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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
g5k2eg | architecture_train | 1 | Any book recommendations about the impact of architecture on human behavior? [ask] I am very interested in learning more about architecture’s impact on human behavior. I’m not an architecture major (but in a closely related field) and am interested in sustainability within building design. I’m not looking for textbooks or any sort of book that focuses mainly on architectural history or design rules of thumb. Some books that I’ve purchased recently and enjoyed are ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’ by Jane Jacobs, ‘The Architecture of Happiness’ by Alain de Botton, and ‘Thermal Delight in Architecture’ by Lisa Heschong. If you have any recommendation that is similar to the concepts of these books, please let me know! | fo4rgtb | fo4pgyj | 1,587,509,791 | 1,587,508,705 | 3 | 1 | I can give you a lead...there are a bunch of chapters within "A pattern Language" that review the kinds of things your looking for. The book will reference where it got its data - usually other books or studies with authors and dates. Most of them are a little dated by now but im not sure anyone bothered to re-do the work to date. The ideals/ issues really dont change much....except for the introduction of social media. Id be very interested to see certain studies re-done. For example the "issues" with living high above the streets - away from society. Your really not so "away" anymore. | many urbanists wrote a bit about this in the public space realm. maybe look up William Whyte and his studies of NYC. Ian Gehl also gets very psychological but less so in relation to buildings/form. However, what you're looking for probably won't be a book. Id look at different color/proportion studies, ceiling height impacts, etc. Those 2 dudes should give you a good foundation and start for sure tho | 1 | 1,086 | 3 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwpa5tr | dwpthc0 | 1,522,714,988 | 1,522,736,594 | 5 | 13 | In a way, all main european pre-modernist architecture styles were more or less international in nature. Less so for communal structures, but for anything more grandiose - large government and sacral buildings were more often than not copied stylistically. We can see this with Gothic, that has spread literally everywhere, albeit over hundreds of years taking some local forms. Renaissance was perhaps first truly international style, with architects spreading it pretty much everywhere. Even old Antique Classic was, in a way, international, as it has spread from Phoenicia to Greece where it took solid form, and with the help of Alexander and later Rome - throughout the world. Later on, Baroque again, spread throughout the Europe albeit it evolved into local shapes, perhaps due to the rise of craftsmanship. But my point is, international architecture is not something entirely new. It is of course amplified by globalization and spread of information in our age. That being said, I think that even modernism has already developed some local shapes. Even though it all takes it roots from several buildings (such as *Unité d'habitation*), we can see distinct differences between Plattenbau and american social housing, soviet *Khrushchyovka's* and Middle-Eastern blocks, and much less time has passed from the beginning of the style than, arguably, it took for first local Gothic forms to develop since St.Denis. Now, I do believe that it is traditional variety of architecture is what makes it wonderful. On the one hand it is much harder to maintain strict traditional shapes, because there is no longer information blackout in digital age, and ideas are readily shared across the globe. On the other hand, there is an obvious movement to include tradition back again, and in the age to come, I think, we are bound to see far more development in this direction. It is further amplified by the fact, that even though architects of the past (including recent modernist\post-modernist era) were more or less bound to some specific architectural ideology, it is right now in the age of information, when we can clearly see both past and present, it is possible to build in any style that is required. **TL:DR** I think we will see both return of vernacular architecture AND further development of modern\post-modern styles. | You'll like this book: From Bauhaus to Our House | 0 | 21,606 | 2.6 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwphish | dwpthc0 | 1,522,722,864 | 1,522,736,594 | 3 | 13 | Why do watches made in china look like watches made in Italy? The world has changed a huge amount in the last 100 years. Why does your car not have the same look as a horse and cart or steam train. Also much classical traditional architects looks identical when built in Italy or London or new york. Ultimately it's an art and at the moment aping a style of half a world away, created by people who bear no resemblance to the way modern society works is simply inauthentic. | You'll like this book: From Bauhaus to Our House | 0 | 13,730 | 4.333333 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwpa5tr | dwtan7o | 1,522,714,988 | 1,522,873,115 | 5 | 11 | In a way, all main european pre-modernist architecture styles were more or less international in nature. Less so for communal structures, but for anything more grandiose - large government and sacral buildings were more often than not copied stylistically. We can see this with Gothic, that has spread literally everywhere, albeit over hundreds of years taking some local forms. Renaissance was perhaps first truly international style, with architects spreading it pretty much everywhere. Even old Antique Classic was, in a way, international, as it has spread from Phoenicia to Greece where it took solid form, and with the help of Alexander and later Rome - throughout the world. Later on, Baroque again, spread throughout the Europe albeit it evolved into local shapes, perhaps due to the rise of craftsmanship. But my point is, international architecture is not something entirely new. It is of course amplified by globalization and spread of information in our age. That being said, I think that even modernism has already developed some local shapes. Even though it all takes it roots from several buildings (such as *Unité d'habitation*), we can see distinct differences between Plattenbau and american social housing, soviet *Khrushchyovka's* and Middle-Eastern blocks, and much less time has passed from the beginning of the style than, arguably, it took for first local Gothic forms to develop since St.Denis. Now, I do believe that it is traditional variety of architecture is what makes it wonderful. On the one hand it is much harder to maintain strict traditional shapes, because there is no longer information blackout in digital age, and ideas are readily shared across the globe. On the other hand, there is an obvious movement to include tradition back again, and in the age to come, I think, we are bound to see far more development in this direction. It is further amplified by the fact, that even though architects of the past (including recent modernist\post-modernist era) were more or less bound to some specific architectural ideology, it is right now in the age of information, when we can clearly see both past and present, it is possible to build in any style that is required. **TL:DR** I think we will see both return of vernacular architecture AND further development of modern\post-modern styles. | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | 0 | 158,127 | 2.2 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwqqr5h | dwtan7o | 1,522,777,844 | 1,522,873,115 | 3 | 11 | I think some sort of ornament should return. Not necessarily anything historical, just something other than featureless walls | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | 0 | 95,271 | 3.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwphish | dwtan7o | 1,522,722,864 | 1,522,873,115 | 3 | 11 | Why do watches made in china look like watches made in Italy? The world has changed a huge amount in the last 100 years. Why does your car not have the same look as a horse and cart or steam train. Also much classical traditional architects looks identical when built in Italy or London or new york. Ultimately it's an art and at the moment aping a style of half a world away, created by people who bear no resemblance to the way modern society works is simply inauthentic. | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | 0 | 150,251 | 3.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwtan7o | dwradr0 | 1,522,873,115 | 1,522,793,249 | 11 | 3 | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | >recently built buildings (21st century) ... they tend to look the same wherever they're built. What are you saying? Your examples "contemporary 1" and "contemporary 2" don't look the same. >recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, Do you mean these 20 storey buildings aren't in the venacular? | 1 | 79,866 | 3.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwtan7o | dwrklk0 | 1,522,873,115 | 1,522,802,599 | 11 | 4 | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | Why do you think contemporary architecture rejects tradition? | 1 | 70,516 | 2.75 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwtan7o | dwt3q5j | 1,522,873,115 | 1,522,867,065 | 11 | 2 | There is a split between those who undergo a formalized artistic training process and the general public when it comes to understanding what culture is and how we participate within it. For millennia there had been an understanding that at the center of culture, the anchor and scaffold upon which all human efforts are to be built upon, is a shared and common human nature and reality itself. For a long time art and science were virtually the same thing, an exploration of our reality in pursuit in truth. However, during the enlightenment different aspects of our culture and society began to fragment, and while many great things came out of the enlightenment, one side effect was the beginnings of the disassociation between the arts and truth/reality. Words like Beauty came to lose its meaning and it's connection to reality fell apart into subjectivity. Phrases like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began to dominate as an understanding of how things are. This change has had profound affects and after a few generations of it, we live in a world where the generational forms that society has be developing collectively as both best practices for building, and as an artistic reflection on local culture and the human condition at large, is seen as no longer relevant an not a part of today's world. You'll hear things like 'old cultures are not relevant' and to produce new traditional works is 'pastiche', as if the pursuit of truth is something that can fade with time. Quite simply, because the pursuit of traditional architecture was stamped out of our academies after WWII, our whole industry has virtually lost it's understanding of how traditional architecture and urbanism is intrinsically linked to the human condition. Subjecivity replaced the collecive efforts that continued to discover things like the patterns of human behaviour in the urban realm as well as within the walls of architecture (typology/morphology), preferences for certain levels of decoration and proportion (neruology is catching up with this), passive climate techniques, etc... There are many many justifications that the modernists use to support their stance, but upon inspection, I've found their arguments fall apart. Some put forward that traditional architecture comes with political ties, as if that were at all possible. Others say that it costs too much, with no evidence. Other still try to assert that technology and building techniques have implications on the final form of a structure when the two have very very little to do with each other (using metal in your building doesn't mean it's impossible to have a cornice on your building). Very often you'll hear that building traditional forms is some how "inauthentic" and/or not being honest with your materials, as if today's architects do not try and hide columns within walls or hide away plumbing and elecrical systems... and on and on there is some excuse as to why traditional and vernacualar architecture simply cannot be repeated, but none of these excuses are valid. It all comes back to generations of architects being trained to avoid using traditional architecture but at the same time trying to contextualize their abstractions witin the "arch of time" so that they can say that they are both avoiding traditional architecture while also belonging to the continuation of architectural history. Trying to have their cake and eat it too. | Wow, i would really regret to live in a place where building codes include penalizing vernacular architecture. In truth, modern architecture would be horribly lacking in both functionality and aesthetics if it were not for the knowledge or information, that was passed through ancient buildings and cities, over generations. it essentially transcends conventional means of transferring information, like language. I don't think there is an answer for this question, or if it even is the right question to ask. | 1 | 6,050 | 5.5 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwqqr5h | dwu86xn | 1,522,777,844 | 1,522,907,763 | 3 | 5 | I think some sort of ornament should return. Not necessarily anything historical, just something other than featureless walls | I've noticed that the longer you study architecture, the more tradition bores you. It's the same way with music; the more you study it, the more you typically gravitate towards jazz as opposed to simpler pop-music exercises. Tradition in architecture carries a lot of weight, and is easily recognizable, providing a sense of reassurance and linkage to the past, I'd venture to say. The ornamentation is beautiful, and the interior room arrangements are tried and true. However, the longer you study it, and the more