Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." -A.E. van Vogt
All glass and at least one concave side. Large solar bar-b-q, anyone?
"This side towards enemy"
All glass and at least one concave side. Large solar bar-b-q, anyone?There's a famous 'architect' Rafael Vinoly who, so far, has designed not one but at least two building death rays. One in Vegas, another big one -Walkie-Talkie, renamed Walkie-Scorchie in London. Also 'fryscraper'. The London one has even melted cars.. Architect of course denies personal responsibility or knowledge of basic optics.Developers deny everything too..Proper checks were carried out during the design and planning process, Mr Bonfield told BBC London 94.9."At no stage did the 3D modelling suggest there was going to be an issue with light reflecting and focusing at ground level," he added.What is it with post-modern people and their complete inability to admit either culpability or incompetence?
Priceless: Londoners started congregating there with bacon, eggs and frying pans..http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/04/london-skyscrapers-deathray-reflection-is-melting-cars-burning-businesses-but-also-cooking-eggs/
Post modernist architecture is modern art built large.And remember modern art is imagination without skill. I'm willing to bet that the matter of light reflection never even came up in design and planning because the Department of Building and Safety (or whatever the hell they're called in (f)GB) never asked, and the morons designing the building never had so much as high school physics, or read about the light reflected off the Disney concert hall into people's apartments in Los Angeles (Read? I'm doing cutting edge architecture. What do I need to know about old stuff?).
Kinda looks like the U.N. building. Please tell me Indy's not THAT KWAZY.....
So, you call it SFX. For what book, movie or show?
Scott J,"So, you call it SFX. For what book, movie or show?"I'm joking of course. Merely referring to the fact that, due to a trick of light and just the right amount of haze, the J.W. Marriott didn't look particularly real from that angle on that day.Patsy: "It's only a model." :D
Oh, it looked like some of the backdrops on mid-90s cable Sci FI shows so I thought it was a fake :)
Oh, it's real. Ugly and misplaced, but all too real.
Soooo .... what you're saying is that the transporter couldn't get a good enough lock?aredryt ... as in I aredryt? or he is aredryt?
You could suit up Matt Damon in an exoskeleton and send him in there to hack the system and get you free Tylenol. My bet, however, is that you've caught SHADO HQ and that Commander Straker and Colonel Foster are about to pop out and zap a Yew-fo.
> What is it with post-modern people ...?I don't know if Frank Gehry is post-modern, but he's way high on my architectural shit list.* But I don't so much blame him (find a schtick that pays, stick with it) as the dumb corporate @$$holes who keep paying for his stuff. Yeah, his work is distinctive and clearly recognizable, but in the same way as repeatedly showing up at black-tie events with your rumpled clothes on backwards and lipstick smeared all over your face.John Silber, former president of Boston University, had his problems, but he wrote IMO an excellent tract on the idiocy of so much public architecture.*I am sure that my disapprobation is a source of much concern for the wildly and IMO incomprehsnsibly successful Mr Gehry. But he managed to replace MIT's Building 20 (a craptastic "temporary barracks" structure put up during WWII that lasted for 55 years) with something actually less occupant-friendly.> You could suit up Matt DamonCould someone suit up Matt Damon in one of those nice Reynolds Oven Bags (leaving the head out, safety and all, dontcha know) and send him to London maybe?
I believe Gehry he fits the bill- even though he seems not be the crappiest, because he's at least adept at the messy bits.However, there's at least one architect who is against the tide..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_AlexanderJohn Silber, former president of Boston University, had his problems, but he wrote IMO an excellent tract on the idiocy of so much public architecture.No need for tracts, really. Just a brief look at the costs, the hideous lack of aesthetics, the overview of functional failings and so on.
Post a Comment