you are brave enough to ask for it even the money is ok. | There are also a great number of related positions that you'll qualify for as a architect. If you don't happen to like being an architect you can easily work in an adjacent field that might suit you better. | 1 | 10,309 | 2 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2y3r3w | h2yxh4x | 1,624,585,122 | 1,624,603,864 | -2 | 2 | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | I have become independent architect working on smaller scale projects. I love it, it has a lot of freedom, responsibility and if you are brave enough to ask for it even the money is ok. | 0 | 18,742 | -1 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2y3r3w | h2ybodo | 1,624,585,122 | 1,624,589,382 | -2 | 1 | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | What draws you to architecture? What type of buildings do you want to design? | 0 | 4,260 | -0.5 | ||
o7b7ji | architecture_train | 0.91 | What's it like being an architect? Would you recommend your job to other people? I'm trying to choose a career, and I consider becoming an architect. Should I become one? I know it all depends on a person, but, generally, would you recommend it? | h2yixa7 | h2y3r3w | 1,624,593,555 | 1,624,585,122 | 1 | -2 | There are also a great number of related positions that you'll qualify for as a architect. If you don't happen to like being an architect you can easily work in an adjacent field that might suit you better. | Find a job you enjoy doing, and you will never work a day in your life. | 1 | 8,433 | -0.5 | ||
l31mac | architecture_train | 0.84 | If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? | gkah62q | gk9vbr6 | 1,611,374,301 | 1,611,365,653 | 9 | 1 | One of the distinguishing vibes both classical and art deco seem to have is their sense of grandeur. While modernism can feel sterile and temporary to me, both classical and art deco, when done well, feel timeless and celebrate humanity through their decoration. | I view it as a kind of pre-gaudi natural psychedelia the that emerged elegantly into the built realm Edit' not sure if I got the chronology right | 1 | 8,648 | 9 | ||
l31mac | architecture_train | 0.84 | If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? | gkdkkic | gk9vbr6 | 1,611,411,974 | 1,611,365,653 | 7 | 1 | An important point to make is that Art Deco is at its core a stylistic expression of classicism. Many of its practitioners were trained in systems similar to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Much of its compositional characteristics are classicizing as is the basis fir much of the ornament. | I view it as a kind of pre-gaudi natural psychedelia the that emerged elegantly into the built realm Edit' not sure if I got the chronology right | 1 | 46,321 | 7 | ||
l31mac | architecture_train | 0.84 | If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? If you dislike modern architecture and appreciate classical architecture, how do you view Art Deco? | gkfp60z | gk9vbr6 | 1,611,431,868 | 1,611,365,653 | 3 | 1 | Id say im flummoxed by modern. But my authority is based on my dad who lived in those miami beach hotels and drove a green and cream buick in the 50s. Ive been trying to teach teachers all my life that art deco is about movement. Moving into the future. Toasters that look ready to chug on down the road. Little success. But a si-fi movie without art deco is just wrong. | I view it as a kind of pre-gaudi natural psychedelia the that emerged elegantly into the built realm Edit' not sure if I got the chronology right | 1 | 66,215 | 3 | ||
imw5wx | architecture_train | 1 | Do you think Art Deco will do a comeback? A kind of Neo Art Deco, Idk wanna her opinions. | hopaz4q | g4fnfq2 | 1,639,606,695 | 1,599,567,550 | 2 | 1 | The the art deco design style described to me this way...I think it will make a comeback. It definitely lets people be more creative and individualistic with these options. | I think a style akin to Art Deco might arise in the far future. People will eventually tire of the "modern is minimalist and the future even more so" trend. It'll still have to be mass-producible though. | 1 | 40,039,145 | 2 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu1ya9c | gu1qlc0 | 1,618,070,302 | 1,618,066,495 | 6 | 0 | The trad is strong with OP | Because rich people want to show off their wealth and intellect by buying things only an "educated eye" will find good looking, to distinguish themselves from the masses with their bad taste who like things like Comfortable Couches and furniture that is actually Usable and not just Artistic. If you have a specific style you hate I can explain more, but the short answer is rich people want to feel special | 1 | 3,807 | 6,000 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu1f9tr | gu1ya9c | 1,618,059,988 | 1,618,070,302 | -1 | 6 | Frankfurt School ideology permeating the arts is one factor. | The trad is strong with OP | 0 | 10,314 | -6 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu23bgz | gu1qlc0 | 1,618,072,815 | 1,618,066,495 | 3 | 0 | Okay, Donald. | Because rich people want to show off their wealth and intellect by buying things only an "educated eye" will find good looking, to distinguish themselves from the masses with their bad taste who like things like Comfortable Couches and furniture that is actually Usable and not just Artistic. If you have a specific style you hate I can explain more, but the short answer is rich people want to feel special | 1 | 6,320 | 3,000 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu23bgz | gu1f9tr | 1,618,072,815 | 1,618,059,988 | 3 | -1 | Okay, Donald. | Frankfurt School ideology permeating the arts is one factor. | 1 | 12,827 | -3 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu1qlc0 | gu4jb0l | 1,618,066,495 | 1,618,123,504 | 0 | 3 | Because rich people want to show off their wealth and intellect by buying things only an "educated eye" will find good looking, to distinguish themselves from the masses with their bad taste who like things like Comfortable Couches and furniture that is actually Usable and not just Artistic. If you have a specific style you hate I can explain more, but the short answer is rich people want to feel special | The common idea that 'new' is supposed to be 'better' | 0 | 57,009 | 3,000 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu4jb0l | gu1f9tr | 1,618,123,504 | 1,618,059,988 | 3 | -1 | The common idea that 'new' is supposed to be 'better' | Frankfurt School ideology permeating the arts is one factor. | 1 | 63,516 | -3 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu9xk55 | gu1qlc0 | 1,618,248,098 | 1,618,066,495 | 1 | 0 | "Originality" seems to be a driving force of the hive mind. The Hive, as a city, controls. The hive demands. (Please submit!) Force requires strength. Domination prefers height. Numerous Random 'Original' Constructions, suggest progress, Evolution. Evolution, is the current god. That god is indifferent to humanity. | Because rich people want to show off their wealth and intellect by buying things only an "educated eye" will find good looking, to distinguish themselves from the masses with their bad taste who like things like Comfortable Couches and furniture that is actually Usable and not just Artistic. If you have a specific style you hate I can explain more, but the short answer is rich people want to feel special | 1 | 181,603 | 1,000 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu1f9tr | gu9xk55 | 1,618,059,988 | 1,618,248,098 | -1 | 1 | Frankfurt School ideology permeating the arts is one factor. | "Originality" seems to be a driving force of the hive mind. The Hive, as a city, controls. The hive demands. (Please submit!) Force requires strength. Domination prefers height. Numerous Random 'Original' Constructions, suggest progress, Evolution. Evolution, is the current god. That god is indifferent to humanity. | 0 | 188,110 | -1 | ||
