Architecture | War

Architecture is War
War is Architecture

The future of Architecture is dead
We are moving into an autonomy of engineered options 'dubbed' 
for the greater good of the built and natural environment. 
Who we were centuries ago, has been completely changed and 
lost. We are but shame to our ancestors. From brick to towers 
they laid each piece with aim and passion. Look at the world 
today - look at the world around us. Mules herding for the 
puppeteers - we've become a tool, a button to their desires. 
Lost for identity, we've become economically driven by 
budget, by rules, by the client and the belittling eyes of 
the unworthy critics. 
These critics don't know us. We know us. They don't 
comprehend how much effort's been put into every great 
project, and how many has to be stored away before one 
luckily scrapes the light of day. Yet they chatter away with 
the know-it-all attitude. And all we do, dressed in dishonor 
with a masked smile, we nod along. Where are ye balls? 
Gentlemen, I have a proposition: I say we fight. We fight and 
stand ground for what we've long trained to do. To build for 
glory, to build with passion. We did not study 6 years just 
to be puppetteered - we are their only way to piece the 
pieces. Sure the engineers know what's necessary, sure the 
environmentalists know what we need, but none of them can 
work alone. 
We can, and we are the gems.
Brothers and sisters to this sacred profession, I urge you, 
remove that mask and stand your ground. Design with the 
intention to be great, design so we bring more. We are the 
creators of tomorrow so let us not be bound by the chains of 
the misguided. Release yourselves and free Your genius and 
let us claim our right to the skies of our Kingdom.  

I am an architect, a constructor of worlds, a sensualist who 
worships the flesh, the melody, a silhouette against the 
darkening sky. I cannot know your name. Nor you can know 
mine. Tomorrow, we begin together the construction of a city

Revival: University

The time has come for more input after the hiatus

ARCHIFOLIO

Follow up to Golden Ratios

http://www.dezeen.com/2010/06/10/the-golden-rules-by-olivia-lee/

Olivia Lee has desgined a book, like our maths/graph/isometric grids, only in goldenproportions. It should come useful to some extent. Sounds pretty impressive and I'd like one =D

p.s. imagine it became the ultimate cheat book where everything u draw magically becomes pleasing to the eye =P

Dreams

(I actually have nowhere else to write it. But I had to write it down, so I'm writing it here.)

It's so much easier to see and then believe,

rather than believing before we see.

The idea is to make believe that we see - 'con ourselves' - to see; and in turn further con ourselves that we do then, in fact, believe.

It's who we are as humans, to be defensive

Be insecure - it's what we've learnt over our living years. You can't be too sure of anything. There's always that chance of unforeseen circumstances. And we take that as a learning to BE careful yet in such a way begin by cynicism - just to test reliability.

Afraid of rejection, afraid of failure; ultimately afraid to lose that trust-ego-esteem we have in ourselves keeping us up and happy, positive.

They say, you never know until you try. It's almost the same as the cynicism of disbelief if you turned it around, instead of "that won't always happen. it can't be a 100% success" = "that could always happen. it can't be a 100% failure". Problem here, is we only fear failure and not success, thus we only see what's not good for us - ready to avoid.

Religiously, I've been taught to walk into problems as learning opportunities. Almost like learning a person. To meet, to interact and learn about that someone as with a problem, so that the next time we meet again, we'd know how to counteract.

However, my lecturer said: the smart ones solve the problem, and the smarter ones feed off the solution without even stepping into it. A little bit on the fast track, cutting corners and skipping for the cream. Though not entirely wrong.

The way I see it. Nobody takes an opinion of a person exactly the same way - as with a problem. Different ways of interactions lead to different lessons and ultimately different strategies to counteract. So, I'd still stand on facing it than not. Afterall, the more u see, the more lines u learn to draw to figure new things half related to it, rather than a text book 1-for-1 equation.

So, for best outcomes - we've been taught to step into things with all our heart and give our best efforts. To see what is yet to be seen. (make belief if you ask me =P) Judging that we can't possibly give our best unless we trust ourselves to succeed, we gotta make it believable; and somehow believe that we believe. (if that makes sense...) How do we do that? Easy, LIE. Haha or distract from the part you think you'd fail. Either ways, CON!

And as for the failures, learn to kick it up and see what you learnt and know that your time is running, but not out. To see enough examples to let yourself know - failing this doesn't mean failing everything else. John Nash, "there's almost always more than one solution to every problem." Ultimately, back to make belief - "knowing" your dream is there and achievable. So you don't stop because there is no reason to.