you understand about the actual forms and interior spacial arrangements that often accompany such outwardly attractive-looking buildings, the more you realize what a chore it is to endlessly churn out designs based on the same culturally accepted rules and patterns of how buildings work. To add to this, the more you study traditional buildings, the more you can predict exactly what is on the inside just from looking at the outside. You've seen one 1924 Beaux-arts terra-cotta courthouse typology, you've seen most of them. The idea of tradition and vernacular is also tied to the idea of people designing their own buildings. You know how this typically goes: a culture develops one good plan for a house, then copies it millions of times for a century or two. Best case scenario, the building type adapts to each and every location, but a more typical scenario is that a million different victorian commercial buildings get plastered over a landscape with no real regard for it. This is more true since the rise of modernization. Whenever a person goes through architectural training to become a practitioner who can actually get licensed to design, they must first go through architectural reeducation, to break down the tradition and typologies they have internalized over their adolescence etc. This is intended to stop architects from copying things they have seen and is trying to get them to critically consider every element they use: every door, every "aperture", every double-loaded hallway, up to larger issues like how local circulation should affect entrance orientation etc. [Edit: I should clarify that this holds true for music composition and most creative fields too: the more you understand chord structure, sound texture, cross-rhythm, snycopation, etc, the more satisfying a song you can create, just like the more you understand massing, circulatory patterns, spacial qualities, and yes decoration in all its layers, patterns, and textures, the more beautiful and functional a building you can create.] By the time somebody has been through architectural "reeducation", they will (in rare cases) have become so thoroughly versed in architectural tradition (though most don't care to learn) that they are completely bored by the traditional buildings they see around them. They will understand the cultural backgrounds that spawned each building type, understand the associations people make when they see the ornaments rendered on the outside, and understand the shallow ways many ornamental styles try to disguise their commercial and utilitarian nature. By this point, anybody designing in a traditional style, ornamented or not, will be looked upon with derision, as if they are such a sheep that they cannot possibly conceive of anything outside the common person's understanding of traditional building types. You will not be taken seriously as a designer if you keep falling back on tropes and cliche's. Hope this helps. Edit2: I should probably clarify that this is based on my own experience with practitioners, and is not reflective of my own views towards people who design with ornament/tradition. | 0 | 129,919 | 1.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwphish | dwu86xn | 1,522,722,864 | 1,522,907,763 | 3 | 5 | Why do watches made in china look like watches made in Italy? The world has changed a huge amount in the last 100 years. Why does your car not have the same look as a horse and cart or steam train. Also much classical traditional architects looks identical when built in Italy or London or new york. Ultimately it's an art and at the moment aping a style of half a world away, created by people who bear no resemblance to the way modern society works is simply inauthentic. | I've noticed that the longer you study architecture, the more tradition bores you. It's the same way with music; the more you study it, the more you typically gravitate towards jazz as opposed to simpler pop-music exercises. Tradition in architecture carries a lot of weight, and is easily recognizable, providing a sense of reassurance and linkage to the past, I'd venture to say. The ornamentation is beautiful, and the interior room arrangements are tried and true. However, the longer you study it, and the more you understand about the actual forms and interior spacial arrangements that often accompany such outwardly attractive-looking buildings, the more you realize what a chore it is to endlessly churn out designs based on the same culturally accepted rules and patterns of how buildings work. To add to this, the more you study traditional buildings, the more you can predict exactly what is on the inside just from looking at the outside. You've seen one 1924 Beaux-arts terra-cotta courthouse typology, you've seen most of them. The idea of tradition and vernacular is also tied to the idea of people designing their own buildings. You know how this typically goes: a culture develops one good plan for a house, then copies it millions of times for a century or two. Best case scenario, the building type adapts to each and every location, but a more typical scenario is that a million different victorian commercial buildings get plastered over a landscape with no real regard for it. This is more true since the rise of modernization. Whenever a person goes through architectural training to become a practitioner who can actually get licensed to design, they must first go through architectural reeducation, to break down the tradition and typologies they have internalized over their adolescence etc. This is intended to stop architects from copying things they have seen and is trying to get them to critically consider every element they use: every door, every "aperture", every double-loaded hallway, up to larger issues like how local circulation should affect entrance orientation etc. [Edit: I should clarify that this holds true for music composition and most creative fields too: the more you understand chord structure, sound texture, cross-rhythm, snycopation, etc, the more satisfying a song you can create, just like the more you understand massing, circulatory patterns, spacial qualities, and yes decoration in all its layers, patterns, and textures, the more beautiful and functional a building you can create.] By the time somebody has been through architectural "reeducation", they will (in rare cases) have become so thoroughly versed in architectural tradition (though most don't care to learn) that they are completely bored by the traditional buildings they see around them. They will understand the cultural backgrounds that spawned each building type, understand the associations people make when they see the ornaments rendered on the outside, and understand the shallow ways many ornamental styles try to disguise their commercial and utilitarian nature. By this point, anybody designing in a traditional style, ornamented or not, will be looked upon with derision, as if they are such a sheep that they cannot possibly conceive of anything outside the common person's understanding of traditional building types. You will not be taken seriously as a designer if you keep falling back on tropes and cliche's. Hope this helps. Edit2: I should probably clarify that this is based on my own experience with practitioners, and is not reflective of my own views towards people who design with ornament/tradition. | 0 | 184,899 | 1.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwu86xn | dwradr0 | 1,522,907,763 | 1,522,793,249 | 5 | 3 | I've noticed that the longer you study architecture, the more tradition bores you. It's the same way with music; the more you study it, the more you typically gravitate towards jazz as opposed to simpler pop-music exercises. Tradition in architecture carries a lot of weight, and is easily recognizable, providing a sense of reassurance and linkage to the past, I'd venture to say. The ornamentation is beautiful, and the interior room arrangements are tried and true. However, the longer you study it, and the more you understand about the actual forms and interior spacial arrangements that often accompany such outwardly attractive-looking buildings, the more you realize what a chore it is to endlessly churn out designs based on the same culturally accepted rules and patterns of how buildings work. To add to this, the more you study traditional buildings, the more you can predict exactly what is on the inside just from looking at the outside. You've seen one 1924 Beaux-arts terra-cotta courthouse typology, you've seen most of them. The idea of tradition and vernacular is also tied to the idea of people designing their own buildings. You know how this typically goes: a culture develops one good plan for a house, then copies it millions of times for a century or two. Best case scenario, the building type adapts to each and every location, but a more typical scenario is that a million different victorian commercial buildings get plastered over a landscape with no real regard for it. This is more true since the rise of modernization. Whenever a person goes through architectural training to become a practitioner who can actually get licensed to design, they must first go through architectural reeducation, to break down the tradition and typologies they have internalized over their adolescence etc. This is intended to stop architects from copying things they have seen and is trying to get them to critically consider every element they use: every door, every "aperture", every double-loaded hallway, up to larger issues like how local circulation should affect entrance orientation etc. [Edit: I should clarify that this holds true for music composition and most creative fields too: the more you understand chord structure, sound texture, cross-rhythm, snycopation, etc, the more satisfying a song you can create, just like the more you understand massing, circulatory patterns, spacial qualities, and yes decoration in all its layers, patterns, and textures, the more beautiful and functional a building you can create.] By the time somebody has been through architectural "reeducation", they will (in rare cases) have become so thoroughly versed in architectural tradition (though most don't care to learn) that they are completely bored by the traditional buildings they see around them. They will understand the cultural backgrounds that spawned each building type, understand the associations people make when they see the ornaments rendered on the outside, and understand the shallow ways many ornamental styles try to disguise their commercial and utilitarian nature. By this point, anybody designing in a traditional style, ornamented or not, will be looked upon with derision, as if they are such a sheep that they cannot possibly conceive of anything outside the common person's understanding of traditional building types. You will not be taken seriously as a designer if you keep falling back on tropes and cliche's. Hope this helps. Edit2: I should probably clarify that this is based on my own experience with practitioners, and is not reflective of my own views towards people who design with ornament/tradition. | >recently built buildings (21st century) ... they tend to look the same wherever they're built. What are you saying? Your examples "contemporary 1" and "contemporary 2" don't look the same. >recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, Do you mean these 20 storey buildings aren't in the venacular? | 1 | 114,514 | 1.666667 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwrklk0 | dwu86xn | 1,522,802,599 | 1,522,907,763 | 4 | 5 | Why do you think contemporary architecture rejects tradition? | I've noticed that the longer you study architecture, the more tradition bores you. It's the same way with music; the more you study it, the more you typically gravitate towards jazz as opposed to simpler pop-music exercises. Tradition in architecture carries a lot of weight, and is easily recognizable, providing a sense of reassurance and linkage to the past, I'd venture to say. The ornamentation is beautiful, and the interior room arrangements are tried and true. However, the longer you study it, and the more you understand about the actual forms and interior spacial arrangements that often accompany such outwardly attractive-looking buildings, the more you realize what a chore it is to endlessly churn out designs based on the same culturally accepted rules and patterns of how buildings work. To add to this, the more you study traditional buildings, the more you can predict exactly what is on the inside just from looking at the outside. You've seen one 1924 Beaux-arts terra-cotta courthouse typology, you've seen most of them. The idea of tradition and vernacular is also tied to the idea of people designing their own buildings. You know how this typically goes: a culture develops one good plan for a house, then copies it millions of times for a century or two. Best case scenario, the building type adapts to each and every location, but a more typical scenario is that a million different victorian commercial buildings get plastered over a landscape with no real regard for it. This is more true since the rise of modernization. Whenever a person goes through architectural training to become a practitioner who can actually get licensed to design, they must first go through architectural reeducation, to break down the tradition and typologies they have internalized over their adolescence etc. This is intended to stop architects from copying things they have seen and is trying to get them to critically consider every element they use: every door, every "aperture", every double-loaded hallway, up to larger issues like how local circulation should affect entrance orientation etc. [Edit: I should clarify that this holds true for music composition and most creative fields too: the more you understand chord structure, sound texture, cross-rhythm, snycopation, etc, the more satisfying a song you can create, just like the more you understand massing, circulatory patterns, spacial qualities, and yes decoration in all its layers, patterns, and textures, the more beautiful and