mo3xgx | architecture_train | 0.59 | Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly Why are modern buildings so aggressively ugly. The lines and angles look alien, to the point they make me uneasy to even look at. | gu1f9tr | gu1qlc0 | 1,618,059,988 | 1,618,066,495 | -1 | 0 | Frankfurt School ideology permeating the arts is one factor. | Because rich people want to show off their wealth and intellect by buying things only an "educated eye" will find good looking, to distinguish themselves from the masses with their bad taste who like things like Comfortable Couches and furniture that is actually Usable and not just Artistic. If you have a specific style you hate I can explain more, but the short answer is rich people want to feel special | 0 | 6,507 | 0 | ||
bhxnzt | architecture_train | 0.87 | Why Don't More Buildings in Hot Areas Have Canopies over the Roof to Massively Lower the Heat? It would Be Much Cheaper than More Insulation [ask] It would largely keep the sun from touching it with all the generated airflow not just removing the heat on the canopy but cooling the place itself a lot. Or is this not actually the case? Sometimes it's done with a tree for a single house and enough of them can greatly lower a neighborhood's total heat. Persian architecture also has a lot of interesting methods to catch window or reduce heat. All these methods seem so cheap and easy, yet are rarely used. | elwndw0 | elwzq5u | 1,556,367,397 | 1,556,378,943 | 3 | 6 | Because it doesn't help as much as you think. The canopy will heat up and radiate heat downwards (to the building / roof) which in turn needs to be insulated to keep that radiation heat out. Also, the canopy will affect air flow. The sun hitting the roof/building is probably still better. A better solution is to have a ventilated roof, which is similar to what you propose but easier to build and more aesthetically pleasing. Another reason is because we don't have to. Unless it's a very low tech building (think development aid buildings) we just cool it artificially and insulate it well. | Money. You build two roofs, you pay for them. Everyone who camps in the desert knows they need a shade structure if they want to sleep past dawn. | 0 | 11,546 | 2 | ||
bhxnzt | architecture_train | 0.87 | Why Don't More Buildings in Hot Areas Have Canopies over the Roof to Massively Lower the Heat? It would Be Much Cheaper than More Insulation [ask] It would largely keep the sun from touching it with all the generated airflow not just removing the heat on the canopy but cooling the place itself a lot. Or is this not actually the case? Sometimes it's done with a tree for a single house and enough of them can greatly lower a neighborhood's total heat. Persian architecture also has a lot of interesting methods to catch window or reduce heat. All these methods seem so cheap and easy, yet are rarely used. | elx93fs | elwndw0 | 1,556,385,949 | 1,556,367,397 | 4 | 3 | Maybe something to do with having to move water from two roofs or accidentally creating shelter for feral animals, maintenance being difficult for the primary roof with a secondary roof above it. I live in the hottest city in Mexico, and energy costs are pretty high, when the arch school was opened 25 years ago or so it immediately took a focus on climatic architecture, now many of the first generation of graduates are well established and the city is undergoing a small resurgence of traditional building methods as a result. It'll probably take another 10 years for it to enter the mainstream though. | Because it doesn't help as much as you think. The canopy will heat up and radiate heat downwards (to the building / roof) which in turn needs to be insulated to keep that radiation heat out. Also, the canopy will affect air flow. The sun hitting the roof/building is probably still better. A better solution is to have a ventilated roof, which is similar to what you propose but easier to build and more aesthetically pleasing. Another reason is because we don't have to. Unless it's a very low tech building (think development aid buildings) we just cool it artificially and insulate it well. | 1 | 18,552 | 1.333333 | ||
arlrk5 | architecture_train | 0.89 | ask] Why do barns have 3 pitch roofs? Why do almost all old barns have a symmetrical 3 pitch roof like [this It seems like building higher walls, if you needed more verticle space, with a single pitch roof, would be easier. What are the reasons or advantages and why is it only used on barns. | ego65un | ego24wi | 1,550,423,825 | 1,550,420,541 | 7 | 3 | There are a lot of factors at play with any building design. I will say first that “most” barns are not necessarily Gabriel roofs like the image. It is common regionally. And that tends to correlate with who actually built the barns. Many barns (especially older ones) would be Constructed my members of the community, or a specialized crew. Logically, most barns built by the same group of people will be relatively similar in design. Further, if it’s a good barn, people from other communities will likely copy the good design elements. Barns fall into vernacular design pretty regularly and are the commonly product of social iteration more than intentional design strategies. Barns often have a wider span than most homes since they accommodate heavy machinery as well as livestock and storage. Internal columns can often conflict with the needed open space on the ground floor, so most roofs end up being trusses. Gambrel room trusses require shorter lengths of wood for each chord, while providing a lot of lofted storage depth. The image provided shows pretty low walls, and a double story loft enclosed in the roof truss. The gambrel truss design allows the roof to rest on very short exterior walls which minimizes the buckling in those walls, the low overhangs prevent external buckling and the roof truss ties the walls together The deep roof also creates a ventilation condition in the barn where hot air will rise through the center of the barn keeping the hay or grain stored in the lofted areas dry, while providing a cooling breeze on the ground floor near the equipment and livestock. Lots of stuff at work here. Short answer is that it’s just your regional vernacular. | It isn’t just about height, it is about the internal volume. | 1 | 3,284 | 2.333333 | ||
w3lgc4 | architecture_train | 1 | What is the best designed supermarket you have been to? why? I am working on a project and need to know what people look for in a supermarket | igxfo8n | igwzq8v | 1,658,331,210 | 1,658,324,816 | 5 | 3 | Public restrooms at the back *and* the front of the store with easily identifiable signage. | Whole Foods was always nice. Had a “cafe” in the front of the store so you could buy something from the shelves or at any of the service counters and just eat it in the store. Sometimes my mom when I was younger would just order a pizza when we arrived, go shop for the groceries, then we would have lunch before we left. | 1 | 6,394 | 1.666667 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0dmyjy | i0dnbzc | 1,647,099,727 | 1,647,099,896 | 2 | 9 | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | A firm I used to work for has leaned into the modular building movement. In a nutshell, the building is constructed in pieces at a factory and then assembled onsite; the examples they've presented at conferences involve stacking prebuilt apartments onto a site built foundation and stairs, and connections to plumbing and electric as well. This reduces cost a few ways (not all listed here): a factory has a stable, dry environment, so no schedule Fridays due to weather; materials are protected so there's less waste; at least in my area, the factories are located in an adjacent non-union state and then units are trucked to the site, lowering labor costs. This usually translates to a lower project cost for the developer and/or government agency, which should help keep housing costs lower (although usually involves some gov't intervention- e.g. tax credits- in my experience). Edit: to add, as my college professors used to remind us, affordable housing is more a policy issue than design- you can make a cheap building and still charge an arm and a leg to purchase it. | 0 | 169 | 4.