"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.

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

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?

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:
<a href="http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7685&sid=9b8ac80b16148ae39ba549ab1168346f"rel="Rob's Place">http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7685&sid=9b8ac80b16148ae39ba549ab1168346f</a>

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.

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

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

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.

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

Well put Nigel

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.

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.

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

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.

Well the architect wants it to be purple