functional a building you can create.] By the time somebody has been through architectural "reeducation", they will (in rare cases) have become so thoroughly versed in architectural tradition (though most don't care to learn) that they are completely bored by the traditional buildings they see around them. They will understand the cultural backgrounds that spawned each building type, understand the associations people make when they see the ornaments rendered on the outside, and understand the shallow ways many ornamental styles try to disguise their commercial and utilitarian nature. By this point, anybody designing in a traditional style, ornamented or not, will be looked upon with derision, as if they are such a sheep that they cannot possibly conceive of anything outside the common person's understanding of traditional building types. You will not be taken seriously as a designer if you keep falling back on tropes and cliche's. Hope this helps. Edit2: I should probably clarify that this is based on my own experience with practitioners, and is not reflective of my own views towards people who design with ornament/tradition. | 0 | 105,164 | 1.25 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwt3q5j | dwu86xn | 1,522,867,065 | 1,522,907,763 | 2 | 5 | Wow, i would really regret to live in a place where building codes include penalizing vernacular architecture. In truth, modern architecture would be horribly lacking in both functionality and aesthetics if it were not for the knowledge or information, that was passed through ancient buildings and cities, over generations. it essentially transcends conventional means of transferring information, like language. I don't think there is an answer for this question, or if it even is the right question to ask. | I've noticed that the longer you study architecture, the more tradition bores you. It's the same way with music; the more you study it, the more you typically gravitate towards jazz as opposed to simpler pop-music exercises. Tradition in architecture carries a lot of weight, and is easily recognizable, providing a sense of reassurance and linkage to the past, I'd venture to say. The ornamentation is beautiful, and the interior room arrangements are tried and true. However, the longer you study it, and the more you understand about the actual forms and interior spacial arrangements that often accompany such outwardly attractive-looking buildings, the more you realize what a chore it is to endlessly churn out designs based on the same culturally accepted rules and patterns of how buildings work. To add to this, the more you study traditional buildings, the more you can predict exactly what is on the inside just from looking at the outside. You've seen one 1924 Beaux-arts terra-cotta courthouse typology, you've seen most of them. The idea of tradition and vernacular is also tied to the idea of people designing their own buildings. You know how this typically goes: a culture develops one good plan for a house, then copies it millions of times for a century or two. Best case scenario, the building type adapts to each and every location, but a more typical scenario is that a million different victorian commercial buildings get plastered over a landscape with no real regard for it. This is more true since the rise of modernization. Whenever a person goes through architectural training to become a practitioner who can actually get licensed to design, they must first go through architectural reeducation, to break down the tradition and typologies they have internalized over their adolescence etc. This is intended to stop architects from copying things they have seen and is trying to get them to critically consider every element they use: every door, every "aperture", every double-loaded hallway, up to larger issues like how local circulation should affect entrance orientation etc. [Edit: I should clarify that this holds true for music composition and most creative fields too: the more you understand chord structure, sound texture, cross-rhythm, snycopation, etc, the more satisfying a song you can create, just like the more you understand massing, circulatory patterns, spacial qualities, and yes decoration in all its layers, patterns, and textures, the more beautiful and functional a building you can create.] By the time somebody has been through architectural "reeducation", they will (in rare cases) have become so thoroughly versed in architectural tradition (though most don't care to learn) that they are completely bored by the traditional buildings they see around them. They will understand the cultural backgrounds that spawned each building type, understand the associations people make when they see the ornaments rendered on the outside, and understand the shallow ways many ornamental styles try to disguise their commercial and utilitarian nature. By this point, anybody designing in a traditional style, ornamented or not, will be looked upon with derision, as if they are such a sheep that they cannot possibly conceive of anything outside the common person's understanding of traditional building types. You will not be taken seriously as a designer if you keep falling back on tropes and cliche's. Hope this helps. Edit2: I should probably clarify that this is based on my own experience with practitioners, and is not reflective of my own views towards people who design with ornament/tradition. | 0 | 40,698 | 2.5 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwupry7 | dwt3q5j | 1,522,937,290 | 1,522,867,065 | 3 | 2 | The answers frequently given are: 1. We can’t build like that anymore because our building techniques have changed, people don’t know how to design or build like that, or it is too expensive to do today. 2. We don’t build like that anymore because to do so is nostalgic, fake history, etc. or building like that doesn’t represent our time as defined by architectural technology or changing culture. 3. We don’t build like that anymore because to do so is a copy/paste from pattern books, and self-expressive innovation is better/gives more freedom 4. We don’t make traditional buildings because bad people made classical buildings once. 5. We don’t make traditional buildings because our functions have changed and require a new architectural response. 6. We do still make classical/traditional buildings because modernism is a tradition and a continuation of the tradition of classicism in the abstract. This is frequently transmitted in schools, and reinforced in many offices and media. Rarely is a good traditional project given a fair review on its own merits without simultaneously being critiqued based on the above. Personally, I don’t find any of them hold up to real scrutiny - they all make assumptions or place limitations on what tradition is within architecture. I’ve been lucky enough to work in offices focused on traditional/classical architecture for my professional career, and happily design new beautiful classical buildings. | Wow, i would really regret to live in a place where building codes include penalizing vernacular architecture. In truth, modern architecture would be horribly lacking in both functionality and aesthetics if it were not for the knowledge or information, that was passed through ancient buildings and cities, over generations. it essentially transcends conventional means of transferring information, like language. I don't think there is an answer for this question, or if it even is the right question to ask. | 1 | 70,225 | 1.5 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwqqr5h | dwrklk0 | 1,522,777,844 | 1,522,802,599 | 3 | 4 | I think some sort of ornament should return. Not necessarily anything historical, just something other than featureless walls | Why do you think contemporary architecture rejects tradition? | 0 | 24,755 | 1.333333 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwrklk0 | dwphish | 1,522,802,599 | 1,522,722,864 | 4 | 3 | Why do you think contemporary architecture rejects tradition? | Why do watches made in china look like watches made in Italy? The world has changed a huge amount in the last 100 years. Why does your car not have the same look as a horse and cart or steam train. Also much classical traditional architects looks identical when built in Italy or London or new york. Ultimately it's an art and at the moment aping a style of half a world away, created by people who bear no resemblance to the way modern society works is simply inauthentic. | 1 | 79,735 | 1.333333 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwrklk0 | dwradr0 | 1,522,802,599 | 1,522,793,249 | 4 | 3 | Why do you think contemporary architecture rejects tradition? | >recently built buildings (21st century) ... they tend to look the same wherever they're built. What are you saying? Your examples "contemporary 1" and "contemporary 2" don't look the same. >recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, Do you mean these 20 storey buildings aren't in the venacular? | 1 | 9,350 | 1.333333 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwzsa18 | dwt3q5j | 1,523,148,776 | 1,522,867,065 | 3 | 2 | I find this debate/divide fascinating in just how visceral it can be. I guess it speaks to the desire of humans to strive toward a Utopian idea of society. | Wow, i would really regret to live in a place where building codes include penalizing vernacular architecture. In truth, modern architecture would be horribly lacking in both functionality and aesthetics if it were not for the knowledge or information, that was passed through ancient buildings and cities, over generations. it essentially transcends conventional means of transferring information, like language. I don't think there is an answer for this question, or if it even is the right question to ask. | 1 | 281,711 | 1.5 | ||
88xm9v | architecture_train | 0.82 | ask] Why does contemporary architecture reject tradition? I noticed recently built buildings (21st century) have no local features, they tend to look the same wherever they're built. The argument I've heard is "it's cheaper to build simpler" but most are not simple, they are really elaborate and convoluted. Even modern architecture (20th century) had some traditional/classical elements and the economical and simplicity arguments made sense, at least to me. For example, [modern 1, modern 2 vs contemporary 1, contemporary 2. And for some reason, it's a faux pas to actually build a building in a vernacular style, it's seen as bad taste and pastiche. | dwyvsjp | dwzsa18 | 1,523,113,411 | 1,523,148,776 | 2 | 3 | contemporary architecture is a broad term and many/some contemporary architects especially some Japanese and Chinese architects are re interpreting tradition. Architects like Wang Shu, and Kengo Kuma focus mainly on modern traditional architecture. | I find this debate/divide fascinating in just how visceral it can be. I guess it speaks to the desire of humans to strive toward a Utopian idea of society. | 0 | 35,365 | 1.5 | ||
dewbr7 | architecture_train | 0.77 | [Ask] Are any skyscrapers done in a traditional style? I mean to say not in the global style of metal and glass but ones styled after the traditional folk architecture of a country. Like say a riad skyscraper in Morocco or a terem skyscraper in Russia or a cottage style skyscraper or a pueblo revival skyscraper or spanish missionary style skyscraper? I can only think of examples in Asia like the Taipei 101 which has the Asian hangy bits. | f2zqdmk | f31182k | 1,570,534,946 | 1,570,566,184 | 2 | 3 | Makkah Royal Clock Tower, Saudi Arabia | The Jin Mao Tower was heavily inspired by traditional Chinese architecture. | 0 | 31,238 | 1.5 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyrz918 | iys1olo | 1,670,092,105 | 1,670,093,107 | 4 | 6 | Model could have been made on any 3d modeling software, output in 2d isometric then traced and edited with maybe illustrator. | I think there are many ways to achieve something like this. This is how I’d do it. I’d model the building and surrounding buildings in revit. Find a good view, export it as line work, pop it into illustrator to adjust line weights etc, then link that file to photoshop and add all the graphics textures shadows, etc. it’s really a combination and workflow of multiple programs to achieve something like this. Here’s some examples of my work where I’ve achieved something similar. https://amcf.cargo.site | 0 | 1,002 | 1.5 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyqmntw | iys1olo | 1,670,068,491 | 1,670,093,107 | 3 | 6 | My guess is it’s a render with 2D graphic elements added in Illustrator afterwards | I think there are many ways to achieve something like this. This is how I’d do it. I’d model the building and surrounding buildings in revit. Find a good view, export it as line work, pop it into illustrator to adjust line weights etc, then link that file to photoshop and add all the graphics textures shadows, etc. it’s really a combination and workflow of multiple programs to achieve something like this. Here’s some examples of my work where I’ve achieved something similar. https://amcf.cargo.site | 0 | 24,616 | 2 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyqmbh1 | iys1olo | 1,670,068,214 | 1,670,093,107 | 1 | 6 | No idea, but its not practical to have glass practically touching the roof below it. Objects have thicknesses and cutting edge designers always want to cut everything out as if it did not matter. | I think there are many ways to achieve something like this. This is how I’d do it. I’d model the building and surrounding buildings in revit. Find a good view, export it as line work, pop it into illustrator to adjust line weights etc, then link that file to photoshop and add all the graphics textures shadows, etc. it’s really a combination and workflow of multiple programs to achieve something like this. Here’s some examples of my work where I’ve achieved something similar. https://amcf.cargo.site | 0 | 24,893 | 6 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyrz918 | iyqmntw | 1,670,092,105 | 1,670,068,491 | 4 | 3 | Model could have been made on any 3d modeling software, output in 2d isometric then traced and edited with maybe illustrator. | My guess is it’s a render with 2D graphic elements added in Illustrator afterwards | 1 | 23,614 | 1.333333 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyrz918 | iyqmbh1 | 1,670,092,105 | 1,670,068,214 | 4 | 1 | Model could have been made on any 3d modeling software, output in 2d isometric then traced and edited with maybe illustrator. | No idea, but its not practical to have glass practically touching the roof below it. Objects have thicknesses and cutting edge designers always want to cut everything out as if it did not matter. | 1 | 23,891 | 4 | ||
