Green Building Forum - appearance doesn't matter

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:56:55 +0000

"Katymac
On another website I use the following statement has been made.....I'm not altogether sure I agree
"you are building a practical utilitarian building with as its purpose its use and low impact on the environment its appearance doesn't matter as long as it is low impact"
Opinions?

Nick Parsons
Katy, Why not start a separate thread with that Q?

I am not sure I agree either, but it ties in with my feelings about energy use (carbon) reduction and aesthetics. For example, it would be cheaper per unit and arguably less disruptive to externally insulate a whole terrace that to insulate each one internally (fewer cold-bridges, too). It would, however, completely change the streetscape, even if the (Victorian red-brick) terrace wasn't of desperately high architectural value. Should this matter more to us than reduction in energy use? "

An ugly builing will have an impact on anyone unfortunate enough to look at it. If it isn't beautiful it should not be built. Builders who disagree are just admitting they are rubbish at design.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:03:12 +0000

Aha, but what is ugly? Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder.

appearance doesn't matter

Katymac — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:05:20 +0000

I dont think the barn/nursery would be ugly
It will be a long low building with lots of big/wide windows
It will be white (maybe)

I guess I can kinda see why the person thought an architect would be a waste as the outside on my conversion will probably look the same whatever..............
I just want it to be the best I can afford

I love Georgian houses, I like Victorian ones, I am not fond of 60's & 70's in the main, tho' there are exceptions
I live in a 1950's semi, it is symetrical, square & I think pleasing to look at - but has no great "architectural merit"

I think proportion, rather than material has a greater influence

appearance doesn't matter

nigel — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:58:56 +0000

Who wants to spend their working life in an ugly building.
Aesthetics do matter and why leave the result to chance.
It doesnt necessarily cost more to have a building that looks right.

Some simple design cues can make all the difference.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:09:28 +0000

I agree that appearance matters, but not to the point where a building will not function. For me the priority is for a building to be fit for purpose. With new build this can be achieved in harmony with aesthetic appeal.

The existing stock however often presents conflicts between the two, as was mentioned above. With the hypothetical terrace: I would ask which is more important, saving energy and being ugly, or being beautiful and creating an ugly world?

appearance doesn't matter

Jeff Norton (NZ) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:43:25 +0000

I believe Asthetics do matter, but deffinitly function over form! simple lines make a building much more pleasing to the eye without any additional cost. When fashion is added to homes design all goes badly wrong!

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:23:44 +0100

Function over form? No, the two should work in harmony, not one over the other. I've posted some pictures and a discussion of an interestingly green building over here:
http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7685&sid=9b8ac80b16148ae39ba549ab1168346f

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:24:48 +0100

OK it works, but someone please tell me how to tidy up these links. Grrr.

appearance doesn't matter

Chris Wardle — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:45:47 +0100

Regarding Victorian terraces, I think a lot of them (perhaps the majority) have already been ruined by stone cladding, insertion of picture windows, re-roofing with inappropraite materials, upvc etc. I many cases it would do the street scene a great service to externally insulate, re-roof and fit matching windows and doors so the whole row looks the same like when they were built.

However, where you have a row of high quality terraces which have retained their original character, to cover them up would be a great shame and I would favour internal measures to improve energy efficiency.

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:20:05 +0100

Think Synthesis, not Compromise; Win-Win, not Win-Lose; Co-operation not Conflict.
If you have two sets of priorities, e.g. "its use", its "low impact on the environment", and "its appearance" (three there, from the original proposition of this topic), you may think that each has to be traded off against the others (Compromise). WRONG! If there's one skill that makes an Architect or any kind of Designer worthy of the title, it's to find a solution that satisfies all three simultaneously (Synthesis). Anyone who thinks it's necessary to choose between "low impact" or "appearance" simply hasn't understood the concept of Win-Win, and probably sees life as defending his/her threatened patch in a Win-Lose world.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:29:47 +0100

Fostertom,

What is the clients idea of beauty is different to yours?There are always choices and compromises to be made. To say that the Architect or Designer is responsible for all is rather simplistic. In real life the Client will often give you an idea of what he or she perceives as aesthetically pleasing. This is then restricted by

a] what is already there
b] what is physically possible
c] what is functionally possible
d] what is within budget
e] etc etc etc.

Win / win is not always possible.

