and yet more casinos

We would like to apologize for the lack of posts last week. In some respects, I was busier than normal. The picture above was built off something I designed. Wait, let's be honest, my design was adapted from an older design. Now that I am looking at it again I'm noticing a terrible mistake. The mistake is a consequence of the carpenter following my plans exactly as opposed to exercising artistic judgment. The architectural profession as a whole is to blame for this because we have created an atmosphere of mistrust between the designers and the trades. Drawings and specifications are treated as gospel, instead of as guidelines. Somewhere, there are some lawyers to blame as well.

Oh yes, I wanted to mention that Wynn's strategy for the Everett casino will take the day. That's just my opinion, but for once I expect it to play out in a way that actually makes sense. His financial position is much better than the Mohegan Sun proposal. He will change his architecture to make other people happy, and I think he was planning on that all along.

sprinklers are a good idea--full stop

The Globe had an article this morning about a recent meeting of regulators of the State Building Code where there had been some heated discussion about the impact of sprinkler regulations on building costs. Apparently, to install sprinklers in a 3 family structure costs about $27k--which by my math works out to about $6 per s.f.--peanuts by any definition.

The major regulation that influences construction costs in Massachusetts is local zoning. Land costs are so incredible that any developer who undertakes major renovations or new construction is already sunk the cost of the property before a single nail is driven. Sprinkler requirements for major renovation work are a good idea and cannot be regarded as discouraging improvements to a property.

In my opinion.

progress continues

A nation dividing itself into have mores and have lesses builds different sizes of housing. These graphs, which I lifted from Catherine Rampell's blog, show the divergence in housing unit sizes. Simply put, if you can afford to buy a new house, you'll buy a larger house. If you rent in new construction, it will be a smaller apartment than you could have gotten at the peak of the real estate bubble.

Why do people want or need larger homes? (Cue George Carlin) My concern is that people buying certain spaces to satisfy the lurching demon of resale value. I regard this as dumb, particularly when an extra room is designed in a way that doesn't allow it to be repurposed as something useful--i.e. turning a dining room into an S&M dungeon can be a bit of a challenge.

what is detailing--the show goes on

The detail required for this architectural condition is a lot less important than the carpenter who was responsible for installing it. A decision--and some sort of graphic instruction--was required and I hope the designer or drafter didn't spend an inordinate amount of time on it. I don't think that the decision to impose this geometry on the client and future users was a very good one, but it has persisted. The use of the oak trim contrasted with the rough finish of the plaster is quite pleasing. Some student looking up at this ceiling will feel something different than if they were looking up at a standard 2x4 acoustical tile grid. But, did the bad acoustics of this space impair their learning? Who knows.

trust and don't verify

Something that would be deeply troubling to me is some poor soul were to cite this blog in some capacity like a term paper or a report. Content on these posts is pure opinion. Any factual or truthful content is purely coincidental and does not reflect the intent of towers of ilium.

That being said, I feel like I made a worthwhile contribution to architectural dialogue a few days ago when I made a list of design elements that seem to be universally appreciated.

-Flat surfaces
-natural light
-white
-wood elements

etc....

I wonder if this leads anywhere.

in the eye of beholders

This building was recently awarded the Carbuncle Cup for the worst new building in the Great Britain.
I'm not sure why. Given the stuff that wins prizes these days, I see more similarities than differences. Perhaps because this is a basic mixed use building--parking garage, supermarket, and flats above--it's not allowed to have the expressive idiocy of a museum or performing arts center. The architects are just complying with the zeitgeist.

Now that I look closer, I'm seeing its failure to engage with the street in a positive way. The sheer faces and monotonous cladding make for an inhospitable experience. I think the design team was trying to hard in the wrong places. At least there's no exposed concrete. God help us if that comes back in style.

the will to shelter

Have I posted a picture of this already? It doesn't matter.

I wonder if humans have a shelter building gene or genes. We die outdoors in most places, but most of our evolutionary development took place in a pretty hospitable landscape--at least compared to New England. I'm inclined to subscribe nearly all architecture to culture, and assign sheltering instincts to a slightly messier Freudian narrative.

There are some things that we all seem to like:

-Confinement, but only with a clear avenue of escape
-Good views, but not too exposed
-Level changes
-Flat surfaces
-Wood
-White
-Restrained air movement
-Mobile furniture