zbeh4p | architecture_train | 1 | 3d models hi everyone, i'm trying to improve myself on 3d modeling and found this image of a building called ECUT office building and really love aesthetic of it. does anyone have an idea which programme was used to make that model? and how can i learn and practice more about this? https://preview.redd.it/blrfk1l18o3a1.jpg?width=1744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=04d206770919d1fc8cf484488e513220dcecb80d | iyqmbh1 | iyqmntw | 1,670,068,214 | 1,670,068,491 | 1 | 3 | No idea, but its not practical to have glass practically touching the roof below it. Objects have thicknesses and cutting edge designers always want to cut everything out as if it did not matter. | My guess is it’s a render with 2D graphic elements added in Illustrator afterwards | 0 | 277 | 3 | ||
t8599h | architecture_train | 0.89 | Where is the balance between good design and affordable build (single family res)? How do I make this house special? Not really sure how to phrase this, but is building an affordable architect designed home accomplishable? We have been dreaming of a newly built and we'll designed home for years and are currently working with an architect as well as talking with builders. With budget being a primary driver we are realizing how big the gap is. Maybe it's a case of high expectations and low budget (I had a builder say "so you have champagne taste but beer budget huh?") but apparently a subscription to dwell and watching every episode of the local project has ruined us. We are building in a fairly dense suburban area with high costs of living. Land values are through the roof. Build costs start at $350/sf with lowest grade materials. The design process has been very fun and creative so far but we are way over budget at the moment. For a young, active, family of 5 with two adults working out of the home including running two businesses, we definitely need space. Space for living, storage, gathering, retreating. Space for bikes, sports equipment, camping gear, and surfboards (lots of surfboards). Hard choices and compromises have been made. Bedrooms are smaller. We cut out the rec room completely. The ADU studio that will help pay the mortgage and potentially be a place for age in place family members will be left unfinished for now. Even then all the special things in our list are laughable from a builders standpoint. 10' ceilings? 8' doors? Hard wood floors? Black windows? Lots of them? Skylights? Metal roofing? Cement board siding? Solar panels and a battery backup? Nope. The large glass sliders to see the awesome view from the lot....Ha! Solid wood cabinets? You want uppers...uh... .And I get it. Materials and finishes are $$$! Ok... so we are using budget materials, all appliances will be mid range standard sizes, and have cut all the sqft we can. So far we've paid a lot of $ for the design of a big box, and we're happy with the layout...my question for r/architecture is... How can we still make this house special?! What are the creative ideas we can incorporate balancing good design and budget to still create a wow factor. I'm open to any and all ideas. Practical to wacky. What have you seen or used that provides good bang/buck...or is definitely worth the cost for the impact? | hzm5kyf | hzlvxod | 1,646,597,031 | 1,646,593,009 | 4 | 1 | Make a list of everything you want in the home. Break it down and prioritize the needs, wishes and wants on your list. Design your home with everything included. Price it. It is only at this point when you can make decisions that will get you closer to your goal. Re-prioritize the items and adjust your list. You are at a point where you have made conclusions in your thoughts for design. You are trying to answer too many questions. This put you in a box and will limit a successful outcome. It is always best to hire a professional designer to come up with the solutions for design. Designers/Architects are always worth the investment in the long run. | Well, what makes a house special? Is it the richness of materials? I've seen architectural houses with cheap osb interiors that were special. Is it the setting? A tiny house in a park like setting might be more special than a huge house that's 10 feet away from the next house. Is it the view? Then lots of glass might make it special Is it the uniqueness? Answer these questions and I think you'll be closer to your answer. One thing I can assure you is ,it's not your choice of appliances, or the size of the closets or the choice of light fixtures. | 1 | 4,022 | 4 | ||
t8599h | architecture_train | 0.89 | Where is the balance between good design and affordable build (single family res)? How do I make this house special? Not really sure how to phrase this, but is building an affordable architect designed home accomplishable? We have been dreaming of a newly built and we'll designed home for years and are currently working with an architect as well as talking with builders. With budget being a primary driver we are realizing how big the gap is. Maybe it's a case of high expectations and low budget (I had a builder say "so you have champagne taste but beer budget huh?") but apparently a subscription to dwell and watching every episode of the local project has ruined us. We are building in a fairly dense suburban area with high costs of living. Land values are through the roof. Build costs start at $350/sf with lowest grade materials. The design process has been very fun and creative so far but we are way over budget at the moment. For a young, active, family of 5 with two adults working out of the home including running two businesses, we definitely need space. Space for living, storage, gathering, retreating. Space for bikes, sports equipment, camping gear, and surfboards (lots of surfboards). Hard choices and compromises have been made. Bedrooms are smaller. We cut out the rec room completely. The ADU studio that will help pay the mortgage and potentially be a place for age in place family members will be left unfinished for now. Even then all the special things in our list are laughable from a builders standpoint. 10' ceilings? 8' doors? Hard wood floors? Black windows? Lots of them? Skylights? Metal roofing? Cement board siding? Solar panels and a battery backup? Nope. The large glass sliders to see the awesome view from the lot....Ha! Solid wood cabinets? You want uppers...uh... .And I get it. Materials and finishes are $$$! Ok... so we are using budget materials, all appliances will be mid range standard sizes, and have cut all the sqft we can. So far we've paid a lot of $ for the design of a big box, and we're happy with the layout...my question for r/architecture is... How can we still make this house special?! What are the creative ideas we can incorporate balancing good design and budget to still create a wow factor. I'm open to any and all ideas. Practical to wacky. What have you seen or used that provides good bang/buck...or is definitely worth the cost for the impact? | hzlvxod | hzm9yw1 | 1,646,593,009 | 1,646,598,928 | 1 | 4 | Well, what makes a house special? Is it the richness of materials? I've seen architectural houses with cheap osb interiors that were special. Is it the setting? A tiny house in a park like setting might be more special than a huge house that's 10 feet away from the next house. Is it the view? Then lots of glass might make it special Is it the uniqueness? Answer these questions and I think you'll be closer to your answer. One thing I can assure you is ,it's not your choice of appliances, or the size of the closets or the choice of light fixtures. | Not to be a downer, but with the current market, this is getting harder and harder. So many commodities of the construction industry are literally being priced at 2-2.5x what they were 2 years ago and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight for this. You have to be realistic unfortunately and it’s something architects have had to work around since this all started. It sounds like you’re in California. A builder I frequently work with now puts this disclaimer below in red, bold ink on every bid. “CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL COSTS ARE RISING RAPIDLY AND AVAILABILITY IS EXTREMELY LIMITED. DELAYS AND PRICE INCREASES ARE ALL BUT GUARANTEED. THE CURRENT MARKET FORCES DICTATE NO ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE PRICING AND COMMITMENTS FROM SUBCONTRACTORS ARE NOT CERTAIN.” All that said, my clients still end up building. My advice would be to aim your high-design goals towards one or two “wow” moments, something you can be excited about every time you see it (whether that’s one amazing framed view or one awesome reading nook). Make everything else very basic. You can always upgrade and improve things later. Good luck. | 0 | 5,919 | 4 | ||
t8599h | architecture_train | 0.89 | Where is the balance between good design and affordable build (single family res)? How do I make this house special? Not really sure how to phrase this, but is building an affordable architect designed home accomplishable? We have been dreaming of a newly built and we'll designed home for years and are currently working with an architect as well as talking with builders. With budget being a primary driver we are realizing how big the gap is. Maybe it's a case of high expectations and low budget (I had a builder say "so you have champagne taste but beer budget huh?") but apparently a subscription to dwell and watching every episode of the local project has ruined us. We are building in a fairly dense suburban area with high costs of living. Land values are through the roof. Build costs start at $350/sf with lowest grade materials. The design process has been very fun and creative so far but we are way over budget at the moment. For a young, active, family of 5 with two adults working out of the home including running two businesses, we definitely need space. Space for living, storage, gathering, retreating. Space for bikes, sports equipment, camping gear, and surfboards (lots of surfboards). Hard choices and compromises have been made. Bedrooms are smaller. We cut out the rec room completely. The ADU studio that will help pay the mortgage and potentially be a place for age in place family members will be left unfinished for now. Even then all the special things in our list are laughable from a builders standpoint. 10' ceilings? 8' doors? Hard wood floors? Black windows? Lots of them? Skylights? Metal roofing? Cement board siding? Solar panels and a battery backup? Nope. The large glass sliders to see the awesome view from the lot....Ha! Solid wood cabinets? You want uppers...uh... .And I get it. Materials and finishes are $$$! Ok... so we are using budget materials, all appliances will be mid range standard sizes, and have cut all the sqft we can. So far we've paid a lot of $ for the design of a big box, and we're happy with the layout...my question for r/architecture is... How can we still make this house special?! What are the creative ideas we can incorporate balancing good design and budget to still create a wow factor. I'm open to any and all ideas. Practical to wacky. What have you seen or used that provides good bang/buck...or is definitely worth the cost for the impact? | hzmjvlu | hzlvxod | 1,646,603,136 | 1,646,593,009 | 2 | 1 | If it’s any consolation OP, your situation isny unique, my family is suffering similarly in Montana. Real estate prices are just insane. | Well, what makes a house special? Is it the richness of materials? I've seen architectural houses with cheap osb interiors that were special. Is it the setting? A tiny house in a park like setting might be more special than a huge house that's 10 feet away from the next house. Is it the view? Then lots of glass might make it special Is it the uniqueness? Answer these questions and I think you'll be closer to your answer. One thing I can assure you is ,it's not your choice of appliances, or the size of the closets or the choice of light fixtures. | 1 | 10,127 | 2 | ||
