Grex Cyberpunk Conference

View Responses

Grex Cyberpunk Item 58: Why ugly buildings? [linked]
Entered by raven on Wed Apr 30 02:13:03 UTC 1997:

Many people work in glass shoe boxes and live in ugly blue-gray prefab
houses without form or grace.  Why is this true?  It can be argued that
ugliness is more efficient that it takes less resources/time.  Perhaps
this was true up through the early 80s, but there is no excuse now with
cheap CAD programs that allow us to design beautiful organic forms easily
and quickly. 

It isn't for lack of examples either, architects have access to everything
form Chis Alexander's "A Pattern Language," to the designs, of Kivas,
Yurts, Buddhist temples, underground houses, Dr. Seuss stories and other
examples of interesting places to dwell.

This is the item to ponder architectural ugliness, discuss buildings you
have grown to love, and talk about your own designs for buildings that you
would like to live in/work in.

Let your imagination run wild, let's see those interesting living spaces!

7 responses total.

#1 of 7 by raven on Wed Apr 30 02:21:09 1997:

Linked to cyberpunk: where the hyper info junkies hang out.

#2 of 7 by font on Wed Apr 30 07:03:59 1997:

So there's yet another echo in grex....echo echo echo echo...
Perhaps the archetects have been reading all those wonderful sources
and insisted on rebeling against them.  Perhaps they were tired of
beauty, insisted that "form should follow function: and life sucks."
and because work sucks the building should reflect the state of work 
in this day and age.  Or maybee they just bought Microsoft Building
Ver. 4.66777555222902849978450892340-3490597808909853352a.
Perhaps they are just stupiud. Good idea, raven.
<he blushes modestly>  um, raven, that's a fake blush if I ever saw
one, oh, hey that's an improvement.
I think therefore that all buildings should be happy shiny spheres that
float on pink oceans with fluffy white clouds and dinosaurs.
(Southfield, eat your heart out)
I also propose that all buildings that do not conform to the standard
should be blown up immediately. (font wanders over and strangles the 
building facist) <grin>

#3 of 7 by scott on Wed Apr 30 11:02:19 1997:

Strangely, most people *want* those dull buildings.  Or they don't want
innovative (and therefore suspect) buildings.

#4 of 7 by jackedin on Fri Jun 27 20:50:59 1997:

You brought about a good point ther font!  The building do reflect the times.
Back in the renaisance ppl where party animal artsy happy ppl  buidlings
reflected that.   In Middevil times of Europe (Wales, England Scotlaand)even
today as a matter of fact, People are less material and itis always dreary
and dark.. In the midevil times of lore during war Dark stones alll but
reflected the moods of the whether and the people. 

Cheap and easier methods have come about to build houses.  THey are made of
plastic.  People lead robotic klives.  Changed by their society more than
ever. REpressed into believing certain morals.. Hey i cant even walk down the
steet without being stared at (lip rings, coloredhair, massive boots, and
trench coat)   Therefore we live in these shitty homes.,..  Its time to live
in space!!!!!  :)



oh yea snarf!!!

#5 of 7 by font on Wed Jul 2 05:20:07 1997:

<bows> Thank you, thank you....but hey, if you ever catch me staring, 
it's because I am admiring your get-up.  Sounds cool!
However, I think that dispite the robotic inclinations of humankind,
art is a basic, wired in impulse. I mean, some new buildings are *trying*
at least to be attractive, even if "respectable" is more the aim. 
I mean, at least we aren't *obsessed* with the notion of "progress"
which spawned some of the *worst* archetecturalmovements seen...
Like the '50s, 60's, & 70's...one of the few good things that happened
starting in the 80's is that Victorian remodeling (like in S.F) became
not only fashionable  but *cool*.  If you are an A2-ite, just look at the
argus building...I mean this stuff is even happening in Ypsi!
Humanity may leave itself some deciently attractive buildings yet.

#6 of 7 by raven on Wed Jul 2 16:51:12 1997:

Good point.  I guess I feel it's time though to move from bulding restoration
(which is a good thing) to designing new interesting buildings with complex
organic forms using the new cad software that is availible.

#7 of 7 by scott on Wed Jul 2 20:22:42 1997:

I *like* the contemporary architecture of the last 3 decades, at least the
well-done examples.  Junk exists in every style, but I feel we are at a real
low point at the moment.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.