Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
For me and I am sure many others there is not much more overrated than supposedly "great" or "beautiful" architecture. Obviously to you it is very important but I can't imagine that there are many people who would want to sacrifice cost, functionality and/or safety to get something that supposedly looks cool.
Personally I would much rather see things built that are cost effective, safe and functional much more than something that is "weird" but cutting edge. If you can build it for the same money, safety and functionality and then make it so it satisfies your artist needs than go ahead if not, build me the best building I can get for my money and leave your artist dreams to your paintings you do on your own time.
|
Well I agree, the overarching goal for architects is a good balance of art vs. functionality, and there are many, MANY examples of these buildings all over the world.
I want to point something out though - with Calgary developers, there is a difference between being 'cost-effective', and being cheap. Cutting back on quality materials (such as replacing rock with fake rock) is a step backwards. While houses can get away with this, too many commerical developers are applying this treatment to projects where the public has access to and will be using. As a result, they are limited in how they can build structures, which often results in flat, unoriginal buildings that for some reason, people are satisfied with.
I would rather live in a house with character, history, and needing a little TLC than a square box with all the fixin's. How boring.