t8599h | architecture_train | 0.89 | Where is the balance between good design and affordable build (single family res)? How do I make this house special? Not really sure how to phrase this, but is building an affordable architect designed home accomplishable? We have been dreaming of a newly built and we'll designed home for years and are currently working with an architect as well as talking with builders. With budget being a primary driver we are realizing how big the gap is. Maybe it's a case of high expectations and low budget (I had a builder say "so you have champagne taste but beer budget huh?") but apparently a subscription to dwell and watching every episode of the local project has ruined us. We are building in a fairly dense suburban area with high costs of living. Land values are through the roof. Build costs start at $350/sf with lowest grade materials. The design process has been very fun and creative so far but we are way over budget at the moment. For a young, active, family of 5 with two adults working out of the home including running two businesses, we definitely need space. Space for living, storage, gathering, retreating. Space for bikes, sports equipment, camping gear, and surfboards (lots of surfboards). Hard choices and compromises have been made. Bedrooms are smaller. We cut out the rec room completely. The ADU studio that will help pay the mortgage and potentially be a place for age in place family members will be left unfinished for now. Even then all the special things in our list are laughable from a builders standpoint. 10' ceilings? 8' doors? Hard wood floors? Black windows? Lots of them? Skylights? Metal roofing? Cement board siding? Solar panels and a battery backup? Nope. The large glass sliders to see the awesome view from the lot....Ha! Solid wood cabinets? You want uppers...uh... .And I get it. Materials and finishes are $$$! Ok... so we are using budget materials, all appliances will be mid range standard sizes, and have cut all the sqft we can. So far we've paid a lot of $ for the design of a big box, and we're happy with the layout...my question for r/architecture is... How can we still make this house special?! What are the creative ideas we can incorporate balancing good design and budget to still create a wow factor. I'm open to any and all ideas. Practical to wacky. What have you seen or used that provides good bang/buck...or is definitely worth the cost for the impact? | hzlvxod | hzn5il4 | 1,646,593,009 | 1,646,612,826 | 1 | 2 | Well, what makes a house special? Is it the richness of materials? I've seen architectural houses with cheap osb interiors that were special. Is it the setting? A tiny house in a park like setting might be more special than a huge house that's 10 feet away from the next house. Is it the view? Then lots of glass might make it special Is it the uniqueness? Answer these questions and I think you'll be closer to your answer. One thing I can assure you is ,it's not your choice of appliances, or the size of the closets or the choice of light fixtures. | Architect here. Sounds like you’ve already put a lot of thought and research into your home and it will undoubtedly be special. We built six years ago a home that was a five year home. We purposefully skipped on all the upgrades our builder offered as we were in it for the short haul. Now six years later we’ve decided to stay and my main regrets are carpet in the living room where I’d prefer hardwood and a few other high maintenance decisions like light grout in the mud room. Bring in lots of light and go with the upgrades that will be hard to do later. I love an 8’ header for windows and doors. You can always upgrade lighting later and add more landscaping later. | 0 | 19,817 | 2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4xikqa | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,104,505 | -21 | 41 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Niche, nook, room within a room, Annex | 0 | 1,449 | -1.952381 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1es3 | h4xtgzl | 1,626,112,434 | 1,626,108,900 | 13 | 4 | Personally I've always used alcove if there isn't a door, and annex if there is. If it's particularly small I'd just call it a niche or a nook/inglenook (architects particularly like the term inglenook I've found). I had a small space (big enough to put a desk and chair in) connected to my bedroom with an open archway growing up, and we always called it 'the alcove', since it was the only one in the house. In formal architecture a fully separate room only connected to a larger room is usually called an annex in my experience, unless it's programmed for a more specific purpose, like an office or a music room or something. EDIT: I just looked it up and an inglenook is specifically next to a fire or chimney, which I'd forgotten since my arch student days. | A closet | 1 | 3,534 | 3.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1es3 | h4y0cga | 1,626,112,434 | 1,626,111,965 | 13 | 4 | Personally I've always used alcove if there isn't a door, and annex if there is. If it's particularly small I'd just call it a niche or a nook/inglenook (architects particularly like the term inglenook I've found). I had a small space (big enough to put a desk and chair in) connected to my bedroom with an open archway growing up, and we always called it 'the alcove', since it was the only one in the house. In formal architecture a fully separate room only connected to a larger room is usually called an annex in my experience, unless it's programmed for a more specific purpose, like an office or a music room or something. EDIT: I just looked it up and an inglenook is specifically next to a fire or chimney, which I'd forgotten since my arch student days. | In a church the vestry is a bit like what you described, which I guess could be the same root as vestibule. | 1 | 469 | 3.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1es3 | h4y1bp9 | 1,626,112,434 | 1,626,112,396 | 13 | 1 | Personally I've always used alcove if there isn't a door, and annex if there is. If it's particularly small I'd just call it a niche or a nook/inglenook (architects particularly like the term inglenook I've found). I had a small space (big enough to put a desk and chair in) connected to my bedroom with an open archway growing up, and we always called it 'the alcove', since it was the only one in the house. In formal architecture a fully separate room only connected to a larger room is usually called an annex in my experience, unless it's programmed for a more specific purpose, like an office or a music room or something. EDIT: I just looked it up and an inglenook is specifically next to a fire or chimney, which I'd forgotten since my arch student days. | Appendix? | 1 | 38 | 13 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1es3 | h4xtfqa | 1,626,112,434 | 1,626,108,886 | 13 | -1 | Personally I've always used alcove if there isn't a door, and annex if there is. If it's particularly small I'd just call it a niche or a nook/inglenook (architects particularly like the term inglenook I've found). I had a small space (big enough to put a desk and chair in) connected to my bedroom with an open archway growing up, and we always called it 'the alcove', since it was the only one in the house. In formal architecture a fully separate room only connected to a larger room is usually called an annex in my experience, unless it's programmed for a more specific purpose, like an office or a music room or something. EDIT: I just looked it up and an inglenook is specifically next to a fire or chimney, which I'd forgotten since my arch student days. | Foyer?? | 1 | 3,548 | -13 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4y1es3 | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,112,434 | -21 | 13 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Personally I've always used alcove if there isn't a door, and annex if there is. If it's particularly small I'd just call it a niche or a nook/inglenook (architects particularly like the term inglenook I've found). I had a small space (big enough to put a desk and chair in) connected to my bedroom with an open archway growing up, and we always called it 'the alcove', since it was the only one in the house. In formal architecture a fully separate room only connected to a larger room is usually called an annex in my experience, unless it's programmed for a more specific purpose, like an office or a music room or something. EDIT: I just looked it up and an inglenook is specifically next to a fire or chimney, which I'd forgotten since my arch student days. | 0 | 9,378 | -0.619048 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y72b2 | h4xtgzl | 1,626,114,958 | 1,626,108,900 | 5 | 4 | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | A closet | 1 | 6,058 | 1.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtgzl | h4yiq6r | 1,626,108,900 | 1,626,120,555 | 4 | 5 | A closet | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 11,655 | 1.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4xtgzl | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,108,900 | -1 | 4 | Foyer?? | A closet | 0 | 14 | -4 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4xtgzl | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,108,900 | -21 | 4 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | A closet | 0 | 5,844 | -0.190476 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y0cga | h4y72b2 | 1,626,111,965 | 1,626,114,958 | 4 | 5 | In a church the vestry is a bit like what you described, which I guess could be the same root as vestibule. | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | 0 | 2,993 | 1.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y3jwr | h4y72b2 | 1,626,113,389 | 1,626,114,958 | 2 | 5 | auxiliary | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | 0 | 1,569 | 2.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y4i55 | h4y72b2 | 1,626,113,814 | 1,626,114,958 | 2 | 5 | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | 0 | 1,144 | 2.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1bp9 | h4y72b2 | 1,626,112,396 | 1,626,114,958 | 1 | 5 | Appendix? | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | 0 | 2,562 | 5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y72b2 | h4xtfqa | 1,626,114,958 | 1,626,108,886 | 5 | -1 | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | Foyer?? | 1 | 6,072 | -5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4y72b2 | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,114,958 | -21 | 5 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Ancillary space. Chances are that's what it would be called on a life safety drawing | 0 | 11,902 | -0.238095 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y0cga | h4yiq6r | 1,626,111,965 | 1,626,120,555 | 4 | 5 | In a church the vestry is a bit like what you described, which I guess could be the same root as vestibule. | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 8,590 | 1.25 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y3jwr | h4yiq6r | 1,626,113,389 | 1,626,120,555 | 2 | 5 | auxiliary | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 7,166 | 2.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y4i55 | h4yiq6r | 1,626,113,814 | 1,626,120,555 | 2 | 5 | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 6,741 | 2.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1bp9 | h4yiq6r | 1,626,112,396 | 1,626,120,555 | 1 | 5 | Appendix? | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 8,159 | 5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4yiq6r | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,120,555 | -1 | 5 | Foyer?? | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | 0 | 11,669 | -5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4yiq6r | h4xfh3g | 1,626,120,555 | 1,626,103,056 | 5 | -21 | Since you mentioned private dining to a larger restaurant space; chambre séparée | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | 1 | 17,499 | -0.238095 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y0cga | h4xtfqa | 1,626,111,965 | 1,626,108,886 | 4 | -1 | In a church the vestry is a bit like what you described, which I guess could be the same root as vestibule. | Foyer?? | 1 | 3,079 | -4 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4y0cga | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,111,965 | -21 | 4 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | In a church the vestry is a bit like what you described, which I guess could be the same root as vestibule. | 0 | 8,909 | -0.190476 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4ymmcd | h4y3jwr | 1,626,122,322 | 1,626,113,389 | 4 | 2 | Based on your examples, I'd refer to it as a private room, or private lounge if it has more or less the same function as the room it is annexed to... Otherwise look into cathedral architecture, the have some unique names for their side spaces: apse, cavette, etc. Maybe you'll find something you like that sounds right, it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you understand it and you client as well. | auxiliary | 1 | 8,933 | 2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4ymmcd | h4y4i55 | 1,626,122,322 | 1,626,113,814 | 4 | 2 | Based on your examples, I'd refer to it as a private room, or private lounge if it has more or less the same function as the room it is annexed to... Otherwise look into cathedral architecture, the have some unique names for their side spaces: apse, cavette, etc. Maybe you'll find something you like that sounds right, it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you understand it and you client as well. | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | 1 | 8,508 | 2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4ymmcd | h4y1bp9 | 1,626,122,322 | 1,626,112,396 | 4 | 1 | Based on your examples, I'd refer to it as a private room, or private lounge if it has more or less the same function as the room it is annexed to... Otherwise look into cathedral architecture, the have some unique names for their side spaces: apse, cavette, etc. Maybe you'll find something you like that sounds right, it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you understand it and you client as well. | Appendix? | 1 | 9,926 | 4 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4ymmcd | h4xtfqa | 1,626,122,322 | 1,626,108,886 | 4 | -1 | Based on your examples, I'd refer to it as a private room, or private lounge if it has more or less the same function as the room it is annexed to... Otherwise look into cathedral architecture, the have some unique names for their side spaces: apse, cavette, etc. Maybe you'll find something you like that sounds right, it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you understand it and you client as well. | Foyer?? | 1 | 13,436 | -4 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4ymmcd | h4xfh3g | 1,626,122,322 | 1,626,103,056 | 4 | -21 | Based on your examples, I'd refer to it as a private room, or private lounge if it has more or less the same function as the room it is annexed to... Otherwise look into cathedral architecture, the have some unique names for their side spaces: apse, cavette, etc. Maybe you'll find something you like that sounds right, it doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you understand it and you client as well. | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | 1 | 19,266 | -0.190476 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4yyi2c | h4y3jwr | 1,626,127,870 | 1,626,113,389 | 3 | 2 | Anteroom | auxiliary | 1 | 14,481 | 1.