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0dmyjy | i0dobhp | 1,647,099,727 | 1,647,100,327 | 2 | 9 | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | I’ve learned that affordable housing doesn’t have much to do with the architecture and more to do with politics and greed. At least in the United States. True affordable housing needs to be subsidized by the government and most people won’t vote for something that might raise their taxes. And owners/landlords need an incentive to rent to their tenants below market value. As far as design goes, from an urban design standpoint we need to focus on designing more mixed use developments at higher densities. Places where people can live, work, and shop. We also desperately need to improve our public transit options in the US. We are much too dependent on individual vehicles to get around. | 0 | 600 | 4.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0ds5gu | i0dujf1 | 1,647,101,994 | 1,647,103,010 | 4 | 5 | What is housing and affordable is pretty subjective. | People need to earn and be responsible for their "house" whether it is affordable or not. They have to maintain them. All affordable houses have to be built in such a way that they can be easily maintained. All plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems have to be easily accessible for repair and maintenance by home owners or contractors. Currently, I see many simple leakages in one small pipe, destroying multiple attached units. | 0 | 1,016 | 1.25 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0dujf1 | i0dmyjy | 1,647,103,010 | 1,647,099,727 | 5 | 2 | People need to earn and be responsible for their "house" whether it is affordable or not. They have to maintain them. All affordable houses have to be built in such a way that they can be easily maintained. All plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems have to be easily accessible for repair and maintenance by home owners or contractors. Currently, I see many simple leakages in one small pipe, destroying multiple attached units. | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | 1 | 3,283 | 2.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0dmyjy | i0ds5gu | 1,647,099,727 | 1,647,101,994 | 2 | 4 | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | What is housing and affordable is pretty subjective. | 0 | 2,267 | 2 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0eszm3 | i0dmyjy | 1,647,117,051 | 1,647,099,727 | 3 | 2 | The solutions for housing affordability in our cities has less to do with architecture and more to do with politics. Less expensive construction techniques and more efficient designs certainly help, but the big moves are the political ones (which politicians have thus far been reluctant to undertake). | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | 1 | 17,324 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0dmyjy | i0h6d25 | 1,647,099,727 | 1,647,165,901 | 2 | 3 | What is your definition of affordable housing? What is the problem you are trying to solve? | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | 0 | 66,174 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0ex05z | i0h6d25 | 1,647,118,869 | 1,647,165,901 | 2 | 3 | TBH, the best affordable housing is still just regular stick-built housing, standard apartments, or five-over-ones. There's some prefab technology out there, but it's not really a mature industry, so the savings aren't consistent if you go prefab. In my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong), the biggest hurtle is zoning and the price of land. Secondarily, the time sunk into the pre-planning and planning process. Thirdly is labor and material costs. | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | 0 | 47,032 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0h6d25 | i0fmfh4 | 1,647,165,901 | 1,647,130,682 | 3 | 2 | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | Going to have a bathroom and kitchen? That seems like 30k -40k to start, without the house. Almost like its the wrong start? | 1 | 35,219 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0fsucy | i0h6d25 | 1,647,133,901 | 1,647,165,901 | 2 | 3 | Le Corbusier’s public housing designs weren’t all that different from prisons... | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | 0 | 32,000 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0h6d25 | i0fx5ya | 1,647,165,901 | 1,647,136,128 | 3 | 2 | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | Have you looked into Aravena’s work?… | 1 | 29,773 | 1.5 | ||
tcijwh | architecture_train | 0.77 | What is the state of the art in affordable housing? I'm a layperson with a pedestrian knowledge of architecture. I like the intention of the ideas of Le Corbusier regarding urban planning and housing but I know time has proven most of them to be counter-productive. Also, that's stuff quite old. In this time of housing difficulty if not crisis, what is the state of the art regarding urban planning and especially architecture for affordable housing? Where should I look for the new ideas and also foundational ideas of that is considered effective nowadays? | i0h6d25 | i0g6mgg | 1,647,165,901 | 1,647,141,098 | 3 | 1 | As someone who works for a architecture firm that focus on affordable housing, the new trend is ETOD which is equitable transit oriented development, I live Chicago and the city tries to leverage its transportation system as must as possible to develop affordable housing. This ordinance requires developers to have 30 percent of their units to be affordable. This reduced carbon foot and creates density a long the elevated train lines. Like many of the previous commenters, affordable housing is a economical crisis and has barely anything to do with design, just like you can’t expect a Ferrari to be affordable as a Honda, good design performance cost, and hate the idea that good design is for everyone that’s unrealistic. We produce a lot of beautiful mix-used buildings but those buildings are expensive due to the cities red tapes and bureaucracies. | Think ‘AFFORDABLE LAND’ | 1 | 24,803 | 3 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieor3ky | ieoseez | 1,656,849,051 | 1,656,849,962 | 39 | 43 | We use the materials we use because they’re readily available, they’re durable, and easy to work with. Cobb and mud bricks are not incredibly durable or easy to work with | Cost, durability, stability, not meeting the requirements of a particular building. You cannot build a brick skyscraper - without the walls being meters and meters thick in the bottom to support it. | 0 | 911 | 1.102564 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieousoj | ieosw5y | 1,656,851,539 | 1,656,850,300 | 10 | 7 | It is due to a number of factors namely demand, availability, cost and training, changes in houses * Demand: Most people just want a building and aren't particular of what it's made of provided it gets the job done and looks good doing it. Traditional materials that have fallen out of favor for whatever reason aren't going to suddenly become popular again unles there is good reason * Availability: A lot of traditional materials aren't as available as the modern day counterparts. Let's take adobe for example (same as cob but made into bricks first). Sure the materials for adobe are everywhere, but so are places that sell plywood and stucco and they have prices available. * Cost: traditional materials often fell out of favor because they were expensive. A lot of them require more skill and/or time to work with. Someone has to make every adobe brick, or mix the cob and that is time consuming and that time equals labor costs. * Changes in Houses: Unless you live in a climate that doesn't get too cold or hot, or if it does get hot it has cool nights, then you're going to want insulation. Back in the day houses had none and people were bundled up and kept fires going constantly. Records from 1690s Plymouth Massachusetts put one family's household usage of wood at 60 cords one winter. Houses were essentially dried out which preserved materials. But as soon as houses became better at trapping heat, they became better at trapping their worst enemy. Water. New problem requires new materials. | These days most building products are mass produced and have huge supply chains behind them. Concrete, timber (particularly engineered timber and/or plantation softwood like pine), steel, aluminium, plastics. They’re cheaper and more standardised than traditional materials because of this. Their predictable to design and engineer with (standard sizes and tolerances) and usually quick and easy to install. Modern buildings are put together by tradespeople who want to get the job done as fast as possible to make a $$. Traditional materials usually require more time and craftsmanship to do the job properly. Building regulations play a part, everything these days needs a form signed in triplicate and only big companies have the money to do testing on their products. Aesthetic is also an issue. Very few people want to live in a mud brick cottage with a thatched roof when all their neighbours live in modern houses. | 1 | 1,239 | 1.428571 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieou9tz | ieousoj | 1,656,851,207 | 1,656,851,539 | 2 | 10 | I think that one factor might be financing. Banks would likely be reluctant to give a mortgage for a non-conventional structure with uncertain resale value. | It is due to a number of factors namely demand, availability, cost and training, changes in houses * Demand: Most people just want a building and aren't particular of what it's made of provided it gets the job done and looks good doing it. Traditional materials that have fallen out of favor for whatever reason aren't going to suddenly become popular again unles there is good reason * Availability: A lot of traditional materials aren't as available as the modern day counterparts. Let's take adobe for example (same as cob but made into bricks first). Sure the materials for adobe are everywhere, but so are places that sell plywood and stucco and they have prices available. * Cost: traditional materials often fell out of favor because they were expensive. A lot of them require more skill and/or time to work with. Someone has to make every adobe brick, or mix the cob and that is time consuming and that time equals labor costs. * Changes in Houses: Unless you live in a climate that doesn't get too cold or hot, or if it does get hot it has cool nights, then you're going to want insulation. Back in the day houses had none and people were bundled up and kept fires going constantly. Records from 1690s Plymouth Massachusetts put one family's household usage of wood at 60 cords one winter. Houses were essentially dried out which preserved materials. But as soon as houses became better at trapping heat, they became better at trapping their worst enemy. Water. New problem requires new materials. | 0 | 332 | 5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieowa9p | ieqbm3u | 1,656,852,470 | 1,656,875,626 | 3 | 5 | Why don’t people ride round on horses? Technology has advanced, there’s no need to use these materials anymore | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 23,156 | 1.666667 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieou9tz | ieqbm3u | 1,656,851,207 | 1,656,875,626 | 2 | 5 | I think that one factor might be financing. Banks would likely be reluctant to give a mortgage for a non-conventional structure with uncertain resale value. | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 24,419 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieowc27 | ieqbm3u | 1,656,852,500 | 1,656,875,626 | 2 | 5 | Two words that no one has spoken of yet...Building Code. IBC and IRC specifically. | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 23,126 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqbm3u | ieoyete | 1,656,875,626 | 1,656,853,717 | 5 | 2 | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | Probably a dozen reasons but one I’ll toss out there is lawsuits. In the US, everything needs to perform to a pretty precise spec and needs to be consistent. Natural materials tend to not be super consistent even if they are good | 1 | 21,909 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqbm3u | iepzdgl | 1,656,875,626 | 1,656,870,272 | 5 | 2 | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | Structurally a lot of traditional materials are height limited to a maximum of one floor, maybe two. This makes it a poor choice for places trying to increase density such as cities trying to create missing middle housing. They can be durable, but often they require much more labour and maintenance than other materials. We aren’t accustomed to that level of maintenance and many of us don’t have the time to put into our house or office building. Some traditional materials perform well only under certain conditions. For example heritage brick will deteriorate if left wet for prolonged periods. Older buildings performed ok in damp climates because there wasn’t a lot of insulation, so the heat on the inside of the building helped the walls dry out. Better insulation means less drying of walls which means quicker deterioration. Some traditional materials make good habitat for critters. Most people today would prefer critters don’t live in their houses. But probably the single biggest reason is because these materials aren’t in style. Because they aren’t in style, there isn’t a trained labour force, so the cost is high. | 1 | 5,354 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqbm3u | ieq5bcy | 1,656,875,626 | 1,656,872,858 | 5 | 2 | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | It depends really for residential purpose if you are building an individual unit then it makes sense . The problem is even though the material is relatively inexpensive it tends to be more time consuming and time is money. Also when building at a larger scale you also have to think about all the services and functions of a modern building, things like wiring, openings, HVAC lighting for larger buildings are designed with the more commonly used building techniques, so to have everything integrated wo be exponentially more expensive as they would have to be custom made for purpose. | 1 | 2,768 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieq8xft | ieqbm3u | 1,656,874,444 | 1,656,875,626 | 2 | 5 | I'd say it's mostly economy. Traditional building materials and techniques were developed in a world where materials cost a lot and labor cost very little. Today materials are really cheap (in the western world thanks to the 3rd world exploitation), but labor is expensive. There are some technical issues with traditional materials, but nothing that one couldn't overcome. | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 1,182 | 2.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieqbm3u | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,875,626 | 1 | 5 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 23,209 | 5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepeitt | ieqbm3u | 1,656,861,497 | 1,656,875,626 | 1 | 5 | Money | What is traditional? Materials we use for structures: steel and concrete have been around for thousands of years. Albeit, steel used as a main structurual material for about 140 years. Building code (fire, structure, egress), technology, labor, more ethical extraction and harvesting of materials, global manufacturing, availability, cost, durability, etc. all contribute to the evolution of building. | 0 | 14,129 | 5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieowa9p | ieou9tz | 1,656,852,470 | 1,656,851,207 | 3 | 2 | Why don’t people ride round on horses? Technology has advanced, there’s no need to use these materials anymore | I think that one factor might be financing. Banks would likely be reluctant to give a mortgage for a non-conventional structure with uncertain resale value. | 1 | 1,263 | 1.5 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieowa9p | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,852,470 | 1 | 3 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | Why don’t people ride round on horses? Technology has advanced, there’s no need to use these materials anymore | 0 | 53 | 3 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieowc27 | ieow74e | 1,656,852,500 | 1,656,852,417 | 2 | 1 | Two words that no one has spoken of yet...Building Code. IBC and IRC