As an example, You have a proposed loft conversion in a Victorian Terrace with restricted headroom, particularly where the stairs assend into the room. According to the Building Inspector, there are no available insulations which will satisfy the u-value requirement while maintaining headroom. You on the other hand suggest an alternative of the shiny many layered variety. At this point your Client walks into the room and says they are determined that material of the fluffy, wooly variety be used. And then to cap it all the builder chips in - why not rip the roof off and insulate externally? its only an old scruffy rundown terrace after all

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:20:39 +0100

Mike George, you've described the ideal client and the ideal design problem - GREAT - that's where the fun of Synthesis begins. You're seeing nothing but Compromise - you see my idea, my will, against theirs, against the whole juicy range of other peoples' desires and prejuduces. You see something less-than and disappointing emerging from the conflict. I relish all of that - the rest of my job is relatively boring. I allow them to modify my ideas, I modify theirs - that's not compromise, it's everyone ending up happy in the end. My job is to satisfy the players' wishes, desires, needs (as they stand by the end of the process) plus give them more than they ever dreamed of. Sure, there's always at least one thing I have to let go of, and so does everyone else probably. Occasionally I have to write a project off to experience, and occasionally I'm relieved that the job just walks away. In general, everyone including me is happy enough that they come back for more.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:40:08 +0100

I agree with all of that, except what you describe to me IS compromise!

appearance doesn't matter

Jeff Norton (NZ) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:42:22 +0100

"Function over form? No, the two should work in harmony, not one over the other. I've posted some pictures and a discussion of an interestingly green building over here"

Very interesting project, I like it alot! but personally I think it is more a function (rather than form) of it's surroundings and reflects using local materials and skills born from those materials. The fact that you obviously like it Biff is more a personal preferance!

It just goes to prove using honest local materials have there own beauty!

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:48:09 +0100

Mike George, there has to be two different words, to describe when apparently conflicting demands get resolved
a) by all of them losing out somewhere, with the result that no-one's really satisfied; and
b) by an unexpected, even surprising solution satisfying all of them, more or less, so everyone's pretty happy.
What words would you use to distinguish these very different process/outcomes? It's not just a academic question - the process or method of Win-Win is little understood, and as a possible outcome is disregarded or under-valued. Or else people think it's naive, in a rough-tough world. I'm sure I don't really need to convince you of this MG, but right now you're beautifully illustrating this belief system, which causes most of the world's problems, and we need to be at the forefront of showing how the world can be run differently from hitherto.

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:17:41 +0100

Function. Form.
What about process?
Should we not discriminate between buildings, or building components, on the basis of their manufacturing process as well?

Compare two doors, one made by the local joiner, using traditional skills, his grandfather's hand tools and locally grown timber, the other a steel and insulating foam composite, the manufacturer of which required mass production in an automated factory with materials dependant on coal mining, iron ore quarrying, petroleum production, global transport and an attendant trail of pollution that encircles the planet.

The composite door has a lower U-value and, with its high-gloss powder coating, can be made to look almost like a traditional wooden door, so it must be better. Or is it?

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:39:00 +0100

Fostertom,

I think this is partly a debate over semantics. ie the meaning of the word compromise. My 'word' thesarus indicates lots of different meanings which pretty much cover what you describe

appearance doesn't matter

nigel — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:08:58 +0100

Win-win is an attitude of mind rather than a reality. If you are happy with your compromise you describe it as a win. If both parties are happy its win -win.

But it doesn't change the reality that at some point two conflicting demands have come together. One or both of the conflicting demands will have to have been modified.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:35:10 +0100

Well put Nigel

appearance doesn't matter

biffvernon — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:17:59 +0100

Whose health and happiness are you compromising?

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:35:41 +0100

Posted By: nigel...the reality that at some point two conflicting demands have come together. One or both of the conflicting demands will have to have been modified.

Nigel, that's true as long as the demands continue to be seen as conflicting. I'm asking you to consider that in the light of some novel solution, the demands are suddenly revealed as non-conflicting. That is possible, happens plenty, and needs to become the way of the future, in contrast to the present common sorry belief that you're expressing, that someone or something by definition has to be the loser, in any collision. Collisions are to be welcomed as the generator of new, better solutions, rather than dreaded as the cause of loss and attrition. And why is Win-Win, when it happens, "only" (your tone implies) an attitude of mind and therefore not a "reality"?

Posted By: Mike George...a debate over semantics. ie the meaning of the word compromise. My 'word' thesarus indicates lots of different meanings which pretty much cover what you describe

Try telling an Inuit that 'snow' is the thesaurus word and that all the other 14 Innuit words for it are just semantic differences!