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4yyi2c | h4y4i55 | 1,626,127,870 | 1,626,113,814 | 3 | 2 | Anteroom | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | 1 | 14,056 | 1.5 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1bp9 | h4yyi2c | 1,626,112,396 | 1,626,127,870 | 1 | 3 | Appendix? | Anteroom | 0 | 15,474 | 3 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4yn8o5 | h4yyi2c | 1,626,122,599 | 1,626,127,870 | 1 | 3 | Annex | Anteroom | 0 | 5,271 | 3 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4yyi2c | h4xtfqa | 1,626,127,870 | 1,626,108,886 | 3 | -1 | Anteroom | Foyer?? | 1 | 18,984 | -3 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4yyi2c | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,127,870 | -21 | 3 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Anteroom | 0 | 24,814 | -0.142857 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y3jwr | h4y1bp9 | 1,626,113,389 | 1,626,112,396 | 2 | 1 | auxiliary | Appendix? | 1 | 993 | 2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4y3jwr | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,113,389 | -1 | 2 | Foyer?? | auxiliary | 0 | 4,503 | -2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y3jwr | h4xfh3g | 1,626,113,389 | 1,626,103,056 | 2 | -21 | auxiliary | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | 1 | 10,333 | -0.095238 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y4i55 | h4y1bp9 | 1,626,113,814 | 1,626,112,396 | 2 | 1 | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | Appendix? | 1 | 1,418 | 2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4y4i55 | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,113,814 | -1 | 2 | Foyer?? | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | 0 | 4,928 | -2 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y4i55 | h4xfh3g | 1,626,113,814 | 1,626,103,056 | 2 | -21 | "office" "solarium" but those are kinda specific to certain purposes if it's jus a general room idk | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | 1 | 10,758 | -0.095238 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1bp9 | h4xtfqa | 1,626,112,396 | 1,626,108,886 | 1 | -1 | Appendix? | Foyer?? | 1 | 3,510 | -1 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4y1bp9 | h4xfh3g | 1,626,112,396 | 1,626,103,056 | 1 | -21 | Appendix? | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | 1 | 9,340 | -0.047619 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4yn8o5 | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,122,599 | -1 | 1 | Foyer?? | Annex | 0 | 13,713 | -1 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4yn8o5 | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,122,599 | -21 | 1 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Annex | 0 | 19,543 | -0.047619 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h4zknx2 | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,139,336 | -1 | 1 | Foyer?? | Alcove. Reminds me of a Bauhaus song. | 0 | 30,450 | -1 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4zknx2 | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,139,336 | -21 | 1 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Alcove. Reminds me of a Bauhaus song. | 0 | 36,280 | -0.047619 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xtfqa | h51704l | 1,626,108,886 | 1,626,181,798 | -1 | 1 | Foyer?? | Snug | 0 | 72,912 | -1 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h51704l | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,181,798 | -21 | 1 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Snug | 0 | 78,742 | -0.047619 | ||
oit96r | architecture_train | 0.87 | Is there a specific word/term for a smaller room that’s directly attached to a much larger room? Much as the title, really. I’m trying to describe a separate space attached to a much larger one (think something like a private dining room connected to a larger restaurant space, or a games/pool room that’s attached to but separate from the larger pub floor area). Is there actually a specific word for this? It’s not so much an anteroom, as this is supposed to be a room connecting the outside to a larger room, but is there a term for a room like an anteroom that doesn’t have a door leading outside? Many thanks. | h4xfh3g | h4xtfqa | 1,626,103,056 | 1,626,108,886 | -21 | -1 | Wouldn't a search engine give you this answer? | Foyer?? | 0 | 5,830 | 0.047619 | ||
7v7f6m | architecture_train | 1 | [ask]I am new to this field and don't know where to go for research purposes. Looking for some precedents of architects using cables to stabilize the floors of a building, but can find any. Can someone point me in the right direction? | dtq9ecx | dtqaj56 | 1,517,768,704 | 1,517,769,798 | 2 | 3 | Are you referring to stressed slabs? | This is a project done by a firm in Austin that used post-tensioned cables to stabilize a wood “waffle slab” two-way deck. The description online does not go into a lot of detail but there are a few images that might give you an idea. http://www.mirorivera.com/phone/deck-house.html http://www.mirorivera.com/assets/mra-unassistedliving-2011.pdf | 0 | 1,094 | 1.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | hut813a | hut5d8w | 1,643,516,302 | 1,643,515,031 | 8 | 2 | Honestly, don't do a 4+2 - for undergrad, study something that isn't arch, or maybe double major. History, Biology, Sociology, Business, Real Estate, Art, Forestry, Enviro Science, Comp. Sci - something that will inform the way you think and process beyond just sketching and making spiffy renderings. Go out and learn how to build, work on a construction site, do renovations and repairs with a friend or relative, learn how things come together in the field and on paper. Obv you can still do these things w/ a B.Arch, but just don't race through it all. So much of undergrad I missed spending too many late nights at the studio, and for what? **LICENSURE IS NOT THE END ALL BE ALL**. I'm really only pursuing it to get a pay bump and better job opportunities. **VALUE YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK.** Don't accept opportunities that don't fairly compensate you. Find a mentor, don't wait for one. Learn from your coworkers, even if they are fossils older than time itself. Study for the tests with focus and purpose, retaking them sucks but is fine. | Architecture school is rough. 4+3 here. Career is very limited financially. Schools loans are guaranteed to be high. I like my projects but wish I did something that paid twice as much for the same amount of school. | 1 | 1,271 | 4 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | hut813a | husxp2y | 1,643,516,302 | 1,643,511,408 | 8 | -2 | Honestly, don't do a 4+2 - for undergrad, study something that isn't arch, or maybe double major. History, Biology, Sociology, Business, Real Estate, Art, Forestry, Enviro Science, Comp. Sci - something that will inform the way you think and process beyond just sketching and making spiffy renderings. Go out and learn how to build, work on a construction site, do renovations and repairs with a friend or relative, learn how things come together in the field and on paper. Obv you can still do these things w/ a B.Arch, but just don't race through it all. So much of undergrad I missed spending too many late nights at the studio, and for what? **LICENSURE IS NOT THE END ALL BE ALL**. I'm really only pursuing it to get a pay bump and better job opportunities. **VALUE YOURSELF AND YOUR WORK.** Don't accept opportunities that don't fairly compensate you. Find a mentor, don't wait for one. Learn from your coworkers, even if they are fossils older than time itself. Study for the tests with focus and purpose, retaking them sucks but is fine. | . | 1 | 4,894 | -4 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huv0mn8 | huu16z1 | 1,643,556,437 | 1,643,534,905 | 3 | 2 | I started university headed for a sports therapy degree. Then, switched to general arts for a year while I thought more about what I wanted to do. Ultimately, I decided on architecture and I wanted a degree that included co-op work terms, so I could graduate with practical experience and make some $$ during my degrees. The school I wanted to go to had a combined 12 months of co-op and required at least two years’ undergrad (or the equivalent) to apply. I spent my second year of undergrad taking courses I thought would be helpful: calculus-based physics, art history, history of architecture, fundamentals of 3D art, and some courses I found interesting: literature, culture and communications, etc. I started sketching in my own time and exploring architecture in my university town through photography. When I applied, I used my 3D art assignments, sketches, and photography in my portfolio. My degrees were linked undergrad and masters. Three semesters a year, which meant school through the summer. Because the program required the equivalent of at least two years of undergrad, there were lots of mature students and people with other degrees in my class. My Bachelor of Environmental Design degree is considered a four-year degree, but that’s because it counts the two years of study from elsewhere. Of the remaining two years, one four-month semester was a work term. The Master of Architecture degree basically takes mostly people from the linked BEDS degree. If someone wants to apply with some sort of architectural undergrad from elsewhere, they typically have to do a few of the BEDS courses before being admitted. I took a year between my BEDS and M.Arch degrees and worked at an architecture firm. The M.Arch degree is a two year degree with two of the four month semesters as a longer co-op session. I graduated with lots of experience and was very employable. | Straight went from HS to a 5-year B.arch (graduated in 2011). Started ARE exams in 2014 and finished in 2016. There were 7 exam then (now there are only 5), but I was in California, so there was an additional California exam (making 8, in total for me). Fortunately I passed them all, first try, so I was able to get them done in about 2 years with focused, but not insane studying. Have a study-buddy— that was key for me. If you want to peruse architecture I would definitely recommend a 5-year program. Tuition for a masters is far more expensive and in my experience, I have not seen people with masters reap the benefits to pay back their higher student loan. Also, if your state university(s) have a B.arch program, that will save you a lot of money. Architecture does not pay like lawyers, doctors or finance, so avoid massive student loans. (If your folks are loaded, then fine, go to Sci-arc and spend all the monies— If you’re taking out loans, I would recommend against that). On deciding whether to get a license or not: when you get your first job you won’t be licensed and no employer would expect you to be. People usually don’t start taking exams until a few years into working. I wanted to be an “official architect” and was in my 20’s (early in my career) and had the time and capacity to make it happen. My best friend from college works at a firm doing the same type of work I do, but is not licensed and it works perfectly fine for her. She works for someone who has known her for over a decade, values her work and pays her what her work is worth, regardless of her title. For her, there would be no value-add in spending the time/money on it at this point. I have also worked with older (40’s-50’s) colleagues who moved up the ranks at their firms without getting licensed; again, employers who recognized someone’s contributions over a title. This can be a challenge if you move cities/states and need to find a new job or get laid off at some point— if hiring managers are blindly looking at resumes someone with a license may seem like a stronger candidate on paper. But again, I have worked with people who are very successful without it. I love being an architect and couldn’t imagine doing anything else. yes, the path is “hard” and I had less time to party than the average business student, but I made many of my life-long best friends during those exhausting all nighters in college. We were a family united by our shared misery— and those bonds stick with you for life. (But as someone else mentioned, don’t drive a car (or bike) or operate the table saw in the model shop when you haven’t slept in 24 hrs— those mistakes are harder to recover from). | 1 | 21,532 | 1.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huu16z1 | husxp2y | 1,643,534,905 | 1,643,511,408 | 2 | -2 | Straight went from HS to a 5-year B.arch (graduated in 2011). Started ARE exams in 2014 and finished in 2016. There were 7 exam then (now there are only 5), but I was in California, so there was an additional California exam (making 8, in total for me). Fortunately I passed them all, first try, so I was able to get them done in about 2 years with focused, but not insane studying. Have a study-buddy— that was key for me. If you want to peruse architecture I would definitely recommend a 5-year program. Tuition for a masters is far more expensive and in my experience, I have not seen people with masters reap the benefits to pay back their higher student loan. Also, if your state university(s) have a B.arch program, that will save you a lot of money. Architecture does not pay like lawyers, doctors or finance, so avoid massive student loans. (If your folks are loaded, then fine, go to Sci-arc and spend all the monies— If you’re taking out loans, I would recommend against that). On deciding whether to get a license or not: when you get your first job you won’t be licensed and no employer would expect you to be. People usually don’t start taking exams until a few years into working. I wanted to be an “official architect” and was in my 20’s (early in my career) and had the time and capacity to make it happen. My best friend from college works at a firm doing the same type of work I do, but is not licensed and it works perfectly fine for her. She works for someone who has known her for over a decade, values her work and pays her what her work is worth, regardless of her title. For her, there would be no value-add in spending the time/money on it at this point. I have also worked with older (40’s-50’s) colleagues who moved up the ranks at their firms without getting licensed; again, employers who recognized someone’s contributions over a title. This can be a challenge if you move cities/states and need to find a new job or get laid off at some point— if hiring managers are blindly looking at resumes someone with a license may seem like a stronger candidate on paper. But again, I have worked with people who are very successful without it. I love being an architect and couldn’t imagine doing anything else. yes, the path is “hard” and I had less time to party than the average business student, but I made many of my life-long best friends during those exhausting all nighters in college. We were a family united by our shared misery— and those bonds stick with you for life. (But as someone else mentioned, don’t drive a car (or bike) or operate the table saw in the model shop when you haven’t slept in 24 hrs— those mistakes are harder to recover from). | . | 1 | 23,497 | -1 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | hut5d8w | huv0mn8 | 1,643,515,031 | 1,643,556,437 | 2 | 3 | Architecture school is rough. 