specifically. | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | 1 | 83 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieoyete | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,853,717 | 1 | 2 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | Probably a dozen reasons but one I’ll toss out there is lawsuits. In the US, everything needs to perform to a pretty precise spec and needs to be consistent. Natural materials tend to not be super consistent even if they are good | 0 | 1,300 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepzdgl | ieow74e | 1,656,870,272 | 1,656,852,417 | 2 | 1 | Structurally a lot of traditional materials are height limited to a maximum of one floor, maybe two. This makes it a poor choice for places trying to increase density such as cities trying to create missing middle housing. They can be durable, but often they require much more labour and maintenance than other materials. We aren’t accustomed to that level of maintenance and many of us don’t have the time to put into our house or office building. Some traditional materials perform well only under certain conditions. For example heritage brick will deteriorate if left wet for prolonged periods. Older buildings performed ok in damp climates because there wasn’t a lot of insulation, so the heat on the inside of the building helped the walls dry out. Better insulation means less drying of walls which means quicker deterioration. Some traditional materials make good habitat for critters. Most people today would prefer critters don’t live in their houses. But probably the single biggest reason is because these materials aren’t in style. Because they aren’t in style, there isn’t a trained labour force, so the cost is high. | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | 1 | 17,855 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepzdgl | iepeitt | 1,656,870,272 | 1,656,861,497 | 2 | 1 | Structurally a lot of traditional materials are height limited to a maximum of one floor, maybe two. This makes it a poor choice for places trying to increase density such as cities trying to create missing middle housing. They can be durable, but often they require much more labour and maintenance than other materials. We aren’t accustomed to that level of maintenance and many of us don’t have the time to put into our house or office building. Some traditional materials perform well only under certain conditions. For example heritage brick will deteriorate if left wet for prolonged periods. Older buildings performed ok in damp climates because there wasn’t a lot of insulation, so the heat on the inside of the building helped the walls dry out. Better insulation means less drying of walls which means quicker deterioration. Some traditional materials make good habitat for critters. Most people today would prefer critters don’t live in their houses. But probably the single biggest reason is because these materials aren’t in style. Because they aren’t in style, there isn’t a trained labour force, so the cost is high. | Money | 1 | 8,775 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieq5bcy | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,872,858 | 1 | 2 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | It depends really for residential purpose if you are building an individual unit then it makes sense . The problem is even though the material is relatively inexpensive it tends to be more time consuming and time is money. Also when building at a larger scale you also have to think about all the services and functions of a modern building, things like wiring, openings, HVAC lighting for larger buildings are designed with the more commonly used building techniques, so to have everything integrated wo be exponentially more expensive as they would have to be custom made for purpose. | 0 | 20,441 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepeitt | ieq5bcy | 1,656,861,497 | 1,656,872,858 | 1 | 2 | Money | It depends really for residential purpose if you are building an individual unit then it makes sense . The problem is even though the material is relatively inexpensive it tends to be more time consuming and time is money. Also when building at a larger scale you also have to think about all the services and functions of a modern building, things like wiring, openings, HVAC lighting for larger buildings are designed with the more commonly used building techniques, so to have everything integrated wo be exponentially more expensive as they would have to be custom made for purpose. | 0 | 11,361 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieq8xft | ieow74e | 1,656,874,444 | 1,656,852,417 | 2 | 1 | I'd say it's mostly economy. Traditional building materials and techniques were developed in a world where materials cost a lot and labor cost very little. Today materials are really cheap (in the western world thanks to the 3rd world exploitation), but labor is expensive. There are some technical issues with traditional materials, but nothing that one couldn't overcome. | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | 1 | 22,027 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepeitt | ieq8xft | 1,656,861,497 | 1,656,874,444 | 1 | 2 | Money | I'd say it's mostly economy. Traditional building materials and techniques were developed in a world where materials cost a lot and labor cost very little. Today materials are really cheap (in the western world thanks to the 3rd world exploitation), but labor is expensive. There are some technical issues with traditional materials, but nothing that one couldn't overcome. | 0 | 12,947 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieqe734 | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,876,769 | 1 | 2 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | There is a direction right now where timber is being used a lot more for building - even little skyscraper (I think tallest is currently 18 storeys). The tech and material corridors have developed such that these are economically challenging the common building methods. The biggest hurdle is fire. There are some big misconceptions around fire spread in timber, which puts people off. Engineered timber products, such as glulam and clt, can rival steel in terms of structural soundness in fire, so changing these attitudes and improving building details will be key. | 0 | 24,352 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepeitt | ieqe734 | 1,656,861,497 | 1,656,876,769 | 1 | 2 | Money | There is a direction right now where timber is being used a lot more for building - even little skyscraper (I think tallest is currently 18 storeys). The tech and material corridors have developed such that these are economically challenging the common building methods. The biggest hurdle is fire. There are some big misconceptions around fire spread in timber, which puts people off. Engineered timber products, such as glulam and clt, can rival steel in terms of structural soundness in fire, so changing these attitudes and improving building details will be key. | 0 | 15,272 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqnjn5 | ieow74e | 1,656,880,925 | 1,656,852,417 | 2 | 1 | There are a couple of different reasons. The first depends on your side of the world, and the use of locally sourced materials( urban materials). The second is cost, I'd have to pay someone more to hall stone, and if we're talking pre-wwII reconstruction stone would typically have to be cut on site and put into place meaning that it would take much longer to build. Meaning that I would have to pay for more man hours + higher cost of materials + plus the cost to ship said materials + plus a specialist if it's a special material. The third reason is climate and environment if you live somewhere hot, best not to you materials that retain heat. And visa versa with the cold | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | 1 | 28,508 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | iepeitt | ieqnjn5 | 1,656,861,497 | 1,656,880,925 | 1 | 2 | Money | There are a couple of different reasons. The first depends on your side of the world, and the use of locally sourced materials( urban