Why am I writing this? Because I'm having problems trying to see positivity and believing that I can achieve what I want to achieve. I've seen a dozen people do it. But I don't seem to see me there next to them bearing the same qualities. Somehow, somehow I've got to get there. And I will. Dreams.

In this post's defense, in a way, it IS somewhat related to architecture. The idea of learning your subject - your market. The people we design for. The users of our architecture. To understand how they see things, see us and our product. And my conclusion here today is that, CON, has and always will be, the best way to kick-start. To reel their hearts in, and slowly work your way through later on - as with giving your 'dream' a shot - and making effort to stay strong all the way.

See, lines! I believe there was a mathematician/science guy who was trying to prove that everything was related to each other in their own forms of nature - ultimately in essence of nature alone, you get everything else.

Universalism or varied identity?

First off, HAPPY NEW YEAR! hahaha, I know, it's sad that only 2 days into 2010 I'm already here. =P

I can't quite get it, but it seems to me, that the world has obviously picked one side compared to the other, and thats varied-identity over universalism when it comes to architecture. I suppose at the top of my head it's because every building is built by a different architect, and even if it were the same guy, that architect is trying something new each time AS opposed to a world of robots n tasteless buildings. PLUS they're all constructed in a different time, hence fad; AND the funny clients tend to be a big influence (or disturbance =P)

UNIVERSALISM

how can a city have so many buildings... almost everyone using a different strategy compared to each other: material or whatever, why do they all differ so much when some obviously work n some dont. Why doesnt everyone just follow the same one way? I wonder how much they value this identity thing that it compromises the workability of it. Now I'm not saying everything has to come planned with the same entrance same system etc. Just the same solution (unless there comes a better one which revolutionises the city) I have a feeling some being be thinking of this...left: LeCorb's vision for Paris

Haha, but seriously, that's not what I'm saying. Doesn't it make sense that if there is already a better solution, that we should all use it? At least as a base outline of the building , all of them should be responding to the same site right? Shouldn't they all look SOMEWHAT the same? Of those who oppose, what do you think then of this? right: Zira island by BIG

VARIED IDENTITY

I honestly do love the way most cities are built so far, cityscapes tend to look beautiful at night in every country. Left: City of Seattle Sometimes, topped with an icon, among the similar buildings this identity uniqueness work very well, but what if everyone had the same impact of uniqueness? Right: Ansan masterplan by various architects I personally thought this looked alil messy. In this scenario, assuming each great architect made their building perfectly responsive to whatever their criteria needed, could the same law not be applied into a city and have a zoo? Do each of those singular buildings behind the SpaceNeedle not deserve to look crazily unique?

I suppose this post changes nothing at all, because overall, there are so many reasons affecting the outcome of one building design (cost, client, time, function, surrounding, vista, occupancy, trend, concept, etc etc) that there's no way a city could have every building using the same solution unless there was a law to it. Where it still always comes down to the governors, politicians, presidents, men in power. Sigh, I wonder how they try to cope with everything in such detail.

p.s. I guess what I'm fighting for is another "international style" to move over the globe that appears to 'solve all our miseries' until we move on to new problems agaim. Could it be Parametricism?! =P

Perfection in scope

As a personal comment, I've learnt a very valuable lesson today: We take most of this world for granted. We judge by first impressions, third-party critiques, and an overall composition. As what we do here is right, it is also senseless. Such judgement speeds up the process of specific selection for what we believe is "best", so given the vast variation of choices, we weigh them, and take the best overall choice - beneficial to us. The cruel world of fittest survive applies everywhere - its 'nature' - somewhat.

I argue now, in the context of best-overalls are the best choices, that they are in fact not.

As for most people, they don't know what they want; greed is like fire to flies. But this security of "i have an overall, it can't possibly go bad anywhere" takes you one small step further while you lose all the other overlooked half flawed selections. What is lost here, is the choices which could've pushed much more the best-overall could are all gone, because as far as balance resides in the universe, newtons equilibrium, yinyang, hell/heaven; these flawed imperfect overall choices may be perfect for just what you need. What we actually needed was something which fit what was necessary, something which performed in our scope of need, hence the product could've been perfect, depending on its scope.

The problem, coming from the fickle minded user, who only wants "best" while not knowing what it even is, is plain greedy by nature.

What we need IS indeed the best.

But that doesn't equate the Most;

The best means the best fit.

The one which strikes Balance.

The one that reaches Enough.

Enough is Enough. be not greedy and take what u can

or greed shall take just as much from you.

Post for Toby, you've taught me something great today =) Thanks a bunch