4+3 here. Career is very limited financially. Schools loans are guaranteed to be high. I like my projects but wish I did something that paid twice as much for the same amount of school. | I started university headed for a sports therapy degree. Then, switched to general arts for a year while I thought more about what I wanted to do. Ultimately, I decided on architecture and I wanted a degree that included co-op work terms, so I could graduate with practical experience and make some $$ during my degrees. The school I wanted to go to had a combined 12 months of co-op and required at least two years’ undergrad (or the equivalent) to apply. I spent my second year of undergrad taking courses I thought would be helpful: calculus-based physics, art history, history of architecture, fundamentals of 3D art, and some courses I found interesting: literature, culture and communications, etc. I started sketching in my own time and exploring architecture in my university town through photography. When I applied, I used my 3D art assignments, sketches, and photography in my portfolio. My degrees were linked undergrad and masters. Three semesters a year, which meant school through the summer. Because the program required the equivalent of at least two years of undergrad, there were lots of mature students and people with other degrees in my class. My Bachelor of Environmental Design degree is considered a four-year degree, but that’s because it counts the two years of study from elsewhere. Of the remaining two years, one four-month semester was a work term. The Master of Architecture degree basically takes mostly people from the linked BEDS degree. If someone wants to apply with some sort of architectural undergrad from elsewhere, they typically have to do a few of the BEDS courses before being admitted. I took a year between my BEDS and M.Arch degrees and worked at an architecture firm. The M.Arch degree is a two year degree with two of the four month semesters as a longer co-op session. I graduated with lots of experience and was very employable. | 0 | 41,406 | 1.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huue5aj | huv0mn8 | 1,643,544,731 | 1,643,556,437 | 0 | 3 | Here is my honest and real recommendation: Do a 4+2 year program but DONT do the masters. Just do the 4 year bachelor’s in architecture. It will cost you less money and time than all other options but still get you in the door at an architecture office. The most important and valuable thing is experience. The sooner you can get school done, the sooner you can work full time, make money and build up your salary and value. You can still get licensed. You can still design buildings and you will get further faster without 6-8 years of school debt. The profession does not pay very well so don’t fall into the trap of getting all this school to make a low wage. Get in the field. See how it works. Start making money younger. You can always choose to do the master later in life if you want. I did a 4+2 year program. Did not do the masters. Started working right when I finished. And I make more money than masters employees because of my experience. I actually get to design buildings and be the head designer. I’ve completed my experience hours and will have my license when I’m done with the exams. This is the hack. Good luck! | I started university headed for a sports therapy degree. Then, switched to general arts for a year while I thought more about what I wanted to do. Ultimately, I decided on architecture and I wanted a degree that included co-op work terms, so I could graduate with practical experience and make some $$ during my degrees. The school I wanted to go to had a combined 12 months of co-op and required at least two years’ undergrad (or the equivalent) to apply. I spent my second year of undergrad taking courses I thought would be helpful: calculus-based physics, art history, history of architecture, fundamentals of 3D art, and some courses I found interesting: literature, culture and communications, etc. I started sketching in my own time and exploring architecture in my university town through photography. When I applied, I used my 3D art assignments, sketches, and photography in my portfolio. My degrees were linked undergrad and masters. Three semesters a year, which meant school through the summer. Because the program required the equivalent of at least two years of undergrad, there were lots of mature students and people with other degrees in my class. My Bachelor of Environmental Design degree is considered a four-year degree, but that’s because it counts the two years of study from elsewhere. Of the remaining two years, one four-month semester was a work term. The Master of Architecture degree basically takes mostly people from the linked BEDS degree. If someone wants to apply with some sort of architectural undergrad from elsewhere, they typically have to do a few of the BEDS courses before being admitted. I took a year between my BEDS and M.Arch degrees and worked at an architecture firm. The M.Arch degree is a two year degree with two of the four month semesters as a longer co-op session. I graduated with lots of experience and was very employable. | 0 | 11,706 | 3,000 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | husxp2y | huv0mn8 | 1,643,511,408 | 1,643,556,437 | -2 | 3 | . | I started university headed for a sports therapy degree. Then, switched to general arts for a year while I thought more about what I wanted to do. Ultimately, I decided on architecture and I wanted a degree that included co-op work terms, so I could graduate with practical experience and make some $$ during my degrees. The school I wanted to go to had a combined 12 months of co-op and required at least two years’ undergrad (or the equivalent) to apply. I spent my second year of undergrad taking courses I thought would be helpful: calculus-based physics, art history, history of architecture, fundamentals of 3D art, and some courses I found interesting: literature, culture and communications, etc. I started sketching in my own time and exploring architecture in my university town through photography. When I applied, I used my 3D art assignments, sketches, and photography in my portfolio. My degrees were linked undergrad and masters. Three semesters a year, which meant school through the summer. Because the program required the equivalent of at least two years of undergrad, there were lots of mature students and people with other degrees in my class. My Bachelor of Environmental Design degree is considered a four-year degree, but that’s because it counts the two years of study from elsewhere. Of the remaining two years, one four-month semester was a work term. The Master of Architecture degree basically takes mostly people from the linked BEDS degree. If someone wants to apply with some sort of architectural undergrad from elsewhere, they typically have to do a few of the BEDS courses before being admitted. I took a year between my BEDS and M.Arch degrees and worked at an architecture firm. The M.Arch degree is a two year degree with two of the four month semesters as a longer co-op session. I graduated with lots of experience and was very employable. | 0 | 45,029 | -1.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huuttn1 | huv0mn8 | 1,643,553,433 | 1,643,556,437 | -2 | 3 | Don’t do it. Only do it if you’re doing a business minor with it or some form of tech degree with it. Architecture is a very limited degree once you’re in the wild. | I started university headed for a sports therapy degree. Then, switched to general arts for a year while I thought more about what I wanted to do. Ultimately, I decided on architecture and I wanted a degree that included co-op work terms, so I could graduate with practical experience and make some $$ during my degrees. The school I wanted to go to had a combined 12 months of co-op and required at least two years’ undergrad (or the equivalent) to apply. I spent my second year of undergrad taking courses I thought would be helpful: calculus-based physics, art history, history of architecture, fundamentals of 3D art, and some courses I found interesting: literature, culture and communications, etc. I started sketching in my own time and exploring architecture in my university town through photography. When I applied, I used my 3D art assignments, sketches, and photography in my portfolio. My degrees were linked undergrad and masters. Three semesters a year, which meant school through the summer. Because the program required the equivalent of at least two years of undergrad, there were lots of mature students and people with other degrees in my class. My Bachelor of Environmental Design degree is considered a four-year degree, but that’s because it counts the two years of study from elsewhere. Of the remaining two years, one four-month semester was a work term. The Master of Architecture degree basically takes mostly people from the linked BEDS degree. If someone wants to apply with some sort of architectural undergrad from elsewhere, they typically have to do a few of the BEDS courses before being admitted. I took a year between my BEDS and M.Arch degrees and worked at an architecture firm. The M.Arch degree is a two year degree with two of the four month semesters as a longer co-op session. I graduated with lots of experience and was very employable. | 0 | 3,004 | -1.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | hut5d8w | husxp2y | 1,643,515,031 | 1,643,511,408 | 2 | -2 | Architecture school is rough. 4+3 here. Career is very limited financially. Schools loans are guaranteed to be high. I like my projects but wish I did something that paid twice as much for the same amount of school. | . | 1 | 3,623 | -1 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huue5aj | huv3rwp | 1,643,544,731 | 1,643,557,722 | 0 | 1 | Here is my honest and real recommendation: Do a 4+2 year program but DONT do the masters. Just do the 4 year bachelor’s in architecture. It will cost you less money and time than all other options but still get you in the door at an architecture office. The most important and valuable thing is experience. The sooner you can get school done, the sooner you can work full time, make money and build up your salary and value. You can still get licensed. You can still design buildings and you will get further faster without 6-8 years of school debt. The profession does not pay very well so don’t fall into the trap of getting all this school to make a low wage. Get in the field. See how it works. Start making money younger. You can always choose to do the master later in life if you want. I did a 4+2 year program. Did not do the masters. Started working right when I finished. And I make more money than masters employees because of my experience. I actually get to design buildings and be the head designer. I’ve completed my experience hours and will have my license when I’m done with the exams. This is the hack. Good luck! | Personally I think there is a lot of bad advice in this thread. First, school. 4+2 and 5 are both good for different reasons. Definitely do Architecture in your 4 or you are going to suffer in your 2. The 5 is obviously less expensive, but the quality of portfolio coming out of 4+2 are usually better. That last year makes a big difference. It also usually gives you a little more time to explore other subjects that can have an impact on you work. Also, know that school does not teach you to be an architect. It is counterintuitive, but school is more about critical thinking, design skills, graphic communication. Next, money. Everyone knows it is not great, but it doesn’t have to be that bad either. I recommend taking some business classes in school - they will be valuable when you get into practice. You are going to have to hustle. There are different strategies for making more money - I found hopping firms often worked for me. New firms will always pay more than your current firm (in a good labor market). Also, there are people working right now to improve the situation. Next, portfolio. Everything is about the portfolio. This is why you go to school, and it is the key to good firms. A good portfolio can open about half the doors that good connections have - which is a lot. There are lots of other threads on good portfolio practices. Next, connections. This will make or break your career. As soon as possible, you want to meet any and every architect you can. Just like any other business, knowing people gets you interviews and jobs. Find a mentor as soon as you can. Use their connections. Next, licensure. It is a pain, but you need to do it. You will be paid more. You will move up faster. Do it as early as you can, but also really absorb it. I learned more about architecture as a profession from the exams and studying than school. Work abroad. If you can, and it can be financially very difficult, apply to a well known firm abroad. Most of the well known firms rely on a heavy flow of fresh low paid interns. Many pay so little, you are basically paying to work there, but if you can swing it, it will pay dividends. It will be a sweatshop of long hours, but when you get back to where you want to live long term, it really sets you apart. DM if you have any questions. Good luck! | 0 | 12,991 | 1,000 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | husxp2y | huv3rwp | 1,643,511,408 | 1,643,557,722 | -2 | 1 | . | Personally I think there is a lot of bad advice in this thread. First, school. 