materials). The second is cost, I'd have to pay someone more to hall stone, and if we're talking pre-wwII reconstruction stone would typically have to be cut on site and put into place meaning that it would take much longer to build. Meaning that I would have to pay for more man hours + higher cost of materials + plus the cost to ship said materials + plus a specialist if it's a special material. The third reason is climate and environment if you live somewhere hot, best not to you materials that retain heat. And visa versa with the cold | 0 | 19,428 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqnjn5 | ieqm1u1 | 1,656,880,925 | 1,656,880,270 | 2 | 1 | There are a couple of different reasons. The first depends on your side of the world, and the use of locally sourced materials( urban materials). The second is cost, I'd have to pay someone more to hall stone, and if we're talking pre-wwII reconstruction stone would typically have to be cut on site and put into place meaning that it would take much longer to build. Meaning that I would have to pay for more man hours + higher cost of materials + plus the cost to ship said materials + plus a specialist if it's a special material. The third reason is climate and environment if you live somewhere hot, best not to you materials that retain heat. And visa versa with the cold | Most buildings I see in my area of the US are made from local materials, pine 2x4. from single floor shoe box shape houses to 10 story office and apartment complexes. | 1 | 655 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieow74e | ieqof4i | 1,656,852,417 | 1,656,881,307 | 1 | 2 | Most of the answers above plus durability, natural materials generally have a smaller maintenance cycle than their modern equivalents. | You mean dung? I had a house like that once but it was shit. | 0 | 28,890 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqof4i | iepeitt | 1,656,881,307 | 1,656,861,497 | 2 | 1 | You mean dung? I had a house like that once but it was shit. | Money | 1 | 19,810 | 2 | ||
vqf9hs | architecture_train | 0.81 | Why aren't more buildings/structures made from traditional materials? Not sure if this is the right sub, but was the first one I thought of. By traditional materials I mean cobb, mud bricks etc. So, is it due to the cost of labor, economical reasons, building codes/planning laws or a combination? Seems like they're durable enough and stand the test of time (and cheap?), so is it just because they're difficult to work with? Sorry for silly question but I don't have a community of architects I can ask irl so here I am, thank you internet. | ieqm1u1 | ieqof4i | 1,656,880,270 | 1,656,881,307 | 1 | 2 | Most buildings I see in my area of the US are made from local materials, pine 2x4. from single floor shoe box shape houses to 10 story office and apartment complexes. | You mean dung? I had a house like that once but it was shit. | 0 | 1,037 | 2 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3tzlzh | e3v9538 | 1,533,745,713 | 1,533,786,558 | 6 | 10 | You're comparing apples and oranges. Firstly it sounds like you're in flats (apartments) now? Of course that's gonna be hotter than a terrace, you've got much less airflow due to the shape of the building. That's a housing density/land price issue more than a building techniques issue. Secondly, this summer is ridiculous, we're all roasting. You can't compare 2018 in your new house to 2017 in your old one because the outside temps are waaaaaay higher. | >Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? * Modernism made it culturally acceptable for buildings to abandon all ornamentation. Developers said "great, less upfront cost". * About half of the cost of buildings today are the "systems": HVAC, electrical, lighting, data, plumbing, etc. In the past it was about 5%. That money has to come from somewhere. * Buildings became investments with ~30 year mortgages. There is no incentive to make them last a century. * Material science. It used to be that the cheap materials were local and nice (wood, stone, brick, lath and plaster). Now the cheapest materials are soul-sucking garbage. Drywall, beige carpet, hideous carpet tiles, ribbed metal, vinyl siding. Now basic humanist materials like wood flooring, real stone, or plaster walls with some texture are luxuries. * Automation. The more that can be done in a factory the less craftsmanship that needs to occur in the field. This is a must-read on the topic: http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/7/less-for-less-yet | 0 | 40,845 | 1.666667 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3v9538 | e3tsc51 | 1,533,786,558 | 1,533,739,725 | 10 | 4 | >Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? * Modernism made it culturally acceptable for buildings to abandon all ornamentation. Developers said "great, less upfront cost". * About half of the cost of buildings today are the "systems": HVAC, electrical, lighting, data, plumbing, etc. In the past it was about 5%. That money has to come from somewhere. * Buildings became investments with ~30 year mortgages. There is no incentive to make them last a century. * Material science. It used to be that the cheap materials were local and nice (wood, stone, brick, lath and plaster). Now the cheapest materials are soul-sucking garbage. Drywall, beige carpet, hideous carpet tiles, ribbed metal, vinyl siding. Now basic humanist materials like wood flooring, real stone, or plaster walls with some texture are luxuries. * Automation. The more that can be done in a factory the less craftsmanship that needs to occur in the field. This is a must-read on the topic: http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/7/less-for-less-yet | Thank your lax building code? In my country building code is very strict and demands a lot of insulation and energy efficiency. So contemporary buildings are much better than anything before. Maybe you forgot to turn on the central ventilation in your new apt? | 1 | 46,833 | 2.5 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3ts5p9 | e3v9538 | 1,533,739,574 | 1,533,786,558 | -5 | 10 | It's a design vs use problem. People love modern looking buildings but the square styling isn't good for heat or air dispersion, and add in all the extra windows for styling and lack of proper insulation to compensate you have an uncomfortable building. I am partial to orange and grey and blue colour schemes though. | >Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? * Modernism made it culturally acceptable for buildings to abandon all ornamentation. Developers said "great, less upfront cost". * About half of the cost of buildings today are the "systems": HVAC, electrical, lighting, data, plumbing, etc. In the past it was about 5%. That money has to come from somewhere. * Buildings became investments with ~30 year mortgages. There is no incentive to make them last a century. * Material science. It used to be that the cheap materials were local and nice (wood, stone, brick, lath and plaster). Now the cheapest materials are soul-sucking garbage. Drywall, beige carpet, hideous carpet tiles, ribbed metal, vinyl siding. Now basic humanist materials like wood flooring, real stone, or plaster walls with some texture are luxuries. * Automation. The more that can be done in a factory the less craftsmanship that needs to occur in the field. This is a must-read on the topic: http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/7/less-for-less-yet | 0 | 46,984 | -2 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3tzlzh | e3tsc51 | 1,533,745,713 | 1,533,739,725 | 6 | 4 | You're comparing apples and oranges. Firstly it sounds like you're in flats (apartments) now? Of course that's gonna be hotter than a terrace, you've got much less airflow due to the shape of the building. That's a housing density/land price issue more than a building techniques issue. Secondly, this summer is ridiculous, we're all roasting. You can't compare 2018 in your new house to 2017 in your old one because the outside temps are waaaaaay higher. | Thank your lax building code? In my country building code is very strict and demands a lot of insulation and energy efficiency. So contemporary buildings are much better than anything before. Maybe you forgot to turn on the central ventilation in your new apt? | 1 | 5,988 | 1.5 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3ts5p9 | e3tzlzh | 1,533,739,574 | 1,533,745,713 | -5 | 6 | It's a design vs use problem. People love modern looking buildings but the square styling isn't good for heat or air dispersion, and add in all the extra windows for styling and lack of proper insulation to compensate you have an uncomfortable building. I am partial to orange and grey and blue colour schemes though. | You're comparing apples and oranges. Firstly it sounds like you're in flats (apartments) now? Of course that's gonna be hotter than a terrace, you've got much less airflow due to the shape of the building. That's a housing density/land price issue more than a building techniques issue. Secondly, this summer is ridiculous, we're all roasting. You can't compare 2018 in your new house to 2017 in your old one because the outside temps are waaaaaay higher. | 0 | 6,139 | -1.2 | ||