You guys could choose to use your column inches to show that you know the importance of the difference between Compromise and Synthesis (my words - offer your own if you like), between Win-Lose and Win-Win, between Competition and Co-operation; that they are practical alternatives requiring a hugely different approach; and that the difference in resultant outcomes are highly tangible.

Maybe in the end the real importance of the eco/environment movement, on the back of climate change/fuel shortage, will turn out as the stimulus for just this shift in general belief. The extreme penalty for continued Win-Lose belief, and the benefits of a new Win-Win belief and practice (including the benefits to commerce and industry), have never been so stark, and the possiblity of grass-root connection (exemplified by this forum) that by-passes old power centres is exploding. Erwin Laszlo's new book The Chaos Point places us right now in the 5yr Decision-Window (when everything is fluid, supersensitiive and possible) before the The Chaos Point of critical instability, where time and again in Evolution, the system tips in one direction or another: Evolution ("Devolution") toward Breakdown; or Evolution to Breakthrough.

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:36:11 +0100

failed so deleted - I keep forgetting yo press the html button

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:05:13 +0100

Okay fostertom, Lets just say that if I agreed to everything you say, the resolution would be what I would call a win [you] /lose [me] situation and what you would call a win [you]/win [me] solution.

I am happy for you to have the last word so please go ahead.

By the way, I voted that appearance does matter.

appearance doesn't matter

nigel — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:11:58 +0100

Posted By: Mike GeorgeOkay fostertom, Lets just say that if I agreed to everything you say, the resolution would be what I would call a win [you] /lose [me] situation and what you would call a win [you]/win [me] solution.

I am happy for you to have the last word so please go ahead.

By the way, I voted that appearance does matter.

That in fostetom's distorted view of reality would be cast as a win-win solution from his impartial perspective.
He wins the argument and you get to stop having to bang your head against a brick wall.

appearance doesn't matter

Mike George — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:42:27 +0100

My head feels better already so I guess I have won something after all!

appearance doesn't matter

fostertom — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:29:45 +0100

Sorry, seem to have got a bit lecturesome lately - don't know what brought that on

appearance doesn't matter

mybarnconversion — Wed, 23 May 2007 18:04:23 +0100

I guess even 1960's shopping centre designers thought their buildings held some aesthetic appeal ... I don't think it is possible to design without some consideration of aesthetics - appearance always matters - it's human nature.

appearance doesn't matter

chuckey — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:02:26 +0100

Appearance does matter, but its only cosmetic. For Katymacs building, I would suggest disguising the height/length aspect, by dividing it up by 4" wide vertical dark brown bands (2) placed halfway between some of the windows, so producing the effect of 3 buildings. Cost = Â£2 for masking tape and Â£10 for paint. Try hanging some strips of painted paper for a start.
Frank

appearance doesn't matter

Katymac — Thu, 24 May 2007 08:06:34 +0100

Well the architect wants it to be purple

appearance doesn't matter

caliwag — Thu, 24 May 2007 10:04:46 +0100

The Architectural Review run (or used to!) a monthly page on the theme of "delight" and also one on the theme of "outrage". I think those two emotions just about sum up the problem on a far higher plane than just proportion or form and function (and other such Modernist tripe).
I have seen buildings designed purely using the golden section, musical scales and the geometry of snail shells...all fascinating but ultimately pretty crap and pretty damn ugly (especially the golden section one).
Some of the best twentieth century architecture came from the mind of Hans Scharoun, an organic modernist (for organic, read responsive)...viz Berlin Phiharmonic hall, which though acclaimed by many composers and conductors to be the best (accoustically and for the audience sight lines) concert hall in the world, though most observers would consider it down-right ugly. I did when I first saw it, as a student...until I was more mature and had read about HS's thinking...mind, at the same time, I was far from impressed with Mies art gallery opposite (make you rooms square Hans said Mies...thank goodness (and for delight) he didn't.
As a final damper on the party ( I'm sorry none of this is about green building...though could be), the much (press at the time, and Charlie king to be) critised British Library is the best bit of architecture to hit London this generation...just go inside for a cathedral type calm and revel at the detailing and spatial thinking.
Thank you for your time...next week's lecture will be on Ralph Erskine ( Best post-war architect by a mile) and what British housing architects, of the last 50 years, should have learned, but for their blind arrogance...Milton Keynes, bah
Caliwag