4+2 and 5 are both good for different reasons. Definitely do Architecture in your 4 or you are going to suffer in your 2. The 5 is obviously less expensive, but the quality of portfolio coming out of 4+2 are usually better. That last year makes a big difference. It also usually gives you a little more time to explore other subjects that can have an impact on you work. Also, know that school does not teach you to be an architect. It is counterintuitive, but school is more about critical thinking, design skills, graphic communication. Next, money. Everyone knows it is not great, but it doesn’t have to be that bad either. I recommend taking some business classes in school - they will be valuable when you get into practice. You are going to have to hustle. There are different strategies for making more money - I found hopping firms often worked for me. New firms will always pay more than your current firm (in a good labor market). Also, there are people working right now to improve the situation. Next, portfolio. Everything is about the portfolio. This is why you go to school, and it is the key to good firms. A good portfolio can open about half the doors that good connections have - which is a lot. There are lots of other threads on good portfolio practices. Next, connections. This will make or break your career. As soon as possible, you want to meet any and every architect you can. Just like any other business, knowing people gets you interviews and jobs. Find a mentor as soon as you can. Use their connections. Next, licensure. It is a pain, but you need to do it. You will be paid more. You will move up faster. Do it as early as you can, but also really absorb it. I learned more about architecture as a profession from the exams and studying than school. Work abroad. If you can, and it can be financially very difficult, apply to a well known firm abroad. Most of the well known firms rely on a heavy flow of fresh low paid interns. Many pay so little, you are basically paying to work there, but if you can swing it, it will pay dividends. It will be a sweatshop of long hours, but when you get back to where you want to live long term, it really sets you apart. DM if you have any questions. Good luck! | 0 | 46,314 | -0.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huuttn1 | huv3rwp | 1,643,553,433 | 1,643,557,722 | -2 | 1 | Don’t do it. Only do it if you’re doing a business minor with it or some form of tech degree with it. Architecture is a very limited degree once you’re in the wild. | Personally I think there is a lot of bad advice in this thread. First, school. 4+2 and 5 are both good for different reasons. Definitely do Architecture in your 4 or you are going to suffer in your 2. The 5 is obviously less expensive, but the quality of portfolio coming out of 4+2 are usually better. That last year makes a big difference. It also usually gives you a little more time to explore other subjects that can have an impact on you work. Also, know that school does not teach you to be an architect. It is counterintuitive, but school is more about critical thinking, design skills, graphic communication. Next, money. Everyone knows it is not great, but it doesn’t have to be that bad either. I recommend taking some business classes in school - they will be valuable when you get into practice. You are going to have to hustle. There are different strategies for making more money - I found hopping firms often worked for me. New firms will always pay more than your current firm (in a good labor market). Also, there are people working right now to improve the situation. Next, portfolio. Everything is about the portfolio. This is why you go to school, and it is the key to good firms. A good portfolio can open about half the doors that good connections have - which is a lot. There are lots of other threads on good portfolio practices. Next, connections. This will make or break your career. As soon as possible, you want to meet any and every architect you can. Just like any other business, knowing people gets you interviews and jobs. Find a mentor as soon as you can. Use their connections. Next, licensure. It is a pain, but you need to do it. You will be paid more. You will move up faster. Do it as early as you can, but also really absorb it. I learned more about architecture as a profession from the exams and studying than school. Work abroad. If you can, and it can be financially very difficult, apply to a well known firm abroad. Most of the well known firms rely on a heavy flow of fresh low paid interns. Many pay so little, you are basically paying to work there, but if you can swing it, it will pay dividends. It will be a sweatshop of long hours, but when you get back to where you want to live long term, it really sets you apart. DM if you have any questions. Good luck! | 0 | 4,289 | -0.5 | ||
sfyipj | architecture_train | 0.89 | Architects of reddit, what was your journey to being a licensed architect like? I am a junior in highschool and im quite certain that ill be pursuing architecture. Asking this question to get a general idea of what the whole experience would be like. Did you do a 5 year or 4+2 year program? did you do gap years? how was getting experience like? How many times did you retake the test? all of those general experiences. | huue5aj | husxp2y | 1,643,544,731 | 1,643,511,408 | 0 | -2 | Here is my honest and real recommendation: Do a 4+2 year program but DONT do the masters. Just do the 4 year bachelor’s in architecture. It will cost you less money and time than all other options but still get you in the door at an architecture office. The most important and valuable thing is experience. The sooner you can get school done, the sooner you can work full time, make money and build up your salary and value. You can still get licensed. You can still design buildings and you will get further faster without 6-8 years of school debt. The profession does not pay very well so don’t fall into the trap of getting all this school to make a low wage. Get in the field. See how it works. Start making money younger. You can always choose to do the master later in life if you want. I did a 4+2 year program. Did not do the masters. Started working right when I finished. And I make more money than masters employees because of my experience. I actually get to design buildings and be the head designer. I’ve completed my experience hours and will have my license when I’m done with the exams. This is the hack. Good luck! | . | 1 | 33,323 | 0 | ||
q67o78 | architecture_train | 0.95 | Side 'Hustles' for Architects (UK) Hey Y'all, So I've been a self employed architect in the UK now for coming up to 4 years, before that I was working in Multi-Disciplinary Practices which really wore me down, so now I almost exclusively design home extensions, my client list is good, and my income is a damn sight more than it'd be working for a firm. The problem is, designing extensions or even new build homes in the area I'm in (red brick houses = ew) isn't at all inspiring. So i'm looking for ideas on a side business that i may actually be interested in and that i can express some creativity and actually make money off, in case one day I decide to call it quits. I can do visualisations, But the problem Is, India does it cheaper and quicker, so theres not a whole lot of market for it. I'm open to all ideas, Just need some inspiration. | hgagoc3 | hgavc3s | 1,633,995,867 | 1,634,002,825 | 2 | 21 | try Fiverr | A lot of Architects used to design furniture whether for their own designs or just in general. Maybe see if there is a furniture manufacturer in your area that is interested in collaborating. | 0 | 6,958 | 10.5 | ||
q67o78 | architecture_train | 0.95 | Side 'Hustles' for Architects (UK) Hey Y'all, So I've been a self employed architect in the UK now for coming up to 4 years, before that I was working in Multi-Disciplinary Practices which really wore me down, so now I almost exclusively design home extensions, my client list is good, and my income is a damn sight more than it'd be working for a firm. The problem is, designing extensions or even new build homes in the area I'm in (red brick houses = ew) isn't at all inspiring. So i'm looking for ideas on a side business that i may actually be interested in and that i can express some creativity and actually make money off, in case one day I decide to call it quits. I can do visualisations, But the problem Is, India does it cheaper and quicker, so theres not a whole lot of market for it. I'm open to all ideas, Just need some inspiration. | hgagoc3 | hgb472z | 1,633,995,867 | 1,634,006,819 | 2 | 18 | try Fiverr | Commenting so I can see the discussion but I’ll try to add to it. I’ve always liked the idea of doing an Airbnb and curating a unique experience with the skillset of an architect. Of course this might require significant up front investment. | 0 | 10,952 | 9 | ||
q67o78 | architecture_train | 0.95 | Side 'Hustles' for Architects (UK) Hey Y'all, So I've been a self employed architect in the UK now for coming up to 4 years, before that I was working in Multi-Disciplinary Practices which really wore me down, so now I almost exclusively design home extensions, my client list is good, and my income is a damn sight more than it'd be working for a firm. The problem is, designing extensions or even new build homes in the area I'm in (red brick houses = ew) isn't at all inspiring. So i'm looking for ideas on a side business that i may actually be interested in and that i can express some creativity and actually make money off, in case one day I decide to call it quits. I can do visualisations, But the problem Is, India does it cheaper and quicker, so theres not a whole lot of market for it. I'm open to all ideas, Just need some inspiration. | hgbcv14 | hgagoc3 | 1,634,010,887 | 1,633,995,867 | 7 | 2 | Consider how your specialization has made you more unique over the years. Is some of that knowledge rare? Another thing to consider in your case is how you can sell this knowledge/specialty over and over again instead of individually (like you do as an architect). >i can express some creativity What do you enjoy doing that's creative? | try Fiverr | 1 | 15,020 | 3.5 | ||
q67o78 | architecture_train | 0.95 | Side 'Hustles' for Architects (UK) Hey Y'all, So I've been a self employed architect in the UK now for coming up to 4 years, before that I was working in Multi-Disciplinary Practices which really wore me down, so now I almost exclusively design home extensions, my client list is good, and my income is a damn sight more than it'd be working for a firm. The problem is, designing extensions or even new build homes in the area I'm in (red brick houses = ew) isn't at all inspiring. So i'm looking for ideas on a side business that i may actually be interested in and that i can express some creativity and actually make money off, in case one day I decide to call it quits. I can do visualisations, But the problem Is, India does it cheaper and quicker, so theres not a whole lot of market for it. I'm open to all ideas, Just need some inspiration. | hgbopfo | hgagoc3 | 1,634,018,448 | 1,633,995,867 | 4 | 2 | I launched an IG page a few months ago dedicated to artistic-ish archviz, just wanted to post some stuff from time to time without thinking too much about it and having as much creativite freedom I wanted. Turns out it got a little popular and after 2-3 months I make a few hundred bucks here and there doing something I absolutely love, all while working my way through arch school. So if you like archviz I'd say definitely try to grow an audience on whatever social platform you'd like around your passion and who knows, you might get asked for commissions one day! With time you can also sell prints, NFTs etc. | try Fiverr | 1 | 22,581 | 2 | ||
q67o78 | architecture_train | 0.95 | Side 'Hustles' for Architects (UK) Hey Y'all, So I've been a self employed architect in the UK now for coming up to 4 years, before that I was working in Multi-Disciplinary Practices which really wore me down, so now I almost exclusively design home extensions, my client list is good, and my income is a damn sight more than it'd be working for a firm. The problem is, designing extensions or even new build homes in the area I'm in (red brick houses = ew) isn't at all inspiring. So i'm looking for ideas on a side business that i may actually be interested in and that i can express some creativity and actually make money off, in case one day I decide to call it quits. I can do visualisations, But the problem Is, India does it cheaper and quicker, so theres not a whole lot of market for it. I'm open to all ideas, Just need some inspiration. | hgbj54i | hgbopfo | 1,634,014,544 | 1,634,018,448 | 0 | 4 | Sell nfts | I launched an IG page a few months ago dedicated to artistic-ish archviz, just wanted to post some stuff from time to time without thinking too much about it and having as much creativite freedom I wanted. Turns out it got a little popular and after 2-3 months I make a few hundred bucks here and there doing something I absolutely love, all while working my way through arch school. So if you like archviz I'd say definitely try to grow an audience on whatever social platform you'd like around your passion and who knows, you might get asked for commissions one day! With time you can also sell prints, NFTs etc. | 0 | 3,904 | 4,000 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.