95mlja | architecture_train | 0.6 | [ask] Why are modern buildings unattractive and uncomfortable? In the UK. Recently moved from a handsome 1920s red brick terrace to a modern (2017) building. It’s always uncomfortably hot and stuffy, like a greenhouse in the summer with very poor circulation. It looks like a square lump, like if someone made an icecube from porridge. It’s mostly grey but also has some bright orange accents which manage to clash and look out of place with the natural environment. Why have we got worse at building over the past hundred years? Have noticed this in non- residential buildings as well. At my undergraduate university there was a big concentrate modern library and a smaller 17th century one. During the summer, we'd all rush to get seats in the old library because it was much cooler and more pleasant to work in. It was colder in winters, but that wasn't a problem because we could just wear jumpers. | e3tsc51 | e3ts5p9 | 1,533,739,725 | 1,533,739,574 | 4 | -5 | Thank your lax building code? In my country building code is very strict and demands a lot of insulation and energy efficiency. So contemporary buildings are much better than anything before. Maybe you forgot to turn on the central ventilation in your new apt? | It's a design vs use problem. People love modern looking buildings but the square styling isn't good for heat or air dispersion, and add in all the extra windows for styling and lack of proper insulation to compensate you have an uncomfortable building. I am partial to orange and grey and blue colour schemes though. | 1 | 151 | -0.8 | ||
fsqcn1 | architecture_train | 0.87 | How would one go about designing a building that is modern but not global? [Ask] Please point me in the right direction if this isn't the right place to ask this question! I live in a city that is pretty lucky to have some old-ish architecture lying around, and I consider it very pretty. But if I were to become an architect and got the chance to build something that had to fit in with the existing style but didn't copy it (because I heard copying a style no longer in use is frowned upon), how do I go about designing it? How do I make a building that is obviously modern, even to the layman who knows nothing about architecture, but that isn't just a global style clumsily dropped into an older setting? And I've just discovered r/architecturalrevival - as I figure, the point is reviving an old style. But what if a nation's identity has changed over time? I live in a Balkan country, in a town where most of the buildings considered beautiful are ones left over by the Austro-Hungarian empire (which the area I live in is no longer part of). Please please please correct me if I'm wrong, but even though these buildings *are* a part of my culture because I grew up here, I feel like reviving such a style would feel more like appropriation rather than revival, because we are Slavic, not Austrian nor Hungarian. If what I'm asking is a very basic question that anyone even a little educated in architecture knows the answer to, I don't expect a detailed reply in answer, just a link or a pointer to where I can do additional reading / understand this problem better. | fm2wc8u | fm2vu9r | 1,585,706,936 | 1,585,706,599 | 6 | 3 | look into critical regionalism | I’m not sure exactly what answer you’re looking for here, because there are varying schools of thought, but if they underlying question is actually how to do it, the answer is go to Architecture school and spend 3-5 years learning how. I think however you mean creating modern vernacular architecture. In general you drawn elements of the architecture local to a region that are specific to that region or for some reason connected to it (climate based, materials based, cultural program etc) and progress the design understanding the importance and meaning of those elements. There’s nothing about historical architecture that specifically must be copied, rather to preserve vernacular styles requires a respect for local traditions and resources. | 1 | 337 | 2 | ||
fsqcn1 | architecture_train | 0.87 | How would one go about designing a building that is modern but not global? [Ask] Please point me in the right direction if this isn't the right place to ask this question! I live in a city that is pretty lucky to have some old-ish architecture lying around, and I consider it very pretty. But if I were to become an architect and got the chance to build something that had to fit in with the existing style but didn't copy it (because I heard copying a style no longer in use is frowned upon), how do I go about designing it? How do I make a building that is obviously modern, even to the layman who knows nothing about architecture, but that isn't just a global style clumsily dropped into an older setting? And I've just discovered r/architecturalrevival - as I figure, the point is reviving an old style. But what if a nation's identity has changed over time? I live in a Balkan country, in a town where most of the buildings considered beautiful are ones left over by the Austro-Hungarian empire (which the area I live in is no longer part of). Please please please correct me if I'm wrong, but even though these buildings *are* a part of my culture because I grew up here, I feel like reviving such a style would feel more like appropriation rather than revival, because we are Slavic, not Austrian nor Hungarian. If what I'm asking is a very basic question that anyone even a little educated in architecture knows the answer to, I don't expect a detailed reply in answer, just a link or a pointer to where I can do additional reading / understand this problem better. | fm3ij80 | fm2vu9r | 1,585,724,721 | 1,585,706,599 | 4 | 3 | What’s wrong with copying an old style? The “architecture of today” is up to us (and the people frowning at new traditional architecture have resolved to frown at it regardless of whether its good or not) | I’m not sure exactly what answer you’re looking for here, because there are varying schools of thought, but if they underlying question is actually how to do it, the answer is go to Architecture school and spend 3-5 years learning how. I think however you mean creating modern vernacular architecture. In general you drawn elements of the architecture local to a region that are specific to that region or for some reason connected to it (climate based, materials based, cultural program etc) and progress the design understanding the importance and meaning of those elements. There’s nothing about historical architecture that specifically must be copied, rather to preserve vernacular styles requires a respect for local traditions and resources. | 1 | 18,122 | 1.333333 | ||
