View Single Post
Old Posted Jul 16, 2006, 7:58 PM
Exodus Exodus is offline
Closed account
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,859
The two major arguments Trueviking makes are about maximum natural light and not being different. I don't think it's necessary to have "maximum natural light", you don't have to feel like you are virtually outside. If the windows are big enough, they could let in sufficient lighting. Buildings don't need to be a glass wall. If they are glass walled, then you loose a chance to have a solid nice detailed interior, and it could be a little distracting to office workers if they feel like they are sitting outside. Also a building dose not have to be different for the sake of being different. Being different dose not always equate to being better or better looking.

A couple other arguments made by him are cost. On one hand he says that doing a style like this "right" cost too much, but if it is done more economically, he says it is cheap and fake. Though he says we should take advantage of modern techniques that are more economically friendly, Sounds like a bunch of contradictions to me, or excuses to down this kind of architecture because he personally dose not like it. Besides, if someone wants to pour more money into a project, that's their business. If they want to do it more cost efficient, then more power to them as long as the project looks good and serves its purpose. If you can combine a classic style with todays cost efficient and advanced techniques, and turn out a nice looking project that serves its purpose, then great. It might not be "genuine", but what's wrong with a nice looking "replica" ? I just don't see the big deal.

Last edited by Exodus; Jul 16, 2006 at 8:55 PM.
Reply With Quote