fsqcn1 | architecture_train | 0.87 | How would one go about designing a building that is modern but not global? [Ask] Please point me in the right direction if this isn't the right place to ask this question! I live in a city that is pretty lucky to have some old-ish architecture lying around, and I consider it very pretty. But if I were to become an architect and got the chance to build something that had to fit in with the existing style but didn't copy it (because I heard copying a style no longer in use is frowned upon), how do I go about designing it? How do I make a building that is obviously modern, even to the layman who knows nothing about architecture, but that isn't just a global style clumsily dropped into an older setting? And I've just discovered r/architecturalrevival - as I figure, the point is reviving an old style. But what if a nation's identity has changed over time? I live in a Balkan country, in a town where most of the buildings considered beautiful are ones left over by the Austro-Hungarian empire (which the area I live in is no longer part of). Please please please correct me if I'm wrong, but even though these buildings *are* a part of my culture because I grew up here, I feel like reviving such a style would feel more like appropriation rather than revival, because we are Slavic, not Austrian nor Hungarian. If what I'm asking is a very basic question that anyone even a little educated in architecture knows the answer to, I don't expect a detailed reply in answer, just a link or a pointer to where I can do additional reading / understand this problem better. | fm3mne9 | fm3o4xo | 1,585,729,009 | 1,585,730,627 | 2 | 3 | There is no actual copying other than reproducing. If you want to design in a certain style step one is to understand the way of thinking and building during that time. If you follow the reasoning of a style your design will fit into it. Even if you'd adapt it to your time the influence will always be visible, best examples are the neo-classist buildings, which are obviously different from the classical temples, but clearly show devotion to that way of designing. | Critical Regionalism is your friend. Look into the work of Jorn Utzon, Alvar Aalto, Glenn Murcutt, Mario Botta, Carlo Scarpa, Charles Correa, Sverre Fehn, Peter Zumthor. | 0 | 1,618 | 1.5 | ||
dxo8jx | architecture_train | 0.89 | [ASK] Why is high-rise building cladding causing the rapid spread of fire such an issue in the UK (with the Grenfell Tower fire and the recent Bolton Block fire) but not in Canada and the USA? Just different building codes or is it due to something else? (Cross-posting from r/AskScience) | f7tytat | f7tw6rz | 1,574,008,917 | 1,574,008,205 | 5 | 2 | Someone in my college did a case study on Grenfell tower fire and made an exact replica of the wall with the cladding. It was noted there was some fire protection but it wasn't put in around the clips for the cladding and that's how the fire managed to pass through the fire barrier. | This is just my guess, but I wonder is it has something to do with fire rating testing practices. In the US and Canada, we generally have to use UL tested/rated assemblies or equivalent to ensure adequate fire protection for the given building and it's components (structure, finishes, penetrations, etc.). As I don't know standards in the UK, I wonder if there isn't similar systems/agencies in place. It would surprise me if there wasn't since it's a life safety issue and is paramount when designing. Again, I don't know much about the fires out practices, so others may shed better light on this. | 1 | 712 | 2.5 | ||
dxo8jx | architecture_train | 0.89 | [ASK] Why is high-rise building cladding causing the rapid spread of fire such an issue in the UK (with the Grenfell Tower fire and the recent Bolton Block fire) but not in Canada and the USA? Just different building codes or is it due to something else? (Cross-posting from r/AskScience) | f7tw6rz | f7twgof | 1,574,008,205 | 1,574,008,307 | 2 | 5 | This is just my guess, but I wonder is it has something to do with fire rating testing practices. In the US and Canada, we generally have to use UL tested/rated assemblies or equivalent to ensure adequate fire protection for the given building and it's components (structure, finishes, penetrations, etc.). As I don't know standards in the UK, I wonder if there isn't similar systems/agencies in place. It would surprise me if there wasn't since it's a life safety issue and is paramount when designing. Again, I don't know much about the fires out practices, so others may shed better light on this. | The equivalent metal cladding used in North America on a highrise is a more-costly fire-retardant version. Another difference is that newer highrise buildings in North America are protected effectively with sprinklers, smoke evacuation systems, compartmentalization, and alarms. This has happened in Dubai, too - Dubai photo | 0 | 102 | 2.5 | ||
dxo8jx | architecture_train | 0.89 | [ASK] Why is high-rise building cladding causing the rapid spread of fire such an issue in the UK (with the Grenfell Tower fire and the recent Bolton Block fire) but not in Canada and the USA? Just different building codes or is it due to something else? (Cross-posting from r/AskScience) | f7ucx95 | f7tw6rz | 1,574,013,701 | 1,574,008,205 | 3 | 2 | Yes, building code/fire code. For example in my country it's essentially impossible to glue facade cladding, since the glue would have to withstand 90 minutes of fire, which no commercial glue today can. So we always have to screw or rivet the panels, which is uglier than glueing. | This is just my guess, but I wonder is it has something to do with fire rating testing practices. In the US and Canada, we generally have to use UL tested/rated assemblies or equivalent to ensure adequate fire protection for the given building and it's components (structure, finishes, penetrations, etc.). As I don't know standards in the UK, I wonder if there isn't similar systems/agencies in place. It would surprise me if there wasn't since it's a life safety issue and is paramount when designing. Again, I don't know much about the fires out practices, so others may shed better light on this. | 1 | 5,496 | 1.5 | ||
dxo8jx | architecture_train | 0.89 | [ASK] Why is high-rise building cladding causing the rapid spread of fire such an issue in the UK (with the Grenfell Tower fire and the recent Bolton Block fire) but not in Canada and the USA? Just different building codes or is it due to something else? (Cross-posting from r/AskScience) | f7tw6rz | f7urby0 | 1,574,008,205 | 1,574,017,238 | 2 | 3 | This is just my guess, but I wonder is it has something to do with fire rating testing practices. In the US and Canada, we generally have to use UL tested/rated assemblies or equivalent to ensure adequate fire protection for the given building and it's components (structure, finishes, penetrations, etc.). As I don't know standards in the UK, I wonder if there isn't similar systems/agencies in place. It would surprise me if there wasn't since it's a life safety issue and is paramount when designing. Again, I don't know much about the fires out practices, so others may shed better light on this. | I think the Building Codes (Building Regulations in the UK) are the important difference. With the relatively recent requirement for higher levels of thermal insulation, the UK fire regulations need updating, for example, to exclude the use of toxic or inflammable materials on the facades of high-rise buildings. This has been known for some time. The new fire regulations (Approved Document B -2019) have been released this year: I don't practise in the UK and I don't know if these problems have been addressed in this new release or been fudged as they have been in the past. | 0 | 9,033 | 1.5 | ||
dxo8jx | architecture_train | 0.89 | [ASK] Why is high-rise building cladding causing the rapid spread of fire such an issue in the UK (with the Grenfell Tower fire and the recent Bolton Block fire) but not in Canada and the USA? Just different building codes or is it due to something else? (Cross-posting from r/AskScience) | f7ykxps | f7xq28a | 1,574,096,836 | 1,574,069,312 | 2 | 1 | There was video on youtube, about the architecture forensic company that was studying exactly this. Il try to find it by lunch. | In the particular case of Grenfell Tower, the cladding was banned from use in high rises for this specific reason, but installed there fraudulently. | 1 | 27,524 | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.